srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Nov 29, 2007 12:36:20 GMT -5
bostonian,
I'm having trouble accepting the notion that homosexuals are "just like everybody else".
In its rush to deliver 'justice' to homosexuals, unfortunately I think our church has not been appropriately sensitive to this issue, and I think it is a question that deserves to be on the table - although my liberal friends would probably get angry with me about that. The liberals seem convinced that homosexuality is innate - therefore it is normal and we should expect people to be comfortable with it. That implication doesn't seem obvious to me. There are a number of gay bishops who have kept their status to themselves until retirement - some liberals say this is expecting 'dishonesty' and I would firmly disagree with that. It's pastoral sensitivity to one's flock.
Here's something more to think about. What about an openly gay priest or bishop who was adamantly conservative, especially on the issue of homosexuality?
I mention that because such people do exist, most notably a man named John-David Schofield, Bishop of San Joaquin, California. He is one of the leading conservatives in the Episcopal Church, and is currently making moves to take his whole diocese out of the Episcopal Church. He refers to himself as a 'celibate homosexual'. He has been a bishop since 1988. Should he be a bishop? It's worth noting that he does not wear this status on his sleeve - it doesn't define his ministry.
I'm not trying to trap you, but this shows you some of the nuanced thinking that goes on. The conservative position in the Episcopal Church is that homosexuality is not the sin itself - it is a homosexual act that is the sin. I'm not sure if that is the conservative position in other churches - are there openly gay celibate Roman Catholic priests? I really have no idea.
Sidney
|
|
srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Nov 29, 2007 15:28:30 GMT -5
I might add that I don't know if anybody in the Episcopal Church has argued that merely being homosexual (even if celibate) is a ground for denying the priesthood or other leadership position, on 'role model' sorts of grounds. We've been quite overwhelmed with the more visible cases.
|
|
Swick
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 216
|
Post by Swick on Nov 30, 2007 12:11:51 GMT -5
"I might add that I don't know if anybody in the Episcopal Church has argued that merely being homosexual (even if celibate) is a ground for denying the priesthood or other leadership position, on 'role model' sorts of grounds."
Not in the US. However those oppossed to the nomination of the openly gay Jeffrey John (sp?) as a bishop in the Church of England even though he stated that he was celibate.
|
|
|
Post by anglicansablaze on Dec 1, 2007 11:59:19 GMT -5
The primary conservative objection to individuals with a homosexual orientation in ordained ministry is to practicing homosexuals, to individuals who engaging in homosexual activity either with a long-time partner or promiscuously. As an evangelical Anglican I have no objection to an individual with a homosexual orientation in ordained ministry provided that he is celibate. I would also apply the same standard to individuals with heterosexual orientation if they were not married to someone of the opposite sex. The issue is wider than homosexual practice. It includes any kind of sexual activity outside of a marriage with a member of the opposite gender. Evangelical Anglicans like myself understand the Bible to limit sexual activity of any kind to marriage between a man and a woman. Candidates for ordination must be "above reproach," to meet the standards of the New Testament. This means that they cannot be involved in any kind of sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Feb 23, 2008 0:53:35 GMT -5
bostonian-- I just wanted to say that you are certainly not the only Republican Episcopalian out there! Also... I read somewhere online a few months ago about the episcopal stance on homosexuality, but I can't seem to find it again. In any case, it basically said that having a homosexual orientation in itself is not bad, so long as the person does not act on those homosexual impulses. Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman only... and only within that context is there meant to be sex. It was a very good article/thing, and I wish I could find it again to provide the link. It pointed out different proof texts and such. It certainly helped me deal with finding out one of my friends was gay.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Feb 23, 2008 10:23:39 GMT -5
bostonian, I am actally a conservative Republican Episcopalian. And I do not find those two adjectives to be contradictory. I said: this man was a wonderful, motivated, godly person whose focus was on growing church and leading people to a greater knowledge and awareness of God. He was a good priest. and you responded: I am uncomfortable with the message that we are sending to the children in the church when we appoint homosexual priests. I worry about setting homosexual role models in front of kids. I have to tell you... It was not an issue because frankly the kids had no clue. Our oldest figured it out her senior year of high school. His "influence" on the children of our congregation was pretty much the same as the "influence" our current, heterosexual priest has. The only visible difference is that Previous Priest was single (and celebate, btw) and the Current Priest has a wife and kids. Not all people called to the priesthood are married. And as children mature I think it the responsibility of parents to remind their hormonal children that the Bible does teach that some people are given the gift of celibacy. Not everyone needs someone else to make their lives complete. Its part of the responsible sexual behavior commentary at our house, anyway. Maybe in other congregations y'all talk about sex a lot, I dont know. But we dont. This is not a "hot topic" for us. Now, in the adult Sunday School class we do occasionally have topics that meander into sexuality. But there is so much more to life than sex so it just doesnt come up all that often. Our Previous Priest was not flagrant about his sexual preferences. I am not sure that anyone meeting him would initially have a clue (other than the fact that he was middle aged, single, loved the theater, and frightenly self educated--all of which might make him seem unusual in other ways and lead one to think there must be something else different about him). I believe that Guest is correct about the Episcopal stance on homosexuality. Its about responsible behavior. If you are not married you dont have sex. (Far easier, I believe, said than done in this society.) This is also why Bishop Robinson's ordination was such a massive issue. We are all aware that this church has had previously ordained homosexuals in higher offices of the Church. Its been true for years and years and years. But what we have not had is an open and honest man refuse to pretend his relationship did not exist for the sake of getting along and not rocking the boat. That, combined with the legal structure of the church, was the beginning of this storm which has rocked the Episcopal Church. I would think the link that you are looking for would have come out of, or been later discussed at, the Lambeth Conference, where we have practiced the Anglican art of the Listening Process on human sexuality for just about as long as I have been alive. Ginger
|
|
|
Post by bostonian on Apr 8, 2008 20:17:11 GMT -5
To complicate matters, my local priest is leaving and will be replaced in the next couple of months. I can ignore what is happening with the Presiding Bishop at the national level, but if I get baptized in my local Episcopal church and then the priest that I like gets replaced with a gay priest, I'm going to feel pretty stupid.An update: That is exactly what happened. - I got baptized
- The interim priest that I liked got replaced by a permanent gay rector
- I feel stupid
|
|
|
Post by comanche250 on May 3, 2008 8:05:47 GMT -5
I'm a liberal Christian who wants a church community that condones individuality in worship, and that is all-inclusive. I'm opposed to Christian sectarianism. Is this the right denomination for me?
|
|
|
Post by comanche250 on May 3, 2008 8:07:39 GMT -5
To complicate matters, my local priest is leaving and will be replaced in the next couple of months. I can ignore what is happening with the Presiding Bishop at the national level, but if I get baptized in my local Episcopal church and then the priest that I like gets replaced with a gay priest, I'm going to feel pretty stupid.An update: That is exactly what happened. - I got baptized
- The interim priest that I liked got replaced by a permanent gay rector
- I feel stupid
Are you saying gays can't serve as church leaders? If so, why not?
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 3, 2008 14:37:05 GMT -5
To the extent that a homosexual substitutes the homosexualist agenda for The Gospel he or she is defective as a priest or pastor. If a homosexual is openly practicing fornication he or she is not fit to be a priest.
|
|
|
Post by comanche250 on May 3, 2008 19:21:48 GMT -5
Sounds like prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 6, 2008 7:16:02 GMT -5
I do indeed have a strong prejudice. I am prejudiced against sin and for The Gospel.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 6, 2008 7:25:52 GMT -5
Strig,
Your characterization of JDS is in error. He is not a homosexual, he is a Christian Bishop. Whether or not he has homosexual urges is between him and his maker. If he were to behave in a shameful manner (like Gene Robinson) it might be germane, but his personal life closely follows the description of a Bishop as found in Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by wtxdaddy on Feb 16, 2009 23:48:05 GMT -5
bostonian,
You would definitely NOT be the first Republican Episcopalian. In the South & Southwest, there are bunches of us.
|
|