Yesterday, Question 1 provided each of us with the opportunity to exercise our franchise, to express our support for the right of same-gender couples to be afforded the full rights and responsibilities of a civil marriage or to disagree. Yesterday, Mainers chose to disagree.
Many faithful Episcopalians are deeply grieved at this decision. They had hoped that they and their families might enjoy the recognition and protections afforded heterosexual couples. The rejection of the law also feels like rejection of them as persons. I join in their grief that the right of same gender couples to enter into a lifelong, monogamous marriage has been denied. At the same time I know there are other faithful Episcopalians who are thankful about the election results. I understand that this matter has been a matter of conscience for them. Although the question of same-gender civil marriage may be settled in Maine for now, I would remind all Episcopalians ”“ both here in Maine and across the wider Church ”“ that we will continue the conversation about these issues for years to come.
Rejection of bad law is not a rejection of persons. Is there a class in category confusion required for bishops?
“We will continue the conversation…”
Thanks, Bishop.
Forewarned is forearmed.
“Many faithful Episcopalians are deeply grieved at this decision.”
At least he didn’t say many faithful Christians are deeply grieved …
Whether people like it or not, those under 30 see same-sex marriage as just. Those over 65 don’t. It’s just a matter of time before things change, but it will happen quietly. Gay people should not fret, because by and large, the culture won’t have time to refuse them the legal protections they desire.
Of course, I’m always perplexed at why they would want to be part of an institution straight people are themselves poor at upholding, most of whom, by their actions, don’t respect anyway.
Yes John, it is true that a lot of children are taught by our public schools that same gender couples are being discriminated against. I know, I’m a teacher in a very liberal high school. If the administration knew I was for traditional marriage, I would have been fired for being a “homophobe” long ago. Yet…a lot of my students don’t think it’s ok… there is still this idea that “hey, this isn’t right” by the students. Also, in this poor economy, more people may start turning to God, and in doing so may join a church without so many “over 65’s.” This doesn’t bode well for the gay marriage cause.
No hat tip to Christianity, just a reference to those bound by ‘conscience’ to their ‘archaic opinions.‘ Not very pastoral.
He might better have said: ‘we cognoscenti will continue our campaign to force you to accept this worldly, unbiblical social innovation – and if you bigots don’t like it: leave.’
🙄
“Continuing the conversation” has begun to feel like a threat, hasn’t it? I thought the responses of the Catholic bishops posted above this one were good.
People can change their views as they mature.
The conversation is over in the Episcopal Church the liberals will politely listen to the conservative, then move on full speed with their agenda.
At least he recognized Episcopalians that feel differently, and without insult. For ECUSA, that’s unusual.
That’s true, Phil.
I agree. Most of the young people I know have issues with it or are at least conflicted on the issue. I don’t think it is simply a matter of “wait until the old geezers die” syndrome.
I would just add to John Wilkins and #11 – society is not just “under 30” and “old geezers.” There are a big block of us between those segments that are also opposed to these kinds of innovations. With respect to under 30s, I think many of us also know from experience that our views change as we age, have families and get a better perspective on life – in other words, “grow up.” I don’t expect under 30s to maintain the same views they have on morality in their 40s any more than I expect them to be partying with the same vigor.
Yes – I’m not a believer in absolute progress.
People can change their views about race; women might be forced to wear the veil. people might decide to find God and disapprove of gay sex. Others might find God and approve.
And there will be plenty of people who disapprove of homosexuality. I’m sure a few under 30 will still disapprove. In fact, those who are most vocal against homosexuality are the ones who have the most internal demons. But as a whole, it will become a non-issue.
The reason why people are changing has little to do with education. It has to do with the fact that people have gay friends, brothers, sisters, and parents. Forty years ago, people were in the closet. One could beat up a gay person and get away with it. But it’s much harder to tell a gay brother or sister that they’re going to hell.
Of course, there are a lot of young people who think that Christianity means homophobia, and for that reason they refuse to join the church. They may be wrong, but reasserters are going to have tough marketing. If you’re over 60, I’d like to hear about your attempts to convince a person younger than 25 your righteousness. One who isn’t churched.
[url=http://www.unchristian.com/Unchristian.[/url] It’s going to be a tough market for reasserters.
John Wilkins: “In fact, those who are most vocal against homosexuality are the ones who have the most internal demons.” If you disagree with JW, you’ve got something wrong with you. Tolerance apparently only goes one way.
I suppose some churches might consider it marketing, such as the much vaunted and highly effective Decade of Evangelism.â„¢
However, I can’t imaging that it will help such efforts when the esse of the church is experience. This Gen-Xer can readily see the resulting incoherence – a church that drifts with the current of popular experience. One small example? At convention, the Dio. of Maine referred to: “God… who is Mother and Father of us all…”
Whatever.
But then again, I don’t frequent buffet restaurants, either.
😉
This is really a pretty good statement, all in all. I continue to be extremely unimpressed with the arguments offered on behalf of redefining marriage with their seemingly breezy dismissals of the Law of Unintended Consequences. It may well be that the equation of the homosexual movement with the Civil Rights struggle will carry the day eventually – which I think would be a sad thing – but it gets increasingly dubious. The specifics here seem to argue against any such oversimplification and pretty much all of us are well aware that homosexuals are generally nice people. That’s never been the issue. Most of the responses I’ve seen thus far have continued the unfortunate tendency of most of the Homosexual Movement’s avatars to tar those who oppose them with bigotry. Suffice to say, there’s reason to suspect that this approach will not be particularly helpful when it comes to selling the product. I suppose it faint praise to laud the good bishop for not indulging in the sort of rhetoric that all too often gets splashed around in the wake of yet another popular setback for the latest 30 year-old Wave of the Future, though the civil rights blarney does get tedious. Still, there’s a grace in being grateful for small things.
#13, JW+, what internal demons? Being vocal against homosexual conduct means you have mental problems? Means you are demonic? I’ve tried not to be too cynical and say, as I’ve read so often, that “progressives” such as you really do think you are more enlightened than the rest of us and ultimately, the rest of us will either die or be converted to your more enlightened way of thinking. But, alas, I’m afraid you just let the cat out of the bag. You and your ilk really do believe that. Well, alrighty then. Gloves off; no more misconceptions. Good to know how to respond or if to respond from now on.
I do agree that younger people do not have as much problem with homosexual conduct as older people. But, the wisdom of youth is quite suspect. And with age, often does come wisdom. I would not expect that view to hold, especially as young people marry, have children, and begin to interact in a greater strata of society. To assume it will, does not show much wisdom in and of itself.
Taking another tack, you can’t help but note the striking difference between the statements made by RC bishops about the Maine vote, and TEC’s +Stephen Lane. Talk about “differentiation.” It couldn’t be more plain.
And that’s why I actually welcome +Lane’s statement. No attempt at fudge here or straddling the fence. He’s chosen one side, just like the RC bishops have the opposite side, and he doesn’t pretend to be neutral. I respect that, and I just wish a lot more bishops did the same.
Of course, +Lane is totally wrong, but it’s refreshing just the same. It should also help the ACNA in Maine.
David Handy+
as a young person myself, i have to disagree with the above assessments which dismiss young people’s views on homosexuality as something which will wane with the onset of wisdom in later years. first, let me assure you that young people, speaking of the demographic generally, are certainly or the majority (admittedly not unanimous) opinion that these questions are non-issues, or else issues that we need to work to support. the difference between those who grew up years ago and we who grow up now is, as stated above, that we all know and love openly gay and lesbian people. growing up years ago, one grew much more into the established wisdom which said that lgbt people should just stay in their closets — out of sight, out of mind. thus, now as wise [sic] adults, you share that same “wisdom.” the difference will be that we actually realize that gay and lesbian people do exist and are not the wicked people so often portrayed, notably in conservative christian circles. thus, it is hard for me to imagine us growing into that same “out of sight, out of mind” mentality; we know better than that.
As young adults grow up the first thing they will hopefully learn is that only a small number pf those against gay marriage think that homosexuals do not exist or that they are wicked.
Some young adults might become christians and realize that the Bible clearly and consistently rejects homosexual acts (not people) and change their position trusting that God had a reason for creating us male and female.
Other young adults that do not believe the Bible (whether not they call themselves Christian) might question why the state should recognize homosexual relationships. If the state recognizes homosexual relationships what not others? The logical conclusion would be to total redefine the requirements, rights, responsibilities and privileges of what was once called marriage or realize that, even if they don’t understand why, traditional marriage is special and worth keeping.
Once young adults lose their prejudice against those who oppose same sex marriage, they might open their minds to other truths.
While there was less of the “in one’s face” conduct from homosexuals in earlier times, that did not mean that us older folks did not know and love homosexual persons, when we were younger, nor does it mean that we don’t today, nor are or were they considered “wicked” people by us older folks. Those sort of comments are judgments often made by persons of little knowledge or wisdom, who would like for that to be the case, because they have no other argument to make for SSM or in support of homosexual lifestyles. Attacking the messenger is always easier than debating the issues. Facts are that, generally, older folk often are more tolerant of all kinds of behavior and people than younger folk, because older folk have been around more and different behavior and people than those of lesser years. But younger folk never understand that until they become older folk, nor did I when I was younger. But younger folk are always sure they will never be or think like older folks, as did I.
The ultimate point to me in all of this is that younger folk see this as a civil rights issue, because civil rights is all they’ve ever known. Any minority in their lifetimes that raised its hand for recognition was said to have a civil right for whatever such minority wanted, and younger folk have been conditioned to go along with that. As one gets older, and for those of us past 60, homosexual conduct has never been a civil rights issue, because it is conduct, not a skin color or a gender. Additionally, in our lifetimes there has been a history of such conduct not being right by nature or right by theology. To us, there has been no change to make this conduct more acceptable other than the appeal to make it a “civil right,” which it is not. So Bp Lane’s arguments are not theological arguments at all, but arguments for societal civil rights, which he may argue as a private citizen but may be a misuse of the diocesan mechanism to put forth his own political doctrine. I would hope that distinction is self-evident, not requiring much wisdom.
I think John is right, but for reasons beyond those which he mentioned. Not only do young people not see homosexuality as an issue, they also increasingly do not have the same level of respect for marriage. Young people are cohabitating more, marrying later, and divorcing at a higher rate. As they have less and less respect for marriage, the less arguments about its traditional characteristics are going to matter. And I think we would all here agree that problems within heterosexual marriage (later and lower marriage rates, higher divorce rates, infidelity, etc…) are indeed alarming and perhaps even more significant to the state of marriage in this country and Western society as a whole.
As an aside, fascinatingly enough there is evidence that young people increasingly do have a problem with abortion. So it remains to be seen what the future cultural landscape of our society will look like.
Where I disagree with John is in the strawman he and most liberals set up. I for one am not telling my gay friends they’re going to hell. If their’s is a sin, it is no worse a sin than any I have. The Western understanding of marriage has certainly changed over time. Monogamy certainly seems to be a late development in scripture. But its fundamental characteristic has been nearly universal in the human experience (cross culturally and throughout time, marriage has nearly always been for man and woman), and that gives some of us pause when considering making changes to such a fundamental cultural institution. There are also serious theological questions remaining about exactly how a homosexual relationship qualifies under the Christian understanding of marriage. It doesn’t mean I hate gay people, it means I don’t see how their relationships match any sort of catholic theology of marriage.
Marriage is in trouble in this society. Yet for the last twenty years my church, the ELCA, has fixated on gay and lesbian sexuality while spending NO time or money investing in shoring up heterosexual marriage and family. We reap what we sow. And now the ELCA has become the same sort of sect as TES. It is beyond frustrating. It means both our churches have nothing to offer a next generation that is forgetting how to “do” marriage and family. And the children are the ones who are paying the price for this Boomer hubris.
#4, John Wilkins, given your premise, how do you explain the disaster in the ECUSA/TEC which has a median age of 64, IIRC, and certainly is not run by under-30-year olds (other than in manners and mentality)?
I don’t think your age discrimination very edifying.
But you can’t have it both ways. If this is true:
[blockquote]In fact, those who are most vocal against homosexuality are the ones who have the most internal demons.[/blockquote]
then what does that say about those who are the most vocal about demanding that homosexuals and lesbians be given access to elementary schools for forced indoctrination of students down to kindergarten in the equality of same-sex marriage with hetero marriage, the bigotry of using terms such as “husband” and “wife”, in exploring their sexual identity by giving homosexuality a whirl, proper technique in condom use, or those engaged in forced outing in workplaces, witch-hunts to force supporters of state DOMA laws out of their employment (such as a liberal museum director in CA after Prop 8), publishing home addresses and telephone nos. of anyone opposed to their lobbying with encouragement to engage in harassment or worse against them, the push for the “Fairness act” that would certainly be used exclusively against Christian broadcasters, and many others that could be added? Could it be remotely possible that they have an imp or two inside as well? Just sayin’…
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
Elf edits graciously accepted. My point was left intact, and I sincerely thank you for allowing it to stand.
Milton: I’m vocal about the gay issue in the Church because I’m 1) gay and 2) theology was my subject at university. They sound like good reasons to me to be articulate about the issue.
What I simply cannot understand is why so many people who 1) haven’t a clue what it’s like being gay, and 2) aren’t well-versed in theology either get so het up about the issue. It’s not like there are any pressing problems created by straight people in society for them to be so vexed about, is it? Teenage pregnancies, high divorce and child abandonment rates, delinquent teenagers: is the gay community to blame for all these, or would it look a bit more adult if straight Christians spent more energy dealing with them than scowling at gay people, perhaps?
Fr. Mark, I am not scowling at gay or lesbian people. I work with several of both who are some of the most pleasant and professional co-workers I can recall at several workplaces. The last elementary school where I taught had an excellent assistant principal who everyone both liked and respected and was known to be a partnered, though not in-your-face, lesbian. If you read comment #13 from which I quoted, you may see that I am simply giving the gander the same sauce as the goose. Perhaps the actions of those on the side of militant GLBT activism are harder for you to perceive as harassment and intimidation, but I did not make any of them up. They are real occurrences in the US, not Britain with its SORs or Canada with its government tribunals that impose ruinous fines and forced “reeducation” on business owners not sufficiently supportive and celebratory of trumpeting the glory of being gay.
No, I don’t know what it’s like to be gay, or an alcoholic, or physically handicapped (other than being very nearsighted and having a persistent pinched nerve that makes me unable to fully control my right hand), or any number of things. I do know what it’s like to be a sinner, as we are all born rebels against God, and I lived in that rebellion nearly 40 years. I know what it’s like to be a forgiven sinner for 12 years now, and what it’s like to be, not affirmed by Jesus just as I was in my sin with no changes, but rather transformed by Jesus’ blood shed on the cross for me and for all guilty sinners, and to know that it is by His grace I am saved, not by my works. I know what it’s like to be delivered from addiction to pornography overnight, and not ever go back to it or want to go back to it because Jesus in His living presence fills what used to be the empty place in my soul that I used to try to fill with porn. I know what it’s like to have the Holy Spirit alive in me giving me true life, not the living death I lived for 38 years. I know what it’s like to die to my old self and to my lusts and live to God in Christ Jesus. “For I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives within me; and the life I now live, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.” (Galatians 2:20)
The “pressing problems” you mention are indeed real and have devastating consequences for individuals and for our society as a whole and are just as much an offense as any GLBT sins in the eyes of God who is holy, holy, holy so even the cherubim had to cover their faces with two of their six wings, unable to bear to look directly at the glory of the LORD, which caused Isaiah to cry out in despair at his own filthiness in comparison. And none of our sins are excused simply by pointing out that we are not the only sinners.
Fr. Mark, since you imply that anyone, myself for instance, who objects to homosexual or lesbian relationships being held as having integrity and sanctity (to use ACoC’s phrase) is not well-versed in theology, unlike yourself, whose subject (your major?) was theology at whatever university you attended, please enlighten us. I would be fascinated to read your description of what exactly comprises Christian theology, especially as distinguishing it from secular humanism and from the other major world religions. Nothing marks a thorough knowledge of a subject so much as the ability to boil down complex subjects and convoluted terminology to clearly and easily understood illustrations. C. S. Lewis was an absolute master of this, and R. C. Sproul is one contemporary example. Do illuminate the real meaning of the “clobber passages” in the Bible while you’re at it, and don’t forget to reconcile Jesus’ affirmation to the Pharisees of marriage as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman as described in Genesis, as well as His unequivocal statement of all other sexual relationships (pornea) being sin, with same-sex blessings in TEC. For someone as well-versed in theology as yourself, that should be a piece of cake!
#24 – pretty easy Dmstroud. It is easy to be a liberal, until it comes to music or liturgy. A grand father might die for his gay grandson, but not for his music.
Until the Episcopal church decides to let young people into power, it will decline.
Milton, it’s hard to have a discussion when you’ve already made up your mind. That you are searching the scriptures for God rather than looking around you at God’s work, would be one opening discussion;
But I will tell you that my faith, my religion, my God, My Christ cannot be boiled down to a creed; a proposition, an ethical calculus about sex. Christ has command over a life; my urge to light a candle in memory of a lost one; cradling a child who has been baptized; singing songs of liberation with friends. Jesus did not die on the cross for theology of any sort; and I pray to God one doesn’t need a correct theology to get into heaven.
Clearly, Milton, you tend to read scripture more like a fundamentalist than Jesus, who seemed to be a lot more playful with the text than you are. What of the Sabbath, for example? And what do you think of what Jesus said about family relations? It’s easy to say that Jesus thinks whatever we think is true.
So what do we do? How about the great commandment? That’s where it begins, and that is probably where it will end. The rest is commentary.
John Wilkins, I will thank you to stop putting words in my mouth. Now. Nowhere in my comments on this thread or any other thread or in any context in my life did I say or imply that Jesus died for any theology of any sort. MY words (not yours put in my mouth) in #28 were:
If you read from those words that I assert that Jesus died for theology, then that explains all that is necessary about how you interpret Scripture with eisegesis rather than exegesis and how reflexively by second nature you project your own closed-mindedness onto those who disagree with your own made-up mind.
Here’s another slander I will thank you to take back or stand as an exposed liar:
What arrogant gall you have! I didn’t search the Scriptures or begin to want to search them until God first saved me in spite of my awful self, having patiently searched for this lost black sheep who insisted on wandering until too sick and exhausted spiritually to run any more.
I notice you have offered no answer to the request I made of Fr. Mark, who I assume is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. As is your usual MO, you (1)ignore what you have no answer for, (2)change the subject, (3)make tolerant-sounding vague generalities with nothing to back them up, and (4)fling baseless charges in place of coherent rebuttals or arguments.
(1)The entire last paragraph of #28
(2)The substance of most of your comments
(3)Specific examples, please, for: “Jesus, who seemed to be a lot more playful with the text than you are. What of the Sabbath, for example? And what do you think of what Jesus said about family relations?”
(4)To your slanders against me I have already quoted, add this example: “It’s easy to say that Jesus thinks whatever we think is true.” Certainly if I had tried to use Jesus as my ventriloquist’s dummy, I would have re-written His script as extensively as the Jesus Seminar did. You stand guilty of your own charge by this and most of your other comments.
John, you have yet another opportunity to change my “made-up” mind in a discussion, this time by offering us “your description of what exactly comprises Christian theology, especially as distinguishing it from secular humanism and from the other major world religions” and the rest following that portion. Stop hiding behind vague generalities, accusations, slandering those who disagree with you, and changing the subject while ignoring honest questions in a real discussion rather than the indaba-Delphi process-group-think manipulation that TEC leaders call a discussion.
[Would commenters please be careful to avoid ad hominem characterisations of other commenters and keep to the topic which is specifically about Bishop Lane and Maine – Elf]
Milton,
My apologies for touching a nerve. The nature of blogging.
A couple things, philosophically.
First of all, one of the problems is that Gay people have found that Jesus has liberated them from the secrecy of closet. His Grace led them from lives of promiscuity that resulted from Shame to lives of self-control, that began from self-acceptance. Some gay people find that Jesus loves them, as gay people, and that strengthens their relationships. They go from relationships based on conquest to relationships based on love.
Second, why Eisegesis rather than exegesis? It is an arbitrary, while sensible and relativistic, place to begin. Does one need to start there? Augustine didn’t. Neither, I suspect would have Jerome. you can have that opinion to be saved, but a Good Christian need not.
What are the differences? Well, the basic distinction between Christianity and other religions is the impact of the resurrection, or the illumination provided by the resurrection onto the reality of the cross. Of course Hindus believe that any Good Yogi can be resurrected. The meaning of the resurrection, of course, is different.
Right?
After all, what makes Christianity unusual can’t be a distaste of homosexuality. That’s pretty universal. All sorts of religions don’t like homosexuality. Even Atheists like Mao and Stalin, who considered it part of Capitalist decadence.
As far as a difference between secular humanism, I’m sure that there is plenty of overlap – coming from and Indian Background, without secularism, my Christian cousins would have to live in a Hindu state. Humanists probably find parts of Christian ethics appealing.
But I suspect that a belief in God might, possibly, distinguish a religious humanist and a secular humanist. Secularism, I think, is more of a political sensibility: that states should be agnostic when making supernatural claims. I guess that makes me a secularist. I find it hard to prove the existence of heaven when making policy choices. But I do believe in God. Not one that behaves anthropomorphically, like Superman, but one that is within and above creation, as the Orthodox believe.
Pardon the directness, and the flip tone of my previous comment, Milton. I apologize. It’s sadly easy to forget there is a feeling person behind the screen.
John, just a short reply for now and a longer one tomorrow afternoon. This afternoon (Wed.) I had cataract extraction and lens implant surgery on my right eye following the same on my left eye a week before, so I cannot focus on text well since astigmatism will make reading glasses necessary after what would other wise make glasses unnecessary at all. The patch comes off the right eye at the follow-up tomorrow morning, and maybe it will focus well close-up and at distance before I get reading glasses. God is truly giving me my eyes back from being nearly unusable a year and a half ago from light sensitivity and dry eye syndrome.
I did read your reply quickly last night and wanted to say before tomorrow that your gracious heart came through quite warmly to my heart. All apologies accepted as though the hurt happened to someone else a long time ago, reading an old news story. I ask your forgiveness for my strident tone and words as well. What I read last night was an actual discussion with someone with whom I likely will continue to differ on many things, but in honest, considerate and genuine engagement with a fellow believer in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, once dead and nevermore to die. Iron sharpens iron, and I don’t mind sparks being struck from me by very different views when it is done honestly and with respect. Your reply yesterday is a model of that, and I am most grateful.
So, tomorrow for a real reply, when I hope to use Google Chrome at normal size instead of zoomed in like St. Paul’s large letters with his own hand! 😉 If I reply later than that, it will be from waiting to focus clearly close-up (I proofed this the best I can at the moment.) God’s blessings and peace to you, my brother!