Windsor Report:Scripture, Tradition, and Reason--Anglican/Old Catholic ONLY

[Bulldog]

Breaking Communion is a Sin.

Is it if one side is falling into heresy (I'm not necessarily saying that that's applicable here, just asking hypothetically)?

 

[Simon_Templar]

Heterosexuals, as you rightly point out, can engage in such kinds of abuses of their sexuality. However, homosexuals engage in committed sexual relationships with their partners in much the same way as many heterosexual couple do. They raise children. They contribute loving families and wisdom to their communities, and I know many such people who embody Christian love. Yet you say this is out of order with God's creation. I fail to see how this is anything like any of the scriptures commonly cited denouncing homosexual acts (including the Romans one mentioned earlier) which portray lustful and "degrading" sexual behavior, which seems to be the only aspect to the relations between the individuals who engage in the behavior (therefore, no, I don't think this passage describes homosexuality, it just describes sexual acting out). .

We obviously disagree about the interpetation of these scriptures, or we wouldn't be having the conversation in the first place

I therefore take great offense at your comparing homosexuality with pre-marital sex and bestiality. (That's even worse then Senator Santorum's infamous comments.) Pre-marital sex is a whole other discussion, but it is simple to dismiss the bestiality argument, as the "beast" has no way to give consent to engaging in sex and thus it is not possible to compare it with your other examples..

while I may have my own opinions about the nature of homosexuality, my point there was simply to say that they are all grouped together as things which are outside of God's will/plan/order whichever you prefer to call it. It wasn't meant to draw any conclusions about the comparativeness of each individual thing to the others, simply pointing out that I believe they are all against the will of God.

Oh, and in regard to the "temptation" comment you made, what do you think about Jesus' admonition to not even look at a woman with a lustful heart, lest you commit adultery in your heart? Is this not a form of temptation? If so, then Jesus has clearly stated that this is a sin, and therefore homosexuals who attempt to remain celibate are left without hope should they find themselves "tempted" all the time -- they will be constantly wrestling with the sin of lust. What a horrid existence they have been banished to.

There is a difference between looking at a woman with lust in your heart, and being tempted to lust. Jesus was tempted, but Jesus never sinned. I know many married men (or men in committed relationships) who commonly use the phrase "I can look, I just can't touch". This is the kind of thing Jesus was talking about. Looking and giving in to desire in your mind, using your mind as a tool to indulge your lust. If you see a woman and are tempted, but refuse to give in, this is not sin.
Perhaps a touch off topic, but part of the reason for this is that Christianity is about becoming something... which means it is about not only what you do, but the condition of your heart.. thus you could live your life without ever committing sinful sexual actions, and yet still be a perverted lustful person at heart if you constantly give in to lust in your mind and you would not be the person that God desires you to be. That is the difference between the law of Moses and the grace of Jesus.. the law could not make you righteous because even if you obeyed it, your heart could still be impure and sinful. With the grace of Jesus, if you submit to it, it will change your heart, as well as your actions.

But this is one reason why I think it would be extremely unwise for men with homosexual tendancies to live in the partnerships you guys are talking about. Its no different than if I were to move in and live the rest of my life with a woman (particularly one I had attraction to). It is purposely subjecting yourself to temptation and setting yourself up to fail.

As for the horrid existences. I'm a single man. I struggle with lust all the time, and I have no recourse but to continue to struggle. So I guess its time that christians remember that self denial is an integral part of the Faith we were given. If God requires that you deny yourself daily and take up your cross, do so, and count it a blessing.

 

[Finella]

If I may jump in here:

This doesn't really hold as an interpretation. Clearly a distinction between "natural" heterosexuality and "unnatural" homosexuality is important.
"for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
What is the "natural use" is obvious from the next verse.
The distinction between different types of for example more or less "lustful" heterosexual behaviour is not made (and Paul could have done so and made his point more simply if that had been his point).

Beware of not distinguishing between human and divine love and holiness. The only holiness that exists in the human situation described in Rom 1 is that of idolotry ("changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds...") and the only human love described is that lust that we have been talking about and the valuing of others is "having pleasure in them that [commit such things]".

Yes, our whole epistemelogical orientation here is quite different.

I believe that, as we are created in God's image, that our love, when it brings people together, creates community and promotes peace and understanding between people, is also God's love. We as humans carry God's love within us and are commanded to share it. Distrusting that love unless some external God-force comes in and somehow validates it makes every human action dirty, doesn't it? Does not God/Christ already live within each of us? But how do we know when our love is divine and when it is corrupt? "We shall know them by their fruits." Equating homosexual acting out with a committed homosexual relationship is clearly an error. Look at the fruits of the relationship.

 

[Finella]

There is a difference between looking at a woman with lust in your heart, and being tempted to lust. Jesus was tempted, but Jesus never sinned. I know many married men (or men in committed relationships) who commonly use the phrase "I can look, I just can't touch". This is the kind of thing Jesus was talking about. Looking and giving in to desire in your mind, using your mind as a tool to indulge your lust. If you see a woman and are tempted, but refuse to give in, this is not sin.
Perhaps a touch off topic, but part of the reason for this is that Christianity is about becoming something... which means it is about not only what you do, but the condition of your heart.. thus you could live your life without ever committing sinful sexual actions, and yet still be a perverted lustful person at heart if you constantly give in to lust in your mind and you would not be the person that God desires you to be. That is the difference between the law of Moses and the grace of Jesus.. the law could not make you righteous because even if you obeyed it, your heart could still be impure and sinful. With the grace of Jesus, if you submit to it, it will change your heart, as well as your actions.

I have seen people positively transformed by coming to terms with their homosexuality. Their lives, which had previously been characterized by feelings of extreme shame, fear, and depression became full of joy, love, and hope once they came to see that God created them and loved them as they are. Christianity is about becoming something, yes, but I see it as becoming the fullness of who God created you to be. God doesn't create junk, and God has brought homosexuals into the world, like it or not. Marriage, as Paul writes, is a healthy outlet for our sexual desires; yet we deny this for homosexuals. So we've banished them to live miserable, self-hating lives.

But this is one reason why I think it would be extremely unwise for men with homosexual tendancies to live in the partnerships you guys are talking about. Its no different than if I were to move in and live the rest of my life with a woman (particularly one I had attraction to). It is purposely subjecting yourself to temptation and setting yourself up to fail.

Actually, I think you misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that gay men live in a celibate partnership, I was just wondering what the thinking would be regarding a gay couple who did not practice sodomy. There's other sex acts besides sodomy that a couple may choose to engage in, many people dislike sodomy and choose to not engage in that.

As for the horrid existences. I'm a single man. I struggle with lust all the time, and I have no recourse but to continue to struggle. So I guess its time that christians remember that self denial is an integral part of the Faith we were given. If God requires that you deny yourself daily and take up your cross, do so, and count it a blessing.

I can see your point. But there is a difference between self-denial and denial of the existence of the self, which is the situation in which I think the Church places homosexuals.

 

[Aymn27]

But we are following it [the Windsor Report].

MASSACHUSETTS BISHOP CELEBRATES EUCHARIST AT GAY SOCIETY WEDDING

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org

BOSTON, MA: (11/23/2005)--The Bishop of Massachusetts, Thomas Shaw, SSJE, a leading contender to replace Frank Griswold as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, celebrated a "nuptial Mass" for a gay couple immediately after their wedding attended by State Senator Jarrett T. Barrios. The wedding made the society pages of the New York Times.

The two men, John Finley IV and Stan McGee met at a service at the Society of St. John the Evangelist in Cambridge Massachusetts, also known as the Cowley Brothers. "Our first date was at a monastery," McGee told Laura Zigman of the New York Times.

"Stan thought it was a very bizarre gay date, but we were both interested in theology," said Finley, 35 and a candidate for ordination in the Episcopal Church. "When the monk came by with the holy water I saw Stan take what I assumed was a deep and profoundly pious bow. Later I realized it was because he was wearing a suede waistcoat which he didn't want to get stained," he told the Times.

The reporter described Finley as an "affable preppy" from a blue blood Massachusetts family that was staunchly Republican "until the second Bush administration." McGee is a Harvard Law School graduate and a former Rhodes scholar who works as a junior partner in the Boston offices of WilmerHale. He has a passion for Democratic politics rooted in the Deep South and has long been interested in the "pernicious connection" between church and state, he told the Times.

McGee said that Finley had more of a sense of faith being a positive force. "He is more impetuous, more Gestalt, more big picture. We're more yin-yang, more complimentary, than opposites. John's all sugar and I'm all lemon zest."

The day after their first date McGee sent Finley a dozen red roses; Finley sent McGee two dozen, reported the Times.

During a visit to the Finley family in Brookline, Stan's mother commented on a family portrait of Finley's grandmother: "Your grandmother is very beautiful." Finley replied, "With a fur and pearls I could look just as beautiful." From behind the bar came a crash. Stan had dropped a tray of oysters.

Both men moved into an apartment in Boston and made plans to wed under Massachusetts law. A civil marriage ceremony paired with a religious service was planned at the Church of the Redeemer in Chestnut Hill, the Episcopal parish where Finley's family are longtime members.

On the day of their wedding State Senator Barrios, who officiated at the ceremony, pronounced the couple "fully and legally married". Bishop Shaw then presided over the Eucharist.

VirtueOnline wrote an e-mail to Bishop Shaw asking about his involvement in a Eucharist for this gay couple and if this was in violation of the Windsor Report that asked that such rites and actions not be undertaken as the Episcopal Church has been asked to withdraw itself from the Anglican Consultative Council to discern its future. Would you please tell me why you performed this act in contravention to the expresses wishes of the Eames Commission report? Bishop Shaw did not reply.

END

 

[Polycarp1]

Hmmm... he didn't officiate at their marriage; a State Senator did. He did celebrate the Eucharist there. Trying to think on both sides of the issue here, that could be seen as giving official church sanction to the marriage, or as simply refusing to deny the Eucharist to persons wishing to receive it at a special moment in their lives. The first could be seen as violating the purport of the Eames Commission recommendations (though a good canon lawyer could make a case that it wasn 't). The second is purely pastoral, and unless someone thinks that all gay couples should be excommunicated (which I haven't heard from even the staunchest Anglican traditionalists), it's completely within his prerogative and proper ministry.

As for why Bp. Shaw didn't respond to David Virtue, I'm sure that it's because (a) he's not answerable to Virtue, but to the Triune God, his own conscience, the House of Bishops, and arguably to the Lambeth Conference, but not to a self-appointed lay arbiter of holiness among the bishops, and (b) because the questions were very close relatives of "Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

 

[CSMR]

Yes, our whole epistemelogical orientation here is quite different.

I believe that, as we are created in God's image, that our love, when it brings people together, creates community and promotes peace and understanding between people, is also God's love. We as humans carry God's love within us and are commanded to share it. Distrusting that love unless some external God-force comes in and somehow validates it makes every human action dirty, doesn't it?

Yes, but God is merciful and able to show his love in actions that are in themselves unloving, and to deem us loving by our baptism into Christ.

It is a position I've seen several times here to say that there is some good in humanity and use as a justification good creation, but how does that argument work? How is that compatible with the fact that we are not as a whole good? Why does that mean we can consider some things good and others bad? How does an understanding of creation get you to this position?

Does not God/Christ already live within each of us? But how do we know when our love is divine and when it is corrupt? "We shall know them by their fruits." Equating homosexual acting out with a committed homosexual relationship is clearly an error. Look at the fruits of the relationship.

The fruits are the thing itself, which is according to scripture, and in my view, disordered. At any rate you have to choose between your position and Paul's as I think I showed earlier. It was an image to him of divine antipathy rather than divine love. You don't have to believe what Paul says of course.

 

[higgs2]

MASSACHUSETTS BISHOP CELEBRATES EUCHARIST AT GAY SOCIETY WEDDING

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org

BOSTON, MA: (11/23/2005)--The Bishop of Massachusetts, Thomas Shaw, SSJE, a leading contender to replace Frank Griswold as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, celebrated a "nuptial Mass" for a gay couple immediately after their wedding attended by State Senator Jarrett T. Barrios. The wedding made the society pages of the New York Times.

The two men, John Finley IV and Stan McGee met at a service at the Society of St. John the Evangelist in Cambridge Massachusetts, also known as the Cowley Brothers. "Our first date was at a monastery," McGee told Laura Zigman of the New York Times.

"Stan thought it was a very bizarre gay date, but we were both interested in theology," said Finley, 35 and a candidate for ordination in the Episcopal Church. "When the monk came by with the holy water I saw Stan take what I assumed was a deep and profoundly pious bow. Later I realized it was because he was wearing a suede waistcoat which he didn't want to get stained," he told the Times.

The reporter described Finley as an "affable preppy" from a blue blood Massachusetts family that was staunchly Republican "until the second Bush administration." McGee is a Harvard Law School graduate and a former Rhodes scholar who works as a junior partner in the Boston offices of WilmerHale. He has a passion for Democratic politics rooted in the Deep South and has long been interested in the "pernicious connection" between church and state, he told the Times.

McGee said that Finley had more of a sense of faith being a positive force. "He is more impetuous, more Gestalt, more big picture. We're more yin-yang, more complimentary, than opposites. John's all sugar and I'm all lemon zest."

The day after their first date McGee sent Finley a dozen red roses; Finley sent McGee two dozen, reported the Times.

During a visit to the Finley family in Brookline, Stan's mother commented on a family portrait of Finley's grandmother: "Your grandmother is very beautiful." Finley replied, "With a fur and pearls I could look just as beautiful." From behind the bar came a crash. Stan had dropped a tray of oysters.

Both men moved into an apartment in Boston and made plans to wed under Massachusetts law. A civil marriage ceremony paired with a religious service was planned at the Church of the Redeemer in Chestnut Hill, the Episcopal parish where Finley's family are longtime members.

On the day of their wedding State Senator Barrios, who officiated at the ceremony, pronounced the couple "fully and legally married". Bishop Shaw then presided over the Eucharist.

VirtueOnline wrote an e-mail to Bishop Shaw asking about his involvement in a Eucharist for this gay couple and if this was in violation of the Windsor Report that asked that such rites and actions not be undertaken as the Episcopal Church has been asked to withdraw itself from the Anglican Consultative Council to discern its future. Would you please tell me why you performed this act in contravention to the expresses wishes of the Eames Commission report? Bishop Shaw did not reply.

END

I just saw this. Fortunately, Polycarp has already responded and said everything that I would say about it and more.

 

[Finella]

Yes, but God is merciful and able to show his love in actions that are in themselves unloving, and to deem us loving by our baptism into Christ.

It is a position I've seen several times here to say that there is some good in humanity and use as a justification good creation, but how does that argument work? How is that compatible with the fact that we are not as a whole good? Why does that mean we can consider some things good and others bad? How does an understanding of creation get you to this position?

The converse of this argument is how can God create a bad creation? Is its badness entirely due to Original Sin as literally described in Genesis, or is Original Sin replicated as each person discovers sin in his/her own life?

I don't have an answer to this question. It is one that troubles me about the Christian faith as a whole. I think that Christianity could hold both positions, however, but I cannot explain how.

The fruits are the thing itself, which is according to scripture, and in my view, disordered. At any rate you have to choose between your position and Paul's as I think I showed earlier. It was an image to him of divine antipathy rather than divine love. You don't have to believe what Paul says of course.

I disagree --

15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

Matthew 7:15-20.

The tree cannot be considered good or bad until one sees its fruits. That's the point of the parable: "Thus you will know them by their fruits." The 'fruit' is not "the thing itself", which in this analogy would be the tree itself. The fruit is the fruit.

Until you show me that the 'fruit' of the committed homosexual partnerships of which I speak is inherently evil, I cannot say that the partnership, and even more distanced from that, the homosexuality itself, is disordered. There's no evidence of it.

 

[CSMR]

The converse of this argument is how can God create a bad creation? Is its badness entirely due to Original Sin as literally described in Genesis, or is Original Sin replicated as each person discovers sin in his/her own life?

I am not sure what distinction you are drawing here. Could you describe the options in more detail please? Thanks!

The tree cannot be considered good or bad until one sees its fruits. That's the point of the parable: "Thus you will know them by their fruits." The 'fruit' is not "the thing itself", which in this analogy would be the tree itself. The fruit is the fruit.

Until you show me that the 'fruit' of the committed homosexual partnerships of which I speak is inherently evil, I cannot say that the partnership, and even more distanced from that, the homosexuality itself, is disordered. There's no evidence of it.

Yes, one has to identify the tree and the fruit correctly. The tree is our inner self, grounded or not grounded in Jesus Christ. The fruits are our works.
Now it seems to me that entering or not entering a homosexual union is a work, so a fruit, not a tree.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

The tree is our inner self, grounded or not grounded in Jesus Christ. The fruits are our works.
Now it seems to me that entering or not entering a homosexual union is a work, so a fruit, not a tree.

I can see how you have come to this statement, but doesn't it seem awfully sad that someone cannot live according to their true inner self? It seems to me that hetero's are putting this constraint upon the gays when we are still debating the biblical context. I feel the Bible is clear about this in some instances but not in others. However, I wonder why it is that the clear verses are still debated? As you can probably tell, I'm in two minds about this whole issue. On the one hand you've got the law (and by this I mean those more clear scriptural verses). On the other hand, you've got love.

 

[CSMR]

Everyone lives according to his inner self. That is awfully sad if that inner self is not justified by faith in Christ. But we shouldn't say to someone in order to be good you must do these works contrary to your nature. That would be justification by works.

The law doesn't go against love, it tells us to love and it tells us how to love and it tells us what love is. It's only if we have wrong ideas that "morality" and "love" become opposed.