The Lutheran pastor soon to be bishop of the Metropolitan Chicago Synod wants his denomination to lift a celibacy requirement for gay and lesbian clergy.
“That’s where I think the church is going,” Bishop-elect Wayne Miller of Aurora said. “That’s where I think it needs to go.”
He’s hoping the change will come next month in Chicago, where the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is conducting its churchwide assembly. Nearly a third of the denomination’s 65 synods are asking for a policy shift in clergy standards.
Eventually, gay and lesbian clergy in monogamous, same-sex relationships could be allowed to serve.
So long as nobody crosses diocesan boundries, what’s the problem?
I suppose such a change will lead many to go over to the Missouri Synod. Fireworks ahead – the stereotype German angry makes Anglican angst seem placid.
#1 ROFL you’ve solved the mystery of life, the universe and everything.
chips – the problem for ELCA -> LCMS transfers could be the other big issue that separates the two bodies – LCMS does not allow female pastors.
Yeah, I see what homosexual clergy has done for the Episcopalian church. I want the lawsuits, defections, plummeting attendance for the Lutherans, too.
Any other church should see the example of the Episcopal church and see the warning, “Abandon all hope, all ye who follow me.”
“Eventually, gay and lesbian clergy in monogamous, same-sex relationships could be allowed to serve”
Who will enforce the monogamy requirement?
#3 Thanks. I thought so, too. Glad for some affirmation.
The CHICAGO SUN-TIMES gives the headline “Same sex salvation.” That’s catchy but misleading. It implies that the issue is whether gay people (i.e. sinners, i.e. people like you and me) can be saved. It implies a simplistic division: traditionalists (who presumably think all gay people are going to hell) and progressives (who think otherwise). But that’s wrong. The problem is not “inclusion” and the problem is not one group of sinners being less able to be saved than another. The problem is with the gay lobby (which does not represent all gay people) and its desire to change the church’s understanding of sin. That’s the key event of the last 4 years: altering the teaching of the church.
The headline (and the efforts of the gay lobby in general) betrays a mistaken understanding of Christianity. The CST thinks that ours is a religion principally for the righteous — when in fact it is a religion principally for sinners. Thank heaven this is so for you and me! The problem of the last few years is that a small group wants to ALTER the church’s declaration of sin — which paradoxically is the real thing that excludes people from Christ. Sinners are not excluded, only those who say they have no sin.
Wasn’t there an old country song, “Welcome to My World”, won’t you come on in, trouble not your hearts, you see there is no sin?
Or was that something else?
Gloria in SC
“Eventually, gay and lesbian clergy in [b]monogamous[/b], same-sex relationships could be allowed to serveâ€
Thanks, Irenaeus, you caught that one about enforcement. Here’s another: Why is monogamy important? If you’ve already tossed moral strictures on one type of sexual expression, why bother insisting on others?
#10. That’s spot on. Are we going to continue to pick and choose the boundaries of marriage that work for us? The real issue there, of course, is to put people into a condition of sin and tell them “no, really, it’s ok, you’ve done nothing to confess.”
I have to admit, I haven’t the courage (if you can call it that) to put myself between a sinner and his sin and tell him a redeemer is not required at this point.
KTF!…..mrb
[blockquote]The CHICAGO SUN-TIMES gives the headline “Same sex salvation.†That’s catchy but misleading. It implies that the issue is whether gay people (i.e. sinners, i.e. people like you and me) can be saved[/blockquote]
I’m not sure that the title is misleading. In some ways it reflects the new soteriology that is coming to the fore in mainline churches. Same-sex unions are salvation!
William [#12]: If you don’t mind, I’d like to get your opinion on a related matter and will send you an e-mail via Stand Firm.
I am no expert on Lutheran affairs though my parents attend a small Lutheran Parish near our family farm – they just had their first female minister and it was a disaster – it is now vacant – I think some of their fellow parishoners are already mulling over a switch. My guess is that Parishes with female ministers would be disinclined to switch regardless of the WO issue – I am not expecting a rush of female Episcopal Priests to head over to whatever entity emerges this fall.
Well, Rob Roy posted on the St. Mary’s goes budget-lean thread and I felt compelled to copy this part of it over here:
“As Bonhoeffer wrote:
[blockquote] Our humanitarian sentiment made us give that which was holy to the scornful and unbelieving. We poured forth unending streams of grace. But the call to follow Jesus in the narrow way was hardly ever heard. Where were those truths which impelled the early Church to institute the catechumenate, which enabled a strict watch to be kept over the frontier between the Church and the world, and afforded adequate protection for adequate costly grace. What had happened to all those warnings of Luther’s against preaching the gospel in such a manner as to make men rest secure in their ungodly living? Was there ever a more terrible or disastrous instance o f the Christianizing of the world than this? What are those three thousand Saxons put to death by Charlemagne compared with the millions of spiritual corpses in our country to-day? With us it has been abundantly proved that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. Cheap grace has turned out to be utterly merciless to our Evangelical Church. [/blockquote]
Give away the sacred without the cross…and nobody wants it. “
#10 has correctly placed the problem. When the standards are removed, then who is to enforce the standards? To allow homosexuals to serve when they are paired up but not married is, in the contemporary world, to argue that they should be able to marry. But if they can marry, (a) everything the scriptures has said about homosexuality is false, and (b) all restrictions on who can marry whom have been removed. Will the Lutherans argue that the new rules should be “Marriage is restricted to two people and two only, regardless of gender?” And as #10 implies, the unanswerable question (since the Bible has been disqualified) is “On what rationale does this restriction rest secure?” The answer is of course, that there is no rationale for such a limitation, and we are, once more, off to the races again, only this is a race with no start, no finish, and no one can lose or win.
This is so obvious, we have to wonder why no one has required that the Wayne Millers of the world answer. And no one forced the Millers to speak. Why? Why has not even the press demanded an unequivocal answer? Why has not the ABC demanded that Shori answer the question clearly? And I mean REALLY demanded, made the put-up-or-shut-up declaration? Why? I cannot remember any place in which a homophile mouthpiece has answered this question clearly. LM
It’s “Where the church is going”, sez His Grace Wayne. Agreed. I’ll also add it’s going there in a handbasket.
It is sad to see so many Mainstream Protestant denominations exchange traditional Christian morality for secular morality. One can only hope that Catholic and Evangelical Protestant moral backbone will be able to keep alive that traditional morality which is one of God’s gifts to mankind.
In #10, St. Jimbob quotes Irenaeus above:
“”Eventually, gay and lesbian clergy in monogamous, same-sex relationships could be allowed to serveâ€
Thanks, Irenaeus, you caught that one about enforcement.”
“Caught” that one about enforcement of “monogamy”? (Note: Common colloquial speech aside, I presume that what is intended here is not “monogamy” but “fidelity.” “Monogamy” refers to how many spouses one is married to (and, extended to same-sex couples, how many partners one is committed to), regardless of whether or not one is being faithful to them; “fidelity” refers to whether or not one is being faithful to and sexually exclusive with one’s spouse (or committed partner).)
Now, why would the answer be any different for committed-same-sex-coupled ELCA pastors (i.e., as to who will be the “enforcers”) than it is for married heterosexual ELCA pastors?
Don’t these comments assume that fidelity is something that would need to be “enforced” for gays, but isn’t something needing to be “enforced” for heterosexuals?
How is that a valid or fair assumption to make? Are all heterosexual clergy always faithful? If not all are, and one wishes to advocate for extra ecclesiastical “enforcers” who do not now exist, wouldn’t one have credibility now only if one had been advocating years ago that such enforcers be set up to enforce against unfaithful *heterosexual* clergy? And if one had in fact done so, why now conceptualize and articulate a special need that one thinks ELCA would theoretically have, for enforcing the fidelity of its gay partnered clergy, instead of speaking more generally of ELCA’s need to enforce fidelity for *all* of its clergy?
And yet so many reasserters wonder why so many of us who either are in the middle or are reappraisers do not buy the claim that this isn’t about the gays, it’s really about the Faith Once Delivered or the authority and interpretation of Scripture. Statements such as Irenaeus and Jimbob indulge in above strain the credibility of that claim.
Nothing would surprise me with the ELCA leadership, they are determined to bring ordaination of homosexual as a norm. Probably in the future, the ELCA will merge with the ECUSA.
Thanks, Deja-vu for requoting Bonhoeffer. How can a church who call themselves Lutheran and have Bonhoeffer as a protege fall for the inane proposals suggested above. Did Bonhoeffer die in vain?
#19 Nadine Kwong…I appreciate your position on what you hear and see from reasserters. Here is how I see where we stand:
Important to remember here, is that we (reasserters) didn’t define the boundaries of Christian marriage, and we are not trying to “discriminate” against one group or another. This is not about fairness, certainly my definition of fairness would pale, mean nothing compared to the living word of God. If Scripture, combined with the Traditions of the Church cannot define these boundaries, then our positions are groundless. Fortunately for us, we don’t have to do the work of defining or creating, it was done for us long before our own births. Our position is simply to defend what has been given and revealed.
If that smacks of discrimination between hetero and homosexuals wishing to marry, there is a good reason for that. Technically we do discriminate. Wasn’t our idea, however. All we’ve chosen to do is be faithful and uphold what we’ve been given.
Do I understand why we must do this? Not always. Sometimes I find it most burdensome. But above all, being a Christian means being Sub-servient (now there’s a word not too popular in 2007 society) to God and His Will, as revealed to us through Scripture.
Part of that Sub-servience means, in addition to upholding the Word, upholding the part that says Love your enemies, and pray for those that persecute you. Nowhere in Scripture are people equated with actions, the sinner and sin must be separated. Hate is not an option. Homophobia, as defined as the fear of something different, is not an option. Crass and callous treatment is not an option.
But neither is surrender to “societal norms.” To be Christian, Jesus made very clear, means to set yourself AGAINST the world. That’s what counting the cost was all about….If we are not ready to do this, then we are not worthy to claim His name.
So, if you have problems with reasserters personally, I can understand that. If you have problems with our position on these issues, then I would suggest you put aside everything you believe and read the Gospels with an eye for toughness, because no one was tougher than Jesus.
God Bless You and KTF!….mrb
[blockquote] Now, why would the answer be any different for committed-same-sex-coupled ELCA pastors (i.e., as to who will be the “enforcers”) than it is for married heterosexual ELCA pastors? [/blockquote]
Nadine – the problem is that a ‘committed-same-sex-coupled’ pastor has, by definition, crossed a boundary that shouldn’t be crossed. ‘Commitment’ makes it worse – the pastor is ‘living in sin’.
Nadine [#19]: Leading reappraisers often use expressions like “faithful, lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships.” But I doubt these same leaders would ever enforce the “faithful, lifelong, monogamous” part. They want approval of same-sex relationships and “faithful, lifelong, monogamous” is part of the sales job. That’s why in #6 I asked, “Who will enforce the monogamy requirement?”
Christian churches should hold all clergy to Biblical norms. Thus heterosexual clergy should not, for example, be free to sleep around or commit adultery. Such conduct violates ECUSA’s rules but enforcement may well have been lax. But note that few heterosexual reasserters support of defend such laxity; it comes largely from the reappraising end of the theological spectrum.
PS: I hope we’ll hear more from you on T19.
Harry Edmon (#4):
[i]the problem for ELCA -> LCMS transfers could be the other big issue that separates the two bodies – LCMS does not allow female pastors.[/i]
It’s true that the LCMS does not allow female pastors, but that is not the “big issue” that separates the two denominations. The more fundamental issue between the two denominations is that, in practice, the ELCA no longer regards the Lutheran Confessions as a true doctrinal standard — and, indeed, the Scriptures themselves seem to be little more than an inconvenience to the ELCA. Members of the ELCA who are loyal to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions may not understand, or agree with, the stance of the LCMS on female pastors, but they will have little trouble in recognizing the LCMS as an authentically Lutheran denomination. That is something that is harder and harder to recognize in the ELCA.
Of course, I will admit that I am not presenting a dispassionate view of this matter. I am a Missouri-Synod Lutheran.
#6, Irenaeus: “”Eventually, gay and lesbian clergy in monogamous, same-sex relationships could be allowed to serveâ€
Who will enforce the monogamy requirement?”
Who enforces heterosexual monogamy?
Sorry, but…what a stupid question. Not to mention insulting, uncharitable, and snide.
18
You have hit on something very important. We have received our morality as a gift from God. Without this simplifying, focusing morality we cannot hope to find God. I recently re-read Leviticus in a modern translation. I was overcome by a sense of loving care informing that code. When you see what we become without this gifted morality, we truly needed this schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Without this Schoolmaster will we be prepared to receive Christ?
Increasingly Christ is presented as an easygoing older cousin who wants to take us on a summer road trip, but is not put out if we have something else going on. The deep profundity of God’s offer of salvation is lost on this self-loving age. Who reason, if God loves us, surely he would want me to do what makes me happy.
#5 rob roy: “Yeah, I see what homosexual clergy has done for the Episcopalian church. I want the lawsuits, defections, plummeting attendance for the Lutherans, too.”
It is not homosexual clergy whose ministry has instigated lawsuits, forced anyone to defect, or caused “plummeting” attendance (which is not the case anyway…). It is those who steal property, refuse to consider an ethos of “I could be wrong” and engage in true conversation (to wit my brother over at the other site who finally told me that we weren’t having a conversation, but an argument), and walk away.
Nadine #19, I apologize for my comment #26 above — I hadn’t read through to yours and you put it much better than I. Guess I should try to let the adrenaline slow down before jumping the gun. Or mixing metaphors. Anyway: Thank you for your comment.
28
I am yet to hear anyone in support of SSB say, “We should do this though we might be wrong.” Certitude marks the reapraising movement.
Regarding #22 and #23, thank you Mike and Derek for your replies — but I think you both still overlook my actual point.
The original post by Irenaeus (#6) asked, “Who will enforce the monogamy requirement?” for these ELCA “gay and lesbian clergy in monogamous, same-sex relationships” who might — “[e]ventually” — “be allowed to serve.”
In effect, the post entered into “liberal ELCA world” and implicitly accepted (presumably only for the sake of argument) the notion that these partnered gay and lesbian clergy, if and when they come to be recognized as rostered ELCA clergy, will exist. For Irenaeus, this then raises the question: “”Who will enforce the monogamy requirement?”
*Not* “are these biblical, moral, etc.” Merely: Who will make *sure* that these gay and lesbian clergy are, in fact, remaining faithful within their monogamous, committed relationships.
St. Jimbob, in #10, then cheers on Irenaeus having “caught” this issue.
Underlying both posts is the assumption that gay and lesbian clergy, even if their inclusion in rostered ministry is uncontested, would have a problem staying faithful, such that the “monogamy” requirement for them becomes something that will need to be “enforced.”
This plays into, and invokes, that old canard/meme about gay promiscuity.
Now, if faithfulness to one’s partner is one measure of Christian behavior, statistically, on average, yes, gay men apparently would be less well-behaved than heterosexuals — yet I trust that those who repeat the promiscuity meme also realize that lesbians would then statistically be more fit as Christians in that regard than either heterosexuals or gay men are.
But real people are not statistics, and also, just because a statistic applies to gay men in general, based on past decades’ data, does not mean that the specific subset of gay men who feel called to ministry necessarily are identical to the general population of gay men in this regard.
So let’s get back to posts #6 and #10. Logically, for them to make any sense at all, they necessarily imply: “Gay men and lesbians are more prone to violating monogamy than are heterosexuals; ergo, they present a greater problem when it comes to ensuring that clergy live up to standards for fidelity.” Hence, one is left wondering who will be in charge of enforcing compliance with those standards.
Mike, this (i.e., my exegesis of posts #6 and #10) isn’t about the Bible; for the sake of argument, the posters had already surmounted the issue of biblical fidelity and were zeroing in on the specific question of same-sex *sexual* fidelity.
In fact, I read your post as assuming you know where I stand on the morality of same-sex sex — yet I did not in my post address that issue, so the assumption is unwarranted. I merely followed Irenaeus’ bypassing of any biblical issues and his focusing in on the ability of lesbian and gay clergy to be faithful in their committed relationships, in order to demonstrate that it follows directly from his questioning of that ability on their part that he feels that a special enforcement mechanism would likely be needed for them, apart from whatever mechanism currently exists for heterosexual clergy.
That’s called a double standard, and it’s called discriminatory. One may argue that the discrimination is warranted, but let’s be very clear that it necessarily depends on saying: “Whatever is currently in place for the straight clergy will not suffice, and so one must ask, ‘Who will enforce the monogamy requirement’ for gay and lesbian clergy?”
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Finally, with respect to Derek’s #23, again, you are arguing past what I have actually stated. For the sake of the original comment, Irenaeus was not focusing on questions of “living in sin” and crossing boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. Rather, he focused on the specific question of ELCA’s (possibly, eventual) gay and lesbian clergy being able to honor their duty to remain faithful in their committed relationships, regardless of whether or not those relationships are sinful in the eyes of the LORD.
And it was solely on the necessary presupposition of his question — i.e., that gays and lesbians would be so much less capable of keeping vows of commitment and sexual exclusivity — that I focused in pointing out that such stereotyping of lesbian and gay behavior, and such focusing on only gay and lesbian sexual (mis)behaviors while seemingly turning a blind eye to the analogous sexual (mis)behaviors of heterosexuals, undermine the reasserting camp’s assertions that the current troubles aren’t really all about gays and lesbians doing icky things with each other and having cooties, they’re really about much more rarefied issues of Scriptural authority and interpretation.
Now, mind you, I didn’t say the reasserting camp’s claim is thereby utterly exposed as false, simply that it *undermines* the credibility of that claim in the eyes of other Episcopalians, and is considered by many moderate and reappraising Epsicopalians as evidence that, no matter how much the reasserting lady doth protest that it’s not fundamentally about a gut-driven prejudice against those icky gays and lesbians, well, she truly doth protest too much.
“Sorry, but…what a stupid question. Not to mention insulting, uncharitable, and snide”
—Padre Wayne
Feel the love!
Wayne: In answer to your question (“Who enforces heterosexual monogamy”), bishops should discipline adulterous or polyamorous clergy.
As for my question (“Who will enforce the monogamy requirement?”), it’s not enough to say bishops will discipline polyamorous gay clergy. As I explained in #24, I don’t believe ECUSA’s ruling reappraisers have the grit or even the inclination to do so. It’s inconsistent with their moral relativism. And gay clergy will argue that the lack or recency of legalized gay marriage makes a monogamy requirement disproportionately burden gays.
Nadine: You wrote, “So let’s get back to posts #6 and #10. Logically, for them to make any sense at all, they necessarily imply: ‘Gay men and lesbians are more prone to violating monogamy than are heterosexuals.'”
Nonsense! Try reading my comment #24, in which I explained why I’d asked, “Who will enforce the monogamy requirement?”:
“Leading reappraisers often use expressions like ‘faithful, lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships.’ But I doubt these same leaders would ever enforce the ‘faithful, lifelong, monogamous’ part. They want approval of same-sex relationships and ‘faithful, lifelong, monogamous’ is part of the sales job.”
Thoughtful reading is better than purported mind-reading.
PS: As I noted in #32, I’d expect gay activists to argue that a strictly enforced monogamy requirement would disproportionately burden gay clergy because our society does not provide the same support for gay couples as for heterosexual couples. But such an argument, whether right or wrong, would not affect the basic point I’m making here and in #24. New Testament teaching does not countenance sexual intercourse outside of heterosexual marriage. Bishops should hold all clergy to that standard. ECUSA’s revisionist rulers will not.
The ELCA leadership, like the ECUSAg leadership uses the Bible for whatever purpose that suits their agenda. Ordination of homosexuals is wrong. Actually the ELCA should be E_CA because they don’t take the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions seriously. I used to be ELCA.
Irenaeus’ assertion, #33, that the New Testament does not countenance “sexual intercourse” outside of hetrosexual marriage suggests to me, along with the common usage of our language, that homophiles have arrogated that term in order to make natural/normal what homosexuals do. I wonder if the term really applies to what they do, just as it does not seem to apply, say, to the behavior of horses. What then to call what homosexuals do? If it’s not sexual intercourse, but a practice better described by another term– e.g.”coplulation”– what then is the great concern for homosexual monogamy, and why give prizes for it?
Once again an interesting discussion, just to let the rest of the wold know here is the section from our new “faithfulness is service” document which Anglican clergy and lay workers in Australia must abide by.
Standards for clergy and church workers
These standards state the Church’s expectations for personal behaviour and the
practice of pastoral ministry.
7.4 You are to be chaste and not engage in sex outside of marriage.
7.5 You are not to:
• sexually abuse an adult;
• sexually abuse a child;
• engage in prostitution;
• visit brothels and other places associated with the sex industry without a
legitimate purpose;
• view, possess, produce or distribute restricted material containing sex or
nudity without a legitimate purpose; and
• view, possess, produce or distribute any form of child pornography.
In regard to the discussion I think 7.4 says it all!
Jon R
Ooops, I forgot to mention the ones who are to enforce all this are of course our professional standards people as they are the ones the complaints go to. Sadly enforcement may be an issue. We recently had two married Naval chaplains run off together, our diocesan bishop withdrew their licenses which were promptly reissued by the bishop of the diocese they now live in.
Jon R
I would say the evidence is pretty much incontrovertible to the statement: “A church choosing full inclusivity (i.e., blessing of same sex unions and non-celibate homosexual clergy) is a choice of death and destruction of that church”. Those are the churches which choose to offer cheap grace. The result? Millions of spiritual corpses. To paraphrase Bonhoeffer, cheap grace will be utterly merciless on those churches.
I should say that there is one exception to robroy’s rule #2. The only church that can survive this choice is the Metropolitan church which specifically caters to the minority of the minority of homosexuals that want to choose Christianity (say, 3% of 3% = 0.09% of the population?).
RE: “. . . caused “plummeting†attendance (which is not the case anyway…).”
; > ) In his usual flair for “understatement” and boldly-stated oblivion PadreWayne ignores the Episcopal church’s director of research, Kirk Hadaway: [blockquote]”After a period of modest declines and gains, the Episcopal Church has suffered a net loss of nearly 115,000 members over the past three years—with homosexuality issues fueling the departures.
The Episcopal Church, whose active membership has slipped to 2,205,376, has built-in deterrents to growth because Episcopalians have the lowest birth rate among U.S. Christians and nearly 60 percent of the people in the pews are over 50, said Kirk Hadaway, the denomination’s director of research.
Though Episcopalians are not known for evangelistic endeavors, the church had offset its death rate and defections with an influx of Catholics and other churchgoers, the formation of new churches and the rising popular interest in spiritual matters. In 2002 the church lost only 8,200 members overall.
“In fact we were actually doing better than most other mainline denominations in the 1990s through 2002, with a few years of growth,” Hadaway told the Century. “So it is a precipitous drop in losing 36,000 in both 2003 and 2004, and now 42,000 in 2005.”
Half of the losses stemmed from parish conflicts over the 2003 Episcopal General Convention’s approval of the election of an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, according to Hadaway.”[/blockquote]
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=2566
The research that Hadaway himself produces is simply devastating.
One must then ask. Does Padre Wayne read these things and a) ignore them, b) believe that they are lying, c) redefine “growth” and “flourishing” in his head to mean just that?
RE: “It is those who steal property, refuse to consider an ethos of “I could be wrong†and engage in true conversation (to wit my brother over at the other site who finally told me that we weren’t having a conversation, but an argument), and walk away.”
William Witt was right. We’re debating and arguing — at the very best [I’m frankly not doing much more than simply clarifying just a few of the errors and gross fallacies of the Worthy Opponent these days] — and not “in conversation” at all.
If Padre Wayne thinks that the vocal effusions that he sees between “reasserters” and “reappraisers” are “conversations” I have an excellent feud between the Hatfields and McCoys that I’d like to call “conversation” too.
Nadine, though you may disdain enthusiastic encouragement of penetrating questions, I do not. I said “caught” in #10 because the sales pitch for all things gay does often zip by folks without them really questioning it.
You haven’t adressed the crux of the matter, which was on the heels of the accolade that so offended you.
Why is monogamy important? If you’ve already tossed biblical strictures on one type of sexual expression, why bother insisting on others?
Irenaeus #32, see Nadine’s explication. Your original question itself (“who will enforce…”) lacks the “love” to which you refer.
Sarah, I will accept your statistics as statistics. I simply object to the words “plummeting” and conclusion “devastating.” Thank you, though, for donning your professorial cap and correcting the rest of us. Our “errors and gross fallacies,” that is.
Do you have the slightest regret that we cannot be in conversation?
Prayers that your anger not get in the way of your spiritual health.
St. Jimbob #40: “Why is monogamy important? If you’ve already tossed biblical strictures on one type of sexual expression, why bother insisting on others?”
When “reappraisers” put forward “faithful” relationships, they assume monogamy. Bring another person into the mix and fidelity is dilluted — or even obliterated.
It isn’t appropriate (or honest) to say that we have “tossed [out] biblical strictures,” for that implies that little or no thought, devotion, consultation, prayer, and silence have entered into the process. Your question could be turned back on you: If you’ve tossed out other bits of the holiness code, why bother insisting on others? If you’ve (and I don’t mean ‘you’ personally, but the generic conservative ‘you’) tossed out other bits about marriage (divorce and remarriage, specifically), why bother insisting on others (your reading of Pauline strictures on homosexual sex)?
Smiley face not intended — that was a single quote followed by a close-parenthesis…
Again, there is much painting with a broad brush in the above comments. There is a large portion of the ELCA that is confessional, traditional, and devoted to the historic faith of the church. If the liberal leadership of the church pushes too far, there will be a split. And ELCA congregations can take their properties with them if they join another “Lutheran body.” If this happens, I don’t anticipate that the LCMS will get many of them, though, because of the prohibition against female pastors and the historically closed-off posture that the LCMS has taken with other christians. Instead, I would anticipate the creation of a center-right, confessional Lutheran body in the United States that would become the home of those of thus in the ELCA that are resisting the unscriptural moves being pushed by such people as bishop-elect Miller. In fact, if you look at the synodical votes this year regarding gay ordination, at least as many synods adopted memorials against it as did for it, and synodical votes are usually seen as more liberal than the rank and file opinions in the church. If all of this happens, maybe the sinking ships that are the former ELCA and the ECUSA can merge to create the “Evangelical Revisionist Church in America”!
Nadine: your comment #31 is well thought out, but ignores the point of the original comment. What is the Christian rationale ECUSA is going to use to hold the line at monogamy?
The sad truth for those teaching Episcopalianism is that any argument in favor of monogamy can be dismantled by your own exegetical methods. Having built your new church on a hill of straw, you’re quite likely to start seeing the consequences soon – not that I think most remaining in ECUSA by then will consider these practices “consequences.” As Irenaeus said, declaiming against other “arrangements” is just part of the sales job.
And, Irenaeus: rejoice when a reappraiser assails you for a “stupid question.” That generally means the question hit amidships and the reappraiser has no good answer.
“Bring another person into the mix and fidelity is dilluted—or even obliterated.”
No, Padre Wayne, it isn’t. That’s the point.
ELCA: See our sorry example and learn from us!
[blockquote] “15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. Deuteronomy 3[/blockquote]
RE: “Prayers that your anger not get in the way of your spiritual health.”
LOL. ; > )
Why would disinterest in “conversation” with radical progressives mean that I am angry, I wonder?
RE: “Do you have the slightest regret that we cannot be in conversation?”
I am perfectly able to “be in conversation” with my progressive friends. Indeed, I am — although we don’t debate progressive/traditional issues . . . we talk about fun things like sports and movies and food and hiking! ; > )
I even suspect that were you and I to meet for coffee we could talk about fun things too.
So let me slightly re-phrase your question: “Do you have the slightest regret that [various progressive Episcopalians and Sarah] [are not] in conversation [about the two different gospels that they maintain]?”
No.
Mike Bertaut #22: “But neither is surrender to “societal norms.†To be Christian, Jesus made very clear, means to set yourself AGAINST the world.”
Your comment here implies — or assumes — that “societal norms” include full acceptance of homosexuality and/or faithful, monogamous homosexual relationships. And that is simply not so, I’m afraid. Look at the number of states which have constitutionally banned marriage between people of the same gender (by defining marriage as between a man and a woman) — [i]even to the point of banning legal relationships between domestic partners (Michigan) or others of the same sex (Virginia — is for lovers? oh, please…)[/i]. And once you’ve counted them up, check out the resistance to hate crime legislation. And once you’ve done that, try walking down the street holding the hand of your best male pal. After that, phone companies around town and ask, “do you offer domestic partner insurance benefits to your employees?”
[i]Then[/i], Mike, tell me how you see “societal norms.”
In fact, the Church, when she preaches the radical inclusion of homosexual people and offers the blessing of their unions, is doing exactly what you suggest she should do: setting herself [i]against[/i] the world. No matter how you spin it, the “homosexual lobby” or “GLBT agenda” are minority voices in a society which still fears — and lashes out at — The Other.
Sarah: [blockquote] So let me slightly re-phrase your question: “Do you have the slightest regret that [various progressive Episcopalians and Sarah] [are not] in conversation [about the two different gospels that they maintain]?â€
No. ” [/blockquote]
Oh. I find that sad.
OTOH, yes, we could probably meet for coffee and talk about other things — the latest HP novel and movie, perhaps (where BB and I actually agree!)? But perhaps there would also be a cloud over that (the elephant in the room?) — knowing that there are some subjects we simply cannot approach in the spirit of listening, learning, and understanding of one another…
I hate to jump back in, because I still think my comment #1 says it all; but in Sarah’s defense, the problem with dialogue came in August 2003, when the “progressives” decided to end the dialogue and act unilaterally. Before that we were talking. There was a precarious peace, but we were engaged. Since 2003 many of us on the losing side (Sarah and me included) have been marginalized by the power structures of TEC. Even when we want to come to the table, the “progressives” moan and roll their eyes, beacuse its a done deal and we should get over it. When the heirarchy of TEC at least will admit they may have made a mistake, maybe we can talk again. I think it wasn’t so much that we didn’t want to continue to be engaged as it was we were pushed off the table. Our leaders are intransegent. I have personally been told by a
“moderate progressive” that I don’t deserve to be at the table beacuse I refused tom put a “happy face” on VGR’s election. Pretty “moderateley progressive” statement, huh?
Nadine, the issue isn’t fidelity, it’s is rather the standards by whuich judgment are made. See my above. I apologize to the other for repeating myself.
Of we accept this man’s redefinition of marriage, what will the next standard be? Will it be “Marriage, or cohabitation, is acceptable to the church if it is betweentwo people, regardless of gender?” If that is the new standard, who will maintain it? Or indeed, who CAN maintain it since it rests on no rationale whatever – the Bible having been discounted? So there’s my question to you: What is the new standard and how is it to be maintained?
(Incidentally, John S – was it John – pointed out that the “Faiithful and committed” tht we always see in connection with homosexual marriage and its ilk are is simply a sales pitch, the polish one puts on rusty auto bodies to make them appear attractive.)
Following is part of a letter I sent to a local priest. How will we maintain the line?
I am not convinced that the main justifications for same-sex blessings amount to a sustainable theology or morality; they are too shortsighted and neophyte. Some progressives have presented faithfulness or monogamy as the true criteria for forming an essential Christian sexual morality. These are believed uncontroversial Christian sexual teachings. Based on your kind of reasoning, will this always be true? Is it even true now? Promiscuity, for example, can certainly be argued as part of our biochemical make-up (I have seen articles on this very position). There would not need to be rules or laws governing human fidelity if it were our basic nature to be monogamous. It could even be considered cruel or unnecessarily burdensome to insist on monogamy as the standard in the Church. No doubt some promiscuous Christians have been able to give love and even bring others to the Gospel through their liaisons. Gentleness, caring and love could become the new governing principle for Christian sexual morality, not the unnecessary burden of faithfulness as monogamy. The new doctrine might read something like this: Family, centered on two people, male and female, children, and then grandparents etc. is just a relic of patriarchy. We do not need to repeat this tyranny. People have the right if not a duty to express their love for others fully. What better way is there for this than physical love? Our goal is to overcome the unjust burden of control from the past, which was based on the crassness of ownership, and allow Christ the freedom to live fully in our sexual nature as a means of sharing his love with all who would share it back. Apart from the inclusion of Christ, such a basic doctrine already exists. It may already have been articulated in the Church somewhere, and I would be surprised if it has not. Unless we have the courage to speak clearly as to where we draw lines, and draw them, we are laying the Church open to the whim of the ridiculous. The Orthodox are chided for drawing the lines too soon. Some Progressives like Bp. Spong will begin to look like conservative line drawers in the Church they wish to unleash. They have no strength of doctrine to hold the line at monogamy. Our intuition is to hold the line at our traditional sexual ethics. In a time of great change and uncertainty it seems the right thing. I have a problem with grafting LGTB or Queer sociopolitical theory to the Church’s teaching. And this is being done with gusto in some areas. Is our traditional teaching so bankrupt that we must import new theories of human practice, especially theories that have only shown up recently and have not been tested but in small homogeneous sub-cultural settings?
PadreWayne,
Isn’t bisexuality, taken as a fixed God gifted nature the reductio ad absurdum of your position? We cannot create a couple-form that both accommodates someone’s bisexuality and the Biblical imperative for faithfulness in monogamy.
I believe this is what Larry means by a sales pitch. Faithfully monogamous same sex couples are the poster children for the whole LGBTT community. Many in this community have no intention of fulfilling their natures in such a strangled institution as marriage.
Exciting Times here at T19!
“On dialogue: even posturing, in the presence of another, can constitute meaningful dialogue. When silence settles in, that is when the debate is truly over and the missiles begin to fly.” (a bad translation of advice to the Kremlin by Andrei Gromyko in the 1980’s)
#31 NK, sorry, I seem to have read more into your comments than was actually there. I see that you wanted to focus on the intellectual argument that married couples of whatever sex should be treated to the same standard of “observation”. I understand, but respectfully disagree. Dismantling the provisions around marriage will fail utterly, in my opinion, if they are removed piecemeal. No provision carries more (or less) weight than any other, so they are a bit codependent in my view.
#50 My Friend PadreWayne! Glad you are back! You see, I should apologize because when I speak of “the world” or “societal norms” in my posts, I have a tendency to view these things here through the lens of Scripture. The “world” I’m speaking of setting ourselves against is the “world” outside of the early Church, i.e. all the things Peter and Paul warned against in Acts and the Letters, typically the “works of the Flesh”, comme ca:
It is from these same passages that I draw my own strength to not separate from TEC, despite my vast differences of opinion with the leadership, as dissension and division are spoken against just as strongly. This is moderated somewhat by the context of “inside” and “outside” the Church, and technically someone who hands themselves over to the above mentioned lusts and is unrepentant about it can be considered “outside”. But that’s a debate for another day.
Suffice it to say, I didn’t explain that very well. You will notice as I post, that I have a tendency to assume everybody is viewing these issues through the lens of Scripture, and that’s not really a valid assumption for me to make.
I am hopeful, though!
KTF!….mrb
[blockquote]It is those who steal property, refuse to consider an ethos of “I could be wrong†and engage in true conversation (to wit my brother over at the other site who finally told me that we weren’t having a conversation, but an argument), and walk away.[/blockquote]
Padrewayne,
I did indeed state on StandFirm that we were not engaging in a conversation, but an argument, and I stated why:
Conversations begin with agreement, and proceed to more agreement. Arguments begin with disagreement, and proceed either to (1) acquiescence; (2) coercion; (3) disengagement; (4) or resolution.
Any “conversation” that begins by referring to the “conversation” partner as “those who steal property” is not a conversation by definition. It is an argument. Since I noticed that you disappeared after I carefully pointed out to you the differences between a conversation and an argument, I must assume that you have decided to settle the argument by (3) disengagement. IOW, you “walk[ed] away,” not I.
Actually, I felt that I was condescended to and [i]pushed[/i] away. I don’t need that.
I do not take responsibility for your feelings.
“Padre”Wayne…you called Irenaeus’ question “stupid”, and “insulting, uncharitable, and snide”.
I must ask, do you find it MORE charitable, and less snide and insulting, to call others with whom you disagree thieves and bigots at every turn? Have you not considered your tone?
Talk about stupid…
Rolling Eyes, I’ll retract with apology the “stupid.” “Insulting, uncharitable and snide” will suffice.
Stealing property is theft.
I have not used the term “bigot.”
William Witt: I didn’t ask you to take responsibility for my feelings. I wouldn’t think of it.
[i] This is getting very personal. Could we please lighten up? [/i]
-Elf Lady
Elf Lady: Consider it done.
[blockquote]Wasn’t there an old country song, “Welcome to My Worldâ€, won’t you come on in, trouble not your hearts, you see there is no sin? [/blockquote] Grandmother: Jim Reeves sang that one.
PadreWayne;
I think your view is a lot like when my wilfe used to say “You are not listening to me” and I would first restate her position and then say “I am listening – I am also disagreeing”. You can be open minded by listening to someone’s opinions/arguments and considering their merit – one can still reject a proposed change without being closed minded. Iraneus question about enforcing the exception regarding monogamous commited relationships had merit it was not a stupid question – in the world we used to know where priests were either celibate or married – the wife was the enforcer of monogamy backed up by the state/congregation/and bishop. The article did not supply the reader with the idea that these relationships would need to be Church or State sanctified. Most of my generation has been in monogamous committed relationships prior to marriage – we called it serial monogamy. Is that all that would be needed for the ELCA Priests?
Maybe I have missed something, but I have yet to see a reappraiser address two issues raised:
First, when the Scriptural arguments against homosexuality are tossed, of what worth is monogamy? After all, male biology and historical practice all support polygamy. If experience, even objective biology, is the guide, then you are relying on a factor that is insolubly tainted by sin and again, what other parts of Scripture may we toss because we highly desire to engage in the proscribed behavior?
Second, do the reasserters not see the disingenuousness of the headline “Same-sex salvation?” As one poster noted, thank God Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. On what grounds has homosexual sex earned the distinction of a behavior described by Scripture as sinful that must be blessed by the Church?
Well, if Nadine will not answer my question, let me put the question to all of you: If the standards for the definition of marriage are altered, as the writer ini this blog has suggested, who resets standards, and who keeps them? Is it true that marriage can successfully be redefined as being two people and two only, regardless of gender?
Now, Miller is not talking about homosexual marriage specificially, but that is the end of his purpose. We can ask, if homosexuals can cohabit in the ministry, them the ministry is accepting a sinful relationship. The usual response is that if homosexuals were permitted to marry, the issue would cease. And we are where the Miller’s of the world intended to go at last.
But let’s assume that the issue is restricted to cohabiting homosexuals in the ministry. Why must they be in “faithful, committed” relationships? Since the cohabitation is apparently not sinful, even for the ministry, then surely an uncommitted relationship is not sinful either. And we are back where we started. Who will set the new standard and how will it be kept, since the Biblical standard has been vacated?
I hope someone – that is, someone on the pro-homosexual side – will take up the issue of redefining the standard and the maintenance thereof. Declare the new standard and explain on what grounds the definition rests.
Interesting that reappraisers announce that it is reasserters who “walk away” . . . but then when they themselves “walk away” they state that it was because they felt “condescended to and pushed away”.
My question is — if reasserters feel “condescended to and pushed away” then does that mean we get a free pass and may “walk away”?
Why would Ireneaus ask this question?
[blockquote] Who will enforce the monogamy requirement?[/blockquote]
“While we may not be monogamous, we may resist the pejorative connotations of promiscuity that originate in a culture of sex-negative moralism. We may prefer to think of ourselves as open to sexual friendhips.” Carter Heyward, Episcopal theologian, in Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God, p. 121.
“Monogamy, an agreement to be sexual with no one except your primary partner, is an agreement a couple may or may not choose to make. It is an option. As long as you and your partner agree which option you choose, it has no more moral value attached to it than whether you prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Marriage is not defined by sexual exclusivity. I had have sex with lots of male couples, as well as many men whose lovers were out of town or simply home for the evening while my partners enjoyed a night out. I have even had sex with some couples both separately and together. Many of these couples have been together for decades. In fact, it may just be that relationships that are not sexually exclusive last longer than those that are.” The Rev. Robert Williams, first openly gay ordained Episcopal priest, in Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being, Out, Proud and Christian, p. 211-212.
“Sex-Negative moralism” is too thin a statement to be meaningful. Either man is basically an evil, fallen creature at heart or he is not. There is no middle ground. Christianity was built upon the premise that a redeemer is REQUIRED, not optional. That salvation cannot be earned, that heaven, open only to the righteous, is only avaiable to us if Jesus unlocks the door by cleansing us.
“Sex-negative moralism?” sounds a lot like carving out the parts of the human condition that affect us directly and then acknowledging our instincts as the highest form of decision making.
I, for one, want no part of my instincts as the ultimate guide to salvation. Too sad to contemplate.
KTF!….mrb
Thank you for dropping the bomb William Witt. I expected this stuff was out there, but had no idea how blatant.
Are there reappraisers who really stand for marriage, and intend to promote SSB and discipline this sort of sexual pluralism? Or are we right to assume that committed SSB is just SBS (Sanctimonious BS)? We need to get serious about this. We need to demand answers. We have one conversation at our synods designed to make us reel in guilt for denying pure hearted people the decency of sanctification. From my earlier post:
The new doctrine might read something like this: Family, centered on two people, male and female, children, and then grandparents etc. is just a relic of patriarchy. We do not need to repeat this tyranny. People have the right if not a duty to express their love for others fully. What better way is there for this than physical love? Our goal is to overcome the unjust burden of control from the past, which was based on the crassness of ownership, and allow Christ the freedom to live fully in our sexual nature as a means of sharing his love with all who would share it back. Apart from the inclusion of Christ, such a basic doctrine already exists. It may already have been articulated in the Church somewhere, and I would be surprised if it has not. Unless we have the courage to speak clearly as to where we draw lines, and draw them, we are laying the Church open to the whim of the ridiculous. The Orthodox are chided for drawing the lines too soon. Some Progressives like Bp. Spong will begin to look like conservative line drawers in the Church they wish to unleash. They have no strength of doctrine to hold the line at monogamy.
No Strength, or no will.
PadreWayne, can you answer the question Larry, I and others have been asking: What is the basis of the new morality?
“Marriage is not defined by sexual exclusivity.” Hmmm…I would definitely say for the last 2,000 years or so Christian Marriage has been defined by exactly that (among a couple of other things). And how exactly does one Episcopal Priest recounting and celebrating his clearly sinful behavior change anything?
I have to ask, has the torch been passed? Is God now looking to us for guidance? Are we now establishing new standards in opposition to the faith received and calling them good? Are we that shallow?
I shuddered to read these passages, not because I fear for me, but because of the abject fear I felt for the souls of the authors.
God bless you all!….
KTF!…mrb
“Monogamy, an agreement to be sexual with no one except your primary partner. . .
Notice how deep the author had drunk from the cup of relativism; ‘primary partner’ means you have others. He cannot even commit to monogamy in a definition.
(Next we are going to hear from someone who knows Fr. Williams as a warm open and prayerful priest, aho they are proud to have had their children baptized by.
Just by way of preperation.)
[blockquote]Next we are going to hear from someone who knows Fr. Williams as a warm open and prayerful priest, aho they are proud to have had their children baptized by. [/blockquote]
That would have to be past tense: “someone who knew Fr. Williams.” He speaks in the book of an “experience” in which he “felt, from deep within my heart and soul, that God was telling me I don’t have to die of AIDS . . . I believe Christ is healing me from AIDS now . . . I am being healed.” p. 270-271. Tragically, he was mistaken.
Thesex in #69’s quote should make us all shudder simply because it rationalizes what amoral really means. Moreover, it lets us see into the homosexuals’s real world, not the one being sold by TEC with its pat phrases and righteous bathos. The question is then very simple: Is the world view spelled out here a world which we wish to belong to, a world which we wish to nurture and condone? TEC is in essence saying it is. For me, it makes me shudder; this is darkness visible. The dividing line between TEC and myself – and I am sure I am not alone – has become clearer and brighter. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a complex moral problem; indeed, it is a simple one, at last.
It is interesting – and an answer because of no answer – that no one has undertaken to answer what #71 and I have asked. WE may reasonably conlude that there can be NO answer, and because of this, we need to put this question most aggressively to the homophile defenders; we must demand an answer and not give up in this demand.
Larry
chirp, chirp….the (revisionist) silence is deafening even 19 hours later.
Makes me wonder if even they cannot claim the quotes WW put up for us to look at. I can’t say I blame them.
KTF….mrb
You know in our parts, Victoria BC, we constantly hear that nothing new has been added to the SSB discussion in 15 years. That may be so because we are not getting the full story from the other side. And there is a nagging sense that something is missing from the conversation. Our position is fairly straight forward; same-sexuality is not according to God’s best plan for our individual and communal lives. Now that that is on the table lets see the other side in good faith put their whole wish list on the table for our perusal.
Any offers?