Great job, Kendall. And Susan, I thought, presented her side nicely. I do wish, Kendall, that we would stress that the fights are not about inclusion (we should welcome all), the fights are about what the Church can bless and what the Church perceives as sin.
Now, the candidate for bishop, on the other hand, expresses a poor understanding of the Bible’s teaching on marriage and relationships. I found the property argument and context argument quite sad. The torah laid out a way that women (and slaves and strangers) were to be treated that was radically different from the way that most cultures treated the same.
I also like her quote from Gameliel, but I would like to know from the candidate for bishop when/how do we figure out it is right/wrong? We go from 2mil+ practicing members to under 800k. The budget is getting whacked. It is becoming the norm that parishes cannot support clergy. Our internal and ecumenical relationships are deteriorating. So when do we pay attention to the fruits in this world of experience?
When Dr. Harmon quoted Jesus on marriage, I thought sure the topic of divorce and remarriage would come up: if members of the AC can coexist with different policies on divorce and remarriage, on which Jesus was very explicit, why is gay marriage a deal breaker? I don’t understand how someone can say “clear Biblical prohibition” and “no consensus of world Christians” on gay issues, but allow remarriages to stand. Divorce can be repented of, fine, but remarriage strikes me as a hard sell (“anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”)
This shoe was in the process of dropping when the show ended, alas!
Mark, I’m with you. Our lack of a stand on remarriage is a disgrace. I know a woman who has been needling her (Episcopal) church about it for the last 30 years. She’s been divorced that whole time, and still standing for her covenant marriage, a union which she believes has never dissolved. I wish all Episcopal and Anglican priests could listen to this woman speak. She goes straight to the heart.
In the meantime, gays and lesbians rightly criticize us for our lax stand on divorce and remarriage compared to our prohibition of same-sex unions.
Mark, if you are a priest somewhere, let me know.
Actually this is the latest ‘talking point’ that has been floated recently and goes something like this:
1. The Christian teaching is that marriage is between a man and a woman for life and that is the only acceptable place for sex.
2. Churches are increasingly remarrying divorced people.
3. therefore why not marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? ‘Coz otherwise the church is being inconsistent.
It is of course a logical fallacy, along with all the others we heard in this interview:
– Jesus only understood marriage in the context of first century palestine; if he had lived now he would have thought as we do.
– We are listening to the Holy Spirit who is also becoming better educated about our situation;
– Because we put facts on the ground by consecrating a gay bishop and surrepticiously performing SSU’s therefore this is something that people have to deal with and move on.
– all this trumps putting forward a scriptural or theological justification, after all we are now dealing with PEOPLE
– and so on.
The talk was actually very interesting. Well done – a real contribution – I am glad I listened to it.
Good job, Kendall. And in general, an attractive debate on all sides. Although the comments above capture many of the issues of substance that escaped clear discussion.
Pageantmaster, if in your first paragraph you are referring to MarkP’s comment about different standards then I think you’ve missed his point. MarkP is not making the syllogism which you report. Rather, he’s simply making the observation that if Anglican heterosexuals can finesse the Lord’s teaching on remarriage why can’t they do the same for their homosexual brothers and sisters when it comes to scriptural prohibitions for same-sex acts. It appears that you’re evading his question. I think Bishop Lawrence, in his recent address, began, however tentatively, to address this issue.
#9 Phil Swain – not at all – it is an argument which I have seen put forward in several places in the last few days, mainly by gay activists [no implication on Mark P] on a number of English and American sites. I find it interesting to watch particular ‘talking points’ being diseminated across the blogosphere and so I took note when I saw this one cropping up here.
Having heard KH and SR in a chat show debate a year or two ago, I braced myself for a poor and uncivil performance from the latter. But I was pleasantly surprised. So, good job by all.
[blockquote]After Pope Benedict XVI was elected pope, the Congregation for Catholic Education issued an “instruction” prohibiting any individual who has “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture'”, or any individual having had such “tendencies” within the past three years, from entry to seminary, and thus from joining the priesthood.[/blockquote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Defense_of_official_position
It seems as if protestant churches aren’t using the Roman Church as evidence.
“Rather, he’s simply making the observation that if Anglican heterosexuals can finesse the Lord’s teaching on remarriage why can’t they do the same for their homosexual brothers and sisters when it comes to scriptural prohibitions for same-sex acts.”
Thanks, Phil — yes. It’s a matter of witness. From the outside, it looks like what’s being said is that when people like us and our friends break Biblical mandates, it’s unfortunate and maybe we need to talk about it, but when people *not* like us do it, it’s a communion-breaking offense. And, whatever you believe on either issue, that combination doesn’t sound like Jesus.
Pageantmaster is correct in that the “heterosexual divorce/remarriage” argument for justifying SSM is logically inconsistent; however, many arguments made by progressives are logically (and Biblically) inconsistent, yet highlight areas of current church practice that are problematic.
I know that I’m probably five standard deviations to the right on the divorce issue, but I do think it hypocritical that the Church (TEC, and many other Protestant mainline denominations and others) has essentially followed society’s lead on the issue of divorce and remarriage, and turns a blind eye towards not merely divorce for the limited conditions that Christ enunciated (infidelity), but serial remarriage and divorce among its clergy. And I say this as someone with dear family members who bolted the RCC for the Anglican tradition because of its “more enlightened” views on divorce and remarriage.
When straight Christians “finesse” centuries-old teachings on divorce, fornication, abortion, etc., aren’t we embracing the same me-centered, human-worshipping theology that the proponents of SSM and other “innovations” are accused of doing?
Joshua24:15, you can include contraception on your list. With its track record on contraception, abortion, and divorce/remarriage you can hardly blame someone from thinking that Anglicanism is fatally flawed. You know there is a Church which exists in the same cultural context that somehow got the answers to those issues right.
It seems like much of Kendall’s argument is based on the argument of the Communion, whereas Susan continually mentions Christ/God. I was surprised about this – as usually people on this blog are quick to condemn those who don’t mention Jesus and instead reference “the church.”
Great job, Kendall. And Susan, I thought, presented her side nicely. I do wish, Kendall, that we would stress that the fights are not about inclusion (we should welcome all), the fights are about what the Church can bless and what the Church perceives as sin.
Now, the candidate for bishop, on the other hand, expresses a poor understanding of the Bible’s teaching on marriage and relationships. I found the property argument and context argument quite sad. The torah laid out a way that women (and slaves and strangers) were to be treated that was radically different from the way that most cultures treated the same.
I also like her quote from Gameliel, but I would like to know from the candidate for bishop when/how do we figure out it is right/wrong? We go from 2mil+ practicing members to under 800k. The budget is getting whacked. It is becoming the norm that parishes cannot support clergy. Our internal and ecumenical relationships are deteriorating. So when do we pay attention to the fruits in this world of experience?
I couldn’t get a clear broadcast. All I got were bits and pieces. Larry
I’ve just finished listening to the first 30 minutes — terrific job, Dr. Harmon!
When Dr. Harmon quoted Jesus on marriage, I thought sure the topic of divorce and remarriage would come up: if members of the AC can coexist with different policies on divorce and remarriage, on which Jesus was very explicit, why is gay marriage a deal breaker? I don’t understand how someone can say “clear Biblical prohibition” and “no consensus of world Christians” on gay issues, but allow remarriages to stand. Divorce can be repented of, fine, but remarriage strikes me as a hard sell (“anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”)
This shoe was in the process of dropping when the show ended, alas!
Mark, I’m with you. Our lack of a stand on remarriage is a disgrace. I know a woman who has been needling her (Episcopal) church about it for the last 30 years. She’s been divorced that whole time, and still standing for her covenant marriage, a union which she believes has never dissolved. I wish all Episcopal and Anglican priests could listen to this woman speak. She goes straight to the heart.
In the meantime, gays and lesbians rightly criticize us for our lax stand on divorce and remarriage compared to our prohibition of same-sex unions.
Mark, if you are a priest somewhere, let me know.
Actually this is the latest ‘talking point’ that has been floated recently and goes something like this:
1. The Christian teaching is that marriage is between a man and a woman for life and that is the only acceptable place for sex.
2. Churches are increasingly remarrying divorced people.
3. therefore why not marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? ‘Coz otherwise the church is being inconsistent.
It is of course a logical fallacy, along with all the others we heard in this interview:
– Jesus only understood marriage in the context of first century palestine; if he had lived now he would have thought as we do.
– We are listening to the Holy Spirit who is also becoming better educated about our situation;
– Because we put facts on the ground by consecrating a gay bishop and surrepticiously performing SSU’s therefore this is something that people have to deal with and move on.
– all this trumps putting forward a scriptural or theological justification, after all we are now dealing with PEOPLE
– and so on.
The talk was actually very interesting. Well done – a real contribution – I am glad I listened to it.
Good job, Kendall. And in general, an attractive debate on all sides. Although the comments above capture many of the issues of substance that escaped clear discussion.
Pageantmaster, if in your first paragraph you are referring to MarkP’s comment about different standards then I think you’ve missed his point. MarkP is not making the syllogism which you report. Rather, he’s simply making the observation that if Anglican heterosexuals can finesse the Lord’s teaching on remarriage why can’t they do the same for their homosexual brothers and sisters when it comes to scriptural prohibitions for same-sex acts. It appears that you’re evading his question. I think Bishop Lawrence, in his recent address, began, however tentatively, to address this issue.
#9 Phil Swain – not at all – it is an argument which I have seen put forward in several places in the last few days, mainly by gay activists [no implication on Mark P] on a number of English and American sites. I find it interesting to watch particular ‘talking points’ being diseminated across the blogosphere and so I took note when I saw this one cropping up here.
Having heard KH and SR in a chat show debate a year or two ago, I braced myself for a poor and uncivil performance from the latter. But I was pleasantly surprised. So, good job by all.
# 11 – she can be very “civil” when she wins…not this debate – but the whole issue – TEC is there and there is no turning back…..
And thank you Dr. Kendall – you’re a better man than I Gunga Din….
[blockquote]After Pope Benedict XVI was elected pope, the Congregation for Catholic Education issued an “instruction” prohibiting any individual who has “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture'”, or any individual having had such “tendencies” within the past three years, from entry to seminary, and thus from joining the priesthood.[/blockquote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism#Defense_of_official_position
It seems as if protestant churches aren’t using the Roman Church as evidence.
“Rather, he’s simply making the observation that if Anglican heterosexuals can finesse the Lord’s teaching on remarriage why can’t they do the same for their homosexual brothers and sisters when it comes to scriptural prohibitions for same-sex acts.”
Thanks, Phil — yes. It’s a matter of witness. From the outside, it looks like what’s being said is that when people like us and our friends break Biblical mandates, it’s unfortunate and maybe we need to talk about it, but when people *not* like us do it, it’s a communion-breaking offense. And, whatever you believe on either issue, that combination doesn’t sound like Jesus.
Pageantmaster is correct in that the “heterosexual divorce/remarriage” argument for justifying SSM is logically inconsistent; however, many arguments made by progressives are logically (and Biblically) inconsistent, yet highlight areas of current church practice that are problematic.
I know that I’m probably five standard deviations to the right on the divorce issue, but I do think it hypocritical that the Church (TEC, and many other Protestant mainline denominations and others) has essentially followed society’s lead on the issue of divorce and remarriage, and turns a blind eye towards not merely divorce for the limited conditions that Christ enunciated (infidelity), but serial remarriage and divorce among its clergy. And I say this as someone with dear family members who bolted the RCC for the Anglican tradition because of its “more enlightened” views on divorce and remarriage.
When straight Christians “finesse” centuries-old teachings on divorce, fornication, abortion, etc., aren’t we embracing the same me-centered, human-worshipping theology that the proponents of SSM and other “innovations” are accused of doing?
Joshua24:15, you can include contraception on your list. With its track record on contraception, abortion, and divorce/remarriage you can hardly blame someone from thinking that Anglicanism is fatally flawed. You know there is a Church which exists in the same cultural context that somehow got the answers to those issues right.
It seems like much of Kendall’s argument is based on the argument of the Communion, whereas Susan continually mentions Christ/God. I was surprised about this – as usually people on this blog are quick to condemn those who don’t mention Jesus and instead reference “the church.”
Kendall’s argument is based mainly on the sources and in particular, Scripture. But Scripture is always properly read with and by the church.