Ralph Webb commented,
“Bishop Robinson’s allowance of blessing civil unions as a local option””even though such blessings are not required of priests””provides yet another illustration of how the Episcopal Church opposes the traditional definition of marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman.
“It’s tragic that just within the last year, we have seen increasing evidence of a hardening of this position. Some Episcopal Church parishioners, parishes, parachurch groups, and diocesan bishops opposed state marriage amendments upholding the traditional definition of marriage last fall. And this spring, the denomination’s Executive Council passed a resolution urged against future General Conventions being held in states where the marriage amendments are in effect.
“And the tragedy is on full display in the bishop’s phrase, ‘Just like in marriages.’ What’s at stake here is the Judeo-Christian understanding that no other relationship””whether that of cohabiting heterosexual couples or same-sex partners””in which two people commit to living together can approximate marriage or should receive the church’s blessing. That understanding informs the Episcopal Church’s own Book of Common Prayer.
I can easily see a non-discrimination canon to the effect that if a priest does any marriages/blessings he must do them all. It’s only a matter of time. And I can easily see a pastoral admonition to the same effect.
Br. Michael writes: I can easily see a non-discrimination canon to the effect that if apries does any marriages/blessings he must do them all…
I find this very unlikely. It is the priest’s pastoral responsibility to discern whether to bless any couple in a marriage or commitment ceremony. The same type of red herring argument has been used in the civil arena, claiming that equal marriage rights for male or female couples would violate First Amendment protections of religious liberty. It is meant there simply as a scare tactic, perhpas the same in church discourse.
The headline seems breathtakingly dishonest to me. If it has any purpose other than to inflame public opinion against people who disagree with the author’s view, I can’t tell what that might be.
The headline is not dishonest, though I’d say this it’s hardening began in 1973 with the changes in marriage and divorce that reflected societies cheapening of the covenant. Even today, dissolution inside the Church is about the same rate as outside the Church. I’d say the two are connected and we’re only at the point of SSB today because we devalued God’s gift back then.
2, We have seen this in the past. We know, that as in the case of WO, what was permissive became mandatory. Don’t take us for fools.
KAR wrote: <...with the changes in marriage and divorce that reflected societies cheapening of the covenant.>
I think KAR has hit upon something that explains a lot: “cheapening of the covenant.” Historically, the People of God have made and then broke essentially all of the Covenants that were made. Are we no different? Look at the mess our society is in. No one wants to take responsibility for their own actions. It’s always someone else’s fault. Most Marriage have “pre-neps”. It’s as if ANY agreement is for the moment, and “long term” personal commitments will only last until a better deal with someone else can be made.
H
No, Brother Michael, it was “sold” to all as permissive, but they meant it all along as mandatory, while not saying so. At least that’s what I get in conversations with our Worthy Opponents on the Web. Conservatives went along with them thinking their consciences would be honored. The left said what they needed to get the job done, but they never intended to let it rest at “permissive.” It will be the same with this, we’ve learned our lesson. They can’t be trusted. To them, their notion of justice trumps our consciences. End of story.
Or maybe not. Maybe all I just wrote is a bit of revising of history by some leftists, and at the time of WO conservative consciences were really meant to be honored. But in the end, that’s not what happened.
And they mean this to be mandatory too.
I agree with 3 above, that this headline is both erroneous and misleading. It is my understanding that the Church continues to hold marriage in high esteem — that the value of marriage lies in the church and in the greater good for society as a whole.
Unless one is truly fearful of the validity, sanctity, and permanence of one’s own [heterosexual] marriage, I fail to see how the marriage (or covenantal relationship) of two people of the same sex either cheapens or weakens the institution of marriage. “Cheapening” of the blessed vows occurs when celebraties opt for quick marriages (and even quicker divorces) — and rather than being appalled, society gives them the front page and a chuckle and eye-roll. My covenant with my partner, yet to be blessed by the church, has been blessed by God. It is to God that we turn for both blessing and honor. Not Paris Hilton, nor, alas, as yet, to the wider Church.
Padre Wayne,
You cheapen the marriage covenant because you claim it can extend to people of the same sex, even though such relationships are expressly proscribed by Scripture and even though biologically a homosexual relationship can never be the equivalent of a heterosexual relationship. So, when other people whose relationships are proscribed by Scripture start asking you to bless their polyandrous relationships or string of serial marriages, you have no way to tell them no.
#9: “Unless one is truly fearful of the validity, sanctity, and permanence of one’s own [heterosexual] marriage, I fail to see how the marriage (or covenantal relationship) of two people of the same sex either cheapens or weakens the institution of marriage.”
Yawn. Here we go again: “If you don’t fully fall in line with my agenda, then you are either afraid or bigoted.”
Padre, if you people could actually offer a logical and intellectual honest argument to support your agenda, then perhaps you might get somewhere. Instead, you rely on those tired and brain-dead assertions.
I also suggest that if you don’t like what the Church teaches about human sexuality, LEAVE.
I agree entirely with #3 and #9 as to the headline: it is a total distortion of the official teaching of the Episcopal Church. This so-called story is basically a press-release put out by IRD, which has been going after TEC on the gay issue for over ten years now. This web site does not appear to be a good source for “fair and “balanced” presentations.
#11, I think the “if you don’t like it, leave” argument is hardly Anglican. Though, I find it ironic that you use it. in that some congregations are leaving TEC because they don’t like one thing or another, mostly having to do with questions of sexuality.
Bob, TEC has no official teaching, or at least that’s what the reappraisers say.
“I think the “if you don’t like it, leave†argument is hardly Anglican.”
How is it not? If you don’t believe what the Church teaches, why continue to act as though you are part of it? Oh, wait, I see…Anglicanism is all about believing whatever you want, and to hell with oppressive Church doctrine, right? Hogwash. That is a lie.
“in that some congregations are leaving TEC because they don’t like one thing or another, mostly having to do with questions of sexuality.”
Sure, TEC is one thing. But, I’m not just talking about TEC, because it is not an entity unto itself, as much as reappraisers like to lie and say it is.
Those congregations that leave TEC are remaining Catholic, and are remaining within the Communion. TEC has chosen to walk apart by abandoning the teaching of the Church.
The headline is mischievous and malign.
Padre Wayne,
I entirely agree with you.
Others: there’s no threat here. On the contrary, regularised same-sex relationships actually support marriage. And actually … they are marriage.
It’s just contrary to Scripture and it’s tearing the Church apart, but other than that no big deal.
#15 – “On the contrary, regularised same-sex relationships actually support marriage. And actually … they are marriage.”
No they’re not. Marriage is an ancient institution that pre-dates whatever post hoc rationalization people can come up with for sinful activity.
John: “regularised[sic] same-sex relationships actually support marriage. And actually … they are marriage.”
A computer is like a goat. And actually…it is a goat.
A tree is like an airplane. And actually….it is an airplane.
Would anyone else like to add their own little comparisons? All you have to do is deny reality and believe that an assertion is a fact just because you said it. You don’t even have to defend it! If anyone calls you out on it, tell them that their “afraid” of something, or call them a bigot. Its easy, and fun!
Just a quick question. How can we have the hubris to “bless” what God has called sin?
#19:
But that’s not the question. The question is whether God has called it sin or not. And — as another recent thread discussed — that leads directly to fundamental questions of Biblical hermeneutics upon which we clearly do not agree.
Most of the healthy marriages I see are about communication, mutual support and encouragement, with forgiveness and reconciliation thrown in. They require a promise. The pornification of society makes it fundamentally genital. But any man and any woman have the proper parts. Any man and any woman isn’t a marriage. A marriage happens between two individuals who make a promise.
Technology and a loosening of the importance of blood in raising children themselves “undermine” marriage.
Rolling Eyes, you need to learn some set theory. Only if the primary, and fundamental purpose of marriage is genital sex between a man and a woman, rather than peace, wealth or mutual affection, does the orthodox position hold in a non-circular fashion.
What really undermined marriage is birth control, and letting women work. Once women had greater choices with men, gay men followed.
“Rolling Eyes, you need to learn some set theory. Only if the primary, and fundamental purpose of marriage is genital sex between a man and a woman, rather than peace, wealth or mutual affection,”
I’m the one who needs to learn something? Your ignorance of Scripture’s plan for marriage is offensive. Marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, and ONLY a man and a woman. It is an analogy of the unity within diversity present in the Trinity, which is impossible in a homosexual relationship. It is also an analogy of Christ and His Bride: again, something else that is impossible within homosexual relationships.
Your preaching about how marriage is only about feelings is yet another example of the pornification of our culture that you decry, not the remedy of it.
John Wilkins, Bob from Boone, PadreWayne, John Scholasticus: We’re never going to convince scripturalists that loving God with one’s whole mind demands more than slavishly following the thinking of the Bible’s various authors (and editors and translators).
But it’s great that you guys are in there pitching, if for no other reason than to present the other side of the issue to lurkers.
15 John Scholasticus: Not according to the Bible!
Rolling eyes, what p)rn are you watching? The pron I’ve (accidentally, of course) seen is more about genitalia, which is the main distinction between men and women, although some french philosophers think of gender as the distinction between the active and the passive (thus, the thrust and the reception of the thrust, if you will).
Scripture’s plan for marriage is a bit more ambiguous in what I read. Jesus wasn’t always very friendly toward family values, and the story of Lot’s Daughters and the number of wives Solomon had does make me wonder about a single interpretation of scripture. But you seem to think that any man and any woman is somehow holy. I tend to think that marriage is about two individuals who are called to be in a relationship with one another.
You misread my position about feelings. Marriage, as I said, is about a promise – one that is analagous to the covenant between God and his creation. And it is about creating wealth. I’m not sure what you mean by feelings, because it seems that you mean something like sentimentality. Not at all. If anything, your understanding of marriage between a man and a woman as intrinsically holy seems sentimental given that the real offense to marriage tend to be heterosexuals and the divorce rate thereof.
Your use of analogies is interesting, but two men are not necessarily the same. They are different individuals. If anything, the level of communication between gay men, its cooperative nature, seems to exemplify the trinity much more than the warfare common in marriages.
DC, as usual, sums up the differences nicely. To the reasserters the Bible is nothing more or less than a collection of ancient writings and is regarded as no more authoritative than Homer, Caesar or Harry Potter. It most certainly is not a unified collection of writings containing the revelation of God.
Br. Michael 26, this, too, is erroneous and misleading: “To the reasserters (I believe you mean ‘reappraisers’?) the Bible is nothing more or less than a collection of ancient writings…” yadda yadda. What blog are you quoting? Do you have a list of “Salvific Responses to Reappraisers’ Comments Which Are Sure To Bore”?
“It most certainly is not a unified collection of writings containing the revelation of God.”
Yes, it is. The problem arises, however, when one says that God stopped revealing himself when the Canon of Scripture was selected. Talk about rubbish and stuff and nonsense! Is your God that small?
Br. Michael [#26] nicely illustrates a peculiar either/or obsession on the part of traditionalists who can’t seem to break out of false dichotomy thinking. In their view, one has exactly two choices — one can:
— accept the Bible as “a unified collection of writings containing the revelation of God,” to be accorded preemptive authority by all people in all places and at all times; or
— regard the Bible as “nothing more or less than a collection of ancient writings and is regarded as no more authoritative than Homer, Caesar or Harry Potter.”
Br. Michael, do you and your friends truly think there is no middle ground between those two extremes? Is your world really that black-and-white?
Padre, If you believe in continuing revelation that replaces past revelation, fine. You and the Mormons have a lot in common. Is your god that inconsistent and unsure of himself? How do you know that I have not had a revelation that says you are entirely wrong?
DC, speaking only for myself, yes. Either the Scriptures in their entirety, are the word of God or they are not. But, we have had this discussion before. You just want to freely pick and chose that which seems right to you according to your own worldview.
As a “reappraiser” who teaches NT at a secular university and thus is perhaps more familiar with it than most Christians, and who has taught Homer and Caesar as a professor of classics, and who knows the differences between the Bible and classical literature, I want to assure Bro. Michael in #26 that his statement is pure hogwash. This kind of sweeping generalization that has all the virtues of a straw man argument does no service in advancing any discussion about where Episcopalians of various stripes stand on the understanding of Holy Scripture.
I believe that the Bible is the Word of God containing all things necessary for salvation; but it doesn’t contain the answers to all other things, and needs to be first read and interpreted in context before taking it further. The biblical writers were constrained by their own histories, and they need first to be understood in their own contexts, as I tell my students. We also need to understand the hermeneutical principles by which the NT writers interpreted the OT, i.e., Second Temple modes of interpretation.
I also believe, as the recipient of God’s disclosure to me, that Scripture is not the final word from God. When God revealed himself to me it was in a way that Scripture later affirmed. Of the various Christian mystics throughout the ages who have had similar or other experiences, my impression is that they would say the same thing. One does not have to be a Mormon to think that God reveals God’s self outside of scripture.
RE: “John Wilkins, Bob from Boone, PadreWayne, John Scholasticus: We’re never going to convince scripturalists that loving God with one’s whole mind demands more than slavishly following the thinking of the Bible’s various authors (and editors and translators). But it’s great that you guys are in there pitching, if for no other reason than to present the other side of the issue to lurkers.”
I also appreciate these four and DC for pitching in. The distinctions between the parties in ECUSA that hold the two mutually opposing gospels are refreshingly clear and transparently obvious to all.
In this way, people get to make choices based on clear distinctions, and I value that immensely.
Bob from Boone,
The problem is while you may have crafted a carefully nuanced position, there is no end to your hermeneutical method. I can use my history and context and personal revelation to justify polyandry. How do you tell me no? That is why the true faith includes the test of orthodoxy as well. Upending thousands of years of Jewish and Christian teaching to indulge 2% of the population clearly fails that test.
Reactionary [#32] writes: “Upending thousands of years of Jewish and Christian teaching to indulge 2% of the population clearly fails that test.”
One of my bosses in the Navy had a list of ten Great Naval Quotes that he prohibited his people from using in support of (or opposition to) a proposed action. Leading the list was We’ve always done it that way! and its close cousin, We’ve never done it that way! The military is more interested than most in dealing with reality as it is, not as we fancy it to be; and so my boss rightly expected us to defend (or oppose) “that way,” whatever it was, on its merits, not its pedigree.
Traditionalists should heed that injunction. Many of them cite “thousands of years of Jewish and Christian teaching” as their primary warrant for prohibiting loving adults from entering into committed relationships. If these trads are able to use such teachings to defend their prohibition on its merits, then they should by all means do so; we’ll certainly listen. But for many of us, imposing that prohibition (and more generally, meddling in people’s lives), solely on grounds that “we’ve always done it that way,” just doesn’t cut it anymore.
Yes, Sarah, this is indeed a pretty different way of thinking from what many of you find acceptable. I doubt that difference will ever change. I suspect the best our respective camps can ever hope for is a non-hostile (note that I don’t say “peaceful”) coexistence.
D.C.,
I’m not meddling. Our secular state guarantees that you will be free to indulge in as much homosexual activity as you desire. “Meddling” would be deconstructing an ancient, non-state institution just to indulge a deviant minority’s psychological craving for validation.
Again, the problem with your hermeneutic is it is completely open-ended. In addition to the unhygienic practices of homosexuals, somewhere out there are also people who want to normalize polyandry and relations with animals. How do you tell them no?
Reactionary [#34] writes of “deconstructing an ancient, non-state institution just to indulge a deviant minority’s psychological craving for validation.”
Don’t make an idol of the “ancient, non-state institution,” Reactionary. Unless you’re going to freeze the church in amber and prohibit it from changing in any way that might contradict the Bible — in which case it’d be the Bible that was the idol — the church is necessarily going to have to respond if its members’ views change. This indeed happened, and TEC responded in an orderly way, pursuant to agreed governance processes. You might not like the results or even the processes themselves, but you can’t dispute that the processes have been generally agreed.
—————
Reactionary writes: “In addition to the unhygienic practices of homosexuals, somewhere out there are also people who want to normalize polyandry and relations with animals. How do you tell them no?”
Hygiene can be managed; I suspect you’re just responding to your personal “ick” reaction (which I happen to share).
Concerning polyandry and animal relations, I’m not aware of any significant support for rethinking the traditional view of either one. We should certainly keep those issues in the back of our minds, but neither of them is ripe for decision. As Chief Justice Roberts aptly says, if it’s not necessary to decide something, it’s necessary NOT to decide it. If a decision becomes necessary, we’ll gather such evidence as we can, do our best to face the facts, and proceed as seems best — conscious that we might turn out to be wrong, in which case we can and should revisit the matter.
Sarah, I agree. And of course the question is how long can a Church divided in these essentials survive?
D.C.,
If Scripture (more accurately, the entire orthodox Tradition) isn’t the rulebook, then we’re left with experience. And since experience is necessarily tainted by sin and since everybody’s experience is different, then there is no way it can form the basis for a common creed. But for that matter, given that the vast majority of people have a visceral revulsion to homosexual sex, and given that a species that engaged in homosexual sex as a normative activity would become extinct, does that not tell you something about the validity of the experience?
#37
I don’t think it does. The mere fact that a given practice can’t be 100% generalisable doesn’t show that it is invalid. E.g., it’s good that there should be plumbers in the work force, but if everyone wanted to be a plumber it would be disastrous. I do believe responsible homosexual activity isn’t a threat. It’s minority – 5%-ish -and always will be. It’s important for gays – and it’s important that their rights be recognised. It isn’t important in the grand scheme of things. It is certainly not a threat to marriage. It’s ‘abnormal’ in the sense that it differs from the norm: it’s not ‘abnormal’ in the sense that it occurs – naturally – in all societies at all periods, and indeed among animals as well as humans. I have gay friends. I know settled gay couples. We are different in this small respect. In almost all respects, we are the same. ‘They are us and we are they’. It’s a slogan but I think an ennobling one.
I appreciate (in all senses) the distress such ‘liberal’ attitudes cause reasserters. I understand the reasoning. I just don’t share it. I don’t think it is essentially homophobic (although in practice it sometimes is: sniggering references to Gene Robinson in the female gender or by his baptised name of Vicky are wrong). But – for reasons already stated – I don’t believe that it opens up an unbridgeable gulf between reappraisers and reasserters.
If we’re thinking deeply about rules, we might want to examine Pauls discussion about law and grace. It’s a bit more complicated than a matter of rules.
Reactionary supposes there is no end to a hermeneutic, but this is a caricature. The liberal position merely recognizes that some rules are useful for us and worth obeying. Divinizing might be a useful shortcut, but we rely on the evidence to see if a rule is good or bad. Polyandry is an interesting concept – and when we have to face it, let’s discuss. But I don’t see where this is a practical problem, except in your mind. It is purely speculative.
If the bible is a rule book, its not a very good one. Many of the stories in scripture are quite bizarre and it would be very difficult to render clear rules about them. What is interesting is how they are formulated compared to other cultures.
There are other hermeneutics: does the act bring peace? Does it bring abundance? Those are two fairly consistent urges in scripture. Marriage between the sexes is a convenient system for ending the war between men and women. Homosexual sex that is consensual seems to bring peace within homosexuals – the alternative is secrecy and acting out.
Reactionary’s logic is flawed because he first makes easy distinctions between rules and experiences. Experience is, by nature of language, rule lade. The challenge is to reveal what the rules by which we are operating. He also nots that there is a visceral reaction to homosexual sex. Has he ever eaten silkworms? Koreans find them tasty, but I vomited when I tried them.
The issue for us is that the tradition of grace is now revealed to confront sexuality. Now we choose.
John,
“Marriage between the sexes is a convenient system for ending the war between men and women. Homosexual sex that is consensual seems to bring peace within homosexuals – the alternative is secrecy and acting out.”
That is an equivocation. Homosexuals are free to engage in as much sex as they like just as I am free to have affairs, indulge in pornography, etc., if I like. The point is that the Church cannot extend the sacrament of marriage to an activity the Bible declares sinful any more than it can extend the sacrament of marriage to individuals in a polygamous relationship or men and women on their second or third marriage each (and this is an issue that HAS come up). It is apparent that “experience” only moves the ratchet one way: towards increasing accomodation of human behavior rather than holding human behavior to a Scriptural standard.
Liberals act as if abnormal sexual practices were something new under the sun that must have shocked the Jewish and Christian elders in their naivete and only us enlightened moderns are capable of judging such things. In fact, sexual deviancy is as old as mankind and the saints of the Church were every bit as qualified to weigh the matter as we are. But even from that perspective, again, homosexual sex does not measure up as anything but a non-procreative and injurious activity that 95+% of the population recoils from.
#20 Ross, Since there is a quesion as to wether it is a sin or not and the question is still unresolved and considering God’s view of Holiness isn’t it still huberis to bless what God may consider sin?
Reactionary, you have your concepts confused. I am arguing that the central aspect of holiness in marriage is the covenant. Sex, conceptually, is more like food. The consequences of sex, in this day and age, are not the same as murder.
I would argue that homosexuals in a marriage are not entitled to have sex with whoever. It is YOU who say so. You have a bias toward either/or thinking in this case.
Experience does not move it just one way. This is empirically false. People might have a series of affairs and realize that it is deeply destructive. They might decide in relationships based on conquest and numbers. Some give it up.
Reactionary, it is true that homosexual activity would be injurious to you. Thus, please don’t engage in it. It is not injurious to homosexuals. What seems to be more injurious are those homosexuals who are so deeply shamed by their behavior, that they act out in ways that are destructive. Rather than offer them mutuality (which has some biblical defense) we tell them our problems with their behavior. Further the set of what homosexuals and heterosexuals do is actually… pretty similar. In the end, as I said, you end up talking about genitals rather than what marriages are really about. Marriages are about mutual support, encouragement, joy and peace first. And in plenty of marriages, they are only marginally about sex. Even in heterosexual ones (especially?)
Homosexuality WAS shocking to Jews. They saw it as an example of decadence and impurity. The question is whether such a view is correct. Well, if you look at it like a Jewish peasant 2000 years ago, then I won’t convince you. But for me, it is merely a cultural artifact. You act as if 2000 years ago people believed in evolution or had sex all figured out. I don’t think we do yet.
Clearly YOU have a problem with homosexuality. That’s fine. If anything, I’m not asking for accomodation toward promiscuity. I’m asking that promises be honored. What you’ve done is constructed an interesting caricature of the issue, based on a circular logic that defends the authority of scripture. That’s your perogative. But why not be honest and admit that homosexuality revolts you, rather than pretend your views are God’s? I’m simply an agnostic about what God thinks about genitals. I do know what he thinks about promises. I begin there.
John Wilkins, Homosexual activity is not injurious to homosexuals? Hep C, Aids, Veneral warts,anal fissures, this is just a partial list of damage to homosexuals due to homosexual activity. If this isn’t injurious what is?
Good grief, Dave B, these are not limited to homosexuals. Get a grip.
Reactionary, good try. These people are impervious to God centered reason. They want to do what they want to do. I am sure Eli’s sons likewise justified their behavior. Remember sin seeks to justify itself.
PadreWayne, correct, but these conditons can be and are caused by anal sex. Broken necks are not exclusive to people who jump into empty swimming pools but that does not mean jumping into empty swimming pools is safe. God warned us not to do certain things and I have found God’s advice to be wise.
How some people are so fixated on what they imagine homosexuals do is fascinating to me… Moreover, I’m not clear how your reasoning applies to women. Face it: You’ve allowed the ick factor to take over.
John Wilkins, I find your thoughts on marriage particularly helpful. Marriage truly is not about sex, it is about relationship — if there is a sexual component, a different dimension is added, but to say that marriage must have a sexual component denies the validity of many many solid, faithful, God-blessed marriages. Moreover, a marriage that begins in the twenties with raging hormones and lots of heat may (hopefully) endure into the eighties with diminished hormonal drive and lots of warmth — but because the sexual dimension has dissipated, does that mean it is now less of a marriage? I think not.
To reduce homosexual marriage to what two people do in bed implies a skewed theology of marriage.
Br. Michael [#45] writes: “These people are impervious to God centered reason.”
Au contraire; we’re trying to discern what “God centered reason” calls for us to do — as opposed to assuming we’re no longer obliged to think because the scriptural authors already did that once and for all.
——————-
Br. Michael [#45] writes: “Remember sin seeks to justify itself.”
So does piety oftentimes, no?
——————
Dave B [#46] writes: “… these conditions can be and are caused by anal sex.”
And automobiles kill thousands of people each year, and eating red meat contributes to clogged arteries, and screaming children contribute to high blood pressure. Few things in life are unmitigated benefits; with a little bit of care, all these risks can be prudently managed without losing the attendant benefits for those desiring them. Outright prohibitions need to be approached with great caution.
——————
PadreWayne [#48], I second your plaudits for John Wilkins’ thoughts on marriage.
D. C. ,you are correct, BUT there is a reason blood banks refuse blood from men involved in sex with other men. There is a reason that auto insurance is higher for people who drive drunk . There is a reason that drug addicts aren’t given security clearances. Because these things are called high risk behaviors. Yes you can reduce the risk by avoiding certain behavior. This brings me back to my original post. Homosexual sex can be harmful (and statistics tend to support) that it is harmful to homosexuals. Certainly there are people who smoke cigs without consequences but if you play the odds you don’t smoke.
And therefore, Dave B, the church should do everything in her power — including blessing — to encourage loving, faithful, monogamous relationships.
Sorry! I clicked submit too early. What I meant to say was that promiscuous, unsafe sex, hetero- or homo- can be harmful (and statistics tend to support this), Dave B. It can be physically harmful and morally harmful. Therefore (to put my above entry into context) the church should do everything in her power — including blessing — to encourage loving, faithful, monogamous relationships.
Apologies for the semi-double entry.
Dave B [#50] writes: “… there is a reason blood banks refuse blood from men involved in sex with other men. There is a reason that auto insurance is higher for people who drive drunk . There is a reason that drug addicts aren’t given security clearances. Because these things are called high risk behaviors. “
That’s all well and good — but who made traditionalists the risk czars for the church, with authority to decree what risk / benefit trade-offs one can accept in life and still be deemed a “good Christian”? Will it be decreed that people who smoke cannot receive Communion?
Let’s try a different example: Studies indicate that men married to women tend to be happier and healthier and to live longer. (Which seems to refute Paul’s advice that it’s better to stay single, but then Paul’s stated reason for this advice was that Jesus is returning Any Day Now, and we all know how well that prediction worked out.) Will the church’s risk czars therefore decree that married life is normative for good Christian men? That wouldn’t square very well with tradition.
Now for another wrinkle: The same studies show that it’s just the opposite for women — that it’s single women who tend to be happier, live longer, etc. But how can we decree marriage to be normative for men but not for women? (If we were to look to the rationale espoused [pun intended] by some in the anti-WO crowd, we might get something like this: Men are ontologically like Christ and the apostles, so their needs must take precedence.)
In my #53, references to married life being normative should instead be to married life being required.
D.C. The original statement I objected to was that homosexual activity is not harmful to homosexuals. (PERIOD) (comment 42 and 43) I have domonstarted that it is harmful to your statisfaction by the statements you made above. I am not the risk police but I am negligent if I don’t point out risk.
#52 I would also think that the Church should tell people that these activities can be harmful, but as posts here indicate there is denial about increased risk of homosexual behavior. People seem to feel that this behavior is of the same risk as heterosexual activity among married couples. My point (that you afirm) is that it is not at the same risk level as heterosexual behavior. Statistics also support this conclusion hence the prohabition against active homosexual men giving blood.
Dave B, you don’t get it. Your “ick factor” revealed one type of sexual behavior. That behavior is not limited to homosexuals, and yet it is assumed that that behavior is what we all do (or the majority of us) — therefore the prohibition against our blood (which is truly an awful result of a more generalized ick factor). Once you drop “that type” of behavior, you’ll see that homosexual behavior is no more dangerous than heterosexual behavior.
Could we please drop this particular thread? You’re raising my ick factor.
57. PadreWayne Sorry about raising your ick factor. I really don’t look at is icky!(surprise) Just condemened in the Bible and harmful for men and women. Other than that I have no objection. Won’t post on this thread again. Thank you for our discussion!
Where is Dr. Witt when you need him most? :gulp: I’ve read through most of the posts and it’s the same arguments I’ve heard. For the record, I believe in the traditional teaching of the church catholic regarding marriage. I have also read through the arguments that the TEC has tried to put forward as reasons for their actions over the past 4 years. I’ve tried to read through John W. et al.’s posts. While they may pique my interest and prod me to do some more reading, I still have to find any clear, concise, and informed reasoning to turn our backs on the traditional teaching of the church on sexuality and marriage.
What is most true is that homosexuals who learn how to live responsibly don’t spread disease. If the state and the church implicitly encourage the closet, they harm gay people, and they harm heterosexuals.
I do not want to dispense with the traditional teaching – as I understand it the traditional teaching is about sharing a life – and entire life. What I find offensive is reducing marriage by prioritizing genital sex above other apsects of marriage. What we are doing offering the gift of monogamy and fidelity to gay people. By not doing so, we are being selfish; or saying that monogamy and fidelity are less important gifts than someone else’s “appropriate” bodypart.
#60 We can not give monogamy or fidelity to people, this is thiers to choose. Do you think that heterosexuals who marry are suddenly endowed with blinders and a one partner only desire? Blessing same sex relationships will not lead to responsibilty in homsexuals any more than it does in heterosexuals. When I was growing up I dated a girl who had two dads. As far as I could tell they were monogamous and faithful, all with out an Episcopal SSB and this was 40 some years ago. I think what is desired by SS couples is that their relationships are legitimized and they are trying to use the body of Christ to achieve this goal.
#60, John Wilkins — good, thoughtful commentary.
#61, Dave B, not so good, not so thoughtful… You wrote: “I think what is desired by SS couples is that their relationships are legitimized and they are trying to use the body of Christ to achieve this goal. ”
Well, that may be what you think but it is your own supposition, so own it. On the other hand, I suspect you wouldn’t say the same thing of heterosexual couples, that they are “using” the church to achieve some sort of recognition? (Although some may…I think of the many, many couples who never darken the doors of a church until it’s time for wedding, baptism, or funeral…)
I think your comment is ultimately insulting toward faithful gay men and women whose lives are already blessed by God — and who desire a public, faith-based, community-of-faith supported, affirmation of that blessing.
PadreWayne I just can’t resist. I said I would not post here but I am as irresponsible as just about everybody else. I think we have beat this thread enough. I do own it, that is why I said “I Think”. It is my suppositon. I do feel the same way about heterosexuals who use churchs to legitimize their standing in society or to promote political positons. That these relationships are blessed by God remains to be seen. What we percieve in our sinfulness isn’t always the truth. When Babalon defeat Isreal was Babalon blessed or was Isreal punished or was it both? There are faith based communities that support homosexuals. The Uniterians are very good at it. Why tear apart TEC?
OK, OK, Dave B, perhaps we should put this to rest — I appreciate your wry humor and your thoughtful responses, and will only finish up my part of the commentary by saying that I am a faithful Episcopalian. I am not a Unitarian. I believe in the Triune God, I can say the Creeds without crossing my fingers, I vowed that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation (yet you and I obviously approach that item with different hermeneutics), the liturgy takes me into deep mysterious places of healing, and I support the mission of the Church and the Great Commission. My goal is not to tear apart TEC; my goal is to do my small part to bring my own witness to TEC and to help people explore their suppositions about God’s self-revelation as well as their own pre-conceived notions about what is sinful and what is not. There is certainly nothing wrong with questions, is there?
Blessings, Dave B.
Dave B
You are absolutely right: “That these relationships are blessed by God remains to be seen. What we percieve in our sinfullness isn’t always the truth.” Exactly. We don’t know if they are blessed, and as you are also a sinner, we can not be certain you are right. All we can do is pray to God together, and hope that the bible is correct that he is a God of mercy, slow to anger and of great kindness. (Except for you, of course – is what we want to say!).
Why tear apart TEC? Look – if we (both of us) wanted to, we could live together. Your ideology and perceptions of God YOU think are Gods, which we consider hubris. Our position is simply modest: we don’t know, but based on what we’ve witnessed, open monogamous, faithful relationships between gay people is better than seretive, promiscuous and shameful ones. The fruits of the spirit seem to be present in those relationships rather than in the concealed ones. Let’s not pretend that our breaking up is about God. Its about us and our own sinfulness. We both share it.
We use our theology as excuse for the hard work of a disciplined dialogue. That is our sin.
I so want to end this thread, but PadreWayne writes in #64:
“My goal is not to tear apart TEC; my goal is to do my small part to bring my own witness to TEC and to help people explore their suppositions about God’s self-revelation as well as their own pre-conceived notions about what is sinful and what is not. There is certainly nothing wrong with questions, is there?”
I’m glad that this is your stand.
1. I don’t think anyone wants to tear the TEC apart, I certainly don’t.
2. I also want to bear witness to the Gospel and it’s saving power to those who have not heard it.
3. When we help people explore their suppositions about God’s self-revelation and their preconceived notions about what is sinful and what is not, I think this is where the Great Divide happens between reasserters and reappraisers. Obviously,e.g., our interpretations differ on statements like “Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation”.
4. There is certainly nothing wrong with questions. However, when certain “answers” are provided (by reasserters and reappraisers), which one do you finally accept as your own? Again, when we make our choice, we obviously can agree to disagree.
John W: Your position on monogamous, faithful relationships between gay people is well-stated. However, at this point, all I can say is that we have differing positions. I am not using theology as an excuse for disciplined dialogue. It’s just that listening and participating in this dialogue for the past 20 years of my life, I have not been given a reasonable argument for me to change my position.
#66
‘Again, when we make our choice, we obviously can agree to disagree.’
That’s the crux and always will be. To do that – and yet remain in communion. Lots of people on this blog (Kendall ipsissimus, Sarah et al.) say this is wrong – can’t be justified – doesn’t happen. But it can be justified and it does happen and it’s the only hope for Anglicanism and it has been its chiefest glory.
PadreWayne and John Wilkins I want to thank you for your posts and discussion. I have known many gay couples who choose to live open, vibrant caring lives instead of secretive destructive ones. None that I know have TEC blessings.This is their choice These folks and there relationships are accepted. . I think if you feel The Anglican Communion should accept gay clergy, SSB etc then TEC needs to develope a better theology and scriptural underpinning for this position, change the prayer book, develope proper writs and a theology of blessing that allows for that for which scripture has not provided a basis. There is a tremendous lack of discipline in allowing clergy to develope, implement and perform ceremonies that have no universal understanding (is it a blessing, a marriage ceremony, a legal contract that is binding in courts of law, or just an affirmation of an existing relationship?). Until TEC can do these things to the satisfaction of the greater anglican communion we will have turmoil. God Bless you both and thanks again. Dave
#68
That is one handsome posting.
Indeed, #68 is what, I believe, PB Katharine would call “gracious.” I don’t agree with it, but I respect your POV, Dave B and thank you for your posts and discussion.