The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[New_Found_Faith]

You're obviously not capable of having a reasonable conversation free of condescension or sarcasm. Have a great evening, Albion.

@ TheCunctator; you're on the Anglican board. Unless you are Anglican (edit: or Old Catholic), you are only allowed to post on this board in fellowship, not debate.

 

[Albion]

You're obviously not capable of having a reasonable conversation free of condescension or sarcasm. Have a great evening, Albion.

It's too funny, if you only knew.

You have a good night, too, NFF.

 

[Yab Yum]

Obviously I don't support the ordination of criminals or animal abusers. Anyone who partakes in beastiality is both. Homosexuals are neither. We are not comparing apples and apples.

OK - how about consenting siblings of adult age having sexual relations? Or people who eat lobster? Or someone who doesn't wear a motorcycle helmet? Or someone (who has no family) who gambles? Or consenting polygamists? Or people who wear nylon with cotton? They're not hurting or "abusing" anybody. The point is not "it's criminal" or "it should be criminal" or "it shouldn't be criminal". The point is what's the basis for reacting to these issues the way we do? What is the basis for your liberal agenda that says one thing is a vice and another isn't? "It's criminal!" is a cop-out because that just means someone else has decided for you. How are you deciding?

 

[New_Found_Faith]

What is the basis for your liberal agenda that says one thing is a vice and another isn't? "It's criminal!" is a cop-out because that just means someone else has decided for you. How are you deciding?

I'm not trying to advance an agenda, Yab Yum. When I took the bait on the beastiality issue I expressed that the basis for which I would not support someone who was a beastialist (if that's a word, lol) was the fact that the activity was both criminal and abusive. Presumably, it is criminal primarily because it is abusive.

Tie this red herring together with our original discussion about homosexual clergy again, please?

 

[Albion]

I'm not trying to advance an agenda, Yab Yum. When I took the bait on the beastiality issue I expressed that the basis for which I would not support someone who was a beastialist (if that's a word, lol) was the fact that the activity was both criminal and abusive. Presumably, it is criminal primarily because it is abusive.

Well, he offered you a whole new set of analogies in view of your objection to the bestiality comparison. Will you answer?

 

[Secundulus]

Heard that one before. It's kind of a favorite of the advocates of changing anything and everything in the church, wouldn't you agree? Of course, it's a ridiculous argument since you either have to contend that there should be absolutely no regulations or standards at all--which you have already said is incorrect for the reason that you do have standards such as the ones you explained above--or else you are operating under the mistaken assumption that this OT chapter is the whole of the Bible's teaching on morality and sexual behavior.

I don't know that we can blame him for advancing that argument since is is exactly the same one that Bishop Robinson has been publically stating. It is apparently the current hermenutic of TEC.

The fact that it is entirely absurd doesn't seem to matter to those TEC Bishops as they have a entirely non-biblical agenda to advance.

Or perhaps they actually believe it since that is the kind of nonsense being taught in seminaries today. The same kind of nonsense that leads the Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School to declare abortion a blessing from God.

TEC has jumped the shark and the sad thing is that they are taking many well meaning Christians down with them.

 

[Yab Yum]

Well, he offered you a whole new set of analogies in view of your objection to the bestiality comparison. Will you answer?

Now to be fair to NFF I also included lobster-eaters and people who wear nylon and cotton - which are excluded from our present society's list of vices but are included in the 613 mitzvot, which are summarized in the ten commandments, which are summarized in Christ's two great commands, which presumably we are all agreed we ought to try to keep.

Again, the point is - what do we do with this mess? We're living in a society which - like all societies - has a changing set of values and we have a Bible which has a single Law. Now what?

 

[Albion]

I don't know that we can blame him for advancing that argument since is is exactly the same one that Bishop Robinson has been publically stating. It is apparently the current hermenutic of TEC.

Indeed. When I said it's the "favorite" of the people arguing on that side of the issue, I meant it literally.

The fact that it is entirely absurd doesn't seem to matter to those TEC Bishops as they have a entirely non-biblical agenda to advance.

Well, I have to agree. It does seem that they feel a need to offer some sort of defense and to find some passage in scripture to cite, even if the claim is known by all sides to be lacking. Otherwise, it would be like a lawyer going into court and declining to address the jury, whether or not he has a case.

 

[AngCath]

Secundulus, as you are listed as a Catholic, please refrain from commentary on the Episcopal Church. You don't have to like TEC, but have some respect for the Episcopalians on the board.

I know TEC bashing is popular in STR - but please be more respectful.

 

[Albion]

Now to be fair to NFF I also included lobster-eaters and people who wear nylon and cotton - which are excluded from our present society's list of vices but are included in the 613 mitzvot, which are summarized in the ten commandments, which are summarized in Christ's two great commands, which presumably we are all agreed we ought to try to keep.

Again, the point is - what do we do with this mess? We're living in a society which - like all societies - has a changing set of values and we have a Bible which has a single Law. Now what?

Society has ALWAYS been changing. At the same time, the Church has been called to be NOT of the world, to be steadfast. I don't see that there's a lot there to puzzle over. Yes, some changes have been incorporated into the Church over the years and we could evaluate them to see which were reasonable to make and which might have transgressed against the Church's basic values. However, the idea that if society changes, the Church must also go right along with it seems a proposition that is almost impossible to defend--unless one thinks that the Church is not a divinely-established instistution but is simply a good way to keep people in line or someting practical like that.

 

[Yab Yum]

PS re: mixing wool and linen I love Matthew Henry's concise commentary:

God's providence extends itself to the smallest affairs, and his precepts do so, that even in them we may be in the fear of the Lord, as we are under his eye and care. Yet the tendency of these laws, which seem little, is such, that being found among the things of God's law, they are to be accounted great things. If we would prove ourselves to be God's people, we must have respect to his will and to his glory, and not to the vain fashions of the world. Even in putting on our garments, as in eating or in drinking, all must be done with a serious regard to preserve our own and others' purity in heart and actions. Our eye should be single, our heart simple, and our behaviour all of a piece.

 

[Yab Yum]

Society has ALWAYS been changing. At the same time, the Church has been called to be NOT of the world, to be steadfast. I don't see that there's a lot there to puzzle over. Yes, some changes have been incorporated into the Church over the years and we could evaluate them to see which were reasonable to make and which might have transgressed against the Church's basic values. However, the idea that if society changes, the Church must also go right along with it seems a proposition that is almost impossible to defend--unless one thinks that the Church is not a divinely-established instistution but is simply a good way to keep people in line or someting practical like that.

Yet presumably there are plenty of Episcopal priests who eat lobster and wear mixed cloth.

If we permit ourselves to draw even a smidge of a line re: the Law - where do we draw it?

 

[Albion]

Secundulus, as you are listed as a Catholic, please refrain from commentary on the Episcopal Church. You don't have to like TEC, but have some respect for the Episcopalians on the board.

I know TEC bashing is popular in STR - but please be more respectful.

He's an Anglican using the RC logo while awaiting the possible incorporation of the Traditional Anglican Communion into the Catholic Church. Now...back to the discussion.

 

[Albion]

Yet presumably there are plenty of Episcopal priests who eat lobster and wear mixed cloth.

If we permit ourselves to draw even a smidge of a line re: the Law - where do we draw it?

The Church has long made the disctinction between the ritualistic OT laws and the moral law. This particular "hurdle" would matter only if the wording in Leviticus were the be-all and end-all of the Bible's treatment of homosexuality, but that is far from the case. It IS why the gay lobby focuses us Leviticus, however.

 

[Secundulus]

Secundulus, as you are listed as a Catholic, please refrain from commentary on the Episcopal Church. You don't have to like TEC, but have some respect for the Episcopalians on the board.

I know TEC bashing is popular in STR - but please be more respectful.

As I have said already, I am in the Traditional Anglican Communion and have a right to post here. When and if we move to the Catholic Church I will stop posting here.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Again, the point is - what do we do with this mess? We're living in a society which - like all societies - has a changing set of values and we have a Bible which has a single Law. Now what?

I suppose the crux of the disagreement is that one side (my side) contends that the OT scriptures were delivered for to a specific people within a specific cultural context, and that we must employ reason to interpret God's message as a whole and apply it to modern contexts. The conclusion that my side has reached is that homosexuality in the modern context of a monogamous and commited relationship is neither a perversion nor sinful, due to our interpretation of God's message and our perception of its relevance to this particular modern context.

Obviously, you have reached a different conclusion which I assume is based on an interpretation of God's message which more fully incorporates OT law, with less regard to the context in which it was delivered. You seem to opperate under the assumption that everything in the bible applies univerally, rather than contextually. This would be our fundamental disagreement.

I suppose this would be considered more of a fundamentalist approach. My perception of your assessment is something along the lines of: 'God said it within a different cultural and historical context, but that doesn't change the fact that he said it so it still applies'.

If the above is in fact your position, we simply disagree. While I certainly respect your opinion, you and I have reached different conclusions. It happens.

 

[brightmorningstar]

TheCunctator wrote that the Bible is clearly against same sex relations, and also “Given that, no there should be no priest/pastors that are practicing homosexuals.”

The immediate response from PaladinValer ignored what the Biblical testimony says and addressed a concept of ‘Donatism’

Take 1 Corinthians 6, we can take a number of other passages as well not just including Romans 1.

Would we ordain someone who
Promoted and blessed sexual immorality Yes/no?
Promoted and blessed idolatry, Yes/no?
Promoted and blessed adultery, Yes/no?
Promoted and blessed same sex relations, Yes/no?
Promoted and blessed prostitution, Yes/no?
Promoted and blessed theft, Yes/no?
Promoted and blessed greed, Yes/no?
Promoted and blessed alcoholism, Yes/no?
Promoted and blessed slandering, Yes/no?

B9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

No because …

11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To New Found Faith,

I suppose the crux of the disagreement is that one side (my side) contends that the OT scriptures were delivered for to a specific people within a specific cultural context, and that we must employ reason to interpret God's message as a whole and apply it to modern contexts.

This is obviously totally incorrect with regards same sex, and not entirely true as a generalisation. As a generalisation, what about that the events in creation were before God chose His people and any cultures, and what about the prophecies of Christ? He chose His people to be a blessing and an example to others though they fell short.
The exclusion and condemnation of same sex relations exists to God’s people throughout the Bible and cultures, from Sodom to the exodus, to the followers of Christ in cultures such as Greek and Roman that indulged in it wilfully. So to modern contexts the people of God, the Jews and the followers of Christ are not to indulge in same sex relationships.

The conclusion that my side has reached is that homosexuality in the modern context of a monogamous and commited relationship is neither a perversion nor sinful, due to our interpretation of God's message and our perception of its relevance to this particular modern context.

That’s not interpretation but disbelief. The Romans had differing views of same sex relationships than the Greeks, for the Greeks it was considered almost part of life’s education, for the Romans it was practiced mostly with slaves as the passive partner was looked down on.
So to take what God told His people not to do in all kinds of cultures because that’s what non-believers and pagans do and assume a variation such as monogamous and committed is to make the same sorts of assumptions the Greek and Roman cultures did. If it existed in previous cultures for various reasons how is the modern excuse somehow relevant? It isnt. It is faith in modern culture and human reasoning and not in the truth of God's testimony.

 

[Albion]

I suppose the crux of the disagreement is that one side (my side) contends that the OT scriptures were delivered for to a specific people within a specific cultural context, and that we must employ reason to interpret God's message as a whole and apply it to modern contexts. The conclusion that my side has reached is that homosexuality in the modern context of a monogamous and commited relationship is neither a perversion nor sinful, due to our interpretation of God's message and our perception of its relevance to this particular modern context.

I think that the problem most of the rest of us have with that kind of explanation is that "the OT" is not really viewed as obsolete by you, just the parts dealing with homosexuality (and probably some other, selected, portions you don't care for). I am assuming, you see, that you don't consider the Ten Commandments to also be null and void for modern Christians.

I don't hear arguments saying that drunkards and heterosexuals living with someone that they aren't married to are to be ordained without any consideration of their lifestyle. IOW, you've accepted the secular arguments about homosexuality made by or on behalf of the homosexual community and then found a reason in scripture to justify that thinking, after the fact.

I suppose this would be considered more of a fundamentalist approach.

Not by anyone who knows the facts.

The main churches opposing homosexual ordination are not the relatively small fundamentalist community, but the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, most Lutherans, Anglicans, and etc. These constitute the majority of Christians and are not fundamentalists by any stretch of the imagination.

My perception of your assessment is something along the lines of: 'God said it within a different cultural and historical context, but that doesn't change the fact that he said it so it still applies'.

Well, I'd like for you to help us out with that perception. Explain it a bit more fully so we can understand you correctly. THE ENTIRE BIBLE was written for a different people in a different age and is, by that reasoning, not "relevant" to the "modern context."

If we go by what you've said on this matter, the situation is simply that we feel that the Bible is authoritative and you do not--because it's all out of context for us. Or do you say that there some reason for thinking that even a little of it is relevant to us, since it all was written for a far different culture by people of a far different culture? How could there be, given what you've said about context being the determining factor?

 

[brightmorningstar]

I fully agree with you TheCunctator