The Diocese Of California -- Anglicans Only

[Aymn27]

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.

No change? Could you please provide me some writings where this behavior was acceptable prior to 1960? One of the Church Fathers? Scholatics? Reformers?..Counter Reformers? Anyone before Louie Crew et al?

 

[PaladinValer]

When was it not accepted? I could ask the same.

 

[TomUK]

When was it not accepted? I could ask the same.

A cursory glance at the Fathers will reveal it was not accepted in the early Church.

 

[PaladinValer]

I have a multivolume collection of Patristics. Might you be a little more specific? Perhaps an author/book/quote?

 

[Aymn27]

I have a multivolume collection of Patristics. Might you be a little more specific? Perhaps an author/book/quote?

There is no need for us to justify our stance - we are not changing the unchanging (or unchanged thus far) witness of the Church. The burden of proof falls on the other side.

 

[TomUK]

I don't have time to type up the examples but am sure this will suffice.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

 

[Polycarp1]

There is no need for us to justify our stance - we are not changing the unchanging (or unchanged thus far) witness of the Church. The burden of proof falls on the other side.

With all due respect, Amyn, there is a great quantity of horse patoot in that comment. "The unchanging witness of the church" has so far changed in an immense number of ways, from the length of the catechumenate to the appropriateness of private confession. Within my own lifetime and to my certain personal knowledge, an ECUSA member was excommunicated for the sin of unknowingly marrying a divorced man. Today we have divorced and remarried bishops, a subject you have so far not seen fit to justify as warranting the division of the church.

I can recall at no time and on no other issue, other than the need for an oath of allegiance to George III, has there ever been considered the need for consultation beween independent national churches of this communion as to the appropriateness for candidates to the episcopacy.

Who suddenly decided that it was "the unchanging witness of the church" that such be required when persons of a particular sexuality are to be consecrated bishop? I am absolutely positive that General Convention never passed on the consecration or elevation to archbishop of ++Akinola, ++Williams, or ++Tutu.

The "unchanging witness of the church" as defined by you seems to be that certain persons are to be relegated to pariah status on the basis of their sexuality. This is not and never has been the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to whom we are all sinners welcome to be redeemed and forgiven by His grace -- with an apparent proviso, based on His teachings regarding the Pharisees and scribes, that no one is entitled to be a dog in the manger defending his own salvation while denying that of another.

May I respectfully request that you provide exceedingly clear definition of what "the unchanging witness of the church" is to your mind and demonstrate where evidence of this is to be found?

 

[Wiffey]

A lot has happened since the 1st century...why must we try to conform to a 1st century sensibility on this issue? If homosexuality was such a terrible threat to faith, why did Jesus not address it?

The Bible is beautiful, but there is a lot of stuff in there that really is reflective of the times in which it was written...for instance telling slaves to not try to become free men and to dutifully obey their masters. Southern slaveowners used that to say that the Bible tolerated slavery.

Luckily, God gave us the capacity to grow in our understanding...and many of our cultures have evolved past things like slavery. Why must we pretend that the last 2000 years of human progress hasn't happened? In the 1st century, slavery was OK, racism was OK, torture was OK, and the death penalty was everywhere. Women were property. This was the context in which the Bible was written, and in which the scriptures were codified and interpreted.

I am glad to live in a society where there is no longer slavery, where racism is frowned upon and where we are moving towards full gender equality. I would not wish to give any of those things up to fit into a 1st century paradigm. When we read the scriptures we need to be cognizant that they were written at a particular time, in the context of a particular culture, and therefore reflects the values of a society very different from ours.

The Bible did not drop, complete and inerrant, out of the sky. There exist hundreds of different translations, with different wordings and verb tenses, etc. While I do not doubt that God inspired the writing of scripture, the fact remains that it was up to human beings to receive the message correctly and for scribes to translate correctly without altering the text, which was a widespread problem in the ancient world. And the fact remains, that if there is indeed a perfect copy/translation of scriptre out there, we have no way of knowing for sure which translation is the right one.

Because we cannot find a translation that is totally perfect, I think we need to be very careful about making an entire group of people second class citizens on the basis of the say-so of an ancient manuscript whose original does not exist and whose accuracy (the accuracy of any given translation) we cannot be completely sure of...

Really, think about it. If you didn't know it was the Bible, and I told you that society could only grow and evolve in ways that fall into line with the message in a book written in the first to 4th centuries (finally codified in the 4th century), what would you think? Especially since there are several different translations, we don't know which (if any) is totally accurate...that we don't even have a copy of the original text....that we have copies of copies of copies from an era where scribes took frequent liberties...and that the text is very poetic and metaphorical and is open to very varied interpretation, depending on your POV?

We are asking gay people to give up ever being in a love relationship...would any of you give up your spouse? On the chance that
1. The writers of the book got it 100% correct.
2. That it was meant to be taken literally instead of metaphorically, even though Jesus Himself spoke in parables.
3. That all of the translators and scribes got it correct (despite the evidence of hundreds of differing versions) in your particular translation.
4. That those who interpret the text (which can be contradictory) got it 100% correct.
5. And that God said all He ever intended to say by the 4th Century.
Honestly, would you give up the person you love...or would you go into the text of the book and see that:
1. We are no longer under the law of the OT
2. We are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God and are all dependent upon grace for salvation.
3. His grace is sufficient for us, despite our brokenness.
4. While there are places that seem to condemn homosexuality, there are also places that condemn a zillion other things like ham, shrimp, and demand animal sacrifices.
5. Jesus Himself loved the lowly, nurtured the outcast, and came for sinners. He knew we were imperfect and broken but came anyways.

I am concerned about this trend to act like we earn salvation by our own merits and works. If we are saved, remember that it is by the grace of God who redeems us despite our sins.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Wiffey, you are so compellingly convincing.

I find it so much more difficult to go with the other side's view than with this view.

Part of my thinking always rests with the fact that our faith must move from our heads to our hearts, and in the case of this issue, I find my heart wanting to be inclusive of gay Christians. But I still have something else inside questioning.

 

[chalice_thunder]

A lot has happened since the 1st century...why must we try to conform to a 1st century sensibility on this issue? If homosexuality was such a terrible threat to faith, why did Jesus not address it?

The Bible is beautiful, but there is a lot of stuff in there that really is reflective of the times in which it was written...for instance telling slaves to not try to become free men and to dutifully obey their masters. Southern slaveowners used that to say that the Bible tolerated slavery.

Luckily, God gave us the capacity to grow in our understanding...and many of our cultures have evolved past things like slavery. Why must we pretend that the last 2000 years of human progress hasn't happened? In the 1st century, slavery was OK, racism was OK, torture was OK, and the death penalty was everywhere. Women were property. This was the context in which the Bible was written, and in which the scriptures were codified and interpreted.

I am glad to live in a society where there is no longer slavery, where racism is frowned upon and where we are moving towards full gender equality. I would not wish to give any of those things up to fit into a 1st century paradigm. When we read the scriptures we need to be cognizant that they were written at a particular time, in the context of a particular culture, and therefore reflects the values of a society very different from ours.

The Bible did not drop, complete and inerrant, out of the sky. There exist hundreds of different translations, with different wordings and verb tenses, etc. While I do not doubt that God inspired the writing of scripture, the fact remains that it was up to human beings to receive the message correctly and for scribes to translate correctly without altering the text, which was a widespread problem in the ancient world. And the fact remains, that if there is indeed a perfect copy/translation of scriptre out there, we have no way of knowing for sure which translation is the right one.

Because we cannot find a translation that is totally perfect, I think we need to be very careful about making an entire group of people second class citizens on the basis of the say-so of an ancient manuscript whose original does not exist and whose accuracy (the accuracy of any given translation) we cannot be completely sure of...

Really, think about it. If you didn't know it was the Bible, and I told you that society could only grow and evolve in ways that fall into line with the message in a book written in the first to 4th centuries (finally codified in the 4th century), what would you think? Especially since there are several different translations, we don't know which (if any) is totally accurate...that we don't even have a copy of the original text....that we have copies of copies of copies from an era where scribes took frequent liberties...and that the text is very poetic and metaphorical and is open to very varied interpretation, depending on your POV?

We are asking gay people to give up ever being in a love relationship...would any of you give up your spouse? On the chance that
1. The writers of the book got it 100% correct.
2. That it was meant to be taken literally instead of metaphorically, even though Jesus Himself spoke in parables.
3. That all of the translators and scribes got it correct (despite the evidence of hundreds of differing versions) in your particular translation.
4. That those who interpret the text (which can be contradictory) got it 100% correct.
5. And that God said all He ever intended to say by the 4th Century.
Honestly, would you give up the person you love...or would you go into the text of the book and see that:
1. We are no longer under the law of the OT
2. We are all sinners who fall short of the glory of God and are all dependent upon grace for salvation.
3. His grace is sufficient for us, despite our brokenness.
4. While there are places that seem to condemn homosexuality, there are also places that condemn a zillion other things like ham, shrimp, and demand animal sacrifices.
5. Jesus Himself loved the lowly, nurtured the outcast, and came for sinners. He knew we were imperfect and broken but came anyways.

I am concerned about this trend to act like we earn salvation by our own merits and works. If we are saved, remember that it is by the grace of God who redeems us despite our sins.

What a very lovely and compassionate post.

It is very much in line with Robert Taylor's mentor: Abp. Desmond Tutu.

Thanks Wiffey - and bless you down to your toes!

 

[john23237]

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.

I think a good starting point would be "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D. (He is a Roman Catholic priest). I believe it is published by Alamo Square Press. The text is less than perfect, but is an excellent overview for the beginner who wishes to examine this subject from a historical-critical approach. If you have questions after having read the text, please PM me and I will try to direct you to more detailed sources. Best wishes. John

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I think a good starting point would be "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D. (He is a Roman Catholic priest). I believe it is published by Alamo Square Press. The text is less than perfect, but is an excellent overview for the beginner who wishes to examine this subject from a historical-critical approach. If you have questions after having read the text, please PM me and I will try to direct you to more detailed sources. Best wishes. John

Thank you, John!

 

[PaladinValer]

There is no need for us to justify our stance - we are not changing the unchanging (or unchanged thus far) witness of the Church. The burden of proof falls on the other side.

This avoids the question.

I have read plenty of Patristics and I see nothing.

Where is it?

TomUK, I'm not convinced because it doesn't show, anywhere, same-gendered monogomous and faithful relationships. Look at the language used...it talks of temple prostitution, raping of angels (St. Jude's Letter uses "heteras" not "heteros." That word, in Greek, means different flesh, and flesh is flesh unless it is of a different species. And try to remember that those were not men in Sodom, but angels), orgies, mutilations, etc. Based on such a style of argumentation, I could simply point to all the times we heterosexuals in the Bible have been showed to rape women and say "aha! Therefore heterosexual sex is sinful!"

Are homosexuals and those bisexuals who have chosen to live in same-gendered relationships temple prostitutes?

And whether we like it or not, we heterosexuals and bisexuals who have chosen to live in different-gendered relations also rape and also assault little children too. It isn't just the groups above; its everyone. And we too unfortunately, as they unfortunately, have individuals who get caught into orgies (which, by the way, in those quotes, have to deal with, again, ritual exercises, although God knows secular orgies are an affront as well), and mutilations, etc, as well.

The whole thing is the Fallacy of Composition. Just because some forms of sex done by various sexual orientations are sinful doesn't mean sex itself done by those sexual orientations is sinful.

So I ask again, where is it?

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I have not read much of the early Church Fathers; but in my Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, I can find a number of writings against this.

Aristides
Athenagoras
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
and Apostolic Constitutions

to name but a few.

(However, I must say that although I think the Fathers deserve some listening to, I don't put many of my eggs into their baskets).

 

[PaladinValer]

Karen, as you can see, I countered pretty much all of that which TomUK linked me to something I had a feeling I might encounter.

If those new things talk about orgies and prostitution, then they aren't valid proofs either.

I would like a blanket statement.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Tertullian - "The coupling of two males is a very shameful thing." and "The Christian man confines himself to the female sex."

Most of the other citations are actually more to do with orgy/prostitution type stuff, as you have said.

 

[TomUK]

Karen, as you can see, I countered pretty much all of that which TomUK linked me to something I had a feeling I might encounter.

If those new things talk about orgies and prostitution, then they aren't valid proofs either.

I would like a blanket statement.

Hold your horses there. The fact that you don't accept the sources countered does not mean that you've countered them.

If the wealth of the Church Fathers already quoted is not enough, then here is yet more.

Aristides - Some polluted themselves by lying with males.

Aristides - The Greeks, O King, follow debased practices in intercourse with males, or with mothers, sisters, and daughters. Yet they, in turn, impute their monstrous impurity to the Christians.

Athenagoras - They do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraiging all the noblest and comliest bodies in all sorts of ways.

Clement of Alexandria - Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature. Women are at once both wives and husbands... O miserable spectacle! Horrible conduct!

Clement of Alexandria - The whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickednes. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romanbs. These man detested effiamcy of conduct. The giving of the body to femine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the most extreme penalty.

Tertullian - The Christian man confines himself to female sex.

Tertullian - The coupling of two males is a very shameful thing. (Karen has already referred to these two)

Origen - Such sins are committed by fornicators, adulterers, abusers of themsleves with men, effeminate men, idolaters, and murderers.

Apostolic Constitutions - The sin of Sodom is contrary to nature.

---------------

If you disagree with what the early Church clearly taught then that is up to you, but please don't claim that you have countered what the Church has historically taught when you have clearly not done so.

 

[PaladinValer]

I'd like to see context, please.

 

[TomUK]

With respect i have no intention of typing out further quotes.

I will happily provide the texts which you need to refer to for the quotes above. However i'm sure you could quite easily find them in your multivolume collection of patristics.

 

[Wiffey]

A side issue is this...is the sin
1. That most of these men in question were married to women, and their relationships with men were adulterous.
2. That their relationships with men were purely sexual and exploitative without any love.
3. That there were multiple partners at one time.
4. That many of the men were servants and were being coerced into sexual activity.
5. That the males in question were too young to give any sort of consent.

The fathers seem to be discussing homosexual activity within the context of exploitative, casual sex. In the ancient world this frequently involved young boys who were slaves or servants, who were compelled to "entertain" their (married) masters and the master's wealthy (married) friends. Clearly not an acceptable situation because it involved coercion, and the sex was not between two consenting adults in a loving and monogamous relationship.

Granted, in the ancient world you did not see many same sex partners (not married to anyone else), living in lifelong & monogamous partnerships. But that's the point...the writers are addressing homosexual relations within the context of what they saw in their society. So they are addressing adulterous, casual gay relations, not committed monogamous gay relationships.