Can Someone Explain Episcopalian/Anglican reasoning behind homosexuality position?

[Publisher]

Very interesting…thanks for adding on to what Matt said. I think you made several very interesting points, but I am not sure any of it is true. I mean the passages by Paul seem to be pretty explicit, but I would love to see a source regarding these views.

I think the one thing I would keep in mind also is that regardless of whether this was a cultural aspect of Israel alone or not, Matt. 18 says that anything the apostles said in the name of Jesus is true…so based on that, anything Paul says is true regardless of whether it is a “cultural” issue. Further, the culture of Israel was, according to the Bible, God’s culture…God’s people…So in reality, just because it was unique to Israel doesn’t mean they were wrong.

Compassion and mercy is what is needed concerning this very difficult area of human sexuality…for those of us who’s places of worship have wrestled with this issue…sometimes for years…where there is doubt…we have chosen to err on the side of mercy and love. It is not a simple issue…very complex…and in our desire to be “faithful” to our traditions…we have chosen to err on the side of love and compassion…

It is not as cut and dried as many would like to portray it.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

In addition to what Publisher and CMatt have written, here are some sections from the study document *“I Will Bless You, and You Will Be a Blessing”: **Resources for Blessing Same-Gender Relationships *prepared by The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music of the Episcopal Church.

The document from which these quotations are pulled is mainly addressed to the question (which will be dealt with in General Convention over the summer) of same-sex unions, but what it has to say is germaine, I think, to the topic. Keep in mind the following:

The Episcopal Church largely (though perhaps unofficially) affirms Richard Hooker’s “three-legged stool”–that revelation comes to us through scripture, reason, and tradition and that it is in maintaining a balance between the three that we can best discern the work and will of the Spirit in the church and in our lives. With reference to the topic at hand, the growing scientific consensus that homosexuality represents a non-patholigical minority variant of human sexuality in addition to lived experience which suggests that homosexual relationships are capable of producing, by grace, the fruits of the spirit are reasonable witness to certain realities of human experience which must be balanced against or harmonized with (but not obliterated by) the witness of scripture and tradition.

So. First this:
In responding to the call to participate in God’s mission in the world, the Church must attend carefully to the particular cultural circumstances in which it proclaims the hope of the gospel. Over the last sixty years in the United States (among other places), social, psychological, and biomedical sciences have contributed to a gradual shift in cultural perspectives on the complexity of sexual orientation and gender identity. The American Psychiatric Association, for example, no longer considers homosexuality to be a pathological condition,9 which it did in the mid-twentieth century. Gay and lesbian people now participate openly in nearly every profession and aspect of life. Many openly form stable and enduring relationships and some also raise children in their families. Many churches, including the Episcopal Church, have also discerned in same-gender relationships the same possibility of holiness of life and the fruits of the Spirit that we pray for in those who seek the commitment of marriage and its blessings.10

This cultural shift concerning human sexuality bears on the Church’s pastoral care and also on its mission. The 2000 General Convention, for example, identified certain characteristics that the Church expects of all couples in lifelong, committed relationships: "fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love that enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God."11 Significantly, the Convention framed that resolution as a matter of mission. Witnessing the Spirit at work in same-gender relationships, just as we do in different-gender relationships, can and in many places already has broadened the Church’s understanding of how it participates in God’s own reconciling work in the world.
(CONTINUED…)

 

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)
And now this:
In the Acts of the Apostles, we read about Peter’s hesitation to cross traditional boundaries between the clean and the unclean in his encounter with Cornelius, a Roman centurion (Acts 10). In a vision, Peter heard God urging him to eat certain unclean animals in direct disobedience to the injunctions found in Leviticus 11. This vision led Peter to consider anew whether God’s saving work and blessing might be found in places and among particular people he had not before considered possible. When challenged about this expansive vision, Peter declared, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (Acts 10:28). To those who were startled and perhaps scandalized by the extension of the gospel to Gentiles, Peter asked, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47).14

Time after time in the history of Israel and in the early Church, responding to the challenge of God’s extravagant grace and the richness of divine blessing has expanded the mission of God’s people in the world, even beyond where many had previously imagined. The loving faithfulness and covenantal commitment of lesbian and gay couples presents a similar challenge to the Church today. Many throughout the Episcopal Church and other Christian communions have recognized and discerned the Spirit’s presence and work in these same-gender relationships, and are asking God’s people to ponder why we would withhold a public affirmation and declaration of blessing from those who have received the Holy Spirit just as others have. More importantly, however, this moment in the Episcopal Church’s life calls all of us to consider anew the rich blessings we receive by God’s grace in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. These blessings, in turn, animate the ministry of reconciliation that God has given us as ambassadors of the new creation that is unfolding, even now, in our midst.

You can find more info (as well as a link to a PDF featuring the study and a draft rite [which I find a bit too touchy feely to say the least]) here: episcopalcafe.com/lead/episcopal_church/draft_rite_for_samesex_blessin.html

You won’t find in it too much of a discussion of the “clobber” texts from scripture. It’s my understanding that the alternative readings–like those mentioned by CMatt–are generally accepted with the belief that the witness of experience and reason to the possibility that loving and committed homosexual relationships are capable of bearing the gifts of the Spirit is sufficient evidence that such relationships are capable of being instruments of grace. That capacity is fundamentally foreign to relationships intrinsically characterized by depravity, objective disorder or sin, but is at least analogous to the capacity for grace of which committed heterosexual relationships are capable.

At any rate, I hope all this helps!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CMatt25]

(…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED)
And now this:
In the Acts of the Apostles, we read about Peter’s hesitation to cross traditional boundaries between the clean and the unclean in his encounter with Cornelius, a Roman centurion (Acts 10). In a vision, Peter heard God urging him to eat certain unclean animals in direct disobedience to the injunctions found in Leviticus 11. This vision led Peter to consider anew whether God’s saving work and blessing might be found in places and among particular people he had not before considered possible. When challenged about this expansive vision, Peter declared, “God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean” (Acts 10:28). To those who were startled and perhaps scandalized by the extension of the gospel to Gentiles, Peter asked, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47).14

Time after time in the history of Israel and in the early Church, responding to the challenge of God’s extravagant grace and the richness of divine blessing has expanded the mission of God’s people in the world, even beyond where many had previously imagined. The loving faithfulness and covenantal commitment of lesbian and gay couples presents a similar challenge to the Church today. Many throughout the Episcopal Church and other Christian communions have recognized and discerned the Spirit’s presence and work in these same-gender relationships, and are asking God’s people to ponder why we would withhold a public affirmation and declaration of blessing from those who have received the Holy Spirit just as others have. More importantly, however, this moment in the Episcopal Church’s life calls all of us to consider anew the rich blessings we receive by God’s grace in Christ and through the Holy Spirit. These blessings, in turn, animate the ministry of reconciliation that God has given us as ambassadors of the new creation that is unfolding, even now, in our midst.

You can find more info (as well as a link to a PDF featuring the study and a draft rite [which I find a bit too touchy feely to say the least]) here: episcopalcafe.com/lead/episcopal_church/draft_rite_for_samesex_blessin.html

You won’t find in it too much of a discussion of the “clobber” texts from scripture. It’s my understanding that the alternative readings–like those mentioned by CMatt–are generally accepted with the belief that the witness of experience and reason to the possibility that loving and committed homosexual relationships are capable of bearing the gifts of the Spirit is sufficient evidence that such relationships are capable of being instruments of grace. That capacity is fundamentally foreign to relationships intrinsically characterized by depravity, objective disorder or sin, but is at least analogous to the capacity for grace of which committed heterosexual relationships are capable.

At any rate, I hope all this helps!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark, thanks so much for the information you provided in this continuing post and in your first part. As long as we truly desire to understand and open our hearts to understand, I would think it should help everyone, even those who disagree, in their undertanding along with what Publisher has posted. I know you’re of the Anglo Catholic tradition though which to my understanding is less liberal, but what do you think the general conference will do this summer?

God’s blessings to all during this holy time of yr. Peace.

 

[Contarini]

I am NOT looking to bash anyone; I just want to know what the theological argument is in favor of allowing homosexuality. I mean, doesn’t Paul lay it out pretty clearly in the New Testament? I know some explain away Leviticus because it’s in the Old Testament, but what about Paul in the New Testament?

The Episcopal Church commissioned a theological report to explain its actions in this regard, and the result was this document. I think it’s a good place to start to understand where liberals are coming from on this issue. Essentially the liberal argument is:

1. The key principle in Biblical ethics is love of neighbor, with particular emphasis on justice for the downtrodden and excluded.
2. The Biblical passages which seem to condemn homosexuality do not seem to be speaking of committed, faithful, loving relationships of the kind presently being considered for acceptance. Given the cultural context of these passages, it’s anachronistic to apply them to such relationships.
3. There are, after all, many passages in the Bible which we do not take as literal guides for ethical issues today. For instance, the commands to slaughter the Canaanites do not reflect how we as Christians understand Biblical teaching as a whole concerning how we are to treat those who differ from us, even those who engage in wicked practices. The Bible has often been used to justify slavery, etc.
4. The Book of Acts shows the early Church coming to discern a divine call to open its boundaries to those who were previously excluded–and excluded by divine command as recorded in the OT. This should be a pattern that governs how we discern issues relating to exclusion and inclusion.
5. With regard to marriage in particular, the gender of the people involved is less important than the qualities of holiness manifest in their relationship. Since gay couples frequently show the kinds of qualities we would look for in a Christian marriage, it would be wrong for us to fail to recognize those qualities by blessing such a relationship, and it would be wrong for us to exclude an otherwise qualified person from church office simply because he or she was engaged in such a relationship.

I myself agree with 1 entirely (as I suspect most Christians would), and I think the other points all have value. At the end of the day, however, I’m not convinced by 5 in particular–certainly gay relationships do often show many of the virtues of Christian marriage, but I think bodies matter and that God created us male and female for a reason. Where that leaves us pastorally I’m less certain, after 8 years of struggling with this issue together with my fellow Episcopalians. But I cannot see that gay unions can be called marriage, and I’m uncomfortable saying that the Church can endorse without qualification a sexual union that is not marriage.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Episcopal Church largely (though perhaps unofficially) affirms Richard Hooker’s “three-legged stool”–that revelation comes to us through scripture, reason, and tradition and that it is in maintaining a balance between the three that we can best discern the work and will of the Spirit in the church and in our lives.

Well, that way of putting it would horrify Hooker, I suspect. But it is how many Episcopalians unfortunately think.

With reference to the topic at hand, the growing scientific consensus that homosexuality represents a non-patholigical minority variant of human sexuality

What does “pathological” mean in this context? It seems to me that medical language is being used inappropriately here. Science can’t answer questions about telos–ultimate purpose. And the debate over sexuality is a debate about telos. Science cannot resolve it, though it can help us understand the underlying physiological and psychological factors.

in addition to lived experience which suggests that homosexual relationships are capable of producing, by grace, the fruits of the spirit are reasonable witness to certain realities of human experience which must be balanced against or harmonized with (but not obliterated by) the witness of scripture and tradition.

I agree with that part, except for the language of “balance.” Integrated, harmonized, yes. Not balanced, as if we somehow put scripture in one corner and tradition in another and reason in another and figured out which of them had more weight in a given circumstance. That’s not what Hooker argued, and it’s an approach that makes a wreck of orthodox Christianity.

But clearly our view of human sexuality has to take the evidence for the goodness of many same-sex relationships into account. No dispute there.

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

The Episcopal Church commissioned a theological report to explain its actions in this regard, and the result was this document. I think it’s a good place to start to understand where liberals are coming from on this issue. Essentially the liberal argument is:

1. The key principle in Biblical ethics is love of neighbor, with particular emphasis on justice for the downtrodden and excluded.
2. The Biblical passages which seem to condemn homosexuality do not seem to be speaking of committed, faithful, loving relationships of the kind presently being considered for acceptance. Given the cultural context of these passages, it’s anachronistic to apply them to such relationships.
3. There are, after all, many passages in the Bible which we do not take as literal guides for ethical issues today. For instance, the commands to slaughter the Canaanites do not reflect how we as Christians understand Biblical teaching as a whole concerning how we are to treat those who differ from us, even those who engage in wicked practices. The Bible has often been used to justify slavery, etc.
4. The Book of Acts shows the early Church coming to discern a divine call to open its boundaries to those who were previously excluded–and excluded by divine command as recorded in the OT. This should be a pattern that governs how we discern issues relating to exclusion and inclusion.
5. With regard to marriage in particular, the gender of the people involved is less important than the qualities of holiness manifest in their relationship. Since gay couples frequently show the kinds of qualities we would look for in a Christian marriage, it would be wrong for us to fail to recognize those qualities by blessing such a relationship, and it would be wrong for us to exclude an otherwise qualified person from church office simply because he or she was engaged in such a relationship.

I myself agree with 1 entirely (as I suspect most Christians would), and I think the other points all have value. At the end of the day, however, I’m not convinced by 5 in particular–certainly gay relationships do often show many of the virtues of Christian marriage, but I think bodies matter and that God created us male and female for a reason. Where that leaves us pastorally I’m less certain, after 8 years of struggling with this issue together with my fellow Episcopalians. But I cannot see that gay unions can be called marriage, and I’m uncomfortable saying that the Church can endorse without qualification a sexual union that is not marriage.

Edwin

I find many of these points unconvincing, especially Nos. 2, 4 and 5. Scripture says not to lie with a man as with a woman- how exactly do they go about showing that the Bible did not mean to include the modern expressions of homosexual relations? The Bible just says that men should not have sexual relations with fellow men. The gentiles were excluded from Moses’ covenant- Nothing in the NT ever changed that, seeing as the New Testament embraced the Gentiles into the New and everlasting Covenant of Christ, not into the Mosaic Covenant that was superseded by it.

No. 5, I find absurd- There are many out of wedlock relationships that show good qualities- Why? Because these are generally human qualities of good relations. Should we just throw out the teaching on sex within marriage too? As long as you’re talking about Human relations, you cannot fail to find many examples of two humans living together in harmony, whatever their relations. If we find a brother and Sister happily married to each other, should we throw away the law against incest too? I don’t get why a Christian Church should determine the morality of a thing condemned by God and the unanimous voice of the Fathers by how well the two partners in a sinful union get along in their sinful relationship.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Well, that way of putting it would horrify Hooker, I suspect.

I suspect it would as well. I should have prefaced my comment with a disclaimer that I was summarizing the prevailing thought regarding the three-legged stool, not necessarily attempting to do justice to Hooker.

What does “pathological” mean in this context?

Relating to some sort of disease.

I use the term “non-pathological” to emphasize that homosexuality does not represent disease of one form or another, be it physiological, psychological or moral. Perhaps that’s a lot of weight for the word to bear, but the word “pathological” seems, to me, to capture how many people see homosexuality to begin with–as some sort of disease.

Science can’t answer questions about telos–ultimate purpose. And the debate over sexuality is a debate about telos. Science cannot resolve it, though it can help us understand the underlying physiological and psychological factors.

Agreed.

I agree with that part, except for the language of “balance.” Integrated, harmonized, yes. Not balanced, as if we somehow put scripture in one corner and tradition in another and reason in another and figured out which of them had more weight in a given circumstance. That’s not what Hooker argued, and it’s an approach that makes a wreck of orthodox Christianity.

Indeed, and your criticism is appreciated! “Balance” was infelicitous–in opting for a word that I hoped would suggest the “via media” of Anglicanism, I used a word that, in context, was not the best choice.

But clearly our view of human sexuality has to take the evidence for the goodness of many same-sex relationships into account. No dispute there.

Indeed. And I’m glad you joined this conversation!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[JPeter]

Their reasoning is that mans reason trumps Gods word for the Liberal Anglicans. It is the same way for ELCA Lutherans. My Church broke from the Episcopal Church over this issue and others. I’m part of the Anglican Church in North America or ACNA. There is no way around what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. There is no way you can get anything else out of it.

 

[Izdaari]

This is by an Episcopal bishop, regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington state:

bishoprickel.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/marriage-equality-a-conservative-proposal-2/

Unfortunately, this does not address theology or scriptures in any way.

Hey, that’s my bishop! I’m a new Episcopalian (not yet officially but soon) in the Diocese of Olympia.

Yeah, too bad it doesn’t address any of the theological stuff, but I like what he says there.

 

[seanman611]

I’m in TEC and I wish I could give you an explanation, but I, like many others in TEC, don’t agree with the churches position on homosexuality. As far as I know, there is no theological reasons for their position, they always talk about being “inclusive” and being welcoming and open to anybody, no doubt admirable values. Unfortunately, though, many TEC parishes and dioceses have become exclusive bastions of white liberalism where any other thoughts are not tolerated. The gay and lesbian lobby in TEC has been a strong and bullying force and have been very successful.

Unfortunately, it have greatly divided our church and caused great damage. The numbers don’t lie, average Sunday attendance is less than 700,000 and plate and pledge is down in almost every diocese, as well as, membership, confirmations, baptisms, and weddings. 9 out of 11 of our theological seminaries are in huge trouble, only the orthodox Nashotah House and Trinity School for Ministry are doing well. Church and cathedral closings are almost a weekly event and the General Convention is looking to approve same sex blessing rites this summer…just brilliant!

It’s not just homosexuality, to be fair, it also have to do with the national churches very liberal theology as well. When you have some bishops and priests denying the resurrection and Christ’s divinity, why even bother with church anymore?

It should be noted that most Anglican provinces, bishops, and priests support the biblical view on homosexuality and marriage.

 

[jinc1019]

Compassion and mercy is what is needed concerning this very difficult area of human sexuality…for those of us who’s places of worship have wrestled with this issue…sometimes for years…where there is doubt…we have chosen to err on the side of mercy and love. It is not a simple issue…very complex…and in our desire to be “faithful” to our traditions…we have chosen to err on the side of love and compassion…

It is not as cut and dried as many would like to portray it.

I don’t deny that…but there still has to be a theological argument. You cannot possibly be arguing that churches should take theological positions without a theological argument, ca you?

 

[jinc1019]

Mark, thanks so much for the information you provided in this continuing post and in your first part. As long as we truly desire to understand and open our hearts to understand, I would think it should help everyone, even those who disagree, in their undertanding along with what Publisher has posted. I know you’re of the Anglo Catholic tradition though which to my understanding is less liberal, but what do you think the general conference will do this summer?

God’s blessings to all during this holy time of yr. Peace.

I would also like to hear the answer to this question as well and would like to thank Mark for the great information. While I didn’t find too many theological arguments in there; I was at least able to get a good insight into the reasoning and understanding behind the decision. I am very thankful for your efforts Mark.

 

[jinc1019]

The Episcopal Church commissioned a theological report to explain its actions in this regard, and the result was this document. I think it’s a good place to start to understand where liberals are coming from on this issue. Essentially the liberal argument is:

1. The key principle in Biblical ethics is love of neighbor, with particular emphasis on justice for the downtrodden and excluded.
2. The Biblical passages which seem to condemn homosexuality do not seem to be speaking of committed, faithful, loving relationships of the kind presently being considered for acceptance. Given the cultural context of these passages, it’s anachronistic to apply them to such relationships.
3. There are, after all, many passages in the Bible which we do not take as literal guides for ethical issues today. For instance, the commands to slaughter the Canaanites do not reflect how we as Christians understand Biblical teaching as a whole concerning how we are to treat those who differ from us, even those who engage in wicked practices. The Bible has often been used to justify slavery, etc.
4. The Book of Acts shows the early Church coming to discern a divine call to open its boundaries to those who were previously excluded–and excluded by divine command as recorded in the OT. This should be a pattern that governs how we discern issues relating to exclusion and inclusion.
5. With regard to marriage in particular, the gender of the people involved is less important than the qualities of holiness manifest in their relationship. Since gay couples frequently show the kinds of qualities we would look for in a Christian marriage, it would be wrong for us to fail to recognize those qualities by blessing such a relationship, and it would be wrong for us to exclude an otherwise qualified person from church office simply because he or she was engaged in such a relationship.

I myself agree with 1 entirely (as I suspect most Christians would), and I think the other points all have value. At the end of the day, however, I’m not convinced by 5 in particular–certainly gay relationships do often show many of the virtues of Christian marriage, but I think bodies matter and that God created us male and female for a reason. Where that leaves us pastorally I’m less certain, after 8 years of struggling with this issue together with my fellow Episcopalians. But I cannot see that gay unions can be called marriage, and I’m uncomfortable saying that the Church can endorse without qualification a sexual union that is not marriage.

Edwin

Edwin, great to hear from someone who is an Episcopalian and thank you for providing the first real theological arguments in favor of homosexuality…I do appreciate it and have been looking for this information for quite some time. Do you happen to know how the Episcopal Church officially deals with the New Testament passages that seem to say very clearly that homosexuality is wrong?

 

[jinc1019]

I’m in TEC and I wish I could give you an explanation, but I, like many others in TEC, don’t agree with the churches position on homosexuality. As far as I know, there is no theological reasons for their position, they always talk about being “inclusive” and being welcoming and open to anybody, no doubt admirable values. Unfortunately, though, many TEC parishes and dioceses have become exclusive bastions of white liberalism where any other thoughts are not tolerated. The gay and lesbian lobby in TEC has been a strong and bullying force and have been very successful.

Unfortunately, it have greatly divided our church and caused great damage. The numbers don’t lie, average Sunday attendance is less than 700,000 and plate and pledge is down in almost every diocese, as well as, membership, confirmations, baptisms, and weddings. 9 out of 11 of our theological seminaries are in huge trouble, only the orthodox Nashotah House and Trinity School for Ministry are doing well. Church and cathedral closings are almost a weekly event and the General Convention is looking to approve same sex blessing rites this summer…just brilliant!

It’s not just homosexuality, to be fair, it also have to do with the national churches very liberal theology as well. When you have some bishops and priests denying the resurrection and Christ’s divinity, why even bother with church anymore?

It should be noted that most Anglican provinces, bishops, and priests support the biblical view on homosexuality and marriage.

Very interesting. Thank you so much for your thoughts on this…I think much of what you say is true regarding the fall of the Episcopal Church; I don’t know if it is homosexuality or just liberalism in general, but many Episcopalians are leaving for more conservative churches. I also think attendance will continue to drop and proceeds with it if homosexual marriage is approved.

 

[CMatt25]

The Episcopal Church commissioned a theological report to explain its actions in this regard, and the result was this document. I think it’s a good place to start to understand where liberals are coming from on this issue. Essentially the liberal argument is:

1. The key principle in Biblical ethics is love of neighbor, with particular emphasis on justice for the downtrodden and excluded.
2. The Biblical passages which seem to condemn homosexuality do not seem to be speaking of committed, faithful, loving relationships of the kind presently being considered for acceptance. Given the cultural context of these passages, it’s anachronistic to apply them to such relationships.
3. There are, after all, many passages in the Bible which we do not take as literal guides for ethical issues today. For instance, the commands to slaughter the Canaanites do not reflect how we as Christians understand Biblical teaching as a whole concerning how we are to treat those who differ from us, even those who engage in wicked practices. The Bible has often been used to justify slavery, etc.
4. The Book of Acts shows the early Church coming to discern a divine call to open its boundaries to those who were previously excluded–and excluded by divine command as recorded in the OT. This should be a pattern that governs how we discern issues relating to exclusion and inclusion.
5. With regard to marriage in particular, the gender of the people involved is less important than the qualities of holiness manifest in their relationship. Since gay couples frequently show the kinds of qualities we would look for in a Christian marriage, it would be wrong for us to fail to recognize those qualities by blessing such a relationship, and it would be wrong for us to exclude an otherwise qualified person from church office simply because he or she was engaged in such a relationship.

I myself agree with 1 entirely (as I suspect most Christians would), and I think the other points all have value. At the end of the day, however, I’m not convinced by 5 in particular–certainly gay relationships do often show many of the virtues of Christian marriage, but I think bodies matter and that God created us male and female for a reason. Where that leaves us pastorally I’m less certain, after 8 years of struggling with this issue together with my fellow Episcopalians. But I cannot see that gay unions can be called marriage, and I’m uncomfortable saying that the Church can endorse without qualification a sexual union that is not marriage.

Edwin

Thank you Edwin for a great explanation. I probably to little surprise of those who have read enough of my posts have less difficulty than I know many on CAF do, with TEC or other faiths with similar beliefs or which may be in a simlar discernment process on this matter. But I always think it’s good if we can try to understand, if not fully agree, with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, as we each walk our journeys of faith. God bless you and all His created children with a most blessed, holy and Happy Easter!

 

[jinc1019]

Thank you Edwin for a great explanation. I probably to little surprise of those who have read enough of my posts have less difficulty than I know many on CAF do, with TEC or other faiths with similar beliefs or which may be in a simlar discernment process on this matter. But I always think it’s good if we can try to understand, if not fully agree, with our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, as we each walk our journeys of faith. God bless you and all His created children with a most blessed, holy and Happy Easter!

I agree…understanding is critical regardless of personal belief.

 

[Publisher]

I don’t deny that…but there still has to be a theological argument. You cannot possibly be arguing that churches should take theological positions without a theological argument, ca you?

For some of us…we wrestle with the implication certain theologies espouse which causes harm to others if any minority is discriminated against. Sometimes certain theological positions need to be examined…and modify if needed…God still speaks to us…Truth is something we must live out in our lives…only when Truth impacts our choices on how we treat others as members of the Body of Christ…for some of us it is not as cut and dry as some would have us believe…human sexuality is a very complex are of human developement.

 

[jinc1019]

For some of us…we wrestle with the implication certain theologies espouse which causes harm to others if any minority is discriminated against. Sometimes certain theological positions need to be examined…and modify if needed…God still speaks to us…Truth is something we must live out in our lives…only when Truth impacts our choices on how we treat others as members of the Body of Christ…for some of us it is not as cut and dry as some would have us believe…human sexuality is a very complex are of human developement.

I can appreciate that…but in the end, I believe that truth is the truth. The pursuit of that truth is important, and sexuality is complex…but whatever that truth is regarding sexuality, is the truth…and our feelings about the truth is really not important.

 

[Publisher]

I can appreciate that…but in the end, I believe that truth is the truth. The pursuit of that truth is important, and sexuality is complex…but whatever that truth is regarding sexuality, is the truth…and our feelings about the truth is really not important.

And it is in this search for Truth and our desire to understand it more deeply…and have that Truth inform our lives…those of us have chosen to embrace our gay brothers and sisters and recognize the BECAUSE human sexuality is so complex the writings of scripture may not have provided sufficient guidence since it appears that the “clobber passages” so long used to condemn gay and lesbian people…may not be condeming them after all…BECAUSE human sexuality is so very complex.