But if homosexuality is not a sure path to sin, there are other human qualities that are: self-righteousness, recklessness, pride most of all. I believe the diocese of Los Angeles is guilty of all of these.
The American Episcopal Church contains about two million of the 70 million congregants in the world-wide Anglican communion, of which Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is the spiritual head. Since many congregants belong to far more conservative churches in Africa and South America, the archbishop, undoubtedly a friend to gays, nonetheless joined with other leaders in a 2004 plea for the American church to stop promoting active homosexuals. His intent, clearly, was to avoid schism.
When news of Rev. Glasspool’s election reached him, he issued an immediate statement warning American Episcopalians that they had put “our bonds of mutual affection” at risk.
Los Angeles Bishop Jon Bruno’s response was graceless and silly. Archbishop Williams, he said, was “the titular head of our church, and I don’t think we should capitulate to a titular head.”
This is one of the most reasoned articles I have read on the conflict in the church today. Unfortunately his conclusion that the place he will find to worship is probably in neither camp currently using the word “Episcopal” is more common than we like to admit. I admire the fact that he deals squarely with the arrogance shown by Bp. Bruno and those of like minds. Maybe we should all read a little more Victor Hugo and a little less of the hysterical drama we get from “we must all march in lock step towards progress”. Great reading for us all.
Unconvincing even when accurate in actual facts because it substitutes still human values above God’s revelation and, voile’, the author’s personal feelings are valued and assumed to be true with no pretence at verification. Such assumption has a definite outcome. One prominently on display in the Anglican Communion due to the actions of ECUSA/TEc on those assumptions.
Moral relativism.
RE: “The tragedy of sin is the harm it does to the sinner and others. But in these relationships, where is the harm? Where is the sin? I have never met anyone who could convincingly answer those questions.”
One might say the same thing about *all* consensual relationships — between adult siblings, polyamorous, those with signed consent forms from the life-challenged, and on and on it goes.
About as good as you’re gonna get from a reappraiser. What jumped out at me was:
“The tragedy of sin is the harm it does to the sinner and others. But in these relationships, where is the harm? Where is the sin? I have never met anyone who could convincingly answer those questions.â€
He’s barking up the wrong tree. If he’s looking for a convincing answer, you can’t ask just “anyone”; you have to ask God (hint: look in the Bible). Sin goes counter to the will of God, but is often sadly congruent with our own will. Consulting yourself or your fellow man about the nature of sin sooner or later will only lead you astray.
The real tragedy of sin isn’t the harm it does us, it’s the harm it does God. That’s why we need scripture to bear witness to the nature of sin. In scripture God reveals the devastation sin creates at every level. Without that witness, it’s easy, even natural, for us to wink at sin.
Philosophers have measur’d mountains,
Fathom’d the depths of seas, of states, and kings,
Walk’d with a staffe to heav’n, and traced fountains:
But there are two vast, spacious things,
The which to measure it doth more behove:
Yet few there are that sound them; Sinne and Love.
I can remember when most Americans thought that “Pride†was a sin, or at least a trait that should be avoided by reasonable people, but now we are called upon to recognize many organization’s claims that we should recognize their pride in their ethnicity, their sexuality or anything else they can think of. Activist organizations that indulge their prideful demands don’t seem to understand the old truism that “Pride goeth before the fallâ€.
It’s interesting that this appeared in the Wall Street Journal, and that the author, who appears to be relatively young, admits to having become a Christian as an adult.
As for his query about where is the harm in being gay, while Sarah’s retort is very apt, I would try to answer the author’s apparently sincere question by pointing to the serious medical risks gay sex poses for men. For unfortunately, quite apart from AIDS, there is massive evidence that gay men suffer from a variety of maladies that shorten their lifespan to an alarming degree. In particular they are subject to a frighteningly high rate of serious infections, due to perforations of the thinly-lined anal passageway.
Bottom line: the vagina was designed for sex; the anus wasn’t. And the frequency with which gay men practice anal intercourse puts them at great risk for infections that batter their immune system and shorten their lives. That argument is often a wake-up call for those naive folk like this author at the WSJ that suppose that gay sex between two consenting adults is harmless.
David handy+
Bottom line?