The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[brightmorningstar]

To JasonV

Are you suggesting that it's true because lots of people believe it?

No, but are you suggesting it isnt?

Any nut-job can be a believer.

And just as easily can any nut-job be a non believer too.

 

[JasonV]

To JasonV
No, but are you suggesting it isnt?

I do not believe numerical superiority or age have anything to do with truth.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To JasonV

I do not believe numerical superiority or age have anything to do with truth.

I am sure I have already made it clear the truth is Jesus Christ, so not sure why you asked.

 

[Iron Lion]

To Ave Maria,
I am against the ordination of anyone wilfully practicing any sin, including same sex relationships, in fact I think wilfully practicing sin and not accepting it is sin is an indication that a person hasnt yet accepted the forgiveness of sins and Christ as saviour. (which is what a number of scriptures including 1 Cor 6 indicate)

very very well put, I have never thought of it that way before. Bless you Sir.

 

[Healed_IHS]

So only thoise who are perfect can be clergy? Smokers and overeaters need not apply? Sounds a bit like Donatism.

 

[mark46]

The first issue/hurdle is the issue is the changing of the sacramental definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage. Surely, we are not thinking that ordinating folks who are have sex outside of marriage. Is not fornication still a sin?

There is much scripture regarding the nature of marriage and about sex and its role in our lives. There are many models of behavior in the bible. There are models of celibacy, of monogamous marriage and of polygamy. All are supported as holy matrimony, although a presbyter (priest) is suppose to be a person of one spouse (or a man of one wife).

There is no scriptural model of homosexual marriage or commited homosexual long-term commitments. Also the Church (until very recently) has treated the prohibitions in a consistent manner. I find the the lack of homosexual marriage anywhere in scripture as calling us to be very careful before changing our definition of marriage and our beliefs on the subject.
===============

And yes, I do understand that the same lack of scriptural example or early church example whould convince us against the acceptance of female episcipos/bishops although there are many instances of females missionaries and prophets (and presumably priests).

 

[MKJ]

The first issue/hurdle is the issue is the changing of the sacramental definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage. Surely, we are not thinking that ordinating folks who are have sex outside of marriage. Is not fornication still a sin?

I was enrolled for three years in the Education For Ministry (EFM) extention course being held in my community. It is a history of Christianity and Anglicanism designed to give both historical and theological information to those preparing for non-stipendiary misistry and interested lay-persons.

My class has a few ordination candidates and several lay-readers, among the most serious and commited members of their parishes. They were all over 45. They weren't stupid, immoral, or unthoughtful. Without exception, they did not consider sex outside of marriage a sin, as long as people were committed and "in love". They were also shocked to discover that some still consider "fornication" to be a sin, or living in a common-law relationship to be a problem.

Our diocese is pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of liberalism in North America, but this is typical of what one would find in most of the diocese here. Some individuals are more conservative, but those people do not tend to be the ones who seek out more theologically oriented education.

 

[mark46]

I'm not sure of your point. Surely, whether fornication is sin or not is not a matter of what is accepted in indivdual communities at individual times in history.

I do understand that views can change over time (e.g. slavery). However, I don't think that the nature of marriage and sexuality is such a situation.

I was enrolled for three years in the Education For Ministry (EFM) extention course being held in my community. It is a history of Christianity and Anglicanism designed to give both historical and theological information to those preparing for non-stipendiary misistry and interested lay-persons.

My class has a few ordination candidates and several lay-readers, among the most serious and commited members of their parishes. They were all over 45. They weren't stupid, immoral, or unthoughtful. Without exception, they did not consider sex outside of marriage a sin, as long as people were committed and "in love". They were also shocked to discover that some still consider "fornication" to be a sin, or living in a common-law relationship to be a problem.

Our diocese is pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of liberalism in North America, but this is typical of what one would find in most of the diocese here. Some individuals are more conservative, but those people do not tend to be the ones who seek out more theologically oriented education.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Keep in mind that sex in marriage occured to women as young as 12 in Biblical times. Today we say that sex with someone that young is immoral, but if it wasn't the case during the old days, Jesus wouldn't have been born to Mary. So yes, morals do change over time.

 

[MKJ]

I'm not sure of your point. Surely, whether fornication is sin or not is not a matter of what is accepted in indivdual communities at individual times in history.

I do understand that views can change over time (e.g. slavery). However, I don't think that the nature of marriage and sexuality is such a situation.

I agree with you. My point was that the view that sex outside of marriage is a problem cannot be taken for granted among even fairly serious Anglicans these days, including priests.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Yes as has been mentioned fornication (pornos) as in Matthew 19 is what happens outside faithful marriage, the alternative given is celibacy for whatever reason.
Sadly one could say the church has in the past ordained paedophiles, at least some clergy have been found guilty of such acts! Yet they didnt declare their intention to sin at ordination. Many clergy have fallen short in adultery yet again they didnt declare their intention to sin at ordination. However with the gay and lesbian movement we now have clergy declaring their mission is sin before they are ordained.

It isnt that clergy are to be perfect and sinless, but that they know what sin and repentance is otherwise there is little point in them being clergy as they might lead people to the law of sin and death instead of leading people to the law of the Spirit and life through Jesus Christ.


same sex practices are far more clearly

 

[mark46]

Morality as set within a culture definitely changes over time.

However, there are moral teaching of scripture that do not change.

Sexual morality and the definition of marriage are certainly issues that the CHURCH must deal with. Whether the worldly sexual mores might inform, but cannot determine right and wrong.
=================================
As you indicate, there is an elephant in the room. In biblical times (and in times before) women were married very soon after being able to conceive. Marriage followed almost immediately. Homosexual practices involved an older man and a young boy. There was little birth control. Children were needed as workers on farm and in the shops, and to take care of theirm parents in old age.

The biggest issues of marriage were adultery and having more than one wife. The morality we deduce from bibliocal letters to the churches and other verses made great sense, and there were few real issues with regard to conclusion that sex was within marriage, for the procreation of children, and between a man and a woman..
=================================
Today, for better or worse, we are in a different place with different issues. We often apply the same sexual conduct as in the early church, resulting in asking our children to be celibate for 12 years or more. Since we cannot support families with a dozen children, we pratice natural or artificial birth control, removing the link between sex and child-bearing. Sex is instead about intimacy and commitment. We no longer use sex as the method to produce workers for our farms and to support us in our old age within the family unit or clan. Homosexual partnerships are not typically between a older man and a young boy, and committed realtionships are at least as likely to continue as heterosexual realtionships.

For me, the largest issue is expecting those between puberty (often at age 10 and marriage to be celibate. Celibacy should be a calling not a man-made rule. Yes, the issue also exists for the unmarried, and particularly those whose spouse has died. Should they be automatically be considered to be called into cel;ibacy or rushed marriage?

We have seen what forced rules of celibacy can do to variuous groups.

The CHURCH and the churches need to face these issues.

Keep in mind that sex in marriage occured to women as young as 12 in Biblical times. Today we say that sex with someone that young is immoral, but if it wasn't the case during the old days, Jesus wouldn't have been born to Mary. So yes, morals do change over time.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Yes as has been mentioned fornication (pornos) as in Matthew 19 is what happens outside faithful marriage, the alternative given is celibacy for whatever reason.
Sadly one could say the church has in the past ordained paedophiles, at least some clergy have been found guilty of such acts! Yet they didnt declare their intention to sin at ordination. Many clergy have fallen short in adultery yet again they didnt declare their intention to sin at ordination. However with the gay and lesbian movement we now have clergy declaring their mission is sin before they are ordained.

It isnt that clergy are to be perfect and sinless, but that they know what sin and repentance is otherwise there is little point in them being clergy as they might lead people to the law of sin and death instead of leading people to the law of the Spirit and life through Jesus Christ.


same sex practices are far more clearly

Sorry, I am confused. Isn't the law of the Spirit and life to be found in the two greatest commandments? Aren't we, as Christians, more influenced by the Sermon on the Mount as opposed to the Decalogue?

If one believes, as I do, in what the American Psych Association has stated - that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and is hardwired into us... I don't see how any homosexual can be a clergyperson if we expect them to remain celibate. Then again, from what I have been told about Luther, I feel affinity to the Saints and Sinners at same time theology.

Sadly, this is another case where people in the Biblical times knew far less than we do now and were more apt to call such acts "sinful".

At this point I just want to make the common disclaimer that anyone is free to disagree with me (duh), and I don't think less of anyone that does. I just feel this thinking has validity.

IMHO, It is a shame that we have neither a passage of the Bible where Jesus literally, blatantly, excludes or accepts someone that is not just "perhaps gay", but so gay, they led the parade through Jerusalem.... I mean unmistakenly gay. For I think this would solve a lot of disagreements.

 

[mark46]

I agree that no one should expect a homosexual priest to be celebate.
I agree that we should be governed by the two great commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, rather than the 600 or so commandments in the OT.

Where does that leave us? Should I accept a priest who has indicated that he will continue to engage in sinful behavior outside of marriage after he (or she) is ordained?

Perhaps the churches do indeed need to revisit our understanding of sexuality and marriage, but we ahve not done so as yet.

Sorry, I am confused. Isn't the law of the Spirit and life to be found in the two greatest commandments? Aren't we, as Christians, more influenced by the Sermon on the Mount as opposed to the Decalogue?

If one believes, as I do, in what the American Psych Association has stated - that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and is hardwired into us... I don't see how any homosexual can be a clergyperson if we expect them to remain celibate. Then again, from what I have been told about Luther, I feel affinity to the Saints and Sinners at same time theology.

Sadly, this is another case where people in the Biblical times knew far less than we do now and were more apt to call such acts "sinful".

At this point I just want to make the common disclaimer that anyone is free to disagree with me (duh), and I don't think less of anyone that does. I just feel this thinking has validity.

IMHO, It is a shame that we have neither a passage of the Bible where Jesus literally, blatantly, excludes or accepts someone that is not just "perhaps gay", but so gay, they led the parade through Jerusalem.... I mean unmistakenly gay. For I think this would solve a lot of disagreements.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Where does that leave us? Should I accept a priest who has indicated that he will continue to engage in sinful behavior outside of marriage after he (or she) is ordained?

I'm sorry, can you rephrase the question?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To ProdigalSeeker,

Sorry, I am confused. Isn't the law of the Spirit and life to be found in the two greatest commandments? Aren't we, as Christians, more influenced by the Sermon on the Mount as opposed to the Decalogue?

No, much more. The law of the Spirit and life is found through Christ and the Holy Spirit, the two greatest commandments were OT law and prophets and are fulfilled by Jesus. Consider that Jesus gave a new command to have faith in Him, obey what He teaches and to love one another as He loved; as He loved is different from loving as oneself.

If one believes, as I do, in what the American Psych Association has stated - that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and is hardwired into us... I don't see how any homosexual can be a clergyperson if we expect them to remain celibate.

That’s in response to the word of God I cited, you must believe in the APA more, that’s where your faith is. However the APA have admitted recently there isn’t any consensus of scientific agreement as to proof of it being hardwired, which is something NARTH have been saying, so that’s an assumption on your part. Furthermore do you believe any temptation is innate or is it just the case with same sex attraction? What about adultery, is opposite sex attraction hardwired and if so why suppress it to a faithful union?

Sadly, this is another case where people in the Biblical times knew far less than we do now and were more apt to call such acts "sinful".

Then where would the inspiration of the Holy Spirit apply, or Jesus speaking the words of the Father or what apostles learned from the Son of God be relevant?

IMHO, It is a shame that we have neither a passage of the Bible where Jesus literally, blatantly, excludes or accepts someone that is not just "perhaps gay", but so gay, they led the parade through Jerusalem.... I mean unmistakenly gay. For I think this would solve a lot of disagreements.

There is no concept of gay in God’s word so God’s word cant comment on something humans have made up. There are exclusions and condemnations of same sex relations, remember Christ came to save people from the sin, He doesn’t condemn sinners

 

[Healed_IHS]

That’s in response to the word of God I cited, you must believe in the APA more, that’s where your faith is. However the APA have admitted recently there isn’t any consensus of scientific agreement as to proof of it being hardwired, which is something NARTH have been saying, so that’s an assumption on your part.

Can you provide documentation for this claim? Last semester as webmaster for my college's Psych club, I posted the finding that they decided it was hardwired. Seems really sketchy that before the next semester is already up they already reversed that decision.

But to answer your rebuttal, yes. I do see science as God's Word to us today. IOW, the way that we learn more about our creator. As a result of this, I feel confident in suggesting that miracles are what happens when God doens't work through the laws of science for God's will to be done. God made the rules, yet doesn't have to stick by them Himself.

Now as far as anecdotal evidence, make of it what one will, take the case of the two Exodus cofounders. The two guys who went around the country preaching that people can change sexuality like they went from gay to straight... and back to gay again when they fell in love with each other.

Allow me to tackle the next two individually.

Furthermore do you believe any temptation is innate or is it just the case with same sex attraction?

Any temptation is innate. We are born imperfect. Had we not been born imperfect we wouldn't have needed Jesus to die on the cross to erase the guilt. We each have what St. Paul called thorns, we all have our cross to bear.

That being said, if you will allow me to indulge my semi-pelagian side... Jesus erased the guilt of original sin. We are justified by his death as a default condition. There is nothing my mortal hands can do, no action I may take that may add to what the Perfect has already done. Salvation is guaranteed for all. Just as JC went to hell to free those who were imprisioned (And from a Christian viewpoint Buddhists, pagans, etc.. resided in Hell, not just Jews, I would say) JC wiped out the debt ALL owed. Accepting JC as Lord isn't payment... something we do because we are obligated... it is a sacrifice, much like Able's sacrifice done out of love vs. Cain's out of legalism. The parable of the workman and the wages isn't one sided, but can be a reflection on how we should accept God... out of love for Her, not legalism.

What about adultery, is opposite sex attraction hardwired and if so why suppress it to a faithful union?

Why indeed? Though one could make the argument, with success, that polyamory doesn't allow the intimate bonds to develop which leads us into deeper relationship with one another. Then again, it can be successfuly argued against. Personally, what two (or more) adults do in the privacy of their own house, outhouse, hen house, or cat house.... as long as there is no harm involved, go for it, I say.

Then where would the inspiration of the Holy Spirit apply, or Jesus speaking the words of the Father or what apostles learned from the Son of God be relevant?

To purposely misquote Forrest Gump... love is as love does. It is our actions which demonstrate our love. If one's actions mirror what love is in I Cor 13, I feel safe saying they are completing the 2 greatest commandments.

There is no concept of gay in God’s word so God’s word cant comment on something humans have made up. There are exclusions and condemnations of same sex relations, remember Christ came to save people from the sin, He doesn’t condemn sinners

Again, I am going to have to ask for supporting evidence that there is no concept of gay in God's word.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To ProdigalSeeker,

Can you provide documentation for this claim?

Yes, but as they are changing their minds that doesn’t help your position. The word of God however is clear and doesn’t change.

But to answer your rebuttal, yes. I do see science as God's Word to us today.

Then I cant see how you have the same god, God spoke creation into being, not sure that’s science.

Any temptation is innate.

So if innate is your criteria, why would you have other people resist their temptations such as adultery and paedophilia, but not homosexual ones? If however your criteria was harm, whether the desire is innate or not would be irrelevant.

That being said, if you will allow me to indulge my semi-pelagian side... Jesus erased the guilt of original sin. We are justified by his death as a default condition.

Let me stop you there. You are disputing what is a sin and then claiming Jesus erased the guilt. Nor are we justified by His death as a default condition as His teaching frequently shows not everyone will be saved and that we receive justification by faith in Him.

Why indeed?

Well is it up to you or do you take any notice of what Jesus Christ taught in the Bible?

... as long as there is no harm involved, go for it, I say.

but many people would not find harmful the things that you might find harmful. And anyway Jesus Christ’s NT teaching says sexual immorality harms one’s own body.

To purposely misquote Forrest Gump... love is as love does. It is our actions which demonstrate our love. If one's actions mirror what love is in I Cor 13, I feel safe saying they are completing the 2 greatest commandments.

Hang on you have used 1 Corinthians 13 which you have just implied is a part of the Bible written with human understanding. That was my question how can you trust 1 Cor 13 if its just what humans understood then.

Again, I am going to have to ask for supporting evidence that there is no concept of gay in God's word.

There is no concept of gay in God’s word so God’s word cant comment on something you mentioned. I am asking you to provide some evidence in God’s word of the concept of gay. All the scripture does is countenance man/woman unions and condemn same sex ones.

 

[Healed_IHS]

To ProdigalSeeker,
Yes, but as they are changing their minds that doesn’t help your position. The word of God however is clear and doesn’t change. [/color]

So you can't or won't provide evidence that their stance is that sexuality can't be changed. I will provide evidence that backs it up:

Insufficient evidence to support sexual orientation change efforts

Then I cant see how you have the same god, God spoke creation into being, not sure that’s science.

If you choose not to believe in the Big Bang, I am not going to force you. All I am going to say is that since the Enlightenment people have began to understand that science and God are not seperate. But if you don't believe God created science, let me ask... is it that you don't believe in the laws of physics, do you feel physics is mere "witchcraft", or do you believe another entity created it?

So if innate is your criteria, why would you have other people resist their temptations such as adultery and paedophilia, but not homosexual ones? If however your criteria was harm, whether the desire is innate or not would be irrelevant.

No, No. The irrelevancy is innate. The difference is harm. What if we are to create a world-wide age of consent rule that says it is a crime to have relations with someone under 50. My proposition still stands... harm, not innate is the issue. The reason we say it is immoral to have relations with children is because it severley harms their development.

Let me stop you there. You are disputing what is a sin and then claiming Jesus erased the guilt. Nor are we justified by His death as a default condition as His teaching frequently shows not everyone will be saved and that we receive justification by faith in Him.
Well is it up to you or do you take any notice of what Jesus Christ taught in the Bible?

Absolutely. I also am intelligent enough to realize there wasn't someone behind Him 24/7 taking note of what he said and did. It isn't written that he had bowel movements either, so there arose a group claiming that neither will we when we leave our imperfect form.

but many people would not find harmful the things that you might find harmful. And anyway Jesus Christ’s NT teaching says sexual immorality harms one’s own body.

That is sooo vague, sexual immortality. Some people would say that using a paddle between married adults is immoral, and use the same morality you are expounding.

Hang on you have used 1 Corinthians 13 which you have just implied is a part of the Bible written with human understanding. That was my question how can you trust 1 Cor 13 if its just what humans understood then.

Because THIS has held up to what has been true throughout the human experience to this day. The Bible also says it is ok to own slaves... so obviously that has to be true today also, yes?

There is no concept of gay in God’s word so God’s word cant comment on something you mentioned. I am asking you to provide some evidence in God’s word of the concept of gay. All the scripture does is countenance man/woman unions and condemn same sex ones.

Oh, I see. Thank you. You are saying God's word to refer to the Bible, not Jesus, Himself. Well, let's look at this:
1. OT - it is an abomination. Well, so is eating a hamburger while drinking a milkshake, but certainly we don't believe in this today.
1a. OT says that we should put disobedient children to death. Well, sure, if they are going around killing people, I guess. Not for minor disobedience.

2. NT - Since JC never said anything about gay relations, one must look to
Paul who wasn't speaking to modern day people, nor even Jews in his own days, but was refering to specific situations where, in a gay couple, one was the masculine (and therefore superior partner) and the other was the femme' (and therefore inferior). These cultures had entire systems of codes relegating such behavior and their outlook towards it. For example, irrumatio, which a quick web search will show to be about exploitation.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To ProdigalSeeker,

So you can't or won't provide evidence that their stance is that sexuality can't be changed.

I have no intention of trading research statements with you in the light of the truth of God’s word. You will only say you don’t agree with the ones I provide and I will no doubt disagree with the ones you provide.
Here is one just for the record … APA revises 'gay gene' theory (OneNewsNow.com)

If you choose not to believe in the Big Bang, I am not going to force you.

As I said God spoke creation into being, just how I am not interested this is a Christian section of the forum not a science one.

No, No. The irrelevancy is innate. The difference is harm.

So why did you say one can’t expect someone to change if their sexuality is hardwired? Are you now withdrawing that line of argument?
If you are saying the criteria is harm then that’s subjective according to different people but the NT teaching shows sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body.

Absolutely.

Well sorry but to me its obvious you are absolutely not taking any notice of the Bible as each Biblical reference I cite and refer to you contradict with one of your own ideas or some disputed scientific theory.

That is sooo vague, sexual immortality. Some people would say that using a paddle between married adults is immoral, and use the same morality you are expounding.

No its not vague at all… 1 Corinthians 6 just earlier in the chapter says 9Do 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.

Because THIS has held up to what has been true throughout the human experience to this day. The Bible also says it is ok to own slaves... so obviously that has to be true today also, yes?

On the contrary you see the word of God says not to lean on human experience and understanding but trust God and His word.1 Cor 3, the wisdom of the world is foolisheness to God. And anyway I dont agree with what you are claiming about human experiecne either. Furthermore if you think the NT says its ok to own slaves you will need to show me chapter and verse.
My view is that the word of God makes sense its quite obvious that there are two sexes in the human species for sexual reproduction and a one sex union isnt possible, its just sexual gratification and dysfunction.

Oh, I see. Thank you. You are saying God's word to refer to the Bible, not Jesus, Himself. Well, let's look at this:

Well no lets not until you understand my question to you. The definition of gay in a sexual connotation means having a same sex attraction and as God created man and woman to be united and condemns same sex sexual relationships gay is really only a sexually immoral desire or act. It’s a concept that is excluded and condemned.

2. NT - Since JC never said anything about gay relations, one must look to

Paul

Jesus never said anything that wasn’t written down by men, neither Matthew, Mark Luke or John or Paul. Paul received his revelation not from man but from the risen Lord Jesus. So your statement doesn’t seem to have grasped some basics.

wasn't speaking to modern day people,

If you don’t think He was speaking to modern day people about what God had created in the beginning and then instructed disciples to pass on all He had taught, I cant see what relevance the Biblical Testimony of Jesus Christ has for you.

but was refering to specific situations where, in a gay couple,

Let me stop you there, there is no concept of gay in God’s word so you cant use it until you have established there is. Gay means having a same sex attraction, a couple of people who have same sex attraction and are thus gay could be a man and a woman.

one was the masculine (and therefore superior partner) and the other was the femme' (and therefore inferior). These cultures had entire systems of codes relegating such behavior and their outlook towards it. For example, irrumatio, which a quick web search will show to be about exploitation.

Yes but this is the word of God against cultural deviances.