The Archbishop of Canterbury’s office yesterday described the election of an openly lesbian bishop in the United States as “regrettable” and warned that it could further threaten the unity of the Anglican Communion.
The London office of Dr Rowan Williams responded to the election of Canon Mary Glasspool to a suffragan see in Los Angeles by warning of “important implications”. The statement from Lambeth Palace said that further consultations would now take place and regretted that calls for restraint had not been heeded.
The Episcopal News Service reported that Canon Glasspool, who held from the start that her sexuality was not an issue, had received the necessary consents from bishops and standing committees in the US for her consecration by Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to go ahead in May.
…could further threaten unity? Hello. A Bishop for the whole Church. Open wide, Anglican Communion.
We have to remember that God ordains. What the Presiding Bishop does later this year in Los Angeles will be little more than an expensive ceremony, as far as I’m concerned. Perhaps objections will be voiced, perhaps not.
The Episcopal Church is a tiny twig on the Anglican Communion branch of the Tree of Christianity.
Most of the whole Church doesn’t even recognize that Ms. Glasspool is in Holy Orders, and won’t recognize her as a bishop, either. If she thinks that she is, and if some others think that she is, then so be it. I can place a vestment order from the Almy catalogue, and proclaim that I’m a bishop, too. And, I know a guy who thinks he’s Jesus Christ…
The Roman Catholic Church is a top-down hierarchy. That’s a weakness of its polity, but it’s also a strength. Despite that strength, homosexual practice among its clergy has been rampant, even with teenaged parishioners. The Anglican Communion is only a top-down hierarchy at the diocesan level. That’s a strength, but it’s also weakness of its polity. It assumes that bishops are solid, faithful people (1 Tim 3), and if that’s not the case, allows a province, or even a diocese to run wild under the influence of the devil. The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t have the authority or the power to discipline the PB of TEC, or to discipline the HOB, or any other part of our little twig.
Perhaps the antinomianism of TEC will cause the Anglican Communion to become more hierarchical, or perhaps this lawlessness will destroy Anglicanism as we know it. Or, add fuel to the new Great Awakening that has begun.
It’s Friday, but Sunday’s coming.
Well, the ABC has actually said nothing, nada, zilch. His office has issued boilerplate to give the appearance of a response. No doubt Rowan’s reaction will be slow, pollysyllabic and nuanced allowance like his engineered response in New Orleans. It may even be recycled to save the environment more CO2 production. It will, however, remain steadfastly like his advice to bankers, financiers, and governments – ignored.
It is true that the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t have the authority or the power to discipline the PB of TEC, or to discipline the HOB, or any other part…but he does have the abilitiy (and as I read the Scriptures, the duty) to withdraw fellowship with them and to publicly proclaim that sin is sin. He can also warn all faithful Anglicans that what the TEC is doing and has done in regard to homosexual activity and lawsuits is both wrong and sinful. He could also use his bully pulpit to fully endorse pastoral provisions for those fleeing TEC.
So, that dog won’t hunt. The ABC could have done so much with his “soft power”, despite having no direct control, and yet he chose to waffle and worse, tacitly endorse (by invitations given) the actions of TEClub. Even now, he could declare that he is no longer in communion with TEClub and does not recognize their actions or their bishops as legitimate. He could speak with a clear voice and end this shame…right now, today. It could be done with a 30 second public speech.
Here is a sample: “By the obdurate attitude and actions of the Episcopal Church of America, they have severed themselves from the See of Canterbury and all faithful Christians of the Anglican Communion. Until such time as they renounce their sinful practices and take action to correct them, the Episcopal Church USA chooses to walk apart from the See of Canterbury and shall not be recognized or received in fellowship and shall be considered illegitimate and heretical by the See of Canterbury.”
There…two sentences. Soft power in action.
So, regarding the ABC, here are some passages of Scripture to ponder:
Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so? Amos 3:3
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Matthew 7:15-20
IMHO, by his actions the ABC has consistently chosen to walk with TEC. These actions are deliberate choices. This isn’t all that complex. The ABC is endorsing the sinful actions of TEC at every turn by both his actions and inactions. He continues to walk together with TEC, so if Scripture is to be believed, the ABC and TEC are in agreement. He has chosen to be yoked together with TEC, so whatever their character and nature the TEC has, he has.
What is the fruit of TEC? That is also the fruit of the ABC…by his own choice, actions, and inactions. The wolves ravaging the sheep are wearing purple…or in the words of Scripture:
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.” ~ Jesus
4, good comment. If the ABC truly wished to admonish TEC he could say and do as you suggest. If he follows true to form he will continue to do nothing.
4. Dear Sick and Tired: With reference to your first paragraph…….he won’t do any of these things.
#6 Cennydd
Yes, I believe that you are right…which leads us to my last paragraph.
Good morning, friends…. Having delved into Kendall Harmon’s writings for some time, now, I’ve registered today to ask a sincere question of him and any of you who care to reply. I am no theologian or activist, just a 61-year-old lifelong Episcopal parishioner from Richmond VA and now Baltimore, from whence newly elected Bishop Mary Glasspool currently hails. Long before I knew (or cared) about her sexual preference, I was inspired by her preaching, touched by her personal charisma and caring, and impressed by her intelligence and demeanor. That being said, it saddens me to see our Church wrenched apart and distracted from that to which I believe Christ calls us (reconciliation, restoration and joyful worship) by my fellow Episcopalians who focus most intensely on the issue of sexual orientation.
Here’s my sincere and respectful question – please treat it as such. How is it that some of us are able to become so upset about the Biblical citings in Leviticus 18:22, for instance, and yet appear not to be troubled in the least by nearby prohibitions against, say, eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10) in which the language is almost parallel? With all due respect, I find it regrettably hypocritical that the same people in South Carolina who are so upset about homosexuals in the Church most likely have enjoyed Low Country Shrimp and Grits in the last year or so. New Englanders love their lobster and Marylanders their crab cakes! Don’t even mention women who go to Church with their heads uncovered but are fortunate enough not to be stoned, these days! All the gentlemen of my acquaintance cut their hair (Lev. 18:27) Although I personally find it unattractive, we all know people whose children sneak off to get tattoos! (Lev. 18:28) Should we believe that some of these are more “faithful words” than their adjacent verses?
I find it even more hard to understand when people are more concerned with sexual orientation than they are with Sabbath Scofflaws – so many of us break at least one of the Ten Commandments, if truth be told. Exodus 35:2 – Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whoever does work therein shall be put to death. Will someone please tell me why this is not the biggest deal on the agenda vs the one that gets everyone so riled up?
As this is a sincere and heartfelt question, I hope I will have the courtesy of a patient vs angry reply. I don’t know why we can’t discuss these issues without resorting to vitriol. Love is patient, Love is kind. May the Peace of the Lord be with us all.
8, you should be aware that your questions have been asked and dealt with over and over again. We call your objections the shellfish objection. If you get irritable answers that’s why.
But in a way your argument is a little like saying, we disobey God in all these other ways why not in this way too. Homosexual behavior (indeed all sexual sin) is condemned throughout Scripture. It is the evidence of an unrepentant sinner and such a person should not be elevated to the office of Bishop.
And to start, Jesus Himself set aside the dietary laws. And Leviticus tells us to love our neighbors as our selves. The text is: “Leviticus 19:18 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” And it comes from the same body of material that you want to reject to include the prohibitions against homosexual behavior.
To # 8 —
I at least, will give it a try. I’m no theologian, however, and others may do far better, and in greater detail.
From where I stand, Leviticus is not the issue. I’ve drawn my conclusions more on what Genesis says about the nature of humanity (male and female he created them . . . and they become one flesh), by the persistent imagery of the people of Israel as the wayward bride and God as the longing husband throughout the Old Testament, by the performance of Christ’s first miracle at a wedding in Cana, which pre-figures the most important imagery of all . . . that of Christ as the bridegroom and the Church as the Bride, and the presence of all at the wedding feast that is the Supper of the Lamb.
This tells us something (or should tell us something) about the complementary nature of male and female, and how the union of male and female in marriage is both an essential aspect of humanity, and points us towards something profound about the relationship between God and his people, under both the Old and New Covenants.
One might also consider the presence of the Song of Solomon in the biblical canon. Why would that be there, except to remind us of the particular status that a union between a man and a woman can have?
It’s not about making an argument based on legal prohibititions, or legal concepts such as discrimination. It’s about recognizing who we are, who we are meant to be, and the extent to which desires of all kinds are distorted and corrupted by sin. And, while we must be charitable to all sinners (amongst whom we must remember to count ourselves) we must also refuse to institutionalize distortions and corruptions, and accept them as the equivalent of what is meant to be.
This is not to dismiss the arguments arising from specific verses in Scripture (including not only Leviticus, but also St. Paul), or arguments rooted in natural law theology. But I will leave those to persons with more knowledge then me.
For number 8. I agree that we all … which includes me … should be less confrontational, vitrolic, and snarky in our comments. However I cannot agree with the idea that intentionally sinful conduct is equivalent to eating shellfish in the beliefs of those that profess to be Christians. One of the habits I used to have, as a not life-long but at least 60 years worth of being an Episcopalian, was to spend time before service and when waiting for communion reading through the 39 Articles (and the other documents) that TEC now holds to be non-binding and not necessarily a reflection of the Faith. I would suggest that you may want to do that, and in particular look at VII. That may at least partially answer your question.
As an aside, I have no idea of the real or true meaning of ‘snarky.’ Guess I could look it up but it just seemed to be the word that would fit.
Blessings
[blockquote]1. Kendall Harmon wrote:
I see that one of the links to the old old blog (as opposed to the old blog) is out of date. Since I am out of time for blogging this morning I will post my letter here for present purposes:
The Shellfish Argument
Dear ():
Thank you for this post, it brings up a case that is appearing over and over again in the Episcopal Church’s debate. I call it the shellfish argument: you have noted that Leviticus is against same sex practice, but Leviticus says we should not eat shellfish. So how could we possibly listen to Leviticus?
So for example Bishop Maze: “Another part of the very same code, Leviticus 11:9-11, uses the same strong language calling the eating of shellfish an abomination. Yet, most have not given up seafood delicacies, nor do we worry much about this abomination. So, another tool we have available is to ask how modern thought might affect how we read ancient codes. We know more
about shellfish (and lots of other food that is condemned in this code) than our Hebrew ancestors could have known and so we’re basically comfortable in adding that to our interpretation of scripture.â€
Then in the case of ()‘s post: “the Vicar asked the men in the congregation if they had ever wondered what to do when their daughters had their first period. Would they go to the bible for advice? He then paraphrased the rules found in Leviticus 15, v. 19-24. Or would they prefer the Reader’s Digest Family Medical Guide’s counsel (which he quoted verbatim), essentially to offer lots of TLC.â€
So much for Leviticus, apparently. The problem is this doesn’t even pass muster for a first year college logic class, much less get at the complexities and challenges of the scriptural arguments.
Behind it is a powerful assumption, that of chronological snobbery, a favorite phrase of CS Lewis and Owen Barfield. Here is one website summary:
“Chronological snobbery is the presumption, fueled by the modern conception of progress, that all thinking, all art, and all science of an earlier time are inherently inferior, indeed childlike or even imbecilic, compared to that of the present. Under the rule of chronological snobbery,
the West has convinced itself that “intellectually, humanity languished for countless generations in the most childish errors on all sorts of crucial subjects, until it was redeemed by some simple scientific dictum of the last centuryâ€. It has become to believe that “anything more than a hundred years old is ancient†and “in the world of books, or opinions about books, the
age at which senility sets in has now been reduced to about ten.â€
One would like to ask how pervasive this attitude is in the whole of mainline Christianity in the West, not just this debate, but that is a discussion for another time.
As for the case itself, it falls apart quickly once you quote the summary of the law which still is used in many rite I services in the Episcopal Church and it ends…
“you shall love your neighbor as yourselfâ€
which is of course a quote from…
LEVITICUS!
So the trouble is that there are continuities and discontinuities between the two testaments, and simply pointing out that there is a discontinuity in the area of specfic food practice, doesn’t mean that in the area of teaching sexual morality there isn’t a continuity. Leviticus is also powerfully against lying. Indeed, much of it is an extended and important commentary on the ten commandments. So is the teaching on sexuality like shellfish or is it like lying or “loving your neighbor as yourself�
Of course this argument is about a whole lot more than Leviticus, it is about a broad range of scriptural material, the history of how it has been understood by the church and interpreted, and wrestling through contemporary complexities and claims. But one at least hopes that specious cases like this will see less presence than they have in recent years, and one hopes that all those who are so eager to call the Bible into question realize that their ministries are based in part on the Bible calling them and their parishes into question.
No wonder Karl Barth once said: exegesis, exegesis, and more exegesis!
Dr. Kendall S. Harmon
[/blockquote]
[blockquote]Here’s my sincere and respectful question – please treat it as such. How is it that some of us are able to become so upset about the Biblical citings in Leviticus 18:22, for instance, and yet appear not to be troubled in the least by nearby prohibitions against, say, eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)[/blockquote]
Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that if you have really been reading Kendall’s writings for some time, you haven’t come up with any reasonable answers to the shellfish canard.
The Church has long reflected on the place of the mosaic law in light of Christ’s death and resurrection, as evidenced even from the council of Acts 15 and the gentiles’ inclusion in the Church. Gentiles were not required to take on circumcision, and could eat shellfish (!), but were never released from the prohibition on sexual immorality. Not based on what society decreed as moral, but what the OT did.
This was in keeping with the Church’s acceptance of what Christ himself said about his mission: not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Christ fulfilled the purpose of the sacrificial system and the purity code while never releasing us of the demands of morality. Think about the high demands he makes in the sermon on the mount, where plucking out an eye is preferable not only to adultery, but to lust. We may debate about what those specific moral demands are, to an extent. And to that extent, our debate over homosexual practise can be legitimate as well. To say, however, that because we don’t eat shellfish we shouldn’t care about sexual ethics as ridiculous as saying that wearing clothes of mixed fabric means “thou shalt not murder” is no longer binding.
The reformers, of course, understood this as well. Read Article VII of the Articles of Religion:
[blockquote]Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received… yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.[/blockquote]
The fact that this rabbit trail comes up with such regularity is a sad testimony our ignorance of both Scripture and the history of Christian theology.
With all sincerity and respect,
Stephen+
Tobit3:
I agree with #9 that a websearch on ‘shellfish argument’ is a good start.
Question though, what is your take on this New Testament passage?
[i]1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.[/i] 1Tim 1-3
My take is that if we are meant to interpret ‘overseer’ as bishop, 9 or 10 out of 11 is not good enough.
And, certainly an 11 for 11 is a ‘noble’ leader worthy of emulation.
As an example of such, IMHO and since we’re on Canon Harmon’s blog, his own bishop, +Mark Lawrence.
Peace,
-ms
Acts 10:9 et. seq. may have something to say about continued observance of kosher law by Christians. It seems to be different from moral law.
Many thanks for the thoughtful replies to which I will give deeper consideration when I, too, have more time for blogging. I truly appreciate the fact that Dr. Harmon in particular went to the trouble to answer.
I must confess that I have lingering concerns that many of us see what we want to see and explain away that which does not complement our views and beliefs. Even if everyone in the Church were to agree wholeheartedly that same sex relationships are Sin with a capital S, I still don’t yet understand why this particular issue seems to be the one that conservative traditional Christians focus on and seem most offended by, when there are other issues that seem, to me, to be more urgent and important and don’t get the time of day, much less any Sturm und Drang.
However, even questioners such as myself are your “neighbor,” and I am grateful for polite discourse where disdain and righteous indignation could have been in its place. Thank you and have a lovely weekend.
8, let me answer your question with a question, and bring secular matters into the issue, if other readers do not object:
It has been my observation that outside of those who are personally interested in the issue due to their own lifestyles or orientation, most advocates of same-sex unions (clergy or not) are in one way or another affiliated with academia. This is the same academia that advocates racial, ethnic and gender quotas, rather than merit, in higher education.
So tell me, if person X is knowledgeable, performs respected research, and teaches well, why should person X be excluded from a profession merely because he is male and of European ancestry?
Note that this is 8’s question, rephrased. Among the numerous persons whose opinions I have read, and of those with whom I am directly acquainted, I know of no person who supports same-sex clergy couples, yet decries the use of race, ethnic, and gender quotas in academic professions.
Perhaps you would respond to me rephrasing by saying that the matter is related to “diversity.” But the goal of Christianity is redemption. Diversity is of value only to the extent that it leads us away from spiritual error.
This is more than just about rules and laws and choosing which to obey and which to disregard. God wanted the Israelites to be different from the cult/idol worshipers of the day. God wants us as Christians to be different from the secular world. Scripture supports this in both the old and new testaments. It seems that so much of what TEC leadership does mocks God: denying Jesus as the way to God, denying the Resurrection, supporting a culture of death, suing and humiliating Christians of the Anglican faith. Because of TEC’s obsessive focus with same sex relationships, they have perhaps become the representation of all that is unworthy about TEC. Rather than embrace the difference of God, TEC leadership has become a reflection of secular society.
I could be wrong, but it might be because the reappraisers in TEC are calling this Sin something Holy and blessed. Also, the TEC reappraisers have elevated the issue by selecting Bishops of the Church that openly practice this Sin and encourage others to do so. This TEC practice has had the apparent tacit support of the ABC, despite the overwhelming opposition to it by the majority of the Anglican Communion and much of the entire Christian community. Finally, there is the issue of reappraisers deposing those that disagree and initiating lawsuits against individuals in vestries that are in disagreement.
These things may be the cause of the “Sturm und Drang” you observe.
Of course, I may be wrong.
16, homosexuality is the presenting issue of the more fundamental errors of rejecting the authority of Scripture, obedience to God and false teaching. The purpose of a Bishop is not to have “hot hands”, but to safeguard the faith and teachings of the Church. As an unrepentant sinner, as rejecting the faith and teaching of the Church, Glasspool cannot perform the function of Bishop.
She may be a very nice person by human standards, but she accepts that which the office of Bishop is required to reject. We would, and have, said the same thing about Bishops who have been married three times.
Truly Robert,
Although a heterosexual mother of three (thus, not “personally interested due to [my] own lifestyle or orientation” …) I DO happen to work in academia (!) although not as a teacher!
However, I also happen to believe in merit-based accomplishment and that does not preclude our ability to provide educational access to bright students and talented faculty of diverse economic or ethnic backgrounds without excluding those of equal or greater aptitudes and performance. Embracing innovation does not have to (and, in my opinion, should not necessarily) correlate with rejecting tradition. And discrimination against “males of European ancestry” purely for reasons of “diversity” is still discrimination, in my book. Does this put us on the same page or were you using that only by way of example???
Back to Christianity, I’d say the goal is reconciliation which may lead to redemption.
Br. Michael,
Despite my intentions to “get on with the day,” I seem to have gotten hooked on this correspondence, perhaps because I have not really had the opportunity to discuss or debate in my daily experience.
Thank you for your comments. I am coming to realize that I find the “authority of Scripture” to be an issue. When it contradicts itself through the course of thousands of years and continuing revelation and evolution, I find it challenging to say which parts are the authoritative ones, written in stone – and which may be put on the shelf. Like the ubiquitous and clearly irritating “shellfish canard.”
Isn’t the Bible the story of God’s relationship with His people? The prevailing message of which is not OUR personal salvation but bringing God’s Kingdom to God’s people – all of God’s people! – in the here and now, through acts of reconciliation, restoration and love?
God used many “Sinners” throughout the Bible, as far as I can see, and not just when they repented. The designated Righteous were always offended by Jesus and, apparently, He by them. I suspect He would do some serious table-knocking-over if He happened to pay a visit to most modern churches; I think He would be much likely to return to a local synagogue than to any cathedral, no matter how faithful its congregants.
If we are looking for a Bishop with “no sin,” then I doubt there is one to be found. Because none of us “without sin” – and that doesn’t mean we can’t do good in the world or lead and encourage others in agreed-upon faithful ways while we are on our earthly journey….
And why this particular “sin” over and above all others? Just as there is a difference between a good and holy (but not perfect because no one is!) Bishop who has been divorced once vs someone who demonstrates a certain relational instability or perhaps bad luck in choosing a mate (re your example of a Bishop who had been married three times), there is also a difference between a Bishop who is in a stable and committed same-sex relationship and one who favors indiscrimate liaisons. I somehow doubt that the latter would, knowingly, become a serious candidate, any more than a heterosexual serial adulterer would. It’s a matter of extremes.
It’s just so odd to me that the entire Church is so hopped up about Same Sex relationships that it is a bigger issue than anything else. We are distracting ourselves from working in the vineyard, and we are surely not letting ourselves be known for our love for one another. I think it is so sad.
Excellent comments.
“Tobit3” – As usual, when such a question is asked in this space, there’s a fair bit of piling on of responses particularly since the question has come up so many times. I was a bit disappointed, though, upon reading through the responses, that there was no mention of the “tripartate” law. As I understand the Christian intellectual tradition, the understanding of the Mosaic covenant has generally been that those parts of it that applied to the governance of the nation-state of Israel (for instance, the designation of cities of refuge) and those that pertained to worship, particularly but not necessarily that of the Temple in Jerusalem (including the priestly garments, and the various purity laws – of which the laws regulating contact with blood, including menstrual blood, representing death – were a part), were rescinded for Christians of Gentile origins. The moral laws, including the ten commandments and the various laws associated with them (the laws against homosexual imitations of copulation are related to the prohibition of adultery), are still valid. The dietary laws could be considered either part of the Theocratic or Cultic laws, depending on how they are understood, but have never been considered to be part of the moral laws that are applicable everywhere.
There is also, of course a tie in rabbinic thought (including the rabbinic thought of Paul and most certainly of Jesus) between the moral laws, including those on sexuality (to be distinguished from those concerned with ritual cleanliness – a man is ritually unclean after copulation with his wife, while she is not thereby rendered unclean – again ritual cleanliness mostly has to do with contact with death and has nothing to do with sin – menstrual women are not thereby rendered sinful, but are merely ritually unclean), and the Jewish understanding of nature as reflecting divine intent in its design. Romans 1 is the most famous example of this deeply rabbinic way of thinking. Paul herein uses homosexual imitations of copulation as the most obvious and available examples of unnatural activities into which pagan deniars of divine design are inclined to fall. Note that he assumes the unnaturalness of homosexual activity, he does not argue toward it.
The biblical case against the licitness of homosexual imitations of marriage is, frankly a slam dunk and there’s little to be said in opposition. Not, of course, that attempts aren’t made, but they invariably involve faulty hermeneutical assumptions, uncritical acceptance of unproven philosophical claims with regard to the definitional character of so-called “sexual orientation” (note that science has nothing to say in this regard), faulty or incomplete understandings of Judaism and Christianity, faulty or incomplete understandings of the Church and her history, and are routinely plagued by a inadequate understanding of the nature of divine revelation. And that last, I think is the most significant contributor to the current unpleasantness.
tobit3 says, “It’s just so odd to me that the entire Church is so hopped up about same-sex relationships. …” Listen to St. Paul, “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! … Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, … . You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” 1Cor 6: 16-20. Now, tobit3, you might argue that same-sex acts are not immoral, but you can’t make a credible case that sexual sin is not a grave matter for the Christian community.
As usual, Archbishop Williams response is underwhelming. Many things TEC has done are regrettable. None seem serious enough to Williams to compel him to stand forcefully for orthodoxy, and that is truly regrettable.
Tobit3,
Why this issue? Well, it is the end result of at least 50 years of relaxing the moral code. TEC is now calling “blessed” what 3000 years of moral teaching (2000 years of Christianity and at least 1000 years of Jewish teaching) calls “sin.”
It is not a matter of finding sinless people – there has only been one in all of creation and look what we did to him. It is an issue of the leaders of the Church following the Teaching of the Church. I expect that my Bishop will sin and continue to sin. I also expect him to repent and seek God’s forgiveness for his sins. I do NOT expect him to say “well, my sin wasn’t really sin because of xyz.”
It is not the fact that we are ordaining or blessing sinful people. We have always done that and will always do that. The issue is that we are pretending that their sin is not sin. We are lying to them and to each other and we are encouraging them to lie to others.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
It is useful to recall Luke 20:33-35. It might also be useful to think in terms of natural law.
What amuses me most of all are the proponents of same-sex unions who claim that opposition is due to religious bigotry, even as they march along with clergy that see their way. Apparently the atheists are too nervous to mention Darwin in this context.
Tobit3, I don’t know that the entire Church is so hopped up about same-sex relationships. Everyone knows they exist, and everyone knows they exist to some extent within the clergy of the church. But … until 2003, no one was calling those relationships holy or something to be blessed of God, and no one was celebrating those relationships as a good thing But as 2003, a same-sex relationship no only was not to be considered in the election and approval of a bishop, but if considered at all, was to be approved and celebrated. Though thousands of years of Scriptural interpretion and tradition had condemned these relationships as sinful (though not excluding the persons in them from the church), all of a sudden in the late 20th and early 21st century our TEC church leaders were more enlightened than anyone else in the Anglican Communion, past or present, and Gene Robinson was elected and approved in 2003, and regardless of the past and present fruits of homosexual activity, his relationship (and now that of Ms Glasspool) were to be celebrated, and anyone calling those relationships anything but good (especially they could not be called “sinful”) was homophobic and not inclusive. And not only did the reappraisers say the Holy Spirit is doing all this, the Holy Spirit was also calling for new unheard of interpretations of our theology – like Jesus is one way to the Father; there was no physical resurrection; the doctrine of atonement is sociopathic, if God truly made Jesus die for our sins; I hope you get the picture here. One bishop even went so far as to say, “We wrote the Bible; we can rewrite it.” Another bishop called the Bible a nice book of poetry. I hope you can understand – this is not just about homosexuality, but it is a presenting symptom because our church leaders are so obviously attempting to change theology and practice from things that has always been known to be sinful to things that are now not – as one of my partners told me, “now that you Episcopalians have taken care of this sin of fornication, can you work on adultery; that would help me a lot when I meet St Peter. For many reappraising clergy, sin is no longer an issue – their cheap grace theory is that we all wind up in heaven, regardless – Bp Robinson has stated that. Hope you understand.
Dear Daniel (24) and Phil (25),
I have waited a long time for anyone – lay or ordained – to make the points that Daniel just made, and I agree that I most likely fall into at least one of the latter categories you mention as contributing to the ”
current unpleasantness”. That’s why I am grateful for information vs diatribes. In thanking you, I have to say that I do believe that sexual orientation is a biological phenomenon, not a choice.
Re your points, Phil, I just don’t fall into the camp that believes sexual sin is among the gravest. I think there are far worse, and that’s why I don’t understand why we seem to pay more attention to Paul’s exhortations than to Jesus’s. The Bishop of the Anglical Church of Virginia makes a good point:
“It is not often that we in the Anglican Church speak of Mortal Sin. The very thought of it causes some to shudder, so even ministers of the Gospel tend to shy away from the subject. In speaking of the seven “deadly sins” we are sure to step on somebody’s toes.
Pride, envy, covetousness, anger, lust, gluttony and sloth are considered mortal sins. Just as all have fallen short of the glory of God and all have in some way managed to break each of Ten Commandments …, it’s safe to say that all of us have committed one … mortal sin.”
If we banned from Church leadership anyone who commits any of the “mortal sins” listed above, which have their basis in the Ten Commandments as well as the teachings of Jesus, who would be left?
So, back to my original point, why has homosexuality found its way to the top of the agenda? Seriously? Why do we tend to get more agitated about sexual matters? Is it just an emotional issue? Because I cannot find any logical or theological reason to elevate it to the Make or Break list.
Again, sincere thanks for the opportunity to dialogue with some of you who are Biblical scholars whereas I am not….
Thanks, Billy. I see your points completely. And I had not heard any previous mention of the Bishops who want to rewrite the Bible or dismiss it as mere poetry. That is part of my point, there are bigger fish to fry.
God bless….
Tobit, all Scripture is God breathed. Paul is not in opposition to Jesus. As so many others, we did not pick this fight. Those who seek to normalize homosexuality did. They want the Church to proclaim as holy that which God has called sin and in so doing they are attacking Scripture. We don’t get to define sin God does. Look at your own words were you set Scripture against Scripture and then pick the result that you want.
I guess you need to answer the question is whether you consider homosexual sex/behavior sin? Glasspool is an active lesbian and is engaged in sexual practices outside of what the Church recognizes as marriage, which by definition is between a man and a woman (regardless of what the state may define) and in the eyes of the Church is sin.
So the issue is obedience to God’s word and that issue is fundamental such that two Churches are created with two Gospels and they cannot reconcile because they are mutually opposed. For example light cannot reconcile with dark. A light bulb is either on or it is not.
Br. Michael,
I guess I need to say that I don’t personally consider people in mature committed loving relationships “sinful” – but for those who do, I wish they would concentrate on some of the sins that are more hurtful to other people and which harm God’s creation in much more dramatic and painful ways.
This entire day’s exchange has made me realize that I honestly and reverently believe that God’s Word and God’s Will are subject to interpretation on both sides of the fence. I realize there are those who firmly disagree, but I would be a liar if I did not respectfully beg to differ.
Well, then there is nothing more to be said.
Tobit3 – One of the more problematic misunderstandings of the Church’s understanding of what is/isn’t natural is the equation of “natural” with “involuntary”. The equation is neither obvious nor universal. It certainly is not what Paul means when he uses the word. Indeed, as many exegetes here and elsewhere will note, Paul considers sin (the war going on in his members that causes him not to do the good that he would do) is essentially involuntary. I am in full agreement with you that homosexual proclivities are not chosen(no one would consciously choose to be homosexual – an instructive reality, that) but disagree with your apparent conclusion that the involuntary nature of this proclivity is in some way morally significant.
There is so much to take issue with when it is pointed out that people do not choose to be homosexual that it is difficult to know where to start. The involuntary albeit disordered desires from which we suffer in this sinful, broken world are legion. There is, of course, the obvious fact that sexual desires are extremely powerful and important. Indeed, so much so that the enthronement of fundamental misunderstandings of these desires and their place in the Church’ s anthropology is – and should be – church dividing.
The biblical perspective, shared by the Church throughout time and space (indeed here is a fairly clear example of a teaching that meets the so-called “Vincentian Canon”, from St. Vincent of Lerins’ noting that those teachings of the Church are definitive where they have been held by all Christians everywhere at all times), is that copulation is reserved only for persons in a marriage as defined throughout scripture (Genesis, Hosea, Ephesians, Matthew, to name but a scant few of the more obvious biblical referants) as one man and one woman. Note that the fact of other social arrangements in various points in scripture is no indication that sex and marriage constitute some sort of biblical brownian motion wherein numerous types of couplings are acceptable. Only the marriage of one man and one woman is consistently attested to from one end of scripture to the other and only this arrangement is supported in the life of the Church. Seldom in scripture is much made of the attraction of man to woman. The New Testament does not mention it at all and, apart from the Song of Solomon, it appears primarily as an occasion for sin. Yet the joy of the beauty of another is not itself sinful and it is proper and right that this is celebrated in Song of Solomon and, I believe a few other places.
So, what of the tragic condition of those who do not find themselves sexually attracted to the opposite sex? Well, the first thing to do is acknowledge the tragic as tragic and not pretend that somehow it meets the intent of God when it clearly does not. And again, no, the fact that the homosexual affliction is involuntary is not proof of its being the product of divine intention any more than Down’s Syndrome is. The fact to be borne in mind is that we live in a world created [i]ex nihilo[/i] wherein “stuff just happens” – plate tectonics means some people will die in earthquakes, the mechanics of cell replication are such that some people will develop cancers. And some people for whatever reason will be born with a susceptibility that, developed in a certain way, results in their having a painful and unnatural attraction to people of the same sex. Some can overcome this debility while others cannot. However it plays out in given individuals in given circumstances, it can never be the Church’s job and the Church can never have the authority to bless what God clearly reveals that He intends to redeem. The presumption of some in leadership positions in TEC to do so in clear violation of the Church’s charism, her scriptural mandate, and her catholic quality is – and, as I say, should be – Church dividing. It is not that there’s anything more wrong with homosexuality that is any worse than other sins (though Dante places it further down – rightly so, I think – in his [i]Inferno[/i] than, fornication, for instance). It is that TEC has chosen to use this matter to presume to change fundamental teachings and the nature of the Church. This error cannot stand and the Church Catholic must make clear that it will not be tolerated.
It is probably worth note that Jesus Christ taught against sexual immorality, or porneia, which would have included SS behavior under mainstream understanding. He also affirmed traditional marriage.
In conjunction with these divine teachings, in John 14:15 he said: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
Tobit3 asks:
[blockquote] “So, back to my original point, why has homosexuality found its way to the top of the agenda? Seriously? Why do we tend to get more agitated about sexual matters? Is it just an emotional issue? Because I cannot find any logical or theological reason to elevate it to the Make or Break list.” [/blockquote]
It is indeed a frustration to many of us that it has been pressed on us as a defining issue, when we would indeed be happier addressing other issues. But the simple fact is that sexuality broadly, and same gender sexual expression in particular, has been contended as a ‘top of the list’ issue of choice by powerful advocacy groups within and without the church. It cannot be avoided, and in terms of providing pastoral guidance and responsible leadership, we should not and must not pretend the Bible is silent on such matters.
I appreciate the tone and respect of this thread. As the responses above reflect, there have been serious and thoughtful engagement with honest questions, and such dialogue may help clarify why we cannot just ‘move on’, when the overall direction of revisionist ethical teaching and resulting moral outlook is such a concern.
Surely it is not so much a matter of a ‘priority list’ of greater and lesser sins, but a greater consideration of where such thinking is coming from. It seems to me (and to many others) that many of these issues are part of a much wider pattern of worldview, where prevailing (largely western) culture is adopted at the cost of kingdom considerations, in which God is not silent – as much as some might want the word of God to be muted, or ‘revised’. It is good to be driven back to Scripture to revisit our understanding and interpretation of God’s living word, but we do not do this alone but in community as God’s church. The simple fact is that the vast majority of the wider Anglican family, certainly on an international scale, are quite unconvinced that a revisionist case can be made from Scripture, and indeed Scripture compels us to think other than what our culture urges.
It is in listening carefully to Scripture, and the insights and perceptions of brothers and sisters in other cultures, that we are better able to discern at what points our immediate culture needs to be challenged by those called to live as faithful disciples and a holy people (dedicated to God above all).
It is certainly not a case of being ‘all about sexuality’ – although to look at western popular culture that so influences our youth you could be forgiven for thinking so – and we need to be much more diligent in attending to Scripture and grounding [b] every aspect of our being [/b] in the light of God’s living word. It is indeed a life giving ‘means of grace’, too much neglected in our present age.
And as a postscript and to return to the main point of this posting – it is a major responsibility of the Archbishop of Canterbury to provide a clear voice and leadership in responding to these developments. He may not have formal ‘authority’ in the autonomous Province Anglican Communion scheme of things, but he has a most significant leadership role nonetheless – not his personal views, mind you, but speaking and exhorting the mind of the Communion nonetheless.
On occasion, the ABoC has been able to speak with clarity on these matters (all too rarely), and this is such an occasion when this is the need of the moment for a clear voice of leadership. It remains to be seen whether this will eventuate, but I am in prayer for ++Cantaur at this time.
Tobit3:
I think the best recent answer to why we appear to focus most intently on the issue of sexual orientation is by Sarah:
Via T19’s sister site: standfirm
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/25746#423250
Note that you’re coming in to the middle of a quite passionate argument, so keep going through the beginning.
Note also the reference to Kendall Harmon’s Iceberg talk, for further explanation. Google it.
Tobit3
You present another problem – you said:
The problem is that we don’t get to decide what is sinful and what is not sinful. That decision is beyond the individual person or parish or diocese or province. I submit it is even beyond the authority of the Anglican Communion. When I was ordained, I vowed to be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them. I am to be a faithful witness to the teaching that the Church has received. I don’t get to make it up. Neither does Bishop Robinson or Bishop Schori or even Bishop Benedict XVI. Overturning 3000 years of moral teaching should require more than a vote by orders in the political and business meeting of a 2 million member part of the Church.
Now, if you want to discuss whether same sex unions should be blessed, then we can have that discussion. But be prepared to offer reasons that are based on Holy Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church.
To act against the teaching of the universal Church without changing the Church’s collective mind is not a prophetic act. It is a schismatic act.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Dear Phil,
Thanks for your reply. As someone said, above, the tone and respect inherent in this thread is really something to appreciate and admire when one considers the passion with which those of us who care about the Church and God’s Will hold our various points of view.
I believe that mature committed loving relationships can be “unlawful” but not necessarily sinful. Because my definition of sin – actually not my own but that of a respected minister and theologian, Frederick Buechner – is that which separates us from God. The “absolutes” are in the Ten Commandments and a great deal of the rest is commentary and interpretation, contemporary to the times, ancient or present. Unfortunately, I think that, over the course of Christian history, a great many people have indeed “decided” what was or was not sinful, to the peril of a great many others.
I acknowledge that my stance may not be orthodox but it is sincerely within a life of faithful observance and seeking of God’s will and how to allow Grace to enter into and shape my life. It’s no doubt a real problem that some of us who call ourselves followers of Christ believe that things are black and white, dark or light, off or on, as Br. Michael referred to some posts back (32), while others like myself believe that there is a rheostat on some of these switches, so to speak. And good Churchmen have debated for centuries many issues of the faith, even down to the fallibility or infallibility of Scripture itself. This is not new.
I am not trying to be prophetic nor schismatic – just supportive of a good and faithful priest who will do good things in Los Angeles in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. The God I worship will welcome her to His service.
I respect your point of view and hope that, despite our differences, we can all seek and find Christ in one another, as we are called to do in our Baptismal Covenant.
Tobit3,
Why is it that we should restrict our blessing to monogamous relationships? If the Big 10 are the “absolutes” and fornication (sex outside of marriage) isn’t in the Big 10, then shouldn’t we be able to bless men or women who engage in any sex when neither they nor their partner are married (e.g. neither of them committing adultery)?
Yes, sin is whatever separates us from God. However, it is possible to be separated from God and not know it. We are so darkened by sin that we are not capable of deciding on our own what separates us from God. This is why the moral teaching of the Church is so vital to the Christian life. We (and I include myself in this) are so very good at self-deception that we cannot really know the state of our souls. We cannot, by ourselves or in our small groups, know what is right and wrong. We need the wisdom of the Church to teach us until we know it so well that that wisdom comes naturally. The Enemy is also very good at deceiving us and we often can’t tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and an Angel of Light (Lucifer).
The surest path away from God is the gradual one where we start to decided that this or that rule (in the meaning of guidelines) doesn’t really apply in our particular case. Pretty soon, we are left guideless and guided only by our own desires. This “freedom” is actually slavery. True freedom comes from being obedient to God “whose service is perfect freedom.”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil,
You referred in an earlier post to being ordained and I wish that I were a parishioner of yours so that I could talk with you about a number of other issues and questions that I have about the more traditional expressions of our faith. For now, I have to say that my distinction is that I don’t see adultery as the same thing as fornication. The definitions are related, to be sure, but distinct. Fornication can include adultery, but adultery does not necessarily include fornication. I wish I could accept the “wisdom of the Church” but I am destined to be a questioner, I guess.
Genesis 2:16-17 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
I guess I am curious as to where the middle ground is in this? Eating with your fingers crossed? Just a little nibble? I have been accused of seeing things in black and white, but since God gets to make the rules, when He says don’t do something I tend to think He means it.
I also don’t think that the Scriptures are so open to interpretation that they are stripped of all ability to communicate. As in the case of Adam and Eve humans have a great ability to twist God’s words and deceive themselves that God really didn’t mean what He commands.
Tobit3….
Very simply-
Adam + Adam doesn’t work. Doesn’t fit God’s plans for mankind. How can something be “blessed” in His eyes, if the fact is that should we ALL decide to accept that way of life, and did not resort to the test-tube manufacture of babies, the human race would be virtually gone in 100 years?
Think about it man. Does that seem like a blueprint that God would endorse?
Set aside all of the theology if you must. Just think of the natural world He created and what then is proper for us?
Tobit,
And as a lay person, I accept that you are questioning – indeed I welcome it. But remember what G. K. Chesterton once said: “The purpose of an open mind is the same as an open mouth – to close it upon something.”
I have no problems with church members questioning this or that teaching of the Church. I have a big problem with those who have vowed to be loyal to what the Church teaches, questioning that teaching and retaining their positions of leadership and authority. If you no longer believe what the Church believes, then you should resign your orders and return to the lay estate and not lead the Church.
Concerning fornication and adultery. They are both expressions of the sin of lust and both concern sexual relations with someone who is not your husband or wife. But the fornication is sex when you are not married and adultery is sex outside of marriage when you are married.
One of the problems with Western Culture is that we have been taught to “follow your heart” or “be authentic” or “be true to yourself.” These sound good, but our hearts can deceive us. Following your heart is only good when your heart has been transformed and one of the way we know if we have been transformed is if our hearts’ desires are in line with God’s desires and we discern (not interpret) God’s desires through Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church.
Unfortuantely, too many clergy have been trained in the same school – to follow your heart’s desire. But this does not lead to freedom. It leads to slavery to the hearts’ desire.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Upnorfjoel,
The good news is that we won’t all decide to accept that way of life because only a small proportion of us are born that way. Humankind is the only species with such a relatively small proportion of homosexual relations/interactions. That’s documented by animal behaviorists, scientists etc. It’s just a fact. Our species is not in jeopardy from lack of procreation. If anything, we are overpopulated. So, my concern is not with the “natural world’.
Dear Phil,
I see your point entirely. I don’t have an answer to whether or not Change with a capital C should happen from within or without. I understand how one might say if you disagree, leave rather than attempt/force change in any institution, but the fact is that this is what has happened over, and over again, in the course of Christian history. It was painful in each instance and it is painful now.
My biggest issue is that I have in my mind and in my heart (transformed, misled???) a problem with The Church. I don’t equate The Tradition with What Is According to Jesus Christ. I worry that much of what has evolved over two thousand years would not be compatible with Jesus and that we have been infiltrated with Power and Authority and Tradition, and have inadvertently become the Pharisees and Sadducees against whom Jesus railed and/or quietly debated. I see it in churches who are more concerned with pledging membership than in doing the things Jesus called us to do. I see it in my legalistic friends who are following God’s Law but are lacking in God’s Love. We distract ourselves with issues like Canon Glasspool’s election and don’t deal with the larger ones, I fear. How could the God we say is Love hold genuine Love against someone? vs indiscriminate lustful interactions that don’t deserve the dignity of being labeled “relationships”…. I find it all very complicated.
It would be easier for me if I could accept a dogmatic theological teaching, but I believe that God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform, and that human relationships are within that category. Mary’s pregnancy -the great incarnational Yes to the Holy Spirit – was a scandal to the law and the morals of her times. I believe that God chooses genuine love every time.
Tobit,
I hear the anguish in your voice over the state of the Church. Yes, the Church has been beset by the play for power and authority. There is a long history of securlarism (the World, if you will) gaining ascendency over the Church and, each time, God raises up reformers to recall the Church to Himself. Witness Anthony in the 3rd century. Francis and Dominic in the middle ages. Luther or Calvin, John and Charles Wesley and the Tractarians of the 19th century.
If you are distressed by all the attention to sexuality, I ask you to honestly consider who started pushing this issue. It was not the conservatives/traditionalists who kept pressing the issue. It was the reappraisers – those who sought change – who kept pressing and kept acting schismatically and still continue to do so. Are you distressed that we have been distracted from our work? So am I. But I also know that if we do not speak out against calling sin “blessed” then we cannot speak out against injustice or oppression. From where do we get the idea that injustice or oppression are against God’s will? From the same place we get God’s expressed will for human sexuality. Using the arguments put forth by those who support blessing same sex unions, I can justify greed, oppression, injustice, or any other sin.
Mary’s pregnancy was not a scandal to the morals of her time. It may have been a scandal to her neighbors but that is because they chose to not believe her when she said that God had caused this. It was not a scandal to the Law. There is no law against saying “Yes” to God. God does choose genuine love. But eros is not genuine love. Genuine love is agape and agape for someone else cannot include the desire to sin with them or to lead them into sin.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#45 upnorfjoel says:
This illustrates the hazard of “natural law” arguments against homosexuality. That argument applies, with exactly equal force and for exactly the same reasons, to lifelong celibacy. If everyone did it, there would be no human race in the next generation. Does that mean that celibacy is opposed to God’s plan for humanity? Few Christians would reach that conclusion, but it follows just as well — or as poorly — from the natural law arguments.
Correct Ross. Celibacy also opposes God’s plan.
Adam + Adam doesn’t work. Neither does Adam minus Eve.
Well, clearly a sign of way too much blogging today, I cannot resist sharing what an Imam said at an assembly at my school – God invented Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! Needless to say, I did not applaud! 🙂
This thread seems to have gotten off track: It is clear from his writings and his teaching that ++Williams is not criticizing Ms. Glasspool’s sexual orientation: all members of Christ’s body are sinners saved by Grace.
The issue is restraint: interestingly NOT Ms. Glasspool’s lack of restrain in her bedroom.
TEC was asked to show restraint in electing and consecrating a partnered homosexual as such an action would strain the bonds of unity within the Communion. They elected and consecrated VGR anyway.
Again, TEC was asked to show restraint in further elections and in the blessing of same sex partnerships. TEC knows that many of their brothers and sisters around the world have thoughtful biblical/theological doctrine that is at odds with TEC’s sense of God’s Word. As importantly, there are tens of millions of Anglicans that live in countries where TEC’s support of the LGBT agenda places their families in grave personal peril.
Knowing the pain…the real danger…their action would cause to the body of Christ known as the Worldwide Anglican Communion TEC is again is showing a lack of restraint in the election of Ms. Glasspool.
Ms. Glasspool is not the main issue (only the presenting question). The issue is the petulant, self-centered actions of North American Anglicans towards the Worldwide Anglican Communion. Please don’t have this issue (this thread) hijacked by the lure of Levitical exegesis. The key problem is not Ms. Glasspool…the central problem is the lack of restraint by the leadership of TEC.
Lack of restraint based on what??? I still think that is what is debatable, whether we like it or not. And I don’t feel and never have been accused of being petulant.
However, I do not wish to take this tread off track , as you point out, so I am going to sign off, with special thanks to Phil Snyder who shows more pastoral and compassionate leadership [edited]. Thank you, Phil, and others, for the courtesy of your sincere replies to questions that are integral not just academic to all of us.
Evelyn
[Edited by Elf – Thank you Tobit3 for your contribution and the lively discussion – you may find the previous comment was not directed towards you – we do now encourage commenters to keep to the thread topic – Off topic comments which ignore our request will be deleted]
The TEC in USA is little more than boys and girls club for sexual behavior so they can feel good about themselves. Rowan lost the reins 7 years ago with Vickie Gene.
TEC has no spiritual relevance in the true Christian world. It has lost its way.
Tobit 3, #47:
You wrote: “My biggest issue is that I have in my mind and in my heart (transformed, misled???) a problem with The Church.”
If your problem is with the Church, why aren’t you exploring Unitarianism or another Church that shares your interpretation of Scripture and morality? Why are you, or if not you, why are GLBT/Episcopal Church lobbyists so focused on changing the Scriptural beliefs of the entire Episcopal Church?
I hope you will continue to try to understand those of us who have learned to respect and rely on Scripture for guidance because we don’t intend to give up our faith in the Word of God for specious earthly arguments which are based merely on sexuality.
Well, Fulcrum now have a response with which I completely agree:
[blockquote]Fulcrum Response to Consents being given to the Consecration of Mary Glasspool
This is a clear rejection of the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.
We believe that it is vitally important for the Primates’ Meeting planned for January 2011 to go ahead, and that for this to happen the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church should not be invited to attend. Actions have consequences.[/blockquote]
I don’t think they could be clearer.
[Edited]
As to the topic of this discussion, it is abundantly clear that the current leadership of TEC can not pretend to be abiding by Windsor. Whether the very generous interpretations of their previous actions in this regard are valid or whether it was proper to invite TEC bishops to Lambeth are both moot questions. It is incumbent on all involved to recognize this reality and act accordingly. It is understandable that TEC leadership will express the hope that their action will not further erode their position in the councils of the Anglican Communion – that they would express the hope that the new consensus spoken of in the Windsor Report might have come to fruition. The answer, clearly, is no and the precipitous action undertaken with regard to Miss Glasspool, a friendly acquaintance of mine as I am in her diocese, must result in clear sanctions against TEC as currently led.
It would appear that ACNA is in a stronger position to enter into full communion [Edited]. For those of us in relatively healthy orthodox parishes in reappraising dioceses, matters are more complex and continue to be more painful. It appears that some, at least, of us are bound to remain in servitude to faithless masters. Perhaps continued Babylonian captivity will do us good. Then again, perhaps God will deliver us. Regardless, it is likely a good thing that TEC’s current leadership has spoken so clearly so quickly.
[Edited by Elf]
It would appear that TEC’s action in consenting to Ms Glasspool’s upcoming ‘consecration’ has created the impetus needed for further action on the part of reasserters in revisionist parishes and dioceses, so I think it’s safe to assume that many more will be departing from TEC. This may be the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as the Global South is concerned.
#8 – Having met MAry Glsspool while she was at St. Margaret’s, I agree- she is intelligent, charismatic and charming. While she was there, however, she was already in a partnered relationship with another woman, and chose not to communciate that to her parish much less her vestry. It was always a big “mystery” as to her private life, as she kep to herself her private life. Inother words, she lied, by omission to the very people that she was directed to serve. If for nothing other than that set of lies (by omission) I would reject strongly her candidacy for a Bishop of the chruch.