Episcopalians, gays, and divorce

[Flaherty]

Many Episcopalians argue that a gay man should not be a bishop because the Bible condemns homosexuality. It's certainly a fair argument; the Bible seems clear on that point.

Since when did Episcopals become so concerned about the letter of Biblical law? The entire Anglican church was founded on the principle of ignoring a clear New Testament injunction against divorce. In Matthew 5:32 Jesus warned:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

What's up with the hypocrisy? The Anglican Church threw away it's ability to use the "because it's in the Bible" argument when it was founded. The only remaining argument they can employ against gays in the clergy without being hypocrits themselves is the simple but less than authoritative "we don't like gays" reasoning. That is a perfectly valid argument, but Episcopalians become hypocrits if they try to dress it up in Biblical authority.

 

[Upchurch]

Personally, I think the growing acceptence of homosexuality is social evolution in action. The social dinosaurs who can't get past the "ick" factor to see the principles and people behind the issue will eventually "die off" (or the mind set will) and society will move on.

 

[Bikewer]

If we accept the commonly-ageed-on ratio of gays in the population, it seems likely that at least one of the Apostles...

 

[Finella]

What's up with the hypocrisy? The Anglican Church threw away it's ability to use the "because it's in the Bible" argument when it was founded. The only remaining argument they can employ against gays in the clergy without being hypocrits themselves is the simple but less than authoritative "we don't like gays" reasoning. That is a perfectly valid argument, but Episcopalians become hypocrits if they try to dress it up in Biblical authority.

Well, exactly, which is why it's so amusing to liberal Episcopalians to point this out to the conservative Episcopalians.

My rector (head parish priest) had a conversation with the conservative parishioners who were upset about the likely consecration of Gene Robinson. He quoted the same passage you did, Flaherty, to them. Pissed them off. They said he was being ridiculous. But, he said, it's not saying that divorce is okay, is it? And this is Jesus talking here -- and Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, did he?

At the same time you have an Anglican Bishop in Nigeria who is condemning the ECUSA for their permissiveness of obviously sinful and deviant behavior, while he permits polygamy in his diocese. Hmph.

Humans are hypocritical by nature. No church is perfect. And the conservative Anglicans keep forgetting their heritage, true. Wonder what Good Henry VIII is thinking of it all now...

---,---'--{@

 

[Finella]

From the Episcopal News Service story on the Robinson consecration yesterday:

At the same time, Bishop Carolyn Irish Tanner was one of the first bishops to issue a statement. She said that, "Because of Robinson's homosexual orientation and partnership there has since been an escalation of angry rhetoric by those in this country and abroad who seem to be strategizing for schism, as they have threatened to do for several years. In fact, by claims for a singular orthodoxy, recommended breaches in diocesan and provincial integrity, the diversion of financial support for the Episcopal Church USA, and planning for separate enclaves or parallel communions of like-minded people, it appears that they want to create a whole new church, one very different from traditional Anglicanism.

"Our church is, and has always been, the most comprehensive of Christian families, because we have sought to embrace theological and cultural diversity of the kind that has sometimes fractured other Protestant churches. Presently the issue of homosexuality has put us on a global and very public stage, but that appears to be the really new element in our situation, not the challenge of abiding in our differences. Indeed, more than abiding.”

The bold type is mine. You've hit the nail on the head, Flaherty.
---,---'--{@

 

[Dorian Gray]

It isn't surprising that the Episcopalian church would have a gay bishop when one of their other positions is called "rector".

Good point on the adultery, though.

 

[LawnOven]

Haha, hypocrisy in religion, so what's new?

 

[ADD Boy]

I totally agree with what the previous posters have said with the Anglican Church's hypocrisy, but I have to point this out:

This Bible verse that the holy rollers love to quote is in the book of Leviticus, an Old Testament book. However, the thing that I love about Leviticus is that it's also filled with laws that I'm positive no one in the Episcopalean Church follows! Randi covered this in a commentary a couple weeks past, but basically, such things as "eating seafood" and selling your daughter into slavery are perfect examples.

My question is always: how can you just "pick and choose" from the Bible, just taking the things you want and throwing away the others? I go through this in discussing things with my roommate (a devout Christian) often, who insists that the only thing that applies are "The Ten Commandments and some of Moses' other laws." Riiiight... I thought that God himself spoke these things? How dare we state that God's word no longer applies!

 

[Finella]

I totally agree with what the previous posters have said with the Anglican Church's hypocrisy, but I have to point this out:

This Bible verse that the holy rollers love to quote is in the book of Leviticus, an Old Testament book. However, the thing that I love about Leviticus is that it's also filled with laws that I'm positive no one in the Episcopalean Church follows! Randi covered this in a commentary a couple weeks past, but basically, such things as "eating seafood" and selling your daughter into slavery are perfect examples.

Actually there are some verses in Paul's letters (being a good Episcopalian, I can't quote them verse by verse... oh, well) which again state that homosexuality is a sin. Since it is New Testament scripture, and since it is being applied to the new Christian church, and since it (theoretically) corroborates the Old Testament scripture in Leviticus, it is therefore applicable.

However, again, Jesus himself never made any mention of it, yet we allow divorce in the Christian church all the time while Jesus quite clearly said this was one of the most sinful things one could do. So, yeah, absolutely, fundies pick and choose Bible law all the time, yet they criticize liberal churches for doing what they themselves do. My thinking is it's fine to pick and choose, you just had better have a good reason for it other than that some things just gross you out (like gay sex).

---,---'--{@