TEC and other liberal denominations worship a false god in my opinion. No one has provided a Biblical basis for supporting abortion or elevating homosexual pairings to that of traditional man/woman marriage.
Nor did I purport to do so.
I called you out on your blatantly unjust claim that Episcopalians have no norms except tolerance.
You and others are desperately trying to turn that conversation into a debate on the merits of the liberal position, but that’s not my point at all.
I agree, and have said repeatedly that I agree, that the Episcopal Church is wrong in its movement toward legitimizing sexual relationships between persons of the same sex.
You and CMatt and Edwin all say that “we have come to a different conclusion” but it must be based on the secret knowledge available only to those who share the same
I have certainly not come to a different conclusion than that found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I have said absolutely nothing that is incompatible with Catholic teaching as I understand it, nor has anyone shown that what I said is incompatible with it. In fact, people are remarkably unwilling to engage what I am actually saying.
But the reasons why the dominant party in the Episcopal church have come to the conclusions they have are not secret at all. You can read them, for instance, in
this document, which is the Episcopal Church’s official response to the Anglican Communion’s “Windsor Report.” (Warning: the link will immediately start downloading a PDF.) I refer you particularly to sections 2.22-32. Certainly the discussion of same-sex relations found there is influenced by cultural norms of “tolerance.” But the document refers to many other standards and norms–the essential argument is that same-sex relationships manifest exactly the same signs of holiness that heterosexual marriages do (apart, obviously, from the mere fact of one being homosexual and the other heterosexual). This isn’t simply an appeal to “tolerance.”
I repeat: this is about justice. You and others are caricaturing and misrepresenting the Episcopal Church’s position in order to avoid dealing with the serious issues raised by this controversy.
This has never, ever been a good response to heresy. Every heresy has legitimate concerns at its core, and the heresy is never defeated simply by being suppressed. It is defeated when the Church manages to recognize the legitimate concerns that prompted the heresy and incorporate them into orthodox teaching.
But even if you disagree with the above paragraph, the basic point about truth-telling remains. It is never a good idea to misrepresent people just because they are heretics. the first step to refuting heresy (even if you don’t think it has any legitimate concerns at all) is to describe it accurately.
Most of you on this thread are unable or unwilling to take that first step. You aren’t capable of describing the liberal position in a form that a thoughtful liberal would recognize (I’m sure you can find me silly liberals who really do think it’s all just about “tolerance”–there are silly people on all sides of any controversy.)
Edwin
This is where the disconnect is between us…I do not accept your understadning of sexuality nor do I accept your understanding of the first chapter of Romans…to friend Edwin’s point…while in your view gay and lesbian relationships do not meet every qualification you place on them…love and selflessness IS still a component of their relationships…perhaps ‘lacking’ in your understanding in order to be complete…but love and many…if not all of it’s qualities…are exhibited in same sex relationships…just not to the satisfaction and criteria you would place upon them…based on your religious views…which are not embraced at least by me…and other faith traditions…since we’re not using the same understandings of “love”…“selflessness” but have them tied to a religious understanding of “natural law” and sexuality…we remain disconnected.
