The Questioning Christian

African Anglican Bishops
Respond to Windsor Report

Written by

D. C. Toedt III

in

The first African Anglican Bishops’ Conference, in Lagos, Nigeria, has issued a statement about the Windsor Report. (Hat tip to TitusOneNine.) The statement’s implacable, my-way-or-the-highway tone suggests there is little hope for continued fellowship in God’s service with these bishops. It seems likely they will spurn and walk away from those who cannot fully subscribe to their Scripture-above-all-else belief system.

Excerpts (emphasis added):

• We call on the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to take seriously the need for “repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report [134]) and move beyond informal expressions of regret for the effect of their actions to a genuine change of heart and mind. Failure to do so would indicate that they have chosen to “walk alone” and follow another religion.

• We note with approval that the Windsor Report calls for a moratorium on the election and consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in same gender union and the use of rites for the blessing of same-sex unions. We urge the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to take this call to heart mindful of Lambeth Resolution 1.10 “We cannot advise the legitimizing or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.” Failure to do so would indicate that they have chosen to “walk alone.”

• The Windsor Report acknowledges the great pain that has been inflicted upon faithful communities that have resisted doctrinal innovations within Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. However, we reject the moral equivalence drawn between those who have initiated the crisis and those of us in the Global South who have responded to cries for help from beleaguered friends. To call on us to “express regret” and reassert our commitment to the Communion is offensive in light of our earlier statements. If the Episcopal Church USA had not willfully “torn the fabric of our communion at its deepest level” our actions would not have been necessary.

• We note with approval the recognition that extraordinary episcopal care is needed for congregations alienated from their diocesan bishops. We remain convinced that the adequacy of that care should be determined by those who receive it, and we are looking for clear evidence that the Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight proposal is effective by this measure.

Comments

29 responses to “African Anglican Bishops
Respond to Windsor Report”

  1. JM Avatar
    JM

    Jesus didn’t seek “statements of regret” from his followers but repentance.
    If repentance isn’t on the Church’s docket then fellowship should be broken.
    Shouldn’t it?

    Reply
  2. Avatar
    Anonymous

    I thought it was Jesus, not a group of African Bishops, who sought repentence. Are you saying that you think they are one and the same?
    Suppose the Bishops have it all wrong? They’re human, after all, and the Church has been wrong about many things. Shouldn’t it, or they, be the ones to repent, in that case?

    Reply
  3. John Wilkins Avatar
    John Wilkins

    looks like people are getting really upset over paganism, DC. Kind of crazy.

    Reply
  4. JM Avatar
    JM

    A Brother Who Sins Against You
    No Anon, try Matthew 15:
    “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
    And let’s not hear any nonsense that these sins are not sins against the church just because the conduct is between two consenting adults. That the actors in question refuse to recognize sin as sin is an offense against other Christians.

    Reply
  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Isn’t the operative phrase “If your brother sins against you“? How does a sin against the church (whatever that means) qualify?

    Reply
  6. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sin doesn’t lie in giving offense to other Christians.

    Reply
  7. bls Avatar
    bls

    Suppose, again, that the African Bishops are wrong about this issue. In that light, think of the things that have been said about Bishop Gene Robinson, who’s been a faithful servant of the Church for over 30 years. Who, in this case, is the sinning brother, then? Now, you might argue that since Gene Robinson isn’t married, he shouldn’t be a Bishop, and that would be a good argument. We can respond by saying: he’d marry if he could, but that’s off-limits by decree, also. So you’ve created a neat Catch-22 for us, one that doesn’t seem to be about to be resolved given everything we’ve seen.
    Suppose on the other hand, that ECUSA is wrong about homosexuality. Isn’t it being wrong in a generous direction? Isn’t it being wrong in order to allow more people to be welcome in the Church? Gay people are in fact giving no offense to anybody else, except one of, apparently, distaste. Reasonable people differ on interpretation of Scripture in every other area; what’s so different about this issues? Is it really a basis for so extreme a reaction?
    There’s seems to be nothing at all that gay people can do about this; all we really want is to be able to worship God as Christians, along with everyone else.

    Reply
  8. JM Avatar
    JM

    It is not the status as a gay man but the unrepentent conduct that creates the issue. VGR is divorced and sexually active with someone not his wife. For those reasons he is not morally fit for the office (note: neither are heterosexual, divorced and remarried clergy, but this is another outcropping of the post-modern Episcopal Church).
    VGR would not have been made a bishop if he were divorced and in a sexual relationship with another woman. (That scenario caused Griswold, of all people, to paus). But VGR got a pass because his sexual conduct was with a member of the same sex.
    And, if gays are to worship as Christians, “like everyone else,” as you suggest, they must recognize, as “everyone else” must, that extramarital sexual conduct is sinful.
    One cannot “worship like everyone else” and expect special status because sexual attractions are directed towards the same gender. It is not a serious argument.
    Finally, the African bishops rely upon the Bible as it has been interpreted by the Church for a long long time. They do not declare gays unwelcome in the Church but disqualified from leadership. A big difference. We are all busted and broken because of our rebellion against God. But suddenly redefining sin because it allows one to pursue one’s sexual interests is a form of self-worship.

    Reply
  9. bls Avatar
    bls

    OK, then create a Marriage Rite for gay people and we’ll call it even.
    As I said – maybe you didn’t notice – you’ve created a nice Catch-22 for us here. And after the Jeffrey John incident – a gay man following all the “rules” you’ve laid out in your post, and still asked to give up his post – it’s a little hard to believe what conservatives say about this, I’m afraid. i.e., this is obviously “not a serious argument.”
    I really do think, BTW, this why ECUSA acted as it did; it came to believe that Christians have been acting from simple prejudice and not principle, and that this would never change unless somebody did something about it.
    And again, reasonable people differ on whether or not homosexuality is sin. We think you’re absolutely wron.g And BTW 10- and 20- and 30-year relationships do not represent merely a pursual of “sexual interests.” They are marriages in everything but name, and I think it’s time people started recognizing this. It’s truly insulting.

    Reply
  10. JM Avatar
    JM

    Jeffrey John (among other beliefs) does not believe that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. He has said as much. He said he was celibate (while living with his boyfriend in their jointly rented flat), but even taking his statements at face value he expressed the belief that homoerotic behavior is not sinful.
    I regret that my statements cause you pain. I have one sibling who is gay and out, and I have close relatives who are alcoholics. I have straight agnostic relatives. I have Christian relatives. I love them all very much. I struggle to understand their challenges and they struggle to understand mine.
    But neither their struggles nor my own change God’s Words on these matters, nor do they change the Church’s consistent teachings on these issues.
    Each Christian has his own cross to bear. Some are sexual and some are not. I would not love my Christian brothers and sisters (gay or straight) if I told them that their cross was really not there. That would be untrue, and unfair, and would put the souls of my friends in jeopardy if they believed and trusted me.
    I did not create any Catch-22’s. God’s injunctions for sexual purity are the same for all. To suggest that one cannot be celibate is to discredit the power of God and to suggest that a person cannot control his or her sexual urges. It is what the world teaches, but not the Church.

    Reply
  11. bls Avatar
    bls

    Jeffrey John (among other beliefs) does not believe that sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. He has said as much. He said he was celibate (while living with his boyfriend in their jointly rented flat), but even taking his statements at face value he expressed the belief that homoerotic behavior is not sinful.
    Source, please, because I don’t believe this. I’m sure what you mean is that Jeffrey John doesn’t believe that homosexual sex is sinful. I agree with him; and I again point out that we cannot be married so we cannot fulfill your requirement. Jeffrey John continues to live with his life partner, indeed, because he loves him and promised to care for him. He’s said that the relationship does not involve sex any longer. This is precisely the requirement, and it shows that nothing we do is enough for conservatives. And you and others continue to defend this, which is exactly why Gene Robinson was elected Bishop.
    In any case, what you’re saying is that no opposition on this one issue, above all others, shall be brooked. And that we must necessarily agree with your interpretation of the Bible. But of course, I’m a woman, and there’s no Biblical injunction against lesbianism. Every single one of the “clobber verses” concerns men. It’s pretty obvious that issue is obviously not “homosexuality,” then. So why do I get punished with a lifetime of celibacy? (And I suggest you look further into this issue, because the word translated as “homosexuality” in Timothy and Corinthians does not mean “homosexuality.” That’s a translation that had never been used before the 1940s; no one knows the actual meaning of the word. Is that a good basis for your position, do you think? An unknown word, on a topic that Jesus himself never said anything about?)
    You’re basically telling me that my intimate relationship, which can be a great good for me and cause no harm to another living soul, are enough to disqualify me as a Christian, and if I want to be part of the church I must repress any desire for partnership from the age of 12 or 13 and forever. I may never date; I may never hope to fall in love; I may never marry; I may never have the intimacy and friendship and mutual support that goes with marriage. I may never, in other words, do what every human being longs most to do in the world: find another person to love and care for.
    That’s completely insane, and it’s cruel. The God I worship does not work this way. You’re telling me that I cannot be a human being and a member of the Church at the same time. Well, you may be right – but guess which one I’ll ultimately give up?

    Reply
  12. bls Avatar
    bls

    (BTW, I’d be completely satisfied with the right to marry, since that is ostensibly what is at issue here. I’m interested in the partnership and have absolutely no desire to discuss my sexual life with anybody else. It’s something I can work out with God in the privacy of my own life and soul.
    BTW, once the right to marriage has been won for gay people, what will be excuse at that point? Just curious.)

    Reply
  13. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    Romans 1:26-27 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
    It appears that the Bible is quite clear on homosexuality. How would you read it and which translation of the Bible claims that this is not homosexuality? The Bible is also clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. Traditionally, the Church (as an institution) has not endorsed homosexuality or homosexual marriages. There may have been cases where such rites have been performed for a person of peculiar power or influence. Scientific reason has not proved that homosexuality is entirely based on genes despite the best efforts of scientists. Inclusion of homosexuality as a desirable component of church life thus fails the Scripture-Tradition-reason test.
    It is interesting that when the Bible was first “canonized”, it was considered “progressive thought” – monotheism, monogamy and sexual purity – higher standards of living. How the wheel has turned in less than 20 centuries !! In the 21st century, people who believe in the Bible are called “traditionalists” and those who don’t are called “progressives”.
    Nobody is saying, and I haven’t seen anybody, stop a homosexual from attending church or partaking of the communion. However, clergy and Bishops are moral leaders and have to be held to a higher standard. They are called to be defenders of the faith and ensure that the propogation of that faith is consistent with the doctrine of the church of which they are bishops. Otherwise, they should resign because they have lost the moral authority to lead. I would have had far greater respect for the HoB if they had voted to secede from the Anglican Communion, endorsed homosexual marriage and then voted VGR as a Bishop. They were making a point to the Anglican Communion and the world at large – we are an autonomous province and we pay 30% of the Anglican Communion dues. Why should we have to play by the rules? Let the unsophisticated Africans and Global South toe our line.
    I do not think the ECUSA House of Bishops would have gladly consented to a heterosexual person living in an open relationship with two women or even a single woman outside of marriage, as a Bishop. But then one can “spin” even plainspeaking Biblical verses today and be called a “scholar” as long as it meets the “inclusivity” standards of the “liberals”.
    While I have no doubt that Canon Jeffrey John is erudite,honest and has the highest integity, I am quite skeptical when claims are made that he is celibate (pardon me for saying it).

    Reply
  14. bls Avatar
    bls

    Yes, I knew that Romans I would show up here. Unfortunately for your argument, it’s quite unclear what’s being said in this passage when it comes to women – it’s certainly not spelled out – and in fact the early church did not read this as having anything to do with lesbianism:

    A quick show of hands in any English-speaking country nowadays would probably agree to the following statement: ‘This quite clearly refers to lesbianism. That is the obvious meaning of the words. To deny that this refers to lesbianism is the sort of thing that you would expect from a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.’ Well, all I’d like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.

    Once again: you are reading “homosexuality” into this passage, because this is what you’ve always believed. But it’s simply not there. What you’re asking me to do is turn my entire life upside-down – to suppress my most basic human instinct for companionship and love – on the basis of one ambiguous passage from the New Testament. (And again: nothing at all on this topic in the Gospels themselves.) I’m sure it’s very easy to do this, for people who don’t have to think about it at all, but it’s about my entire life. But I’ll make the same offer to you that I make to everyone: if you’re willing, right now, to sign a contract stating you’ll agree never to marry or have an intimate relationship during the course of your lifetime, no matter what should happen, I’ll sign on the dotted line right along with you.
    If you’re not willing to do that, consider it from our point of view. If the Church won’t allow us to be married – which is fine, from my own point of view – then the Church must treat us as an exception to the rule. This is the only decent thing to do.
    And BTW, I’m arguing for “monotheism, monogamy and sexual purity” here. I’m a Christian, after all, and I’ve been talking about lifelong committed relationships. The fact that you automatically think gay people are mainly interested in orgies points out, IMO, that this is all actually based on preconceived ideas of what being gay is about. I’m here arguing for marriage, for emotional intimacy, and for a place in the Christian Church!
    I should also add that Jeffrey John’s position is exactly parallel to that of African polygamists who become Christians: they are not allowed to eject their wives from their households. They are to live sexually monogamously with their first wife, but are expected to continue to care for any other wives they may have. Are you skeptical about that also?

    Reply
  15. bls Avatar
    bls

    As for your point about Gene Robinson: it would have been better, I’m sure, to have arrived at “consensus” before the election and consecration.
    But since the vote at Lambeth 1998 was 520-76 (or something close to that), did you really think “consensus” was in the air? What we see is a complete refusal of the Church at large to look at this issue at all, let alone consider another point of view. In any case, we think we’re right, and that you’re wrong; the Church, after all, has been wrong many times in the past. Should we then “go along with the majority” simply because it’s the majority? We don’t think there’s anything wrong with a gay bishop, because we don’t think there’s anything wrong with homosexuality.
    We think you’re wrong.

    Reply
  16. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    Once again: you are reading “homosexuality” into this passage, because this is what you’ve always believed.
    Hardly. This passage is clearly against all “unnatural” sexual cohabitations as well as sexual orgies. You haven’t stated in your reply as to what it actually says. All you and your link has pointed out is that for the sake of “charity” one must reinterpret this passage in the modern context to not include homosexuality because this was specifically against anal intercourse and castration. So polygamy, open relationships and polyamory are OK as long as no one is castrated and no one has anal intercourse. Wow now I get it. Of course, the biggest lie is that the early Church did not condemn homosexuality or could not have known of lifelong committed homosexual relationships.
    But it’s simply not there. What you’re asking me to do is turn my entire life upside-down – to suppress my most basic human instinct for companionship and love – on the basis of one ambiguous passage from the New Testament. (And again: nothing at all on this topic in the Gospels themselves.)
    I am not asking you to do anything. In fact, I really don’t care what you do in the bedroom. But does your “basic instinct for companionship and love” involve sex? If all you are looking for is “companionship and love”, without the sex, then surely there are plenty of people where you live, that would like to be taken in and shown that “companionship and love”.
    Like I said in my previous post, I do care what you are asking me to believe and changing an organization to affirm homosexuality despite clear prohibitions and your unwillingness to accept that stricture does not translate to you supporting sexual purity. You are asking the Church to bless lifelong committed homosexual relationships i.e. they have to be lifelong and committed, in other words a clear discernible commitment after having spent years (what is the benchmark for lifelong?) trying to find out if my “partner” is actually right for me and if we are “compatible”. What is the measure/standard that the Church should adopt?
    In a Saturday Night Live episode, two African-Americans one light-skinned than the other were discussing the supercillious attitude of the white folks and the school test scores. As the interview went on, it was quite clear that the light-skinned African American considered himself superior to the darker-skinned one. That is exactly what you are doing now – lifelong committed homosexuals are superior to those who indulge in homosexual orgies.
    Tomes have been written about how the Bible as a whole condemns homsexuality yet you choose to ignore it because it is not the affirmation you seek. You identify yourself as a homosexual and then a Christian instead of the other way ’round.
    But I’ll make the same offer to you that I make to everyone: if you’re willing, right now, to sign a contract stating you’ll agree never to marry or have an intimate relationship during the course of your lifetime, no matter what should happen, I’ll sign on the dotted line right along with you.
    Riiight. Just like VGR and Canon John…..All it proves is that you value your sexual relationship to your partner more than you value your relationship to God. You are not willing to give up your “all” for Christ.
    I should also add that Jeffrey John’s position is exactly parallel to that of African polygamists who become Christians: they are not allowed to eject their wives from their households. They are to live sexually monogamously with their first wife, but are expected to continue to care for any other wives they may have. Are you skeptical about that also?
    To answer your question – yes. But polygamists in Africa haven’t been ordained as Bishops or church leaders – they are ineligible for such positions which is a far cry from “Canon” John. So I don’t think the two positions are even comparable. Tell you what, you get VGR and other gay clergy to step down and I will sign on the dotted line. That would be comparable to polygamy.
    What we see is a complete refusal of the Church at large to look at this issue at all, let alone consider another point of view. In any case, we think we’re right, and that you’re wrong; the Church, after all, has been wrong many times in the past.We think you’re wrong.
    As far as Lambeth and the Anglican Communion are concerned, the current teaching is that homosexuals are all children of God but cannot be ordained or same-sex unions blessed. There were numerous commissions that were setup and everyone of them looked at this question in depth and decided they could not endorse homsexuality. So you were given a fair hearing, the answer for 30 years was always no and you decided to go ahead and ordain the guy as a Bishop anyway. But not to put too fine a spin on the Church, science has been wrong too and so have people who have “elected” dictators. So should we give up democracy, science and the Church? Simply put, you have no rational reason for the Church endorsing your homosexuality. Which is why I think you are wrong.

    Reply
  17. bls Avatar
    bls

    This passage is clearly against all “unnatural” sexual cohabitations as well as sexual orgies.
    This passage is clearly about idolatry. I notice that whenever anyone quotes it, they start with the clause “For this cause God gave them up….”, but they never quote which “cause” is being discussed.
    Here’s the cause, in the verses prior:


    20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;
    21 for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
    22 While claiming to be wise, they became fools
    23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.
    24 Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.
    25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    This says that, after people gave up worshipping God, they were “given over” to “vile affections.” But gay Christians are arguing to be part of the Church! Don’t you see a bit of a contradiction here? If we were what you say we are, why in the world would we want to go to Church? What possible interest could we have?
    In any case, I knew I was gay when I was about 10 years old. Do you think I’d become idolatrous, in some way, at that point? Do you think I’d sinned so gravely that God would “give me up” to these “vile affections”? It’s totally illogical.
    I have to tell you: we’ve been saying these things for 30 years now. It’s pretty obvious that conservatives haven’t been paying any attention at all – but of course, secular society has, where we’ve pretty much won all the arguments already.
    So polygamy, open relationships and polyamory are OK as long as no one is castrated and no one has anal intercourse. Wow now I get it.
    Actually, of course, polygamy is clearly permitted by Scripture, certainly in the Old Testament and possibly even in the New. Polygamy begins in Genesis, with Lamech, and goes through Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Saul, and of course Solomon, who had 700 wives and 200 concubines. Or maybe it was the other way around. And there were numerous others, too.
    And these women were basically their husbands’ property, by law. Adultery didn’t mean what it means today – it only forbad a man from having sexual relations with another man’s wife (that’s the “property” issue at work). Marriage, in other words, was absolutely nothing like it is today.
    And of course, the Bible permitted slavery, too. Should we bring that back, do you think?
    But does your “basic instinct for companionship and love” involve sex? If all you are looking for is “companionship and love”, without the sex, then surely there are plenty of people where you live, that would like to be taken in and shown that “companionship and love”.
    Are you aware that 95% of Americans marry at some point in their lives? Are you aware that both Lyle and Erik Menendez, the parent-killers in jail for life in California, have been allowed to be married? No conjungal visits, but they’re allowed the legal status of marriage. What does that suggest about what marriage actually means to human beings? Is it about sex, or is it about support and emotional intimacy? Doesn’t it appear, given the 95% stat, that it’s a pretty basic instinct to find another person to form a partnership with? Why do you think gay people wouldn’t have the same urge?
    Do you plan to marry? Imagine that you were forbidden to, no matter what. Imagine that even people who kill their own parents are allowed to, and that you would never be.
    You are asking the Church to bless lifelong committed homosexual relationships i.e. they have to be lifelong and committed, in other words a clear discernible commitment after having spent years (what is the benchmark for lifelong?) trying to find out if my “partner” is actually right for me and if we are “compatible”. What is the measure/standard that the Church should adopt?
    The same as for heterosexual relationships. Monogamy and fidelity, and if possible, a legal partnership. (BTW, about half the “lifelong” heterosexual marriages aren’t, but of course that’s different, right? Where is the Amendment to the Constitution that forbids divorce, I wonder? And do heterosexuals have to pass some standard of “time together” before they can marry? No, as Britney Spears clearly shows, anybody can do it, anytime they like, perhaps even on a drunken whim. Not gay people though, even if they’ve been together 30 years.)
    You are not willing to give up your “all” for Christ.
    Well, actually, I was asking if you were willing to do this. No answer, I see.

    Reply
  18. bls Avatar
    bls

    In a Saturday Night Live episode, two African-Americans one light-skinned than the other were discussing the supercillious attitude of the white folks and the school test scores. As the interview went on, it was quite clear that the light-skinned African American considered himself superior to the darker-skinned one. That is exactly what you are doing now – lifelong committed homosexuals are superior to those who indulge in homosexual orgies.
    This, by the way, is very interesting, and almost unbelievable. You’ve spent your time here trying to insinuate that since gay people “indulge in homosexual orgies,” they should be excluded from the Church. But here, you try to bash me for “acting superior” to all these (so far unnamed) gay people “who indulge in homosexual orgies.”
    IOW, you really want all gay people to “indulge in homosexual orgies,” so that your own argument can be justified! That’s hilarious, I have to say. First time I’ve seen this one, and it’s unbelievably convoluted, I must say. The only conclusion I can draw is that we must be winning!

    Reply
  19. David Huff Avatar
    David Huff

    “bls” is doing a very passionate and eloquent job defending her position, but the rather nasty and sarcastic responses here lead me more than ever to believe that there is no reconciliation possible between hardcore “conservatives” and the rest of the ECUSA. The naked desire amongst some of these “conservative Christians” to not only be right, but to hurt and punish those they disagree with, is almost mind-boggling in its intensity.
    I think it’s time for a divorce, and maybe if we all just tone down the rhetoric a bit, it can be an amicable one…tho’ my guess is that the “amicable” part won’t be allowed to happen.

    Reply
  20. bls Avatar
    bls

    Here’s the thing. In Jewish thought, there is an argument about “mitzvot” – the commandments – that goes this way: the Commandments are to be performed “simply because God commands us to do them.” A person does not need to reason them out; they exist because God wishes it, and they should simply be obeyed without question. This, to me, is the only good argument against homosexuality, because there certainly isn’t a reasonable one. Homosexuality, by itself, is benign to the people involved and to everybody else. (It does matter, of course, what a person does with their sexuality, but that goes for heterosexuals as well.) If a person is able to enter into a faithful, mutually supportive, and loving relationship, that in fact is a positive good. It’s a good thing when people commit to helping one another through life, and there are very few people who would willingly forego this.
    This is, in fact, I believe the argument in orthodox Judaism for the taboo against “a man lying with a man as with a woman.”
    But this taboo does not exist for women. Look at the sentence above; it is directed towards men alone. There are many strictures that women must follow: they must not go near the livestock while menstruating, for instance. (Yes!) And there are others for women, and many for everybody – the dietary laws, for instance – that we already know about.
    But none concerns lesbianism. So the “mitzvot” argument does not hold here; God apparently has nothing to say about it, and if it’s to be forbidden, there isn’t a “religious” argument against it. (I believe rabbinical councils have decided that lesbianism is “disobedient,” and disapprove of it for that reason. But it isn’t a religious argument.)
    So what can we conclude? That God hates gay men, but doesn’t mind lesbians? Absurd. There’s some other interpretation for this verse, then. If you’re talking in terms of religious arguments, that is.
    (Personally, and not to get too far afield here, but I think if the Church – and the Synagogue, too – would simply interpret this passage as an injunction against anal sex, all of the problems would be solved. Nobody could complain about that, and in fact this, in my experience, is really the issue at hand anyway. Just IMO.)

    Reply
  21. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    This says that, after people gave up worshipping God, they were “given over” to “vile affections.” But gay Christians are arguing to be part of the Church! Don’t you see a bit of a contradiction here?
    Firstly, the assumption you are making is that *they* were given over to “vile affections” *only* because of idolatry and had there not been any idols involved it would have been OK. According to your reading then, hypothetically, if the “temple in Corinth” had been a Church, then Paul would not have said “degradation of the body”. By extension, then, the Church should accept sexual orgies as long as it is done for Christ. BTW, if you say Paul could not have known about “monogamous lifelong committed same sex relationships”, how do you know “monogamous lifelong committed same sex relationships” did not exist between the participants of this “vile affection”? Do you think the human beings then were so different from those today or is it because people “monogamous lifelong committed same sex relationships” would never indulge in sexual orgies?
    But a closer reading of the verses you have posted will give you a different meaning:
    G-d existed before creation and mankind knew G-d and His glory. But they did not acknowledge and thank G-d their maker. Instead they became (1) “vain in their understanding” (too full of themselves to think they were or could be G-d), (2) however when they thought they were being wise, they were doing foolish things (3) like idolatory and (4) therefore G-d let them do what they wanted because they rejected Him.
    Could you expand on being “part of the Church”? I believe anybody who worships Christ is part of the Church, but not everybody can become clergy or Bishops or Canons because they are called to a higher standard.
    Actually, of course, polygamy is clearly permitted by Scripture, certainly in the Old Testament and possibly even in the New.
    Despite 1 Tim 3?
    Are you aware that 95% of Americans marry at some point in their lives? Are you aware that both Lyle and Erik Menendez, the parent-killers in jail for life in California, have been allowed to be married? No conjungal visits, but they’re allowed the legal status of marriage.
    What does this have to do with the debate? They were “married” by the State in prison, not in church. We are arguing about homosexual unions in the Church. Or are you suggesting that if you were “married” to your partner the same way with no conjugal visits you would be OK?
    Do you plan to marry? Imagine that you were forbidden to, no matter what.
    That depends on whether you sign on the dotted line. There are hundreds of people, widows, widowers, priests and saints that are not married and yet for “companionship and love” do “take in” orphans, older folks or the destitute and care for them.
    Not gay people though, even if they’ve been together 30 years.)
    I misunderstood your point then. I thought you were asking to be blessed because you have been together for 30 years. I am against divorce and against pre-marital sex hetero- or homo- which is why I thought you were asking the Church to endorse pre-marital sex.
    Well, actually, I was asking if you were willing to do this. No answer, I see.
    Where in your posts above have you asked me if I was willing to give my “all” to Christ?
    This, by the way, is very interesting, and almost unbelievable. You’ve spent your time here trying to insinuate that since gay people “indulge in homosexual orgies,” they should be excluded from the Church. But here, you try to bash me for “acting superior” to all these (so far unnamed) gay people “who indulge in homosexual orgies.”
    IOW, you really want all gay people to “indulge in homosexual orgies,” so that your own argument can be justified! That’s hilarious, I have to say. First time I’ve seen this one, and it’s unbelievably convoluted, I must say. The only conclusion I can draw is that we must be winning!
    This is an even more interesting take…First you claim to be “for sexual purity”, claim that “sexual orgies for Christ” are OK, then you argue “for polygamy” and now claim that all homosexual people lead “lifelong monogamous committed relationships” while there is clear evidence that this is not true. Considering this fact, are you suggesting then that all homosexual relationships be “blessed”? Or should the Church just outlaw “anal intercourse”? I am not sure what you are winning but I can assure you that you are losing your mind.

    Reply
  22. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    I think a Rabbi would disagree.

    Reply
  23. Greg Avatar
    Greg

    (Oops wrong button)
    …therefore I am. But a Rabbi would disagree

    Reply
  24. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    [EDITED BY MODERATOR] I see no indication from [Greg’s] responses that he has any clue about the lives and testimonies of gay Christians.
    All of which is very human, of course. But it doesn;t seem very Christian.
    Funny thing is, his position is directly in line with worldly values on this issue. Gays have been and will be persecuted by the majority. Tragic indeed that some will seek the Church’s approval to persecuted a powerless minority.

    Reply
  25. bls Avatar
    bls

    First you claim to be “for sexual purity”, claim that “sexual orgies for Christ” are OK, then you argue “for polygamy” and now claim that all homosexual people lead “lifelong monogamous committed relationships” while there is clear evidence that this is not true.
    This little construction makes me realize there’s no point in trying have a serious discussion with you. And BTW, if the best argument you can come up with is willful misrepresentation of what I’ve said, then you have already lost the argument.
    And Moderator, by all means, please don’t delete the above post. Greg has made the case for me all by himself, without my having to say a word.

    Reply
  26. bls Avatar
    bls

    Anyway, back to the original argument.
    The word translated as “homosexuality” in Timothy and Corinthians is obscure. It’s arsenokoites, and the “arseno-” prefix means, specifically, “male.” This word has been translated at least 27 different ways, in different editions of the Bible. Nobody knows exactly what it means. (In any case, I believe it’s used at least once in an explicitly heterosexual context.)
    So we think you cannot possibly use this as the basis for the condemnation of an unchosen, benign characteristic. Or for any other reason, for that matter. If you’re going to make a point using the Bible or any other reference, the terms have to be clear. This is true in any other area; what would make this issue so different?
    As you’ve seen above, there isn’t any explicit condemnation of lesbianism in the Bible. The Romans I verse that’s always trotted out at this point was understood in a completely different way by the early church. Therefore, we have to draw the conclusion that the issue is not “homosexuality” at all, but some sort of specifically male sexual behavior. Most people think it’s a condemnation of the exploitative master/slave sexual relations, or of temple prostitution, that occurred in the region at the time. We think it doesn’t apply to today’s understanding of “homosexual orientation,” because there is no exploitation involved.
    Anglicans are not Biblical literalists, you know. We are allowed and expected to use our reason in interpreting what we find in the Bible. If we know that gay people are quite like everybody else in every other way, and if we know that homosexuality per se is benign to gay people and others, and if we know that gay people have served the church faithfully in many ways over the centuries (and BTW Gene Robinson had done so for more than 30 years), then can’t we come to the conclusion that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality? It’s a variation that seems to have occurred in every time and place.
    I personally think the election of Gene Robinson wasn’t a very good idea at this time, but more for political than essential reasons. Unfortunately, as I’ve said, I think people grew impatient with “the process” because we saw that conservatives didn’t seem to be serious about what they were saying. We keep hearing the same old arguments, as Greg demonstrated nicely above – as if people think we’ve never heard them before.

    Reply
  27. bls Avatar
    bls

    Anyway, as noted in the article I linked above, the very next verse, Romans 2:1, says this:

    Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

    “Therefore,” meaning, “as a result of everything I’ve just said,” (i.e., Romans I, the famous “condemnation” verse). So how come nobody ever seems to quote this part?

    Reply
  28. David Huff Avatar
    David Huff

    bls wrote:
    So how come nobody ever seems to quote this part? (of Romans 2:1)
    Because they might actually have to pay attention to it 😉 Because it flys in the face of their “right” to confess the sins of others for them. Because “love the sinner, but hate the sin” (but above all, hate the sin and only “love” them if they repent) is a key meme complex of the Religious Right, and you can’t do that if you’re not allowed to usurp God’s right to judge and award it to yourself.
    For the same reason they never quote Matthew 7:1-5:
    Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
    Darn that pesky Gospel for taking away our fun anyway… ;->

    Reply
  29. bls Avatar
    bls

    The thing is, these passages seem to stand out in relief to people who argue against gay people. But there are only 6 of them in the entire Bible, among thousands or hundreds of thousands of others that nobody ever quotes. And at least half of them are not explicit, or are unclear. And none (or at very most, one) says anything about gay women.
    So how did this issue get to be so blown out of proportion? There are, I’m told, 2,000 passages admonishing us to care for the poor; there are injunctions against the charging of interest, which nobody seems to take very seriously; there are of course all the other Levitical laws, which no Christian pays any attention to; there are several places where it’s specifically noted that the penalty for working on the Sabbath is death.
    But these 6 passages get all the play. Fun, huh?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts