The Diocese Of California -- Anglicans Only

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Frankly, it's not a matter of "everyone sins, don't judge!". It's that we're basically saying homosexual intercourse is not a sin. While I've felt differently at various times about this, in light of a historic understanding of scripture and apostolic tradition it just seems wrong.

 

[kiwimac]

Actually, aren't some of us being a little presumptive here. The Diocesan search committee has simply identified folk it wants to talk with further.

Why the assumption that a GLBT person will be the Bishop-elect or are DSC's not even allowed to TALK with homosexual clergy anymore?

Kiwimac

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Frankly, it's not a matter of "everyone sins, don't judge!". It's that we're basically saying homosexual intercourse is not a sin. While I've felt differently at various times about this, in light of a historic understanding of scripture and apostolic tradition it just seems wrong.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here, Myst, when you say that it is about the fact that we are beginning to say, in the church, that homosexual intercourse is not a sin.

I feel differently about this, too, daily, even.

But when you say that it just seems wrong in light of historic understanding of scripture and tradition, you are obviously leaving out the third leg of our Anglican stool: reason. And this is where we have the differences of opinion. How big a part can or should reason play in this issue?

 

[PaladinValer]

That wonderful "thou shalt not judge" thing is really really old. It's the new catchphrase now and used more than Nike's "Just do it".
The scriptures say we are to judge angels, yet we cannot look at sin in our church and call it sin?

1. Where in Tradition is "it" sin?
2. I do not Judge anyone, even the angels, because only God is the All Just Judge. If I judge falsely, then I will be Judged accordingly.

Have you ever counseled a rape victim and told them, "well, you can't judge the person who did this to you".

So mutual consenting, mature adults in a monogomous same-gendered relationship are raping each other?

Ouch.

I suppose, since the Bible condemned many forms of heterosexual relationshios, we may as well off that as well.

Man, it's too bad no one was around Jesus to calm Him down in the Temple when He threw all those people out. He really just needed to get in touch with His true feelings is all.

So now you also deny Jesus' Divinity?

And people say I'm heterodox!

To be honest, I don't even want to tangle with the semi-Donatism that grips a lot of Apostolic Christianity today. Like it or not, we're all sinners. Even deacons, even priests, and, yes, even bishops. You may as well ask God to resurrect the Saints if you want bishops of the perfect you are implicitly asking for, but you will not get that for most likely a very long time from now.

Mysterium Fidei, please quote us in Holy Tradition where the "elephants" have been condemned. I see a lot of quoting, but in it all, I see all the time the same logical fallacies.

In addition, MF, read my above. We're all sinners. If you want a perfect cleric, petition God to resurrect the Saints who died as bishops. Then, and only then, will you be no longer condoning a potentially fallible bishop in terms of sinfulness.

Actually, aren't some of us being a little presumptive here. The Diocesan search committee has simply identified folk it wants to talk with further.

Why the assumption that a GLBT person will be the Bishop-elect or are DSC's not even allowed to TALK with homosexual clergy anymore?

Indeed!

 

[Polycarp1]

So two possible candidates who are *shudder* gay have been identified by a search committee and this is turning into an issue?

However I might feel about the appropriateness of electing one, presenting him/her for ratification, and further stressing the unity of the Anglican Communion, I'm rather inclined to say that questioning the identification of the names (and Integrity's making public its support) is a bit premature.

As for the never-baptized candidate, I'd be truly shocked -- if it weren't for St. Ambrose.

God has a way of working His plan out even when we're the most startled by what he did.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

God has a way of working His plan out even when we're the most startled by what he did.

I quite like this! Can I quote you, Polycarp1?

 

[Polycarp1]

I quite like this! Can I quote you, Polycarp1?

But of course! For what it's worth, when I began writing that post, that was not how I planned to end it, but it, uh, suggested itself to me very strongly. On the rare occasions that happens to me, I've learned it's a good idea to "take the suggestion." ")

 

[TomUK]

But when you say that it just seems wrong in light of historic understanding of scripture and tradition, you are obviously leaving out the third leg of our Anglican stool: reason. And this is where we have the differences of opinion. How big a part can or should reason play in this issue?

But Karen, our reason does not exist in a vacuum. The three legged stool only works if two of the legs 'assist' the one remaining one. We must use our reason in the context of scripture and tradition.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

But Karen, our reason does not exist in a vacuum. The three legged stool only works if two of the legs 'assist' the one remaining one. We must use our reason in the context of scripture and tradition.

I agree! Each of the three legs are to be used in the context of the others. The problem (IMV) with Mysterium_Fidei's post was that he was leaving reason out of the picture all together.

 

[TomUK]

On the contrary, from his post above i get the impression he is tried to look at this issue from reason but has failed to come to a conclusion and as such has looked at his reason in relation to scripture and tradition.

Both you and he said that you've bounced backwards and forwards on this issue so many times. When that is the case then what else can do but seek the word of God through scripture, and his guidance through holy tradition?

 

[john23237]

That wonderful "thou shalt not judge" thing is really really old.

Might we cover a few other things that are REALLY REALLY OLD?

1) Every time there is a news article, report, movie, whatever that even mentions the word gay, like mushroom after a rain, threads pop up all over the permitted areas of CF telling gay Christians what evil hell bound sinners we are and how the holier than thou have been appointed by God to tell us this over and over and over.

2) Implications that gay Anglicans are destroying the church/communion and that we should should just go to the back of the bus/pew and keep our mouths shut.

3) Suggestions that our understanding of the passages of Scripture in question are distorted, twisted, and self serving, but those of the conservatives are correct in every respect.

4) Implications that gay Christians are unfit to serve as priests or bishops unless we abandon our life partners and live alone while heterosexuals can continue to enjoy the love and support of their spouses.

4) Comparisons of Christian gays to rapist, thieves, child molesters, and heaven knows what else.

Those are just a few of the things that some of us also consider to be "really, really old".

 

[john23237]

When that is the case then what else can do but seek the word of God through scripture, and his guidance through holy tradition?

You might also wish to consider the witness of hundreds of thousands of faithful gay Christians. Just a thought.

 

[TomUK]

You might also wish to consider the witness of hundreds of thousands of faithful gay Christians. Just a thought.

Wouldn't that come under tradition, or are we now to create a politcally correct fourth leg on the stool of input from gay Christians?

 

[Wiffey]

http://www.godhatesfigs.com/

Why are we so quick to condemn our gay brethren, yet ignore the real threat to the church...figs and those who tolerate figs.

From the website:

• JESUS REBUKED THE FIG AS AN EVIL ABOMINATION.
  • "Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he was hungry.
    "And when he saw a fig tree by the road, he came to it, and found nothing on it, but leaves only, and said to it, Let no fruit grow on you henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
    "And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon has the fig tree withered away!"
    --Matthew 21:18-20

• JESUS COMMANDED US NOT TO EAT OF THE CURSED FIG.
  • "The next day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry:
    "And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if perhaps he might find any thing on it: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
    "And Jesus answered and said to it, No man eat fruit of you hereafter forever. And his disciples heard it.
    --Mark 11:12-14

• EAT A FIG, GO TO HELL.
  • "He destroyed their vines with hail and their sycamore-figs with sleet."
    --Psalm 78:47

• GOD PROMISES TERRIBLE VENGEANCE FOR FIG-EATERS.
  • "Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten."
    --Jeremiah 29:17

In summary, figs are the source of all the world's evils. They are a plague upon humanity and an abomination in the sight of the Lord.

(end quote)

 

[Wiffey]

Just to show that anyone with an agenda can pull out some scriptural quote to justify their viewpoints...

 

[john23237]

Wouldn't that come under tradition, or are we now to create a politcally correct fourth leg on the stool of input from gay Christians?

No one is asking for "a politically correct fourth leg". We are asking that we no longer be repeatedly struck over the head with misunderstandings of the first three.

 

[higgs2]

Just to show that anyone with an agenda can pull out some scriptural quote to justify their viewpoints...

I love this website, what a hoot!

 

[Aymn27]

You might also wish to consider the witness of hundreds of thousands of faithful gay Christians. Just a thought.

Witness that MUST be in accordance with Scripture. Everything I have ever read about Anglicanism says that Tradition and Reason must be in submission to Scripture - otherwise it is not good doctrine - could anyone tell me when this view changed and who proposed such a change?

 

[john23237]

Witness that MUST be in accordance with Scripture. Everything I have ever read about Anglicanism says that Tradition and Reason must be in submission to Scripture - otherwise it is not good doctrine - could anyone tell me when this view changed and who proposed such a change?

No change Aymn. As you well know, we believe that our witness IS in accordance with Scripture. You still clearly believe it is not. Like I said, no change here.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

No change Aymn. As you well know, we believe that our witness IS in accordance with Scripture. You still clearly believe it is not. Like I said, no change here.

John,
Rather than ask you to defend gay-affirming theology (only because I am sure you are probably fed up with having to do that ), can you please point me in the direction of some good links that will help me look into this issue? I already know the anti- side, and I would like to research the pro- side so that I have a better balance.

Web links would be great, or if you know of any good books? You could PM it to me if you don't want to post them.

Thanks a lot.