Scism in the Church of England - Comments
Don Sprague
In the Nov 9th issue of the London Times, it was announced that
Conservative Bishops in the Church of England are ready to formally
leave the Church along with 1000 of the 13000 Anglican parishes in
England. Episcopalians United, a similar group in the US, with support
of several sitting Bishops, has previously announced a similar intent.
It looks as though we are now moving from the period of the various
'continuing' Anglican churches, which had various levels of historical
validity, to an era of formal scism, with sitting Bishops leaving the
church (with diocesan property and money most likely). Any comments
about this acceleration of the dissolution of the Anglican communion.
Gerry Lynch
In article <34710696...@halcyon.com>, dspr...@halcyon.com says...
The CofE has been heading for this since the ordination of women priests.
It greatly saddens me to see this happen, and I hope that something may be
done to avert this - perhaps a less geographically bound episcopal system?
There was a minor schism in the CofI after the ordination of women, however
it was never very big, and now seems to have collapsed back into nothingness
(there is nowhere for them to go - the main Protestant denominations all
ordained women before the CofI did, and many of those who didn't like it
could never have became Roman Catholics).
I'm not sure that it is - England and America do not constitute the whole
Anglican communion, and are not even the most Anglican countries (eg
N.Ireland has ~300,000 Anglicans out of a total population of just under
1.7million, a much higher fraction than either England or the USA - Wales is
I think even higher! This is not even taking in the massive growth in the
Third World - one 1988 Parish in Kenya is now a Diocese with 86 Parishes!
I hope and pray that schism may be averted, and that the power of the Holy
Spirit will yet heal the wounds in the whole Church of Christ, and that we
may resolve our differences with love and respect - remember 'we being many
are one body, for we all share in the one bread'.
Gerry Lynch, New Lodge, Belfast, Northern Ireland [Diocese of Connor]
http://members.tripod.com/~gi0rtn Liturgically Catholic; Theologically
Liberal; Evangelical in pursuit of the Gospel Ideal.
Church of Ireland http://www.ireland.anglican.org
Views are my own and not those of anyone else!
NedStax
>I hope and pray that schism may be averted.
I concur, but how does one tell the difference between a schism and a natural
evolution of the Church into elements in which people may feel free to worship
as they wish?
We've had a few problems here in Seattle (Diocese of Olympia), first with the
ordination of women and now with gay marriage. The Dean of our cathedral
recently performed a ceremony for two of our male parishoners. I don't want
to get into that whole debate, because, a, it's none of my business and b, I
frankly don't care, but my point is that many people did care, and some of
them left to other congregations or left the EC completely.
Is it a schism if people leave a church because they have become so
uncomfortable in their community that they no longer feel welcome? Is it a
schism if people of like minds choose to worship together?
Like I said, I don't think leaving ever solves anything, and I'm not in favor
of it. I'm just trying to spark a bit of discussion.
Mycroft
NedStax wrote in message <19971118170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
I fail to see why people would feel unwelcome just because a parish chooses
to bless the commitment of two gay people. Do you mean that because their
opinions and viewpoints are not followed verbatim by the church they should
be justified in feeling rejected? If they feel unwelcome maybe it's because
of their judgemental and condemnatory attitude--and they're actually
feeling it within themselves and projecting it outward.
Mycroft
>
Jeff
In <19971118170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ned...@aol.com (NedStax) writes:
>>I hope and pray that schism may be averted.
>
>I concur, but how does one tell the difference between a schism and a natural
> evolution of the Church into elements in which people may feel free to worship
> as they wish?
>
>We've had a few problems here in Seattle (Diocese of Olympia), first with the
> ordination of women and now with gay marriage. The Dean of our cathedral
> recently performed a ceremony for two of our male parishoners. I don't want
> to get into that whole debate, because, a, it's none of my business and b, I
> frankly don't care, but my point is that many people did care, and some of
> them left to other congregations or left the EC completely.
>
>Is it a schism if people leave a church because they have become so
> uncomfortable in their community that they no longer feel welcome? Is it a
> schism if people of like minds choose to worship together?
>
>Like I said, I don't think leaving ever solves anything, and I'm not in favor
> of it. I'm just trying to spark a bit of discussion.
Interesting. However, it's unclear why the blessing for the male
parishioners, which was doubtless 1. positive and 2. invitation-oriented
like all such events, would make any other parishioners feel like they are
no longer being welcomed to worship in the church's pews or participate in
its life.
Granted that there are differences of viewpoint on the issue; still, it
seems immature if not fascistic to derive such a strong sense of rejection
from basically peaceful, personal events in the lives of others.
I have the same questions about any feeling of offense or unwelcomeness
that they've derived from the ordination of women. We all know that many
things in a community or worship experience are NOT going to be just as
we grew up with, or might want. The Articles of Religion (back of BCP)
more or less state, in the male-oriented language and viewpoint of the
time, that one's belief in the inappropriateness of a given ordained
minister have NO lessening effect on the sacraments administered, and
should not be allowed to get in the way of the church/worship experience.
Women priests may be a very new and difficult adjustment for these
people, and I want to acknowledge that; but (if they leave) one must
conclude in the end that they are weak in faith - doubting the efficacy
of the various sacraments and having a somewhat immature or "consumerist"
approach to religion. (But not that I'm claiming perfection or freedom
from that myself, of course! We're all human.)
If this is all way off, perhaps someone could explain these things
RATIONALLY and help us understand. Thanks,
Jeff
*** To reply by e-mail (and if you are NOT advertising or soliciting),
*** send to: ca...@best.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and the APA [American Psychological
Association] opposes all portrayals of lesbian, gay and bisexual people as
mentally ill and in need of treatment due to their sexual orientation."
-- From a resolution passed by the American Psychological Association's
Council of Representatives 8/14/97, at APA's annual meeting in Chicago.
"God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that EVERYONE WHO HAS
FAITH IN HIM may not perish but have eternal life. It was NOT to judge
the world that God sent his Son into the world, but that through him the
world might be saved."
-- Jesus or St. John (Bibles vary). Text is REB; highlighting mine.
Martin Luther called this "the gospel in miniature". It is also the most
radically pro-gay statement imaginable. (and pro-YOU!)
"[Righteous indignation is just] envy with a halo."
-- attributed to H. L. Mencken
NedStax
In article <64u0sn$n...@suriname.earthlink.net>, "Mycroft"
<shol...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I fail to see why people would feel unwelcome just because a parish chooses
>to bless the commitment of two gay people. Do you mean that because their
>opinions and viewpoints are not followed verbatim by the church they should
>be justified in feeling rejected? If they feel unwelcome maybe it's because
>of their judgemental and condemnatory attitude--and they're actually
>feeling it within themselves and projecting it outward.
>Mycroft
Oh, I concur completely. It was no skin off _my_ nose when some people
chose to leave St. Mark's rather than accept what was happening. I've
always felt that one of the most important functions of the ministry is to
reach out to those whom no-one else will. People who stand around and act
like they've got a greater right to Christianity just because their family
has been going to their church longer than anyone else irritate me.
I also think that these folks who leave aren't really going to be happy
anywhere. They have to learn to accept themselves first. Then they will
make progress.
Chatte
NedStax wrote in message <19971118170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>We've had a few problems here in Seattle (Diocese of Olympia), first with
the
> ordination of women and now with gay marriage. The Dean of our cathedral
> recently performed a ceremony for two of our male parishoners. I don't
want
> to get into that whole debate, because, a, it's none of my business and b,
I
> frankly don't care, but my point is that many people did care, and some of
> them left to other congregations or left the EC completely.
>
>Is it a schism if people leave a church because they have become so
> uncomfortable in their community that they no longer feel welcome? Is it
a
> schism if people of like minds choose to worship together?
>
>Like I said, I don't think leaving ever solves anything, and I'm not in
favor
> of it. I'm just trying to spark a bit of discussion.
I think we're all unhappy at the prospect of schism. The great beauty of
Anglicanism is how much diversity it shelters, and how much each of us gives
the other credit for having a little sense even if his or her beliefs differ
from our
own. Schism is a slap in the face of that ideal.
On the other hand, different denominations exist because there are so many
different interpretations of Christianity. People should be Anglican
because they
love it, not because they feel obligated to remain. If congregations split
off, I'll
be sorry to see them go, but each person needs to make that decision as they
see fit.
One point these congregations might want to think about, though, is what
they
expect to gain from splitting off. There is one former Episcopal church in
my own
city that is still around but is not growing, and there are no new
congregations
in whatever it decided to call itself -- Anglican Catholic, I think. Is
leaving then just some
grand but futile gesture from some aging conservatives? Do they expect
those
congregations to remain vital, or slowly to dwindle as their elderly
parishioners die off?
Will those congregations still exist in 50 years? And, in western countries
at least,
attitudes about gays and women are rapidly changing, becoming more tolerant,
especially as the biological bases of homosexuality are beginning to come to
light.
I remember when radical segregationalist racism was strong, but those
attitudes
dwindled to a mediocre loser fringe both as our society became more
enlightened
and as the most rabid of them aged and died. The younger generations didn't
have the
same wholesale belief in racial segregation. Aren't those who would leave
over gay
and women's equality afraid of becoming the Lester Maddoxes of the 90's?
Peace,
Trish
Don Sprague
The Episcopal church has always been a republic (with Bishops, go
figure). What is happening there is a reflection of national politics,
although inverted. A republic can only continue to exist as long as the
factions find a center to attach too. In the ECUSA, individual parishes
could be high church, low church, involving women, males only, allowing
gays, not allowing gays. In the Episcopal church, the hierarchy has
always been the center, whatever individual parishes did, the Bishops
always proclaimed the party line (with the exception of a few mavericks
like Bp. Pike), whatever they believed in private. When the liberal
wing of the Church used it's increased power to enforce, within the
hierarchy, their particuar view of what religion should be, there was no
longer the common center to hold the conservatives or traditionalists.
In national policy it is the reverse situation, the conservatives
sensing they had the power to affect an historic change in the political
balances, abandoned the set of unwritten rules that had governed the
political debate, personalizing the exchange, making a persons private
life fair game, and ushering in the age of unlimited money. Now the
liberals have responded and we have a total mess in the political
process.
The existence of a federation structure indicates that both sides see
the value of a cohesive structure that allows for internal variation.
The liberals, having made their move, are likely to end up with a more
pure, but much less interesting and much smaller church. The
conservatives, having made their move, are likely to end up with a
national politics that no one in their right mind, liberal or
conservative, would want to have anything to do with.
Jeff wrote:
> In <19971118170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, ned...@aol.com
> (NedStax) writes:
> >>I hope and pray that schism may be averted.
> >
> >I concur, but how does one tell the difference between a schism and a
> natural
> > evolution of the Church into elements in which people may feel free
> to worship
> > as they wish?
> >
> >We've had a few problems here in Seattle (Diocese of Olympia), first
> with the
> > ordination of women and now with gay marriage. The Dean of our
> cathedral
> > recently performed a ceremony for two of our male parishoners. I
> don't want
> > to get into that whole debate, because, a, it's none of my business
> and b, I
> > frankly don't care, but my point is that many people did care, and
> some of
> > them left to other congregations or left the EC completely.
> >
> >Is it a schism if people leave a church because they have become so
> > uncomfortable in their community that they no longer feel welcome?
> Is it a
> > schism if people of like minds choose to worship together?
> >
> >Like I said, I don't think leaving ever solves anything, and I'm not
> in favor
> > of it. I'm just trying to spark a bit of discussion.
>
Chatte
NedStax wrote in message <19971118170...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>We've had a few problems here in Seattle (Diocese of Olympia), first with
the
> ordination of women and now with gay marriage. The Dean of our cathedral
> recently performed a ceremony for two of our male parishoners. I don't
want
> to get into that whole debate, because, a, it's none of my business and b,
I
> frankly don't care, but my point is that many people did care, and some of
> them left to other congregations or left the EC completely.
>
>Is it a schism if people leave a church because they have become so
> uncomfortable in their community that they no longer feel welcome? Is it
a
> schism if people of like minds choose to worship together?
>
>Like I said, I don't think leaving ever solves anything, and I'm not in
favor
> of it. I'm just trying to spark a bit of discussion.
David MacGuire
It's hardly surprising to see this happen, what with a church which has for
all intents and puposes become apostate over the last decade. This is what
happens when you ordain priests that mock faith, who doubt in public their
lack of belief in the Virgin Birth, the occurence of Miracles, and even of
Christ himself. It seems weekly that you hear about churches leaving the
PECUSA for one of the Continuing Anglican branches or even one of the
Orthodox Churches.
Don Sprague <dspr...@halcyon.com> wrote in article
<34710696...@halcyon.com>...
Robert R. Chapman, Jr.
Don Sprague wrote:
>
> In the Nov 9th issue of the London Times, it was announced that
> Conservative Bishops in the Church of England are ready to formally
> leave the Church along with 1000 of the 13000 Anglican parishes in
> about this acceleration of the dissolution of the Anglican communion.
Been there. Done that.
Let us briefly (and simplistically) look at the past for a moment:
* The Calvinists we now glowingly call "the Pilgrims" in the United
States left England for the Netherlands and later the North American
continent over a disagreement with the Church of England. How many
today people know it was a criminal offense to have a Book of Common
Prayer in the Massachusetts Bay Colony?
* In the late 1700s, John Wesley might have died an Anglican priest, but
his work started the Methodist church. Mind you, he sent his
missionaries to the New World after the Bishop of London would not
cooperate.
* In a disagreement about Baptism, the Reformed Episcopal Church started
in the United States late 1800s. This denomination still exists (I am
sure our REC correspondent will post their web site again).
We have been dissolving for a long time. Fortunately, Jesus saves us
and not we ourselves.
Venite exultemus.
Bob
--
Robert R. Chapman, Jr.
Lynnwood, Washington USA
cha...@ibm.net
Those who do not think about their own sins make up for it by
thinking incessantly about the sins of others.
--C. S. Lewis (God in the Dock, "Miserable Offenders," p. 124)
Robert R. Chapman, Jr.
NedStax wrote:
>
> >I hope and pray that schism may be averted.
>
> I concur, but how does one tell the difference between a schism and a natural
> evolution of the Church into elements in which people may feel free to worship
> as they wish?
>
> ordination of women and now with gay marriage. The Dean of our cathedral
> recently performed a ceremony for two of our male parishoners. I don't want
> to get into that whole debate, because, a, it's none of my business and b, I
> frankly don't care, but my point is that many people did care, and some of
> them left to other congregations or left the EC completely.
>
> Is it a schism if people leave a church because they have become so
> uncomfortable in their community that they no longer feel welcome? Is it a
> schism if people of like minds choose to worship together?
>
> Like I said, I don't think leaving ever solves anything, and I'm not in favor
> of it. I'm just trying to spark a bit of discussion.
The poster did not even mention the deep and deepening problems of St.
Mark's Cathedral. There may be some noises about some "public" things,
but (as is usual) these things are not hitting at the heart of the
matter.
After making the mistake of attending the Cathedral this morning, there
are problems there far beyond alluded to above.
A little taste:
1. No Creed during the Mass. It was totally left out of the service
leaflet (the "complete" service is in the bulletin, so no one needs to
inconvience themselves with using the BCP).
2. The congregation sang "Congratulations to us, congratulations to us,
etc." (to "Happy Birthday"), in honor of the new west wall.
3. Closing hymn was "Let the Sunshine" from a very famous 1960s
musical.
The strong point of the service was watching the children's sermon fall
apart (at least there was some humor).
I only went there because I was down "in the city" early this morning
and was looking for a 9:00 service. As I drove into the lot, I knew I
might have to claim an "Article 26," grin, and bear it--but it was worse
than the last time I was there on a Sunday morning.
Is it any wonder that the most heavily attended service at St. Mark's is
the compline service at 9:30 pm? (A traditional service, good music,
prayerful attitude, and no Dean.) St. Mark's Cathedral is typically
packed with mostly teenagers and gen-xers for this service--so much that
sitting on the floor is usually necessary (not only the desired
seating). Incidently, Canon Hallock adds the Apostle's Creed to this
service, and everyone respectfully stands during it (without being told
to).
I have worshipped in everything from charismatic to Grace Cathedral, and
not have problems. Somehow my own Cathedral makes me want to
puke--literally, this morning.
Jeff
Please explore this further. I assume you are referring to ordination
of women (never mind the issue of gays). Does there not have to be *some*
uniformity within a Church as far as who can be ordained and so forth?
I guess the question is, where do you draw the line in terms of uniformity
in various things. The lines have always changed over time - always (they
even changed dramatically right in the first five years of Christianity -
it's all documented right in the New Testament - so much for the Orthodox
claiming to be the exact Church that Christ founded at Pentecost :-) ).
The early Church first found some uniformity in the 'kerygma' - then it
developed the creeds, developed the canons, changed the creeds, changed
the canons, changed the workaday copy of the Bible and the rites (I'm
thinking here of national language translations and of our BCP), etc.,
etc. "Who can be ordained" has also been changed (married then celibate
then married again, changing social class requirements, etc.). What happens
is, these issues are debated for a long time; then enough consensus is
reached - and enough of the society is behind the new consensus - that
finally some changes *must* be made - regardless of any former tolerance
for local divergence in the name of federalism.
To continue your federalist analogy: The U.S. federation went through this
over the issue of slavery. It was debated forever, but finally things
reached a point where two-thirds of society said to the other third
"Enough. We have *got* to be uniform here. On this one point, we no longer
care about your federal privelege". (Oh, things were done in a legal
fashion of course - the constitutional amendments went through the proper
approvals - but only after the outcome of the approval process had been
made suitably obvious and inevitable.)
In terms of ordination of women: It *cannot* be left up to federal option
forever, because sooner or later you are going to have a case where one
diocese or parish refuses to recognize another's ordination....we just
can't have that. The Episcopal Church waited and waited (in historical
terms) until two-thirds was finally ready to say firmly to the other third
"Sorry, this is just too important and right, the time has come to require
uniformity". One would hope that the other third would have the good sense
and maturity (since this is Christian religion - not politics, death or war)
to say "OK, we still think you're wrong, but try to make a little space
for us and we'll go along". (and for the most part this has happened)
No one can quite say "Well look at people who have fled to fundamentalist
denominations" because some of them also ordain women. And as far as the
Romans go, we get at least as many people *from* them as ever flee to them
- probably more.
I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, Don, except that I don't
quite agree with your suggestion that the "liberal wing" of the Church
(implies a minority or non-consensus position) required uniform ordination
of women before the rest of the Church was ready; or before a substantial
consensus (just large enough that the remaining minority dissenters had a
duty to accept it gracefully) had been reached. As I see it these things
happen *when* the conservative, liberal or whatever position *has in fact
become* the new rock-steady center - the decision or conscience Of The
Body (which, according to EC doctrine, we all are).
Flame away! :-) Yours in Christ,
Jeff
*** To reply by e-mail (and if you are NOT advertising or soliciting),
*** send to: ca...@best.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and the APA [American Psychological
Association] opposes all portrayals of lesbian, gay and bisexual people as
mentally ill and in need of treatment due to their sexual orientation."
-- From a resolution passed by the American Psychological Association's
Council of Representatives 8/14/97, at APA's annual meeting in Chicago.
"God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that EVERYONE WHO HAS
FAITH IN HIM may not perish but have eternal life. It was NOT to judge
the world that God sent his Son into the world, but that through him the
world might be saved. NO ONE WHO PUTS FAITH IN HIM comes under judgment..."
-- Jesus or St. John (Bibles vary). Text is REB; highlighting mine.
Martin Luther called this "the gospel in miniature". It is also the
most radically pro-gay statement imaginable (and pro-you!).
Jeff
In <651aee$j...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, "Paul K. Hubbard" <paul...@idt.net> writes:
>
>Whatever the agenda of the Liberal establishment in America and the CoE, it
>will soon have to reckon with the rest of the Anglcian communion - the face
>of which is now quite black. We recently heard from the Archbishop of
>Canterbury's man on world evangelism (sorry I can't pronounce or even begin
>to spell his name - but he was black). He claimed that there are more
>Anglicans +in church+ in Nigeria on a given Sunday then +all+Anglicans in
>England, US, Canada, etc.
>
>It is true that some reactionary conservatives have been mean-spirited and
>schismatic. But the real issue will soon be clear: the Episcopal Church in
>the US (and in part the CoE) is not being faithful to the apostolic witness,
>and they are in left feild when it comes to the 2/3's world churches. Used
>to be that the liberal elite could dismiss the blacks as savages who needed
>pity and money. Not any more. There will soon be a major forum for
>theological accountability, largely because of an emerging black leadership
>identity - it may even be as early as the next Lambeth Q.
In that case, may I please point out that the evolving stances towards women
and gays only grow and spread with time (since they are, after all, the true
apostolic witness), and that some of the African bishops and archbishops
have made **the most** pro-gay and pro-female noises in existence today.
It isn't by accident (i.e., it isn't wholly in defiance of the AC or the
South African Church) that the new South African Constitution is **the
most** pro-gay Constitution in the world today, bar none.
In other words: If you are counting on the current overall conservative
tenor of the African churches or bishops to save your preferred position in
the AC - well, don't! Give them another 30 to 50 years. There is something
about the processes of economic progress, time, argument and Truth that
makes all these issues seen in a different light. If we were, in fact,
about fifty years into a great two-century evolution or enlightenment of
God's Church on issues relating to women and gays, then the overall world
picture might well, in fact, look EXACTLY as it does this moment.
Jeff
In <651aee$j...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, "Paul K. Hubbard" <paul...@idt.net> writes:
>
>Whatever the agenda of the Liberal establishment in America and the CoE, it
>will soon have to reckon with the rest of the Anglcian communion - the face
>of which is now quite black. We recently heard from the Archbishop of
>Canterbury's man on world evangelism (sorry I can't pronounce or even begin
>to spell his name - but he was black). He claimed that there are more
>Anglicans +in church+ in Nigeria on a given Sunday then +all+Anglicans in
>England, US, Canada, etc.
>
>It is true that some reactionary conservatives have been mean-spirited and
>schismatic. But the real issue will soon be clear: the Episcopal Church in
>the US (and in part the CoE) is not being faithful to the apostolic witness,
>and they are in left feild when it comes to the 2/3's world churches. Used
>to be that the liberal elite could dismiss the blacks as savages who needed
>pity and money. Not any more. There will soon be a major forum for
>theological accountability, largely because of an emerging black leadership
>identity - it may even be as early as the next Lambeth Q.
In that case, may I please point out that the evolving stances towards women
and gays only grow and spread with time (since they are, after all, the
apostolic witness of our times), and that some of the African bishops and
Don Sprague
I am not sure where I was going with this either ... it was more of a
passing thought ... a perception of a structural problem with
Federalism. Some additional passing thoughts ... it is getting late and
the thoughts pass more quickly!
I find myself with conflicting thoughts over both women priests and
openly gay clergy. I personally, have had no problem attending services
with women priests. I find them to be, quite honestly, better at the
work than many men. That is one of the conflicting thoughts ... the
fact that men tend to abandon many professions once women become a
majority. How many professions that used to be 80% male are now 80%
female. In many situations, we do not seem to be creating a homogenous
work force, just a differently divided one. I used to believe that a
break-down of the gender roles would result in each gender adopting the
best of the other. More and more I am convinced they are adopting the
worst.
As far as gay clergy ... this ties in with a question I asked earlier
about what would be a 'Christian homosexual lifestyle'. It seems
perhaps the cart was put before the horse on this one. While I may have
many questions about same gender relationships, I have fewer about
Christian morality. If we are to apply historical Christian moral
teachings to same sex relationships, then I have fewer problems with
gays who embrace traditional moral teachings than with accepting a new
sexual culture along with the changed idea of who can enter into a
covenented relationship.
Are we to excuse all behaviors that are based in genetics. Are the
standards for membership and leadership different. Should the standards
for gay clergy be different than those for heterosexuals? Should there
be any standards at all. We believe that 'priesthood' is a calling of
God. If so, could it be that those tendencies that are inherited are
indications of a lack of 'calling'? Scenario: we find a gene that
causes random violent behavior ... or orientation toward running
through the streets naked ... And, what about people for whom being
gay is a choice ... not a genetic predisposition. Is the standard in
this case different.
A final passing thought ... that all this is just another historical
anomaly. In the larger scheme of things, the churches that are changing
historical Christian moral teaching to be 'more inclusive' are dwindling
away. Those who are proclaiming a more traditional faith are growing by
leaps and bounds ... including some, like the Mormons, who are totally
outside historical Christian teaching, but whose practical, family
oriented lifestyle is packing them in. Those of us, myself included,
who pat ourselves on the back for being so 'open' may actually find that
we are the backwater, that the consensus of the people of Christ is that
we are the ones who are wrong.
Margaret Leary
Mr. Sprague,
I find that last in your post very interesting. Perhaps, although we
long for a community of believers and sometimes we are truly nourished
in same, we are at last each on the road alone. So much of what goes on
provides for me a distraction from truly changing myself. I long for
that distraction, yet I've learned to know better than to think it is
the real journey. I think often of the "remnant"--those through the
long continuum of believers who have truly kept the faith, and I wonder
who they will turn out to have been.
Margaret Leary
Don Sprague
Thank you for your reasoned and thoughful comments. Perhaps we can raise
the general level of this newsgroup above the trivial name calling and
baiting that is the sum of many of the postings. When I spoke of
professions where gender ratios had changed greatly I was thinking of
insurance case managers (a field now has almost no males it it), case and
social workers (used to have more of a balance between male and female.
What about those who have never been attracted to opposite sex partners vs.
those who are in the scale of bi-sexuality ... which actually describes most
of the 'gays and lesbians' I have met. There seem to be many people who
identify with the gay community while they are attracted to a same-sex
partner ... then you meet them five years later with an opposite sex
partner. I guess what I am looking for here is ... put quite bluntly ...
where do bisexuals fit into all these moral pigeon holes. It you have a
choice, does God expect you to use it to form same-sex relationships.
Jeff
In <347B79ED...@halcyon.com>, Don Sprague <dspr...@halcyon.com> writes:
>I am not sure where I was going with this either ...
>
>I find myself with conflicting thoughts over both women priests and
>openly gay clergy. I personally, have had no problem attending services
>with women priests. I find them to be, quite honestly, better at the
>work than many men. That is one of the conflicting thoughts ... the
>fact that men tend to abandon many professions once women become a
>majority. How many professions that used to be 80% male are now 80%
I don't have examples springing to mind. I'm hard-pressed to think
of a profession that is female-dominated, other than the "traditional
female" occupations such as nursing, grade-school teaching, "librarianing",
prostitution, etc. Could you please say what you had in mind here?
>work force, just a differently divided one. I used to believe that a
>break-down of the gender roles would result in each gender adopting the
>best of the other. More and more I am convinced they are adopting the
>worst.
Interesting. Could be.
>As far as gay clergy ... this ties in with a question I asked earlier
>about what would be a 'Christian homosexual lifestyle'. It seems
>perhaps the cart was put before the horse on this one. While I may have
>many questions about same gender relationships, I have fewer about
>Christian morality. If we are to apply historical Christian moral
>teachings to same sex relationships, then I have fewer problems with
>gays who embrace traditional moral teachings than with accepting a new
>sexual culture along with the changed idea of who can enter into a
>covenented relationship.
Agreed. In my opinion, if someone truly seeks to be a good person and
(for some reason) truly feels called to experiment with a non-traditional
sexual or moral code (as I've occasionally done), I'm *not* going to look
down on them....however I do feel that when it comes to clergy, we the
Body should ask that they stay with a stricter or more traditional
standard. For me, the one and only excuse for openly gay clergy is if you
have someone who would make a good priest AND who wants to live out a
traditional moral example (except that God just happened to want them to
be with a person of the same gender).
I think, in other words, that EC is well within its rights to require/expect
that all clergy be either celibate, or faithful in marraige (whether or
not you call it "marraige" for the gay ones is sort of beside the point...
you know what I mean here). Let's not throw out the baby with the bath
water :-) which seems to be something that the sex-radical *part* of the
total gay community has always wanted to do.
It's interesting to note here, Don (and if you are going to believe me)
that the position I am advocating *is* actually the traditional one. :-)
John Boswell's 1980 study "Christianity, Social Tolerance and
Homosexuality" summarized extensive, dramatic evidence that Christianity
became dead-set against gays only about the 14th century or so. In other
words, Christianity has spent *more* centuries accepting faithful and
heroic gay relationships than it has spent rejecting them. It's just that
for some reason - and historians still don't know why - around the 14th
century things turned so totally anti-gay, that homosexuality became
"unmentionable" and as much as possible, homosexuals were erased from
history. I mean this literally. People, for example, would translate
love poetry, odes, epics and such from Greek and Roman and actually
*change the pronouns* (and not acknowledge or note ever having done so)
so that the typical educated English reader would remain unaware that
homosexuality existed, or had (for some people) a noble, heroic or
faithful possibility to it.
>Are we to excuse all behaviors that are based in genetics.
No. Only all *neutral or even positive* behaviors that are based in
genetics. :-) Alcoholism for example is based in genetics, but is a medical
disease with clear negative effects. Homosexuality is more like left-
handedness (it can be used towards evil OR good, depending on the person).
My assertion here, of course, is that when homosexuals get a relationship
together that really helps, inspires and stabilizes them, it is just as
much a positive and admirable good in the world as when heterosexuals do
it. (It is just as much a help to the tax base, to the people who know
them, to their Church or neighborhood, etc., etc. Joyful, solid
relationships *make* people better Christians. :-) )
>Are the standards for membership and leadership different.
>Should the standards
>for gay clergy be different than those for heterosexuals? Should there
>be any standards at all.
Yes, NO and yes. (discussed above)
>We believe that 'priesthood' is a calling of
>God. If so, could it be that those tendencies that are inherited are
>indications of a lack of 'calling'? Scenario: we find a gene that
>causes random violent behavior ... or orientation toward running
>through the streets naked ... And, what about people for whom being
>gay is a choice ... not a genetic predisposition. Is the standard in
>this case different.
It's an interesting thought, but it would not apply in the case of
homosexuals.
Consider this: In the past....if a boy grew up knowing that no way would
he ever fall in love with a girl or want to marry....he would interpret it
as a call to a life of God. (Either monastery, or priesthood as we know
it.) Today we know, in many cases, that it is something else. :-)
My contention here is that a good many clergy, monks, etc. are in fact
gay. When I went to a certain famous Jesuit college, for example, it was
common knowledge that many of the Jesuits were gay. (The school even had
a saying, "Half of them are gay, the other half alcoholic".) We have lots
of records and literature from medieval monasteries wherein the (male)
monks and (female) nuns pursued the most passionate, exalted and emotional
kinds of friendships among themselves....and were duly chastened (or
sometimes not!) when said passionate friendships became physical. Some
scholars now believe that many of the Church Fathers were, shall we say,
homosexually inclined. (Again - some would be celibate in social
isolation, some would be celibate in passionate friendship, and a few here
and there would be physical in passionate friendship.) Some believe that
St. Paul for example was a "closet case". (His fleshy, lustful, sinful
"burden" or "thorn" that he would never discuss openly - combined with his
seemingly total lack of any repoire with or interest in women, and his
ultra-Jewish background that would make him prejudiced or ashamed about
homosexuality....add it up.)
I would then further contend that there is something about being gay that
gives a person a different vision....potentially (though not always) an
otherwordly vision....and that gay people (whether or not they ever called
themselves such) have always played a gigantic role in the development and
maintenance of all religions, including ours.
The moral problem that we are faced with today is that when you try to
"shame" something in somebody, or to drive it underground, you only deprive
them of crucial moral support, and force the thing (whatever it is) to come
out in ways which truly are distorted, warped or harmful. A couple of the
Jesuits I knew in college, again, sort of "collected" beautiful male
students about themselves, and were heavily rumoured to make periodic
passes. The alcoholism, loneliness, and other problems experienced by
clergy also speak to the inner despair of some of them. Conversely, when
you let people be honest - and to be whole and to have love in their lives
- then they become healthier and better Christians. You also have a
realistic chance to "get thru to them" and hold them to some moral standard.
This is why Paul said "It is better to marry than to burn [with passion]";
this is why we let our heterosexual EC clergy marry; and this is why we
should also let our homosexual clergy "marry". IMHO :-)
>A final passing thought ... that all this is just another historical
>anomaly. In the larger scheme of things, the churches that are changing
>historical Christian moral teaching to be 'more inclusive' are dwindling
>away.
But again, the Church grew and thrived during long eras of accepting and
supporting homosexuals. I think that you (and others who say the same
thing) are hitting upon a false conclusion. The dwindling of mainline
Churches has to do, in my opinion, with modernism in general. People are
into their capitalism and their TV and their busy lives. Half of us react
to modernity by going with it completely (dispensing with any religion);
the other go along with it in our physical or daily lives, but try to
react *against* it in our religion. I.e. living completely modern
lives but then asking of our religion that it be as anti-modern as it can
possibly be. You should see some of the ridiculous (yet desired,
apparently) accommodations that the growing new denominations will make for
people. No more yucky liturgy; easy-access theater/stadium type of seating,
complete with big-screen projections of sermon themes and song lyrics;
45-minute services, all-rock-music services, and incredibly easy, pat,
"traditional-sounding" (but wrong) answers to everything - no more yucky
thinking! This is what I've seen, for example, at the huge/growing
Foursquare Gospel church that my brother goes to. Alot of people, hate to
say it, go to Church to be catered to, not challenged - and this includes
their physical bodies (parking and seats again), their minds and their
prejudices. :-(
>Those who are proclaiming a more traditional faith are growing by
>leaps and bounds ... including some, like the Mormons, who are totally
>outside historical Christian teaching, but whose practical, family
>oriented lifestyle is packing them in. Those of us, myself included,
>who pat ourselves on the back for being so 'open' may actually find that
>we are the backwater, that the consensus of the people of Christ is that
>we are the ones who are wrong.
Fortunately history, and God, have a way of working things out. For one
thing, no matter how many people adopt a certain religion or viewpoint,
that does *not* make it right, or mean that we/I should go along!!! :-)
Secondly, historically (especially considering Europe), it is in fact the
historical Church - the churches in the apostolic succession, or not too
far from it - that seem to most weather the tides. :-) Yours in Christ,
Jeff
In <65nrq4$6vb$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, ca...@no.junk.mail (Jeff) writes:
>In <347B79ED...@halcyon.com>, Don Sprague <dspr...@halcyon.com> writes:
>
>>Those who are proclaiming a more traditional faith are growing by
>>leaps and bounds
Oh, and one more thing I just remembered to add:
The statement *isn't* true within the gay community. Within the gay
community, those who proclaim a so-called "traditional" faith (again see
my discussion of that word) are *declining* by leaps and bounds.
Let's not assume that there is only one community of people, or one set
of trends, to look at here. :-)
Jeff
In <65obmb$5th$1...@brokaw.wa.com>, "Don Sprague" <dspr...@halcyon.com> writes:
>Thank you for your reasoned and thoughful comments. Perhaps we can raise
>the general level of this newsgroup above the trivial name calling and
>baiting that is the sum of many of the postings.
Thank you for the compliment!
>When I spoke of
>professions where gender ratios had changed greatly I was thinking of
>insurance case managers (a field now has almost no males it it), case and
>social workers (used to have more of a balance between male and female.
Interesting. I wonder why that is?
>What about those who have never been attracted to opposite sex partners vs.
>those who are in the scale of bi-sexuality ... which actually describes most
>of the 'gays and lesbians' I have met. There seem to be many people who
>identify with the gay community while they are attracted to a same-sex
>partner ... then you meet them five years later with an opposite sex
>partner.
Interesting. I guess it just shows that people all have different
experiences or "data points". That has not been my experience. If anything
I have seen much of the opposite - people who were in heterosexual
relationships (marraiges) who came to a realization that they had to stop
(in their opinion) living a lie.
Can I ask you something? Are the people whom you have seen or are speaking
of, of the "ex-gay" variety? (People who became involved with "ex-gay"
ministries and now stand up in their churches to testify about the "healing"
of their homosexuality.)
Perhaps not - which means I am probably digressing here - but I have
generally observed such people to be most basically bisexual (able to go
either way) which is different from the "real" homosexuals I have been
talking about.
(I would also note that the "ex-gays" themselves admit to never really
losing the homosexual side of themselves, which underscores the innateness
of this characteristic; and that there are now "ex-ex-gay" ministries who
try to heal the damage done to the real homosexuals who unfortunately fall
into some of these "ex-gay" ministries. Interested people can read
about this second development at "http://members.aol.com/exexgay". But
now I am *really* digressing. :-) )
>I guess what I am looking for here is ... put quite bluntly ...
>where do bisexuals fit into all these moral pigeon holes. If you have a
>choice, does God expect you to use it to form same-sex relationships.
Interesting. Again, I really haven't thought about that much myself. I
suppose that if you follow my argument to its logical conclusion - that
God's main interest is in people being loving and faithful Christians -
then it might be up to the bisexual's choice, He might not care too much.
I'm not going to "lay down in the tracks" on this one, though - maybe we
should hear from some bisexual Christians? :-) I would contend however
that surely nobody is off the hook in terms of the fidelity requirement -
so I personally would probably take exception to a bisexual who suggested
that they could 'play around' or have relationships with 2 people going.
Mycroft
And were you born a bigot and hatemonger or were you "born that way?"
Rev. Donald Spitz wrote in message <01be1cac$c522d6e0$edf5f6ce@jtd>...
>As I can see from this "reasoned and thoughtful" discussion,
>it's not your fault you are a sodomite sex pervert who
>God will cast into hell forever, you were "born that way."
>--
>See babies that needed the Reverend Paul Jennings Hill
>http://www.christiangallery.com/prolifeva/deadbaby.html
>
>A saying of the "tolerant" Jesus.
>
>Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would
>not that I should reign over them, bring hither,
>and slay them before me.
>
>Jeff <ca...@no.junk.mail> wrote in article
><65tdmb$naj$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...
Rev. Donald Spitz
As I can see from this "reasoned and thoughtful" discussion,
it's not your fault you are a sodomite sex pervert who
God will cast into hell forever, you were "born that way."
--
See babies that needed the Reverend Paul Jennings Hill
http://www.christiangallery.com/prolifeva/deadbaby.html
A saying of the "tolerant" Jesus.
Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would
not that I should reign over them, bring hither,
and slay them before me.
Jeff <ca...@no.junk.mail> wrote in article
<65tdmb$naj$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>...