From the News-Observer (a North Carolina paper serving the Raleigh – Durham – Chapel Hill area)
CHAPEL HILL – At a time when women were often denied positions of authority, the tattered book that chronicles the 1842 incorporation of The Chapel of the Cross bears the signatures of 12 women beside those of 12 men.
The book also lists the names of young slave children whose owner brought them to be baptized in the 1850s. Pauli Murray, the granddaughter of one of those slaves, became the first black woman ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church. She returned to Chapel Hill and received her first Eucharist as an ordained priest in the church.
Now, The Chapel of the Cross Episcopal Church is incorporating another minority community into its 1,200-member congregation by entering into a discernment process — or active discussion — about blessing same-sex unions.
“We have a number of gay couples in our parish that have been together 25, 30 years, some of whom would like the church’s blessing on their private covenant,” said Rector Stephen Elkins-Williams. “I think we’ve asked them to wait, those who want to, long enough.”
The larger Episcopal Church does not recognize any rites for same-sex unions, although specific parishes are not penalized for offering such ceremonies or creating their own rites.
The Chapel of the Cross, 304 E. Franklin St., would join several other Triangle churches that have offered similar ceremonies for years.
Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh has offered “holy union ceremonies” since the early ’90s and performs three or four per year, said Pastor Nancy Petty.
“To have a relationship blessed within the church is a huge statement on the fact that God blesses these relationships,” Petty said. “It affirms what we believe, that people can be Christians and be gay, and that gay people can be in Christian relations.”
It seems that Chapel of the Cross is trying to become “Episco-baptist” in its actions. 🙂
On a serious note, no one ever said that gay people could not be Christian or that they could not be in Christian relationships. That has never been an issue. The issue is whether sexually active homosexual relationships are a form of relationship that God blesses. The Church has held, since its beginning, that homosexual sex is wrong. We hear the claims that Jesus didn’t speak about homosexual sex, but Jesus didn’t speak out against gluttony or sloth either. Jesus didn’t speak out against slavery or racism or war. I would bet that Hell is full of people who insisted on keeping sins that Jesus didn’t speak out against.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Aaaah, the “Snooze and Observer.
This saddens me to no end. I was confirmed in that chapel.
“I think we’ve asked them to wait, those who want to, long enough.”
Obviously what you think carries more weight than what the Primates think?
Tar Heel #3, “Obviously what you think carries more weight than what the Primates think?”
That is a loaded question. I [i]could[/i] tell you what I think about what the majority (please don’t enhance the argument by lumping them all together, for they are [i]not[/i] in 100% agreement) of that group thinks, but I try to keep my language clean. The “you” you question, Tar Heel, is only representative of many, many Episcopalians — he was not speaking in a vacuum. Moreover: What sort of pedestal are you placing those Primates on? You certainly seem to have an elevated ecclesiology vis-a-vis the archepiscopacy!
MBIC Phil Snyder #1, you say, then, that it would be fine for me and my partner to have our relationship blessed as long as we covenant with whomever to abstain from a physical expression of our love as long as we both shall live? Such generosity of spirit… I guess this means we’d engage in some sort of bizarre mental monogamy… to what purpose?
“What sort of pedestal are you placing those Primates on? You certainly seem to have an elevated ecclesiology vis-a-vis the archepiscopacy!”
No, Padre, he just has a better understanding of what it means to be Anglican. See, as an Anglican, you are part of a communion, and you cannot just do whatever you want and say it’s blessed by God. You are accountable to others in the Communion and should defend your actions if you break from the fold.
PadreWayne (#4)
I don’t make the rules. I only strive to live by them and ask for forgiveness when I don’t. I also don’t try to get the church to change the rules to suit me or a group of people like me.
For all of Christian history, the “rule” has been all sex outside of marriage (between one man and one woman) is sinful – it is less than what God desires for us and less than God designed us for. So, we have a choice – heterosexual marriage or celibacy. That is the choice. We were never promised that the choice would be easy or that we would see it as “fair.” We were promised that God would help us in our choices.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Philip Snyder #6
That wasn’t my question. You wrote (in #1), “no one ever said that gay people could not be Christian or that they could not be in Christian relationships” and so I am asking: Can that relationship, since you consider it [i]Christian[/i] be holy and therefore blessed if the partners involved vow to celibacy?
Then again, perhaps I should take it from your comment in #6 that the answer is “yes.” Am I correct?
And although scholars question some of Boswell’s assertions, I don’t think you can actually say that “for [i]all[/i] of Christian history…[i]all[/i] sex outside of marriage…is sinful.” I will most certainly grant you that for the huge majority of Christian history… but I urge caution in the use of the word “all.”
Philip, I am not asking for something that is “easy,” and I do not promote the notion of faithful monogamous homosexual union simply to be “fair.” I support civil same-sex marriage because it is right and because it enhances families and communities. I support the Church blessing same-sex relationships because I do not agree that Scripture calls them sinful and because I believe them to be life-giving and giving glory to God as a reflection, an icon, of Christ’s love for humankind.
“I believe [homosexual relationships] to be life-giving”
Funny, I remember learning in junior high biology that that was impossible.
Padre Wayne: But it is precisely here – “I believe them to be life giving” – that you make the worst of the missteps that have plagued this argument all along. Homosexual relationships, whether Christian or not, whether blessed or not, are the very reverse of life-giving. They are at all levels sterile; they are life-denying. Sodomy is, literally, a perfect exemplum of sterilty, of a-life, and as a metaphor or symbol, an ever more powerful example of life-denying. Beneath all the talk, beneath all the literature, beneath the Bible itself, runs the dark, unbiquitous river of evolution whose primary rule is fertility, which we, and the Bible, call life affirming. Go forth and multiply is the most ancient law evolution knows, for without it, the battle to survive will never be fought. Homosexuality runs absolutely counter to this fundamental.And this is why homosexual relationships do not enhance families; a homosexual family is an oxymoron, a pretense that the relationship is what it patently is not. The child, in this case, is camouflage. It is as if two weeds bought a flower, saying, “See,this flower is ours, so we must be a garden.”
Can a homosexual be a good Christian? Sure, one may suppose so, but it will require that he keep his pants on and he must as well do something about his primary motivation, for Christ makes it clear that it is our motives, that which goes on in our heads, is what counts. LM
Why is it that every article I read about this chapel starts with the same two paragraphs:
[blockquote] CHAPEL HILL — At a time when women were often denied positions of authority, the tattered book that chronicles the 1842 incorporation of The Chapel of the Cross bears the signatures of 12 women beside those of 12 men.
The book also lists the names of young slave children whose owner brought them to be baptized in the 1850s. Pauli Murray, the granddaughter of one of those slaves, became the first black woman ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church. She returned to Chapel Hill and received her first Eucharist as an ordained priest in the church.[/blockquote]
Is this some sort of liberal incantation?
RSB
Larry Morse #10: “Homosexual relationships, whether Christian or not, whether blessed or not, are the very reverse of life-giving. They are at all levels sterile…”
You do not have the right, nor the experience, to make this claim. My experience says quite the opposite: That truly faithful, monogamous homosexual relationships enhance the lives of the partners and bring glory to God — the “sterility” you refer to has only to do with the possibility of procreation.
Families, I suggest, are defined by relationship — your comments would negate the familial aspect of adoption by heterosexual couples as well as homosexual ones. Your saying that such a relationship is an oxymoron insults the thriving families I know. In your metaphor, they are all flowers (CStan: no, it is neither brilliant nor compassionate).
Further, your repeated (from thread after thread) obsession with “sodomy” is quite curious. Your assumption that this (and yes, I know what you mean by the word) is the only physical sexual expression available to homosexuals is simply warped — and denies the experience, as well, of homosexual women.
Without procreation, none of us would be here. It is rather important, isn’t it? Integral, actually.
Jennifer, of [i]course[/i] procreation is important. But it defines neither marriage nor family.
RE: “But it defines neither marriage nor family.”
True — it is merely one of the signs by which we may determine what is a family or marriage. Try all you like — you won’t succeed in broadening and redefining “marriage” and “family” to suit the special sexual attraction that you desire to win societal approval for.
“You do not have the right, nor the experience, to make this claim. My experience says quite the opposite: That truly faithful, monogamous homosexual relationships enhance the lives of the partners and bring glory to God—the “sterility” you refer to has only to do with the possibility of procreation. ”
And what gives you the right to claim the opposite with as much certainty?
Padre, you are confusing “life” with “warm fuzzies”.
You should face the fact that you are arguing against nature itself. The nature as GOD himself created it.
Sarah: “Try all you like—you won’t succeed in broadening and redefining “marriage” and “family” to suit the special sexual attraction that you desire to win societal approval for.”
Actually, he and his ilk just might succeed in doing that. But, that’s all semantics. What he’s really trying to do, and WILL fail at, is rewriting the rules of Natural Law, which God created in his own image.
Sarah: Too late. It is already being done.
Rolling Eyes: I already said what gives me the “right” — experience. I am hardly confusing life with warm fuzzies. Life is messy, life is challenging, it’s not all warm fuzzies. Re: Nature, please check recent studies outlining homosexual physical expressions among God’s critters. Of course homosexuality occurs in a [i]very[/i] small segment, but it does occur. (Beware also of anthropomorphicizing God, by the way…your argument sexualizes and genders the Trinity inappropriately.)
And to both (and especially Larry Morse, the sodomy-obsessed one): you are reducing my sexuality to sex.
Same-sex marriage will mean that more children — not less — grow up without both a mother and a father.
It does not “enhances families”, it encourages them to be broken and reconfigured to accomodate adult gender bias.
This is spiritual violence committed against a child.
Marty, same-sex marriage [i]could[/i] mean that more children — not less — grow up with a set of parents who love them rather than in an orphanage. It is a benefit to society (as well as individuals) for a child to grow up in a stable home as opposed to an institution. I fail to understand your comments.
I fail to understand your comments.
Of course you do.
First, you presented a red herring: the families of orphaned children are already broken. They remain “children of broken homes” even after they are adopted.
Second, have you never heard of artificial insemination? I hear it’s quite popular among lesbians who want to have children without fathers. Likewise surrogate motherhood meets the need of gay men to maintain their segregated household, while deliberately depriving a child of a Mother.
Same-sex marriage will make these distorted situations more common, not less, because it implies acceptance of them.
Yet we all know that separate is never equal — two moms are no more equal to a mother and a father than two left shoes are equal to “a pair of shoes”. No, they are redundant, lacking in both diversity and complementarity.
A cruel thing to do to a child, don’t you think Padre?
Phil humorously remarked, “It seems that Chapel of the Cross is trying to become “Episco-baptist” in its actions.”
Heh. I’ve certainly seen examples on both sides of the current unpleasantness of “sudden-onset congregationalism” 🙂 Heck, if you wanna see Anglo-Baptists* in action locally, just head for Christ Church, Plano.
*(both in polity and theology)
RE: “Sarah: Too late. It is already being done.”
Nonsense. Just because progressives wish to redefine marriage and family and are working hard at it in order to suit the special sexual attraction that they desire to win societal approval for does not mean it has been accomplished.
Nor, I think, will it be. I think they will fail.
But if Padre Wayne wishes to indulge in a fantasy of success, that’s no skin off my nose — have at it.
#23
They are not redefining marriage in one sense: they are perfectly happy with ‘normal’, ‘majority’, heterosexual marriage. However, they also want to INCLUDE monogamous homosexual relationships WITHN that definition. They are right. There is no threat here. There is actually an affirmation of monogamy as opposed to promiscuity, whether heterosexual or homosexual. ‘They are us, and we are they’. I’m proud to stand with them/us.
“They are not redefining marriage in one sense”
“they also want to INCLUDE monogamous homosexual relationships WITHN that definition.”
John, what part of “redefine” don’t you understand? Not only are you people obsessed with changing the definition of ancient institutions, but you also want to change the definition of words!
“Of course homosexuality occurs in a very small segment, but it does occur.”
And by definition (the REAL one, not the one reappraisers might make up) would lead to death and extinction. Besides, citing homosexuality as a natural occurrence means nothing. Cancer is a natural occurrence, but that doesn’t make it something to be celebrated.
“Beware also of anthropomorphicizing God, by the way…your argument sexualizes and genders the Trinity inappropriately”
Blah Blah Blah
RE: “However, they also want to INCLUDE monogamous homosexual relationships WITHN that definition. ”
Uh. Like I said . . . They wish to redefine the word “marriage”. I think they will fail ultimately.
It’s not really my concern that you are happy to stand with them.
A cruel thing to do to a child, don’t you think Padre?
If you are referring to your previous comment, Marty, two moms may not equal a mom and dad (and I’m not sure what you mean by “equal,” but if you are indicating a [i]value of parenting[/i] it is disputable), but two moms are surely better than one institution. Surely you could agree?
We can posture, and postulate all we want, there is not a shred of repeatable, scientific evidence or survey that SEXUAL PREFERENCE, hetero or homo, is physiologically determined. Every time something has come up pointing in that direction, it has not held up under second and third testing. (See Dr. Bryan Sykes: Adam’s Curse for the latest DNA research on sexual preference). Until this evidence surfaces, it will be difficult to prove that sexual preference of any type is not a choice.
IF it is a choice, or a learned behavior (nurture), then Scripture applies.
Tough but true. I would never ask my GLBT brothers and sisters to agree with me. I would only ask that they respect the traditions of the Church they would like to join, and not force highly questionable change for their own self esteem.
Or to put it another way: If TEC completely abandons tradition and determines that “complete inclusion of GLBT Christians” (what a misleading turn of phrase) is the way to go, we are all going to be responsible for a single question. Everything else is moot:
Will this Blessing and Acceptance speed these folks on their path to heaven, or obstruct it.
Good Luck with That.
KTF>….mrb
Mike #29: “I would never ask my GLBT brothers and sisters to agree with me.”
Good thing. Thanks.
Hmmmm…gee, this morning I think I’ll [i]choose[/i] to be straight. Then I won’t have to explain my relationship to the attorney, won’t have to duck rowdy teenagers yelling epithets (or worry that they’ve slashed my tires), won’t cringe on a dark street fearing another beating (or worse), won’t have to remember people like +Akinola cringing at shaking hands with some queerguy, and can completely endorse a literal, [i]in English, of course[/i], non-interpretive (which does not exist, but what the h…) translation of the Bible!
Why didn’t I think of that years ago?!?
Yes Padre, we can agree that two moms is better than an institution. I think we can eve go much further than that:
Assuming for the sake of argument that “the value of the parenting” is reasonably adequate in each case,
I think we can both agree that:
1. Having only a mom or a dad is better than being in an institution.
2. Having two moms or two dads is better than having only one parent.
3. Having one mom and one dad is better than having two moms and non dad, or two dads and no mom.
Can we agree?
So of course an orphaned child will be happy to leave his institution and join two lesbians as a family. But should a child of a sperm donor be just as happy that his lesbian moms have gone out of their way to ensure that he will never have a father of his own?
#26
Maybe it’s not your concern but I do think you should have a faint concern with evidence. There’s plenty of it. This thing can work.
1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.
3. No agreement.
First, some stats:
More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
(Source: Adoption and Foster Care by Lesbian and Gay Parents in the United States, by Gates, Badgett, et al.)
Next, evaluation:
Charlotte Patterson, PhD, in “Lesbian and Gay Parenting,” American Psychological Association (1995): “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.”
Ellen C. Perrin, M.D., and Committee, “Co-Parent or Second Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” American Academy of Pediatrics (2002): “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.”
I take it from your arguments that you would not only deny gay and lesbian people the opportunity — the [i]gift[/i] — of a stable, society- and church-supported relationship, but also the joy of parenthood, only begrudgingly allowed if they adopt.
PadreWayne does not agree that “Having one mom and one dad is better than having two moms and no dad, or two dads and no mom.”
Even though such families lack diversity, lack complementarity, and are founded on gender bias and segregation. Padre, do you really wish to claim that when it comes to mothers and fathers, separate really is equal?
As for your statistics, only the first one is needed:
More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
Which practically proves my original point that same-sex marriage will mean that more children—not less—grow up without both a mother and a father.
And you think that’s just fine.
I take it from your arguments that you would not only deny gay and lesbian people the opportunity—the gift—of a stable, society- and church-supported relationship, but also the joy of parenthood
No, I would not deny them the right to have fatherless and motherless children of their own. But I would stigmatize the heck out of the whole idea. It’s just plain wrong to create a child with no father — regardless of your reason for doing so. Certainly your own inability to get on with the opposite sex is a pitiful excuse.
Marty #34: “PadreWayne does not agree that “Having one mom and one dad is better than having two moms and no dad, or two dads and no mom.””
I didn’t say that. I suggested reading the studies. However, the studies are compelling enough that I tend to trust them. Moreover, while families such as these (and thank you for allowing the use of the word “family”) may lack the day-to-day diversity you suggest is essential, my own witness to several gay and lesbian families is that there is intentional inclusion of opposite sex adults at many opportunities. Your argument re: gender bias and segregation doesn’t wash with me.
I wonder (reflecting on this): In families with heterosexual parents is there diversity — i.e., are gay friends, neighbors, relatives brought into the mix to enhance the psychosocial health of the children?
RE: the stat of 41 %, the stat doesn’t say that they want to have children by artificial insemination or surrogacy — gay men and lesbians who want to have children also adopt. Ergo, we aren’t always adding to the number of children — we are reducing the number of children with [i]no[/i] parents.
Re: #30 PadreWayne response. Sorry, I was away so long, you certainly deserved a response from me much sooner than this. IN re-reading 29, I must have been having an attack of “The Bitters” and apologize for my forceful language. It was nekulturny of me, at the least.
I would never suggest that you are chosing your sexual preference, or have in the past. What I posted was more of a “the way things look big picture”, not my personal opinions. Your haunting list of “why’s” often haunts me too.
Not that it compares, but why in my 22nd year of life (I’m almost 46 now) was I struck down by malignant bone cancer and lost 80% of the functionality of one leg, plus permanent heart and pituatary damage. Certainly no one deserves such a fate, neither yours and I applaud you for making the most of what you have been given.
Believe me when I say, if Jesus showed up on my doorstep tomorrow morning, took me aside and said “Mike, I’m sorry I didn’t make it clear when I was here the first time, but I want the Church to treat same-sex marriage the same way it does traditional marriage” my reaction would be a tremendous sigh of relief, and great rejoicing. Great, great, rejoicing. Because I want everyone to be accepted and comfortable being who they are. That, to me, would be heaven here on earth, surely.
But, as with most things, what I think really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. I have made myself subservient to this Living God and His Laws as revealed to me at His pleasure. I don’t like most of them. They irritate the fire out of me at times. I often feel like I’m the butt of some cosmic joke. But again, being Christian doesn’t mean I get to feel good about it. It means I make myself subservient to something larger and more important than just me. Mostly, I just get mad about it, but I pray and hold it together best I can.
Then I read the Bible. And the more I read, the clearer it is what God is trying to do. Not that I have lots of answers, but in His mercy He reveals just about as much as I can take in at that point in time. I was thrust into the whole TEC debate in the most unlikely of ways, yet clearly, I was supposed to be here.
I am sorry you are treated badly by others, who judge you without knowing you. I will not.
When I say I will pray for you, my prayers will not be that you will wake up tomorrow straight. They will be that the truth will be revealed by God to BOTH of us equally, even if that truth is “start over”, or “Bible it is”.
I appreciate your courage and fortitude here in this blog. I have other strong acquantinces who I did not treat well, in my youth and ignorance, and I lost them. It is my intention to be a thorn in both sides of this issue. A reappraiser thorn, because making a place welcoming or unchallenging is not necessarily Salvific. A reasserter thorn, because no matter what harm we are subject to, that same Scripture on which we stand gives NONE of us the right to hate anyone.
God Bless You.
KTF!….mrb
John: “This thing can work.”
Oh, there you go again: confusing the Church with social experimentation.
I hope that that’s not all you can offer as an argument for why it should be blessed in the church in the face of 2000 years of sound teaching, but judging by your previous posts, and the posts of all other reappraisers, we all know that it IS all you have…
Perhaps you could be the first ever to offer something more?
Rolling Eyes — it is Sunday morning and I’m about to head for church and offer you my blessing despite your general snippiness.
It is not that the Church is confusing herself with social experimentation, but rather that the Church can allow herself to be informed by scholarship, science, experience, and new understanding. With prayer to the Holy Spirit for guidance, the Church may herself gain and express a new understanding.
I hope you’re in a better mood toward your fellow Christians as you approach the Communion rail.
#38
#39 is basically the answer I would give. I’d add: conscience. I know all about my own conscience and about the conscience of some of those heterosexuals who think like me on this particular issue (many of whom are very orthodox on every other thing) and about the conscience of some gay Christians I know. We all have many bad things on our minds: this isn’t one of them.
Yes. What john scholasticus said.