Episcopal Church Will Not Cease Its Support for Gay Marriage, Says Bishop Curry

[Sy_Noe]

Can someone explain to me what they use in defense to allow SSM but still call themselves Christian? I just don’t see how they or even some protestant churches justify allowing it. What do they base it on?

Allow me to preface this by saying that granted I somewhat strive to have an open mind on matters of faith so this may not work for everyone . But when I truly had a sincere desire to set out to learn how someone can allow SSM and still call themselves Christian, I know I found Google and the internet to be a place for a wealth of information.

Not that anyone has to agree with these understandings but one of just many places you might start to learn of different or growing or evolving understandings and interpretations of Scripture might be here.

religioustolerance.org/homglance.htm

I will also include this piece, only because it was something I just recently found (so I still have it fresh in my mind). Which was written I know not by an Episcopalian but by a Disciples of Christ minister but which you may find helpful in understanding a “defense” as you call it.

patheos.com/blogs/faithforward/2013/03/a-progressive-christian-view-of-marriage-equality/

Much joy and peace to all on our paths and along our journeys.

 

[Sy_Noe]

This is true. Many Christian churches that have become open and affirming have used Scripture for their reasons. Just read the book God and the Gay Christian, for example.

I personally do not find the scriptural texts mentioning homosexuality to be very conclusive – especially for the fact that the concept of homosexuality did not exist then; neither did the word “homosexual.” Gay activity is condemned, of course, but the church incorporates these condemnations as sexual acts that are objectively, intrinsically wrong. That is an assumption based on our church’s understanding of natural law. It may be the right understanding, but many of the biblical texts are referring to activity under certain circumstances that don’t apply in the same way today.

For example, the ancient world predominately saw sex in terms of the active, penetrative male, and the passive female.

And this leads me to something else I wanted to say: Yes, we should pray for the Anglicans and the Episcopalians. But let’s not judge in the process or assume we know motivations. Surely most of the Episcopal leaders are doing what they think is right.

I just wanted to say I found this to be a pretty good and a nice post. And of course, yes, we should pray for another. Blessings and peace be with you.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I might just add to my earlier post since it is past the CAF allowed time for editing that Romans is one that actually never troubled me. As I see those passages speaking against unnatural sex and I see it being just as unnatural for a homosexual person to engage in sex with a heterosexual as it is for a heterosexual to engage in sex with a gay person. So that one was no stumbling block for me at all. But then that’s me.

Neither was the story of Sodom. To me it not about homosexuality as much as it is about the gang raping of angels and inhospitality. And we are told elsewhere in the Bible anyway the actual sins of Sodom.

Neither were other “clobber passages” in Leviticus. There remains much in Leviticus that Christians do not observe. Although yes I know some divide between a moral and ceremonial law.

And even in Paul’s NT writings, not many Christians today subscribe to women not speaking in churches.

In any case as people have journeyed over time, certainly various interpretations and new understandings have come to exist in many aspects of life.

 

[exnihilo]

Can someone explain to me what they use in defense to allow SSM but still call themselves Christian? I just don’t see how they or even some protestant churches justify allowing it. What do they base it on?

How can you be Christian and allow divorce? The answer is by constructing seemingly clever arguments. The more important question is who determines what is the Christian Faith. If it is up to the individual then there are no limits. The Faith can be bent into almost anything.

I might just add to my earlier post since it is past the CAF allowed time for editing that Romans is one that actually never troubled me. As I see those passages speaking against unnatural sex and I see it being just as unnatural for a homosexual person to engage in sex with a heterosexual as it is for a heterosexual to engage in sex with a gay person. So that one was no stumbling block for me at all. But then that’s me.

I’ve seen this argument before and have to say I find it strange. Couldn’t we say the same thing about any sin? Couldn’t we say it isn’t unnatural for a murderer to murder or a thief to steal? The argument ignores the very essential Christian notion of man having a disordered nature.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Well of course we will not change our stance. In fact, I agree with Bishop Curry that our prayerful understanding may help lead others who receive Christ in the Anglican Way to open their hearts to God’s love for all His children.

Those who believe that TEC capitulates blindly to Culture might only avail themselves of Google to understand the theology behind our “position.” (what a terrible word to use - “position” - it feels too political - yawn…sigh… still, I can’t find a better word at present). But the theology is hardly complicated or twisted to those with ears to hear. Love your brother and allow God to settle the rest.

How can it possibly matter? I understand that the Catholic Church deeply believes that it does matter. But do Catholics in the pews believe that? I wonder? There seems to be considerable dissent. I imagine, that as the younger generation replaces the older generation, that dissent will blossom even more fully.

Please know that this post is not intended to disrespect or argue what Catholicism holds true. But know also that my church’s considerations deserve sincere respect as well. We are, of course, protestant. That means we hold different thoughts on these small issues. And they are small, I promise, very very small. I suspect there will always be an “other” in the glory of Christianity. How we welcome the “other” is more important than who the “other” is.

Much love to you all.

 

[Sy_Noe]

How can you be Christian and allow divorce? The answer is by constructing seemingly clever arguments. The more important question is who determines what is the Christian Faith. If it is up to the individual then there are no limits. The Faith can be bent into almost anything.

I’ve seen this argument before and have to say I find it strange. Couldn’t we say the same thing about any sin? Couldn’t we say it isn’t unnatural for a murderer to murder or a thief to steal? The argument ignores the very essential Christian notion of man having a disordered nature.

I don’t think it’s at all a question of whom determines the Christian faith. I think we all know Whom that was. I guess we could say the same about murder and theft if we wanted to do away with the 10 Commandments.

 

[Sy_Noe]

How can you be Christian and allow divorce? The answer is by constructing seemingly clever arguments. The more important question is who determines what is the Christian Faith. If it is up to the individual then there are no limits. The Faith can be bent into almost anything.

I’ve seen this argument before and have to say I find it strange. Couldn’t we say the same thing about any sin? Couldn’t we say it isn’t unnatural for a murderer to murder or a thief to steal? The argument ignores the very essential Christian notion of man having a disordered nature.

I would find it stranger to say thou shalt murder a stranger walking down the street and then thou shalt rob them.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well of course we will not change our stance. In fact, I agree with Bishop Curry that our prayerful understanding may help lead others who receive Christ in the Anglican Way to open their hearts to God’s love for all His children.

Those who believe that TEC capitulates blindly to Culture might only avail themselves of Google to understand the theology behind our “position.” (what a terrible word to use - “position” - it feels too political - yawn…sigh… still, I can’t find a better word at present). But the theology is hardly complicated or twisted to those with ears to hear. Love your brother and allow God to settle the rest.

How can it possibly matter? I understand that the Catholic Church deeply believes that it does matter. But do Catholics in the pews believe that? I wonder? There seems to be considerable dissent. I imagine, that as the younger generation replaces the older generation, that dissent will blossom even more fully.

Please know that this post is not intended to disrespect or argue what Catholicism holds true. But know also that my church’s considerations deserve sincere respect as well. We are, of course, protestant. That means we hold different thoughts on these small issues. And they are small, I promise, very very small. I suspect there will always be an “other” in the glory of Christianity. How we welcome the “other” is more important than who the “other” is.

Much love to you all.

Wow. I don’t have enough hands for this. :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: But thank you so much for this reminder and for such a wonderful, compassionate and sincere post. You put everything into perspective.

And to you as well.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Last night I had the opportunity to listen to a podcast of the sermon given by the rector at my local Episcopal church and thought I would share some of what he said. He began by relating a true story from his younger days as a Roman Catholic priest. A young man in his parish, a good student and athlete but who unfortunately came from a dysfunctional family, had tragically taken his life. And following the funeral, on the same day Fr also had a wedding to preside over. Needless to say it had already been a difficult few days for Fr and then at the wedding reception, just as he was sitting down to dinner, a tap on his shoulder. Fr, you must come, the bride and groom are in a fist fight! Well everything worked out in the end. The couple realized they got along. It was their families that didn’t. And the couple, many yrs later, are still happily married with 5 children. But at that moment during the reception, there had been an interruption.

Fr then jumped to the Gospel reading of the day. The wedding at Cana. No wine. Another interruption.

As he went on, he explained the Christian life is all about interruption. Mary? You are pregnant. An interruption in the life Mary and Joseph knew. The Magi had their lives interrupted. Going back to even Moses, for every person whom God has called, there is an interruption.

Fr also gave the example of Martin Luther King, whose birthday observance we were upon. MLK could have stayed where he was but he was called to do so much more.

This all brought Fr around to the decision of the Anglican primates and what transpired last wk. As Fr said Episcopalians have long been on the front lines fighting for civil rights, female ordination, and most recently for our gay brothers and sisters and he said this makes him proud to be an Episcopalian. That TEC long prayed over and studied as their church gave consideration to the meaning of the Baptismal commitment to respect every human being. And concluded our gay brothers and sisters equally deserve our respect and justice and to be served.

But because of this decision, he said the primates have placed TEC in the corner for 3 yrs. And TEC can play like sandlot baseball he said and take their bat and ball and go home. Or instead treat this interruption as an opportunity for what can become.

 

[commenter]

As Fr said Episcopalians have long been on the front lines …

They aren’t on the “front lines” they are trying to be prominent in the parade. During the French Revolution, one “leader” told his assistant “find out which way my people are going, so I may lead them there”. In other words, there is no discernment about which direction is “good” according to some absolute standard. There is only picking which direction is popular, especially among the powerful, which in the US means the media/political establishment.

In a few decades, if the establishment turns against homosexual persons, the TEC will change directions and march whatever way the parade is moving, even if it means reversing their previous positions. The **real ** people in the “front lines” are Catholics and Evangelicals. They support prolife and sanctity of marriage when those causes are popular, and also when the parade is moving directly against them. They are the ones hated by the Media establishment.

 

[Thorolfr]

Can someone explain to me what they use in defense to allow SSM but still call themselves Christian? I just don’t see how they or even some protestant churches justify allowing it. What do they base it on?

You can read what the Episcopal Church has to say on this issue in the document “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church.” It includes both the traditional and the liberal positions and their responses to each other.

collegeforbishops.org/assets/1145/ss_document_final.pdf

 

[TMC]

How we welcome the “other” is more important than who the “other” is.

How very true. These various small issues that divide us pale in comparison to this large truth.

 

[Padres1969]

They aren’t on the “front lines” they are trying to be prominent in the parade. During the French Revolution, one “leader” told his assistant “find out which way my people are going, so I may lead them there”. In other words, there is no discernment about which direction is “good” according to some absolute standard. There is only picking which direction is popular, especially among the powerful, which in the US means the media/political establishment.

In a few decades, if the establishment turns against homosexual persons, the TEC will change directions and march whatever way the parade is moving, even if it means reversing their previous positions. The **real ** people in the “front lines” are Catholics and Evangelicals. They support prolife and sanctity of marriage when those causes are popular, and also when the parade is moving directly against them. They are the ones hated by the Media establishment.

I highly doubt that on two counts. I doubt that the tide will turn against greater equality in this country. It has never done so historically, and there’s no reason to think it will do so in the future. And even if it somehow does I highly doubt the Episcopal Church will turn against equality and justice in the name of political expediency. If anything the fact they’ve take the stance they have despite the majority of Christian denominations not holding with their stance shows they are in fact willing to risk it all for their beliefs. I mean the ECUSA was just sanctioned by their own international body. I’d hardly call that going with the flow.

 

[Little_Sheep]

You can read what the Episcopal Church has to say on this issue in the document “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church.” It includes both the traditional and the liberal positions and their responses to each other.

collegeforbishops.org/assets/1145/ss_document_final.pdf

Thank you for posting this, Thorolfr. This document lays it out quite well.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

I highly doubt that on two counts. I doubt that the tide will turn against greater equality in this country. It has never done so historically, and there’s no reason to think it will do so in the future. And even if it somehow does I highly doubt the Episcopal Church will turn against equality and justice in the name of political expediency. If anything the fact they’ve take the stance they have despite the majority of Christian denominations not holding with their stance shows they are in fact willing to risk it all for their beliefs. I mean the ECUSA was just sanctioned by their own international body. I’d hardly call that going with the flow.

There is absolutely no risk at all to endorsing same sex “marriage” in 2016. None. It is the opinion held by almost all of the cultural elites, the largest corporations, and the majority of common people. Swimming with the tide is not risky.

 

[TMC]

There is absolutely no risk at all to endorsing same sex “marriage” in 2016. None. It is the opinion held by almost all of the cultural elites, the largest corporations, and the majority of common people. Swimming with the tide is not risky.

No risk at all. I mean, its not like their parent organization might suspend them for it. Oh, wait…

 

[commenter]

No risk at all. I mean, its not like their parent organization might suspend them for it. Oh, wait…

They are loosely associated with the AC as an equal partner, but it’s not a “parent organization” in the sense that they follow its influence. The TEC’s real “parent organization” would be the Media.

 

[Padres1969]

They are loosely associated with the AC as an equal partner, but it’s not a “parent organization” in the sense that they follow its influence. The TEC’s real “parent organization” would be the Media.

Incorrect… Absolutely incorrect.

 

[TMC]

They are loosely associated with the AC as an equal partner, but it’s not a “parent organization” in the sense that they follow its influence. The TEC’s real “parent organization” would be the Media.

Regardless, although more and more Christian denominations are accepting gay rights, its hardly risk free for them to do so. I think its obvious that they are taking this position based on their genuine considered beliefs. To suggest that they are merely bending to popular sentiment is not only offensive to their beliefs, it ducks any real dialogue on the issue.

 

[GKC]

They are loosely associated with the AC as an equal partner, but it’s not a “parent organization” in the sense that they follow its influence. The TEC’s real “parent organization” would be the Media.

I would say, rather, that they are an autonomous ecclesial community, amongst a group of its (institutional) peers, in communion with each other (in varying degrees) and with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Currently…