Gay Clergy-About time or moral oxymoron?

To me, the worst sin of them all is when you knowing do something harmful to any of God's children - period. Let the first without sin cast stones - they, by definition, would not!

As always!

BillW, so true. If only.......

(Thanks Sophia and littlek).

Uh YEAH! Oh Wait ... WHAT AM I DOING HERE?

Seems like Christianity is very much centered around crucifixion.
To label something, then castigate it.

When the M.O. is repeated continuously, like treading water,
it's enough to make one separate and actually "good".

My father is a Father. In New Hampshire, no less.

He's pleased with his new boss. Says (in language more priestly than I cane come up with here and now) that Robinson has got the goods.

But I'm not following in his footsteps. I'm a regular at the local Unitarian Universalist parish... gay minister? Big deal! We've had 'em for years...

Ok, ok, not abominations as such - but less than men, impure, creatures of the flesh, occasion of original sin, subject to the smegging man, lesser souls, not fit to be priests and so on and on and on.


I have been meaning to read that thread - upon which Maliagar features so heavily, through really thoroughly, as I am fascinated by his arguments - they are something! Such abstruse theology is interesting, and sort of makes sense once you accept the basic premises.

The sister of a friend is a nun who works in the divorce section of the Catholic Church - so she is really "up" on theology - the theology of the escape clauses for married catholics is amazing! Like - the things that make a marriage unreal in the theological sense, so it can be annulled, are fascinating.

(One of my friends once referred to the post-test doctoring that is now done on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, to make up for the fact that it is based on rural Minnesotans and yet claims to bear the standard of normalcy for the western world, very scathingly as "a post-hoc fiddle factor" - this nearly got her thrown out of psychology, but accurately describes, for me, the theology of catholic divorce - though the practice is attempting to be, and often is, relatively compassionate.)

I took the poll, I read the posts, (Good thoughts Diane) and I am still left with my initial thought of the last few days: "Why is this a problem?" I guess there is the fear that the pastor may kiss the groom instead of the bride, with a gay pastor a church will become a gay church, If you pray with gays, you must be gay. While still very upset with the notions that Jesus may have been black or a woman, jeeze could he have been gay? Fear abounds!

"Religious tolerance" Seems like a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of term.

Ya know, morganwood, I think you're pretty close to the point there. Some folks prolly WOULD have a great deal of difficulty with a concept such as a lesbian negroid deity, though to my mind that's no more or less improbable than a bearded, long-haired caucasian aescetic in flowing robes and open sandals.

I remember seein' that, Bill. Actually, ever since I was a kid, I've wondered about the accepted iconography of Christ representations. Its always puzzled me why an individual purportedly of Hebrew/Semitic ethnicity might have distinctly Western European physical characteristics. Just another one of those "Mysteries" the faithful are supposed to accept, I guess.

Faith is in God, not man's interpretation God is color blind, and without fault -

bm

We make god after our own image - except, in my case, for the genitalia....

I am confused. If sections of The Bible and even some Gospel relate that homosexuality is wrong why would some church members, that derive religious legitimacy from this work, now claim it is "OK" to recognize a homosexual as a valid administrator of the faith? Is this the end result of that slippery slope such followers have traveled down past such things as Mass conducted only in Latin, no divorce, and no red meat on Friday?

Church members are now dividing themselves into "Conservatives" and "Progressives" and now politely refer to the opposition as such, whereas in private the use of other terms such as "Old Fogies" and "Upstarts" may easily appear.

Why do the "Progressives" now feel it is time, again, to update church dogma? What is the source of this hubris C.S. Lewis referred to as "chronological snobbery"? Why do they feel our time contains the greatest thinkers and that the social norms of Christian groups in Palestine 2000 years ago are outdated? Is geographical snobbery sneaking in also? Do the inhabitants of the predominately white West feel those in the ME got some of the Dogma wrong? It is interesting to note that American Bishops had their sexual liberalism soundly rejected by the last Lambeth conference in 1998 by bishops from Africa, Asia and Latin America where the Anglican Communion is quickly growing and flourishing.

Perhaps the answer to these questions has been with us all along but many still refuse to admit that perhaps the ecclesiastical empirical raiments are not only not "new" but simply non-existent. What can be said of a theological belief based on an entity whose teachings must be constantly updated? Why must the Biblical Truth constantly be re-interpreted by the not so supreme court of anthropic opinion? Even a bishop in Vancouver when he stated, "We have no reason to suppose that any one religion is truer than the others" implicitly hints at this chink in church doctrine when explaining his approval of same-sex unions. This is truly a remarkable statement emanating from a theologian whose beliefs are based on Divine Truth.

This is an excellent example of why simple people, such as myself, raised with Christianity become confused. The "Conservatives" have instinctively felt the problem: If homosexuality is correct now, why and at what point in the past was it wrong? Further, if this one concept were wrong now, surely this would call into question other aspects of church doctrine. Clerical apologists may obfuscate with such wonderings as to "whether some forms of homosexual activity might be open to God's blessing in ways the Church has not previously recognized." and the wonderfully slippery: "It is not a question of whether one can be gay and a Christian it is what is appropriate sexual activity for Christians". (Apparently it is OK to be a homosexual as long as one doesn't commit homosexual acts, but if a person abstains from such acts is he...what?) However, close scrutiny of the situation only turns these clouds into a precipitate leaving only the clear truth.

The heart of Christianity as a belief is simply tolerance. Reading thru the Bible the contrast of the Old Testament's wrath / intolerance towards sinners and the New Testament's forgiveness / love the sinner philosophy is striking. Jesus Christ, whose teachings are credited with this change, must have been truly a remarkable human, maybe even a "Progressive" of his time. Perhaps we might put this simple fundamental element of Jesus' teaching to use here. It is sometimes best to keep things simple.

JM

The answer to almost all of your questions is pretty simple. If you kill people for being homosexual you will go to jail. Hence some Bible passages have to be ignored.

And there is plenty of homophobic **** in the New Testament as wwell so the Old/New testament mantra doesn't hold water there.

I heard an interesting program on NPR yesterday with various Episcopal and Anglican interviewees. The intersection of ideas came apart on a few points. There is a tri-partite structure underlying the anglican communion: a three-legged stool, so to speak. There is faith, and tradition, and community. One speaker pointed out that revelation is a constantly updated knowledge. In other words, he was saying that we are learning from 'god' just as much as we can tolerate at any given time, that revelation grows and changes. Another speaker said, in essence, bullstuff, that such a view was revisionist and post-everything. Both said, however, that the anglican communion was flexible enough to survive such crises.

I have read everything I could find about this. The essence seems to be that, if these current ideas are incorporated in anglican belief, then there will have to be a revising of the total corpus of that church's dogma. So what does that mean? Will they have a council and rewrite the laws? Will they declare that revelation continues and that new ideas must gain currency? I am not an anglican, but my worry, if I were, would be that what new idea will come along next week to become acceptable? I could not live within church strictures, but many people seem to derive their comfort and security in this world from being told what to do.

Don't get me wrong here. I have learned and changed totally, in the past ten years, in my views on the alternate lifestyles. I now know that we are all sexual on a sliding scale, from masculine to feminine and all degrees in between. But perhaps these different folks will not fit in with hide-bound traditional religion? How can they, when those dogmas and strictures excluded them from the start, for whatever reasons -- ignorance, culture change, whatever.

This will be a major crisis for the anglican church. And for the catholic church, which will suffer the same agonies in coming years.

These traditional religions are based on old myths, stories that we all tell ourselves to explain the world, especially the world outside science and everyday reality. These myths need updating, to become relevant to the world today. I do not think this will happen soon.

It seems like the majority opinion is in favor of the gay bishop. I guess my opinion won't be too popular but ...

Having an openly gay bishop is not a moral oxymoron but a biblical one. I think that being gay is a sin but everyone falls short of the kingdom and sins so no one is really different. However, being openly gay contradicst the religion that the bishop is trying to teach. Since real Christians aren't supposed to have sex outside of marriage, homosexuals are going against this because in my religion, marriage is vehicle for the creation of life. Otherwise sex would just be a means to satisfy physical lusts and vices. In Christianity and many other religions, wordly desires are seen as things that should be stifled in order to reach spiritual harmony. There is no need for an openly gay clergy man or Christian spiritual leader because since there is no need for that information to be shared, considering the no marriage rule, he is simply trying to make a statement that homosexuality is right, a clear contradiction to the Holy Bible and the religion he is supposed to be teaching. We all are sinners but at least most of us know the difference between right and wrong. People who don't respect Christianity enought to keep it the same are crossing a very dangerous line between politics, atheism and religion. They try to mold Christianity into something it is not, something w/o strict moral codes and therefore are trying to crumble the world's moral pillar. A religion who's basic commandments are ammended even a bit will crumble to the point where it is not a religion anymore but the exact opposite. Religion is not based on opinions, it is based on facts.

gvapid, your thoughts would be expected from a christian believer. And I think your reasoning is spot on. The traditiional beliefs about marriage -- no matter where they came from -- do not encompass a man and a man. In the catholic church, (and in the anglican communion I think,) it is okay to be of the homosexual inclination as long as you do not act on it physically. In other words, you can have this "aberrant" desire, but you must not give in to indulging it.

The anglican and catholic traditions do not vary much from each other, but the anglican communion is different in that it does not have a top dog, unless you consider the Archbishop of Canterbury in that light. Even the pope is not top dog unless speaking ex cathedra.

I have been pondering much in recent days. What is a religion or a religious tradition if it is not a set of dogma and laid down rules, revealed or wrought from tradition, and believed by its adherents? When is one no longer a member of that faith group? When he refuses to abide by one of its rules? Two of them? Seven of the ten? If one can pick and choose, is he a cafeteria catholic?

It is interesting, and perhaps revealing, that the Bishop who was just affirmed is not just gay but in an ongoing physical relationship. Recall that the elected bishop in England who was under the gun in recent weeks not to accept his position was in a relationship but one that he said had not been physical for many years. Nevertheless, he backed away from accepting the post after a long chat with the Archbishop.

Is conscience the last bulwark? How informed does one's conscience have to be for him to go forward completely in the face of his church's tradition?

So many questions. So little time.

excuse me...
Religion is a very touchy subject Craven so, I'd appreciate if you didn't openly call my religion ****. Nothing in the bible is ****. There is nothing in the Bible that condones killing of any sort but its very sweet how you have such faith in a justice system in which most of the people in it have no morals.