Polycarp1 said:
Well, sir, I think we may have some working ground for discussion. Certainly if you were a greeter at your parish church some fine Sunday morning, you would not bar the door to the single man from down the street that Mrs. Rumormonger informs you that everyone says is gay. I'm sure you'd welcome him, discern the truth, and perhaps speak to him in friendship and compassion if you found him to in fact be actively gay.
Polycarp I was not sure whether this post was directed to me or elsewhere but since you and I can and have had constructive and peaceful communication in the past I welcome this opportunity.
You are absolutely correct in your assumption that I would not bar entry to Church to, well almost anyone. I think the only persons I may bar are those who have a history of disrupting the liturgy. (which unfortunately I have witnessed) Additionally I would never take such a step without the approval of the pastor.
As I'm hearing your stance, it's opposition to making someone openly and actively involved in a gay relationship into a bishop of the church, and the blessing of such relationships by the church, that have become the "ne plus ultra" line on which we seem divided.
This is why I am not sure you are addressing me. I have made no comments as to the Rev. Gene Robinson. But since this issue has come up, and because I can address it here, I will. To begin with, just the fact that Gene Robinson is divorced excludes him canonically from the Episcopate. Additionally; I see his placement (I mean no insult however I cannot refer to him as consecrated) as the ECUSA's final statement concerning homosexuality and that statement being that it is not a sin. This, as you probably could already guess, I consider a matter that scripture speaks clearly on. And of course I believe that that clear message is that homosexual acts are sinful.
I'd submit to you that there are clear Scriptures defining persons who are condemned, for a variety of reasons, and that we're called to (1) accept such people into the church as sinners like ourselves, (2) call them to repentance as led by the Holy Spirit, and (3) after much prayer and discernment, and in accordance with Biblical practice, expel them if and when they remain "notorious and open sinners."
I agree with this completely.
Now, the question at hand is exactly whom those people are.
Of course this is the crux of the matter.
And I offer up to you the stance, which is hardly in accord with small-t tradition
Or Large T.
but which has much scholarship behind it
Is it your contention that there is not much scholarship behind the opposing stance? You seem to be an educated person, you must know of course that the majority of Christian Theologians who have written on the matter take the opposing stance.
and, more importantly, the direct command of Jesus to avoid sitting in judgment over others as the Pharisees did but instead to treat others with radical love as He did
This is not a logical argument. Jesus, as I am sure you are aware, made no statement on the subject of homosexuality. Jesus treated the woman taken in adultery with radical love, yet he told her to "sin no more." I could just as easily argue that he would have taken the same stance if a man who had been caught involved in sodomy were brought before him. That he would have reacted the same, and told him to sin no more.
- and that stance is that that which the Scripture condemns is not what the typical gay Christian engages in.
God does not condemn sex;
No he does not but he certainly restricts it. Unmarried, another mans wife, etc.
He created it and called it good, and His first commandment to mankind was to engage in it.
Yet you must admit that this commandment had to be directed to heterosexual sex, else it made no sense.
He commands the abuse of sex for a variety of reasons.including lust, idolatry, prostitution, etc.
As I have already pointed out.
We take the stance that our job is to welcome and affirm those whom God has called to follow Him, and to love them even as ourselves or as Christ would. If we are to expel an arsenokaitis, then it is wise to discern what one of them is
Once again we agree.
-- and it's clear that what Paul was talking about is not a person in a committed monogamous relationship, gay or not. It's quite likely that it was intended to mean one who patronized enslaved boy prostitutes (a major industry in the seamy side of Corinth's economy) , when taken in context, and that Paul coined the word (he is the first person ever to use it in Greek, and nearly every use of it thereafter is a quote of or allusion to his writings) to parallel the phrasing of Leviticus 18, which in literal Hebrew speaks of "lying with men" as a Canaanite idolatrous practice.
And of course this is where we disagree. As I pointed out there is a great deal of scholarly writing that debunks this. The more liberal person however will not accept the debunking just as the more conservative person will not accept the scholarly gymnastics necessary to accept this theory, which as you pointed out belies millenia of tradition and Tradition.
Further, while I am aware of the overlapping American Orthodox jurisdictions, if you ask any Orthodox CF member they will tell you that it is an embarrassment and one that the exarchates and such are working to overcome.
Yet it neutralizes your earlier assertion that it does not occur in Orthodoxy.
We Anglicans are tempted to set ourselves up as the judges of orthodoxy, and to judge our bishops. That is precisely the reverse of the historical role, where the bishops collectively are the judges of orthodoxy and the people ratify and affirm their collective teaching.
Exactly, and yet the ECUSA has defied the majority of Orthodox Bishops.
I will apologize for reporting secondhand information about Akinola, to this extent: I offered it as data not generally known about his character, to aid in gauging the sincerity of his actions. I personally see him as fomenting discord in the name of doctrinal purity, with a hidden agenda of his own aggrandizement.
The problem of course is that we have no knowledge of the individual you 'quoted' (although you did not give a name) who could just as easily have an agenda. There is simply no way for us to verify the reliability of the source.
It's my end to honor Christ's call to love all people as He loved us, to the extent of my ability, and to be led and guided by my bishop and priests. I regret that that has placed us at odds, but like you I feel that I must stand for what my Lord expects of me and what my Church teaches as the proper moral behavior.
I appreciate your desire to follow Christ and I would never question your "Christianity." I am glad that we can have this discourse. Of course I do not see either of us changing our opinion, but as we have both pointed out earlier it is important to know one another. Be assured of my prayers.
