Unfortunately, [Debra] Haffner’s editorial and the Religious Declaration are not just the opinions of extremist liberal clergy who are far removed from the average biblically orthodox Episcopalian or Anglican in the United States. The AAC notes with concern that those endorsers include 263 Episcopal clergy, staff and professors of Episcopal seminaries, including several bishops, executive council members and a former presiding bishop, along with many of the well known advocates for sexual freedom in The Episcopal Church (TEC). By signing this declaration, they are not just advocating LGBT sexual “rights,” but the holiness of all consensual sex between lay or clergy people of any age, marital status or sexual orientation. And because this degree of promiscuity may likely result in unwanted pregnancies, they also advocate for-and thereby bless-abortion.
I’m a bit surprised that a college chaplain would take a public stand on this – Rev. Dann Brown, Episcopal Center at UGA, Athens, GA.
UGA is in a very liberal diocese, though.
It’s going to be fun seeing some of the useful idiots who’ve gone along with TGC’s “new thing” slowly realize the size of the hole they’ve blown in Biblical Christianity with their foolishness. Still, it won’t be pretty seeing them mowed down when they try to stand athwart history shouting “Stop!” We mossbacks will just have to be ready to welcome them as they come limping away from the pansexual wars.
The declaration is a nothing, meaningless document. At best it acknowledges that gay people should not be persecuted. At worst it seems quite blind to the way sex is actually used in the culture.
In fairness, the declaration says “love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent.” I think that would preclude plenty of relationships. Unfortunately, where sex is mixed with the market, they are fighting a losing battle, even on that front.
Gregor insinuates that the sky is falling, but i don’t think she is right. Marriage is also about property relationships, and for that reason the state – and the culture – has an interest in defending it. But as long as single people can live lives without needing to get married, they may choose other options.
John, please, live as you want to. Just don’t bring God into it.
Possibly the most interesting lines in the article are: “Even the Anglican Communion Office in London is collaborating with proponents of the new sexual ethic in programs that will affect the entire Communion. The Anglican Communion Office has accepted [b]a $1.5 million gift from one of the signers of the Religious Declaration, retired TEC priest the Rev. Marta Weeks, to fund the Continuing Indaba Project[/b], the next phase of the Communion-wide listening process. The Continuing Indaba Project will be monitored by the Satcher Institute’s Center of Excellence for Sexual Health (CESH) at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Ga.” (my bold)
This indicates a complete lack of morals.
[blockquote]This indicates a complete lack of morals. [/blockquote]
For the signers, that’s not a bug, but a feature.
#3:
[blockquote]The declaration is a nothing, meaningless document.[/blockquote]
I’m not so sure about that. It tells us all that there are more than 200 clerics, including bishops, in TGC that have no problem with a host of sexual perversions, including homosexual sodomy, pedophilia, adultery, etc. They’re also quite fond of abortion, as the article says. These people are in positions to make policy. That’s not meaningless.
Marriage is NOT about property, not any more. Marriage is a spiritual matter; it is about a spiritual transformation, and the state can have no hand in its regulation. Civil partnerships are about property and this the state can deal with – but the church cannot and must not. Larry
RE: “I’m not so sure about that. It tells us all that there are more than 200 clerics, including bishops, in TGC that have no problem with a host of sexual perversions, including homosexual sodomy, pedophilia, adultery, etc. They’re also quite fond of abortion, as the article says. These people are in positions to make policy. That’s not meaningless.”
Yeh, but Jeffersonian — revisionists don’t mind any of that at all anyway. So yeh . . . for them the document is “meaningess” — what’s the problem?
Can someone tell me in what sense it is true that “by signing this declaration, they are not just advocating LGBT sexual “rights,” but the holiness of all consensual sex between lay or clergy people of any age, marital status or sexual orientation?” For one thing, the declaration doesn’t make any reference to “consensual sex” as a category one way or another. Seems to me she’s bearing false witness on the free sex front.
MarkP: Try this on for size:
Our culture needs a sexual ethic focused on personal relationships and social justice rather than particular sexual acts. All persons have the right and responsibility to lead sexual lives that express love, justice, mutuality, commitment, consent, and pleasure. Grounded in respect for the body and for the vulnerability that intimacy brings, this ethic fosters physical, emotional, and spiritual health. It accepts no double standards and applies to all persons, without regard to sex, gender, color, age, bodily condition, marital status, or sexual orientation.
Consent is not all it talks about, certainly. But consent is clearly an important item. And obviously “age, marital status, or sexual orientation” are specifically mentioned. I think you owe Ms. Gregor an apology for the “false witness” crack.
I should add, that the only part of Ms. Gregor’s sentence that you quote that is at all questionable is the “all” regarding consensual sex.
My point is that, far from saying any consensual sex is holy, it puts all sorts of limits on what might be considered holy. How can you say that a statement that says I have a responsibility to live out my sexuality in a way that expresses “love, justice, mutuality, commitment” endorses all consensual sex? Consensual sex could be unloving, for one thing, uncommitted for another — and this statement would clearly say it’s wrong. I’m not saying I’d sign this declaration, but I just don’t see how you can read this as saying it advocates “the holiness of all consensual sex between lay or clergy people.”
The Rev. Haffner, director of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, sponsored the statement signed by the 263 Episcopal clergy, educators and staff. She said this about it in the Huffington Post:
[i’]The Religious Institute has long called for a new sexual ethic to replace the traditional “celibacy until marriage, chastity after.” This new ethic is free of double standards based on sexual orientation, sex, gender or marital status. It calls for sexual relationships to be consensual, non-exploitative, honest, pleasurable and protected, whether inside or outside of a covenanted relationship. It insists that intimate relationships be grounded in communication and shared values.
And it applies to all adults — even those of us who are called to ministry. [i]
The Rev. Haffner understands the statement signed by the 263 Episcopal leaders to endorse a broad range of sexual practice, and one not bounded by the old Christian insistence on marriage or even monogomy in marriage or outside it, or clergy or for laity. Did all those who 263 clergy and educators who signed the statement have a clear understanding of what they were endorsing? Or were some lulled by the language of justice and authencity to ignore the fact that what is endorsed is nothing short of, well, . . . fornication and adultery? (Sorry, that the old words appear harsh, but this is exactly the behavior that the old words were meant to describe.) My guess is some signed knowingly and some not. But note the pattern: A statement with broad implications that is vague on specifics, but if parsed carefully, one that clearly indicates a radical shift in teaching. The fact that the words used are so innocuous compared to the enormity of their intent makes their intent that much harder for the good-hearted to discern. “Surely it can’t mean that,” they say, “it sounds so innocent and uses such lovely terms.” That is the key tactic, the distinguishing mark of what we are facing. The safest road to hell, as clever old Screwtape described it, is one with a gentle downward slope, no milestones, no sharp turnings. Let the meaning of the act be disclosed only when the thing is done and the time for repentence is past. That is the most subtle way to move people where they would not upon reflection choose to go.
That’s just the thing, MarkP, we can all agree on what marriage is and so sexual relations before/after and within/without are matters of unambiguity. What these revisionists are doing is trading in that Biblical standard on a fuzzy, ambiguous and ultimately personal standard that has precisely nothing to do with the Bible or Christ.
So when your diocese elects a transexual partnered with a 12 year-old boy and who spends his spare time forming committed, loving relationships with a series of guys down at the Port Authority, I’ll count on you pumping your fist into the air at the justice of it all.
Does it ever occur to these people that if sexual liberation was any part of the Good News Jesus might actually have said something about it?
A couple things: first of all, the “new sexual ethic” is already here. I imagine that in most parishes, churches don’t teach much of anything and congregations ignore their priest. Kind of like in the Catholic church. In my congregation people are most offended by having children out of wedlock: that’s irresponsible. They also think people should be private and polite about sex. Abortion is a tragedy, but a choice best made by the woman rather than the government.
I’m also struck by the statement “marriage is spiritual” and has nothing to do with property. The bible seems to be very concerned with property. By and large, women were the property of men, and children were the property of the family. Another term we might use is “stewardship.” Marriage helps us steward our souls. I would submit that how we handle our finances – our property – is just as much a matter of God’s concern as how we deal with sex.
I think we forget that 2000 years ago, sex was closely linked with property and death. Women were always at risk of dying in childbirth. Children were symbols of wealth. But thanks to capitalism and technology, all those links have been severed.
Ugh.
[blockquote]A couple things: first of all, the “new sexual ethic†is already here. I imagine that in most parishes, churches don’t teach much of anything and congregations ignore their priest. Kind of like in the Catholic church. In my congregation people are most offended by having children out of wedlock: that’s irresponsible. They also think people should be private and polite about sex. Abortion is a tragedy, but a choice best made by the woman rather than the government. [/blockquote]
That’s very stylish. It’s important that people keep up on the latest moral fads and spout the shallow rationalizations for them. Kudos for keeping your herd stampeding to the latest trendy saltlick, John.
John Wilkins: Does this mean that if you were a parish priest in a white South African congregation in the 1980’s that you would have meekly accepted apartheid just because that was the latest trend? What ever happened to a Gospel of Transformation?
MarkP:
I think that this is what is known as a “Mack truck” provision. Pretty much any consensual sex can arguably express “love”, “justice”, and “mutuality”. As far as “commitment” goes, what does that mean? 1 hour commitment, 1 day commitment, 1 week commitment, 1 month commitment? In today consumer-oriented society, “commitments” are typically time-limited temporary choices. Pretty much any “consensual sex between lay or clergy people†can be argued to be “holy” under these guidelines.
JW: “Abortion is a tragedy, but a choice best made by the woman rather than the government.” Let’s rephrase that: Murder is a tragedy, but a choice best made by individuals rather than the government. Okay?
Has anyone ever heard of Quiverfull? It isn’t a fantasy video game. Quiverfull, or rather the Quiverfull movement is an Evangelical Christian movement, and the reason why it’s getting more exposure is that the Duggard Family, stars of 18 Kids and Counting, are adherents – and the 19th is due next year. The name comes from Psalm 127 – “Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them” – them being children. The movement opposes any contraception – though they don’t mention the terrible poverty that typically accompanies such a policy or that most children living to adulthood is a modern phenomenon. One of their other famous adherents was Andrea Yates- and we all know how THAT turned out. I wouldn’t recommend giving a cash advance to the Quiverfull lobby.
Why is it that people who deconstruct Scripture and reduce it to meaninglessness, who say that Scripture can be reinterpreted to permit what the plain meaning clearly prohibits, are so sure that the Declaration “puts all sorts of limits on what might be considered holy. How can you say that a statement that says I have a responsibility to live out my sexuality in a way that expresses “love, justice, mutuality, commitment†endorses all consensual sex?” actually means what they say it means?
re no. 2: who is “TGC”? I lose track of the abbreviations at times.
“The Religious Institute has long called for a new sexual ethic to replace the traditional “celibacy until marriage, chastity after.—
Thanks, Episcodemus, for the quotation from the authors of the declaration. Now that I’ve read it, I can only think that the declaration was written to be a “Trojan horse”, and some or many of the people who signed it probably don’t know about the agenda of the Religious Institute.
Obviously, some people wouldn’t be able to sign it because of the way it treats homosexuality and abortion. But if those aren’t show stoppers for someone, I think he or she could read the rest of it as setting a higher bar for acceptable sexual expression, rather than a lower one. You all read the reference to no “double standards” based on marital status as meaning “sex outside of marriage may be ok,” but I think I’d be inclined to read it as saying “sex may not be ok just because it’s within marriage” (eg, a sexual act forced by a husband “enforcing his conjugal rights” is judged by the same standards of justice, mutuality, and so on as any other sexual act). That certainly is in line with the emphasis on sexual violence and exploitation elsewhere in the document.
Anyhow, I still say the document doesn’t say what Ms. Gregor says it says about the holiness of all consensual sex, which is where I came in, but I’m grateful to know a little more about the agenda of this outfit.
Br. Michael says, “people who deconstruct Scripture and reduce it to meaninglessness”
I can’t imagine why you think you know this about me, unless your involvement in the current debates in the church have taken away your ability to be charitable.
[blockquote]re no. 2: who is “TGC� I lose track of the abbreviations at times. [/blockquote]
Just following the lead of your [url=http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/7/8/you-bet-we-are-the-gay-church-bishop-robinson-says]most famous bishop.[/url]
[blockquote]By and large, women were the property of men, and children were the property of the family.[/blockquote]
John Wilkins,
You have repeatedly made this claim ever since you began to post on this blog. It is true that marriage has always concerned property, as any cultural anthropology text will state. If you think otherwise, simply observe the effects in any family setting in which one of the adult members dies without a written will.
This is quite different from your repeatedly stated claim that “women were the property of men.” I’m assuming you mean either in the OT period, or perhaps in the NT period as well. Could you document this exegetically, chapter and verse?
I’m always amused when the same people who claim that the plain sense meaning of biblical passages on sexuality is unclear, make absolute pronouncements on other matters (women were property) about which Scripture is absolutely silent.
[blockquote]Thanks, Episcodemus, for the quotation from the authors of the declaration. Now that I’ve read it, I can only think that the declaration was written to be a “Trojan horseâ€, and some or many of the people who signed it probably don’t know about the agenda of the Religious Institute. [/blockquote]
Oh, please. It’s not as if the agenda is under armed guard, for Pete’s sake, or even excluded from the very statement these clerics signed. When one looks at what revisionist Episcopalians did with a vague passage in their baptismal vows, you can drive jamesw’s sexual Mack truck through it.
Let’s look at it this way: Now that the RI’s agenda has been widely publicized because of this statement, has anyone stepped forward to say (s)he was unaware at the time of signing and now repudiates his or her signature? They went in eyes wide open, Mark…they know the agenda, and they agree with it.
John,
The “new sexual ethic” is nothing but the “ancient sexual ethic” packaged in different clothes. The Church fought against it then and should fight against it now. It is our problem, as clergy, that we don’t address this and pronounce the reasons that the Church’s view of sexuality is better than society’s.
Would you be willing to officiate at a wedding where either or both persons were rather upfront that they don’t consider sexual monogamy to be part of “faithfulness” – as long as it is “just” physical and they reserve emotional intimacy for their spouse? In other words, the phrase “but she didn’t mean a thing” would absolve the husband (or wife) of “infidelity” because the infidelity was only physical in nature and not emotional?
I teach my catechism classes (youth and adults) that sex was designed by God for marriage and should only be practiced inside marriage. All sex outside of marriage is sinful. I would hope you teach the same.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
‘Would you be willing to officiate at a wedding where either or both persons were rather upfront that they don’t consider sexual monogamy to be part of “faithfulness‒
I wouldn’t, and I don’t personally know any TEC clergy who would (nor any who would officiate at a wedding where the couple refused to sign the declaration described in the canons). Really, not one.
[blockquote]Really, not one. [/blockquote]
What about the 200-odd Episcopal priests and bishops who signed onto that exact thing?
“What about the 200-odd Episcopal priests and bishops who signed onto that exact thing? ”
As I have said before, the declaration does not say that.
Like your colleagues on the other side of the big issues, you guys spend too much time talking to yourselves and each other — you ought to get out and meet some mainstream episcopalians someday. They’re very mainstream, not the wild eyed libertines you enjoy imagining. There are substantive differences between you and your mirror images, but you and they do no good to your sides of the debate by projecting your darkest suspicions onto the vast TEC majority.
And the baptismal vow says nothing about consecrating non-celibate homosexual bishops. Yet here we are. If TGC’s leadership (which [i]is[/i] wild-eyed) can twist the baptismal vow into a green light for sodomite clergy, polyamory is a gimme putt with this declaration: More love! More commitment! More mutuality! More consent!
A child can see the way forward.
How very odd, and discouraging, that in the last forty years the only freedom actually to increase in the English-speaking world is that of individual sexual libertineism, including the right to kill inconvenient babies.
The Baby Boom generation — I was born in ’49 — has been an unmitigated social, cultural and economic disaster because most have no vision beyond their next orgasm.
I just love the fact that 200 hundred of the more radical, foaming at the mouth Episcopal bishops and professors and clergy signing on to Yet Another Woodstock Sexual Freedom Declaration are declared by MarkP to be “mainstream Episcopalians.”
And then we’re informed that we’re “projecting” our “darkest suspicions onto the vast TEC majority.”
No we’re not. That’s just it. The vast TEC majority don’t believe anything like this statement signed on by a bunch of wild-haired Episcopal kooks and loons from the fringe left who have well-demonstrated their fringiness throughout their life’s teaching and actions. [i]That’s why the denomination, of course, is in so much trouble.[/i] Because the people in the pews are being “led” [sic] by these guys and are gradually figuring out what they believe.
Thanks, Ralinda, for your publishing Yet Further Demonstrations of the sheer fruitiness of our Fearless TEC Leaders.
#30, I’m an agnostic about whether sex outside marriage is sinful or not, personally. I don’t think the church has a lot to say about it that is particularly accurate or relevant. I do think that it makes legitimate demands upon those who want a Christian marriage.
Sometimes sex is just sex. That’s the Jewish view. It is not always an abomination outside of marriage. And sometimes sex within marriage may be sinful, as in when a husband rapes a wife.
#28 you seem to insinuate that scripture is the only set of facts that is true. If it is not in scripture, then it may not be. Further, what scripture says may be wrong, such as the sun rising and the earth being made in seven days. My point is that the source of authority of wheter or not women were considered the property of – or subject to – men. A little hunting (could women divorce their husbands as easily as men could? Why did men have to take responsibility of the women they raped?) would indicate that women were socially dependent upon men.
My argument, which is rarely addressed, is that the consequences of sex have changed. There were plenty of fairly obvious reasons for women not to have sex (social shame, pregnancy, death), without some guarantee of material support.
If there weren’t a heaven or hell, would sex outside of marriage be sinful?
Wow, MarkP, I guess you’re right. Being an Episcopalian for 53 years at four different parishes in the small, ingrown village of Atlanta, Georgia is not enough experience in the big world to form any valid opinions on this matter. ;>)
[blockquote]#28 you seem to insinuate that scripture is the only set of facts that is true. If it is not in scripture, then it may not be. Further, what scripture says may be wrong, such as the sun rising and the earth being made in seven days. My point is that the source of authority of wheter or not women were considered the property of – or subject to – men. A little hunting (could women divorce their husbands as easily as men could? Why did men have to take responsibility of the women they raped?) would indicate that women were socially dependent upon men. [/blockquote]
Well, no. I’m not at all saying that scripture is the only source of authority that is true. I am trying to establish your warrant for a particular assertion, i.e., that, “by and large, women were the property of men.” As you state it, the proposition is impossibly broad. So the first question is, where and when were women the property of men? Are you asserting that this was true of women in the Bible? Women in fourth century Constantinople? Women in the Yukon in the nineteenth century?
[blockquote]A little hunting (could women divorce their husbands as easily as men could? Why did men have to take responsibility of the women they raped?) would indicate that women were socially dependent upon men.[/blockquote]
You have now modified your assertion. “Woman were socially dependent upon men” does not equate to “Woman were the property of men.” “Property” has a specific definition. Property refers to ownership. Property can be bought and sold. Property can be transferred form one individual to another for a price. Property has no say about who owns it or what is done to it. None of these applies to women, either in biblical times, or in other cultures.
Of course, different cultures at different times have had, and continue to have different rules about such things as divorce and remarriage, dowries, kinship relations, patrilineal or matrilineal accounting of descent. Any textbook on cultural anthropology discusses these things in depth–and every culture has very specific rules about what is or is not acceptable. None of this translates to “by and large, women were property.” That is not only an untrue, but also a nonsensical statement.
Bart Hall (Comment 35),
Thanks for your reflection on the Baby Boom Generation. They aren’t called the “ME” generation for nothing.
I have found generational theory extraordinarily helpful in understanding what is happening in the world.
William Strauss and Neil Howe, authors of the book “Generations” argue that there are four generational archetypes that repeat themselves over and over again in American and European history. Strauss and Howe look at the generation tracing things back to 1584.
The entry on wikipedia says, [blockquote]”The authors identify a pattern in these generations: each can be seen as belonging to one of four archetypes, that repeat sequentially. Every living generation therefore shows a remarkable parallel in character with generations of the same type throughout history. “Generations” plots a recurring cycle of spiritual awakenings and secular crises in American history, from the founding colonials through the present day.”[/blockquote]
They argue that Boomers are a part of the “Prophet” archetype.
The entry on wikipedia reads, [blockquote] “Prophets are values-driven, moralistic, focused on self, and willing to (see other people) fight to the death for what they believe in. They grow up as the increasingly indulged children of a High, come of age as the young crusaders of an Awakening, enter midlife as moralistic leaders during an Unraveling and are the wise, elder leaders of the next Crisis. The Boomers are an example of a Prophet generation.[/blockquote]
I believe we’re in the “crisis” era now. Twelve years ago, Strauss and Howe wrote the following in their book “The Fourth Turning”.
[blockquote]A CRISIS arises in response to sudden threats that previously would have been ignored or deferred, but which are now perceived as dire. Great worldly perils boil off the clutter and complexity of life, leaving behind one simple imperative: The society must prevail. This requires a solid public consensus, aggressive institutions, and personal sacrifice.
People support new efforts to wield public authority, whose perceived successes soon justify more of the same. Government governs, community obstacles are removed, and laws and customs that resisted change for decades are swiftly shunted aside. A grim preoccupation with civic peril causes spiritual curiosity to decline. A sense of public urgency contributes to a clampdown on “bad†conduct or “anti-social†lifestyles. People begin feeling shameful about what they earlier did to absolve guilt. Public order tightens, private risk-taking abates, and crime and substance abuse decline. Families strengthen, gender distinctions widen, and child-rearing reaches a smothering degree of protection and structure. The young focus their energy on worldly achievements, leaving values in the hands of the old. Wars are fought with fury and for maximum result.
Eventually, the mood transforms into one of exhaustion, relief, and optimism. Buoyed by a new-born faith in the group and in authority, leaders plan, people hope, and a society yearns for good and simple things.
Today’s older Americans recognize this as the mood of the Great Depression and World War II, but a similar mood has been present in all the other great gates of our history, from the Civil War and Revolution back into colonial and English history.
Recall America’s conception of the future during the darkest years of its last Crisis: From “Somewhere over the Rainbow†to the glimmering Futurama at the 1939 New York World’s Fair, people felt hope, determination, and a solid consensus about where society should go: toward spiritual simplicity (home and apple pie) and material abundance (bigger, better, and more homes and pies). All this seemed within reach, conditioned on a triumph that demanded unity from all, sacrifices from many.[/blockquote]
I say all of that to make my point here. The Boomer Generation is following the pattern of all other generations of the Prophet Archetype. They will fight over ideals and sometimes fight over them to the breaking point. The culture wars of the last 20 years are the beginnings of this, but we’re only beginning to feel the effects of the Fourth Turning in our churches. Boomers join and leave churches over ideals – it matters not whether those ideals are left or right leaning. It scares me that most of our bishops are Boomers, often alienating the other generations with their rancor, both right and left. They often fight over ideals rather than the many other things that they could be doing. In TEC this has meant fighting for or against human sexuality issues to the neglect of other things.
Your comment suggests that you despair because Boomers haven’t en masse been on the side of the issue that you take (although I think you are very much right that Boomers have been an unmitigated economic disaster, seeking to concentrate much wealth in their own hands). I would suggest on the other hand that by their being a part of the “Prophet” generational archetype means that they collectively don’t have much vision beyond their individual idealistic vision of the world whether conservative or liberal.
Churches should be putting the most eggs in the basket of the millennial generation (those born between 1981-2000) who as a part of the Hero archetype will be charged with rebuilding institutions after the crisis, and developing millennial leaders. Regardless of whether we’re inside or outside TEC, we all need strong millennial leaders to carry the torch forward. The sooner we get on with that the better.
I notice two bishops on the list of signatories associated with the Diocese of Olympia. At least one, Rivera, sometimes goes to youth weekends and a 6-day summer retreat for high school kids. I wonder what rhetoric gets applied to admonish the folks to not pair up (any kind of pairs, of course) at night…Or does it? If so, how does she explain that it’s not OK for them but is OK for bishops, clergy, etc? Does a church have any special liability if it doesn’t discourage statutory rape at events like this? Seems they’ve already got enough lawsuits already.
I would be cautious, Jeffersonian (Nos. 2 and 27), in relying too much on New Hampshire’s Episcopal bishop. I think he is a bit undisciplined in his thought processes and tends to focus on issues that are a very small element of the overall scope of the Christian church. That is just my opinion. And why you think I am from New Hampshire escapes me. It’s a lovely place, but I have never contended that I live there (the winters would wear on me, I think). In any event, while I assume no one who comments here thinks that any sinner should be shunned or impeded from their approach to the church (attendance would be very slight indeed if we adhered to that standard), I know very few Episcopalians who are what you and Bishop Robinson describe as “Gay”. So I would contest your (pl.) efforts to describe the Church by reference to sexual orientations of any subgroup of parishioners. It’s not a meaningful descriptor.
[blockquote]And why you think I am from New Hampshire escapes me. [/blockquote]
Sorry, my “your” referred to Episcopalians, not New Hampshireans (sp?). I’d have to be pretty thick to miss the “NoVA.” In deference to VGR, I’ll stick with the moniker.
John,
I believe that you agreed to “be loyal to the doctrine, disicline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them.” How then can you say that sex outside of marriage is not sinful? The church has always taught them to be sinful. If you can’t teach what the Church teaches, then you do you uphold yourself as a leader and teacher in the Church?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
My preference would be that the Elves would pounce on references to the Episcopal Church as “The Gay Church” whether abbreviated or not. As used by Jeffersonian, it is intended to be gratuitously pejorative and does not accurately describe the church, Gene Robinson’s urgings notwithstanding.
Marriage is NO LONGER about property in any sense. When Vermont separated civil unions from marriage, then a division was made which now is widely accepted as both just and inevitable. Mind you, I do not agree that women were “property” in the OT or the NT, but that is not the issue or my point.
In the past, issues of property and sacramental marriage were treated as indistinguishable, but this is simply no longer the case.
If one is married and dies without a will, this is not a problem with marriage properly so called. It is an issue of the civil partnership which the couples entered into when they took out a marriage license, a function of the state, not of the marriage’s religious nature.
I am aware that this is called a marriage license, but it is not a license to get married, it is a declaration that those benefits which are granted to married people by the state will be granted to this couple, and these benefits are all civil matters – and it covers, among other things, the spouse when one dies intestate.
In any case, marriage properly so called has been clarified and rationalized as it should have been long ago, and the civil now must be severed from the sacramental – as it should have been long ago.
Larry
RE: “So I would contest your (pl.) efforts to describe the Church by reference to sexual orientations of any subgroup of parishioners.”
He didn’t try to describe the church by reference to sexual orientations of subgroups. He described the church by reference to its rather clear and overwhelming obsession with all things gay, including dozens of resolutions at its latest highest legislative body, among other things. There’s no question — from the media, the worldwide communion, fellow Christians, dioceses, parishes, and etc — that TEC is truly absorbed in an all-consuming compulsion to promote societal blessings and acceptance of gay gay gay gay gay gay gay. It would be a humorous caricature in the hands of an imaginative novelist to list all of the activities that TEC engages in to be The Gay Church . . . but sadly, their actions are not the product of a fevered writer’s mind but rather reality.
And thus, yes . . . it’s a brilliantly meaningful descriptor, used by both Gene Robinson and Jeffersonian.
In the case of Jeffersonian it does not have to be *intended* to be used pejoratively. A church described as wholly absorbed in the contemplation of the glories of same-gender sexual relationships is lost, sick, and corrupt. And yes, that’s bad intrinsically whether intended so or no.
Personally I prefer Gene Robinson’s later description of The Episcopal Church as more descriptive and accurate, however. I don’t think NoVA Scout would like that one any better either.
[blockquote]It would be a humorous caricature in the hands of an imaginative novelist to list all of the activities that TEC engages in to be The Gay Church…[/blockquote]
I hereby nominate Tom Wolfe, who touched magnificently on the subject in “I Am Charlotte Simmons.”
#44 – Of course I teach what the church teaches. I also teach people how to think theologically. I ask them to consider the best argument the church has for maintaining sex within marriage. I ask them to see things the way God might see things, using prayer and reflection. I also am clear that the world is different.
William: my main point is that capitalism, affluence and technology have changed the foundations for how we talk about sex. By and large, the taxonomy or the cloud of associations around what constituted “sex” is much different.
I don’t buy the argument is that “we’ve done it this way for 2000 years, so why change?” What I do want is for people to think about why the church teaches what it does. I believe that the church wants sex within marriage not because God has a particular interest in the rules for their own sake, but because marriage is beneficial for people.
Is this rewriting the rules? Well, the problem is that the rules are being rewritten whether we like it or not. People have stopped taking the church seriously about sex, and consider its views quaint at best, and hypocritical at worst.
In other words, your theology boils down to, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” In your shallow attempt to be relevant, you make yourself irrelevant. Or, as Oscar Wilde once quipped, “Nothing is so dangerous as being too modern; one is apt to grow old-fashioned quite suddenly.”