But in churches that have not resolved their stance on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, the court decision is likely to provoke even more confusion. In the Episcopal Church, bishops in different parts of the state have issued different directives to their clergy members.
Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles has authorized clergy members to perform same-sex marriages, said the Rev. Susan Russell, associate pastor at All Saints Church, and president of Integrity, a gay and lesbian advocacy group in the Episcopal Church.
Bishop Marc Handley Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California, which covers the San Francisco Bay Area, is urging all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, to first be married in a secular service and then come to the church for a blessing. Since the Episcopal Church does not allow rites for same-sex marriages, he said, this is a way to treat all couples equally.
“Sometimes the church is not quite caught up with the civil society, and this is one of those times,” Bishop Andrus said.
Sometimes the church is not quite caught up with the civil society
It’s a different civitas, marco.
Bishop J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles has authorized clergy members to perform same-sex marriages, said the Rev. Susan Russell, associate pastor at All Saints Church, and president of Integrity, a gay and lesbian advocacy group in the Episcopal Church.
For the record: on her blog, Susan denies saying that. (And I know many here feel that Bruno has de facto authorized by failing to stop them. I’m not trying to start a discussion of that again.)
She didn’t say that. (Just for the record.)
And so feel free to “have at us” about what we’re doing here at All Saints Church (which I’m well aware falls outside the bounds of what many of ya’ll think we ought to be doing) but please do us the favor of recognizing that the press do NOT always report exactly what we say and +Jon Bruno’s policy is still exactly where it was.
Thanks!
Sounds like I’m more responsible for my dog chasing the neighbor’s cat than +Bruno is for any of his clergy’s pastoral actions. It seems that the context in which +Bruno is acting is not one of an “overseer”, if Russell+ is to be believed.
Susan, you really do think we are that stupid don’t you? You really do.
Susan, could you enlighten us as to the difference between what it is you are doing and an Episcopal marriage service – not in theory but in practice? On your blog would be fine. I think it would be helpful for those who are confused.
[blockquote]“Sometimes the church is not quite caught up with the civil society, and this is one of those times,†[/blockquote]
Behold the [i]weltanschauung[/i] of the Religious Left in a nutshell. I doubt it could possibly be put more succinctly.
“Sometimes the church is not quite caught up with the civil society, and this is one of those times,†Bishop Andrus said.
Out of 2,000 years, how many of those years has it been the policy and action of the Church to keep up with society?
I’d say none.
Don
RE:”“Sometimes the church is not quite caught up with the civil society, and this is one of those times,†Bishop Andrus said…”
Well, he certainly is quite clear about where HE thinks the church should be headed! [incredulous look on face]
Susan, I think the press is looking at what you do as opposed to what you say. Either way it is contrary to Scripture and to God.
“Sometimes the church is not quite caught up with the civil society, and this is one of those times,â€
Translation: Man created God, therefore our society needs to bring the church up to date.
With leaders like Andrus, Bruno, and many others, why do we need the Church at all? We have them to keep us up to date with the new world religion.
H
[i]deleted off topic. Perhaps you merely posted this on the wrong thread, dwstroud, but if your comment and link here was intentional, we ask that if you have story ideas, send them to Kendall or the elves. Do not post an offtopic link in some other thread.[/i]
Br. Michael, #9, the press may be “looking at what you [Susan Russell] do as opposed to what you say” and that is all well and good, but they shouldn’t be putting words in Rev. Russell’s mouth. This is the same disagreement I have with the AP in the story Kendall noted below when it excerpted just one word uttered by Bp. Minns and inserted it in a sentence. Let the speaker speak and if you can’t attribute a full quote to someone, don’t do it. I think this is poor journalism.
Frankly, I think Rev. Russell is too savvy to say something like the above and was surprised when I first read it.
Remeber what I said about speaking a different language?
Whatever you may say, we re watching the kiss of death to the old society of self restraint and self discipline. The issue is now past ssm as a sexually transmitted disease, if I may put it that way. Now, the issue is ssm as one symptom of a much larger and more perfectly terminal disease, the internal rot in a society’s structural timbers, for which there is no cure save actual revolution, that is, the ripping out of the foundation itself.
I have tried to mark some of the signs in the dissolution of meaning in our language, its loss of integrity, the failure of its identity, for it is here we see the actual tools of thought being blunted and broken, the substitution of feeling for cognition.
Think for a moment of the absurdity of calling homosexuals “gay.” This is more than a nonce word. What can this word now mean? One can no longer use it for its denotation. Language as an expression of one’s feeling is characteristically adolescent, as you all know, but for this to work, words have to be stripped of their denotation so that personal expression can take the place of cognition. “Gay” is such a word now; you say it and it implies approval, do its not, even when you do not so intend it.
This decay started long ago, when the First Amendment was used to rationalize any proposition, however false or misleading – consider the semantic crimes committed by American advertising – and now we see its culmination when a central concept like “marriage” is made meaningless in the name of “civil rights.” What must happen to thought – and so to language – when boundaries are dissolved? We had better prepare for a more important battle.
Larry
[two portions deleted]
[i]deleted. Please do not turn this thread into a chance to make personal comments about or to Susan Russell.[/i]
[i]Deleted. I ruled this one off topic. [/i]
Susan,
As always, I appreciate your continued willingness to love your enemies by showing up over here with grace. That being said, I know you pride yourself on your progressive tendancies, but for the love of all that is holy, can’t you just in this instance be traditional and use the proper form of “y’all” instead of “ya’ll?” From one southern brother to his western sister, I beseech thee.
Elves, I hope you will allow this post. It is sort of off topic, but it is relevant to all we read here. I have suggested entries like this one from Newsweek to Kendall in the past, but he has never printed them. It may be a copyright problem.
For the rest, please see this weeks Newsweek, the “My Turn” section. Here a homosexual tells his story of moving into TEC, why and how, his definition of what a standard Christian is, his meeting with VGR, and ssm. I call in particular your attention to his phrase at the end. “It is right to stand before God as I am and speak my own truth.” Newsweek brings us Newspeak, which joins “…do as you will,” with “speak my own truth.” Here is the matter in a nutshell, as clear as it can be made. What do we say to this? How counter it, or is this not in fact possible any more? I do hope to read responses to this is the elves permit it. Larry
17. Larry Morse:
The relevance for this thread comes from the poor self-judgement and poor governance illustrated in the article. Your question would seem very germane.
“speak my own truth.†How do we counter it?
We can not. But how do we Christians know any more about God than anyone else? If we do, it is only because God chooses to reveal Himself to us. We believe that He did so in Scripture.
We all do what is right in our own eyes, but God has spoken, and none of us have been right and it is ONLY when we align our will with God’s that we know Him. It is through Holy Scripture that we know His will.
So it is Holy Scripture that condemns false ideas and actions. When those who stand before God saying that they feel good about their actions, if God is who He claims He is, He will say, “So what? It is I that must feel good about your actions.”
Jesus asks the one question that this generation needs, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?”
I’m sorry if our Savior is a bit legalistic.
Don
Larry, the Bible does speak to relativism and it condemns it. The Bible is clear that God speaks the truth and that that truth is recorded in Scripture. It is also clear that we can make our own choice. We can reject God’s truth and substitute our own, but God is not required to accept our version of the truth. We conform to Him, not He to us. To say: “It is right to stand before God as I am and speak my own truth.†is post-modern delusion at best. And it is right in line with:
[blockquote]Genesis 3:1 The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the LORD God had made. One day he asked the woman, “Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?”[/blockquote]
Larry Morse #13: “Whatever you may say, we re watching the kiss of death to the old society of self restraint and self discipline.”
Actually quite the reverse, Larry. The commitment of marriage, whether between two men, two women, or a man and a woman, [i]encourages[/i] self-restraint and self-discipline because of the promise of fidelity. Just as the young rake becomes a model husband, so might the young gay rake. This benefits family and society in many, many ways.
padrewayne, you’re not supposed to drink the bongwater.
What on earth would induce the young gay rake to become a model husband (leaving aside the fact that we are ignoring all definitions of “model” in this culture)? It is for family’s sake (you know, children and the wife who must give birth to them and care and feed them) that a young rake turns responsible. Homosexuals are not getting together for the sake if creating a family. They are getting hitched so that they can feel just like everybody else. It is a supremely selfish motivation borne out of a feeling of inferiority.
Homosexuals are not “marrying eachother, for it is not a marriage that is the result. It is a parody of a marriage. Parodies do not carry the same benefit as the real thing. Calling it so doesn’t make it so. It is said that suffering builds character. If I get a massage and call it “suffering” I will not build up any charcacter. If others join me in accepting my new definition of suffering” the the entire concept of character building suffering will suffer.
#21, do you know any gay families? By and large, they’re pretty boring and ordinary people, just getting through the day to day grind like the rest of us. I suggest watching something like [url=http://video.mercurynews.com/mms/rt/1/site/medianewsgroup-bang-mercurynews-pub01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=mercurynewsvideomc&maven_referralPlaylistId=2702c907691535a6f106bf50a4e68dda7d6d763f&maven_referralObject=9b33fc33-7e2b-4bcf-af42-3d3319bf470a]this[/url] or the other videos there to see who the “enemy” really is. Is it really selfish to want to be like other families in this respect if you’re already like them in so many other ways?
I know what the Bible says, but then I see these families that already exist, families that aren’t going to stop existing because we don’t like it or even because we tell them in November that they’re not really married, and I wonder what the correct reaction is. Honestly, no matter how worked up I can get about the biblical implications, I just don’t know what to do with the actual flesh-and-blood people involved. I’m not going to turn anyone straight, so do I tell them that they need to split up and raise their kids in a broken home instead of one with two parents? Is that the most loving option? I’m comfortable in the black and white areas, but I’m in over my head in the gray part. Please pray for me to gain some clarity here.
I know what the Bible says, but
That is where you should stop, repent, and pray for understanding rather than going off and second guessing God because of what you think you see. How do you imagine you understand enough to know really what it is you are seeing? When God speaks in black and what it is rebellion and sin to call it grey.
That’s the clarity you need. But it is not what you seek. Be humble. Turn around, and admit that God knows more than you. Until you do that prayer won’t make a bit of difference.
When God speaks in black and white. :-
It is you who are speaking in black and what.
Then what is the correct response when I’m invited to these (civil) weddings (because of my industry, I will be receiving several, including families involving children who have only known two same-sex parents)? I appreciate the responses, but I think it’s facile to say that the Bible covers all the angles here. If I refuse the invitation, do I also have to not go to my nephew’s (non-church) wedding this summer, since he and his future wife have been living together for five years? Same level of sin, right?
I’m knotted up about this; it would be easier if I didn’t really care about all of the people involved and could just write them all off as vile sinners!
Hey, Clayton, I also do not attend big weddings with white gowned women carrying the evidence of their sexual sins (a child). Marriage is God’s institution – not ours. I need to support God’s view of marriage.
Don
If I refuse the invitation, do I also have to not go to my nephew’s (non-church) wedding this summer, since he and his future wife have been living together for five years? Same level of sin, right?
Uh, no. Not even close. Your nephew has been living in sin and is now finally making it right by marrying. Granted, his level of commitment may be lessened by his attitude toward marriage in his shacking up, but it is still a real marriage. He’s choosing to stop sinning. Homosexuals “marrying” are simply committing themselves to continue doing what God calls an abomination, and they are pretending that God is blessing it? How is that even remotely the same?
Here’s a thought: don’t go to events that mock what God has instituted, that affirm sin as good, just so you can pretend everything is nice. Be a man. be a godly man and stand against sin while loving the sinner. If you can’t do that, don’t bother bleating on about God or love.
#20. I wish what you have said were true, that marriage encourages self-discipline and self-restraint. It USED to because children brought a man and a woman to an awareness that their wishes and desires no longer come first. They became adults, in short. This is no longer true, as you well know. Alas, alas for us all.
it is true that some homosexual couples live externally commonplace lives. On the surface this is certainly true. Beneath the surface, there is a very different world, for their primary friends are also homosexuals and they are integrated into the homosexual subculture. By day, we see suits and polished shoes. But go to a homosexual parade and you will see the same people scarcely dressed, flamboyant, (flaming may be a more accurate word), or in drag. IN this subculture, promiscuity is a standard of behavior (and I know this because homosexuals themselves say so). And if you look at the numbers, you will see that many of those now paired up are HIV positive. This should tell you something. Go to Fire Island and tell me what you really see. Tell me how the paired up homosexuals treat each other. Then comeback and make me t he same pitch. I have been there, watched and listened. It would make a stone tremble and grow gray. Larry
#28 Larry, you are so blinded by the fringe that you can’t see the center. Clayton is so right — there are couples and families who are exceedingly boring, both gay and straight. The man/man or woman/woman come together to commit to one another, as my elderly father did with my step-mom — it’s not about children. It [i]may[/i] be about the desire for children and it may not.
“On the surface this is certainly true.” Good grief. My primary friends are straight. By day, as you might assume, you see khakis and a black shirt. I don’t go to homosexual parades, I go to the Fourth of July parade in my town. I don’t flame. I’m not promiscuous. I’m not infected. And I could name you over a dozen — make that two dozen — friends and acquaintances who more fit my pattern than your awfulizing stereotype. You may well know people who fit the bill, but there are so many others who do not. Open your eyes. Attend a welcoming church. I suspect [i]that[/i] might do you some good.
Well, I have opened my eyes, I’m sorry to say. I wish this entire problem would go away and then I wouldn’t have to think about it any more.I DID ttend a welcoming church a half dozen years ago. It was a TEC in Cambridge,Mass. (AT least I think it was in Cambridge; I don’t know where the city limit is.) It was a Horror. The “mass” was a mix of buddhism, wicca. feminism, and I don’t know what not. If that was a Christian Mass, I’m Darth Vader. And I saw again what I first saw in a seaside resort town in Maine which has always had a large homosexual population, namely, a queen and his court. And an unpleasant, catty, bickering, group it was too. Go to Princetown Mass., and you will see the same.
Now, is this” an awfulizing stereotype”? This is a question of real importance. Am I just seeing the radical homosexual fringe? Was Ogunquit a radical fringe? Are Provincetown and Fire Island populated by a radical fringe? Are the homosexual and lesbian parades the radical fringe? Is Susan Russell, on the other hand, a representative of the middle-of-the-road lesbians? A friend sent me pictures of a homosexual/lesbian parade in San Francisco in which all participants were stark naked, bodies painted all colors, and all were riding bikes.
Peop[le lined the roads, children in hand, and everyone had cameras, even the kids. Is this radical fringe?
Here we tend to focus on homosexuality as seen through scripture (as should be the case) but the issue is culture wide and its repercussions show signs of altering the American identity. Is this a minority of a minority exerting these forces, or is the homosexual population actually a stalking horse for the liberal elite who have made the homophile agenda a matter of national significance?
What TEC does is simply the tip of the iceberg, isn’t it? But the question – what does “normal” mean for the entire homosexual population? – is of the utmost importance, because a true and correct view of this statistic will alter or confirm a thousand conflicting opinions and views.
This is too long, I know, but I hope the elves will not kill it because the basic questions are central: Is there a “normal?” If so, what is it? Is the homosexual population in fact a stalking horse for a larger agenda? Larry