please explain Episcopalian view

[JulieAA]

I am not sure whether or not this question has been posted before…if it has and I missed it, my apologies.

I have wondered how these preachers justify homosexuality when the Bible clearly states it is an abomination for a man to lie down with another man, etc. That it is unnatural for a woman to lie with a woman. How are they interpretating this Scripture. Sorry, I do not have the exact quotes here.

It is not my intention to offend anyone. I am just interested on how they interpret those Scriptures. Thank you!

 

[CMatt25]

I am not sure whether or not this question has been posted before…if it has and I missed it, my apologies.

I have wondered how these preachers justify homosexuality when the Bible clearly states it is an abomination for a man to lie down with another man, etc. That it is unnatural for a woman to lie with a woman. How are they interpretating this Scripture. Sorry, I do not have the exact quotes here.

It is not my intention to offend anyone. I am just interested on how they interpret those Scriptures. Thank you!

Hi Julie, I’m not an Episcopalian and have never, at least not yet, set foot in an Episcopal church. So don’t necessarily hold me to any of this. I would love for an Episcopalian to come by and address your concerns better than I ever could.

But for just maybe a start to help in understanding I will offer some things I have heard/read.

I once heard Bishop Robinson sight the many other things in the Bible that Christians do not take literally.

And not necessarily by TEC but I also have seen Sodom explained more as a hospitality problem rather than so much as condemning homosexuality.

I have seen it written that we must remember English translations of Scripture did not come about for many many yrs and verses can take on meanings that were never intended. And what is natural to you or I might not be so for another.

I have also found the following helpful in my understanding.

religioustolerance.org/homconlib.htm

"Rather than concentrating on the seven “clobber” passages, they derive their beliefs from biblical themes of love, caring for other humans, inclusiveness, and justice. When they do study the “clobber” passages they often interpret them very differently and conclude that the Bible is silent on loving, committed consensual same-sex relationships. Typical interpretations are:

Genesis 19 discusses the city residents’ intent to rape strangers.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemns same-sex behavior, but only in Pagan temples.
Various passages in Deuteronomy, Judges and Kings condemn prostitution.
1 Corinthians 6 condemns child molesters.
Romans 1 and describes heterosexuals going against their nature by engaging in same-sex behavior.
1 Timothy 1 contains thoughts similar to Romans 1.
Jude 1:7 accuses the men of Sodom of intent to commit bestiality: having forcible sex with a non-human species – angels in this case."

Another site which may provide understanding of this issue is

gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/gay_and_christian_yes.htm.

There’s a link about homosexuality and the Bible.

What I have presented is just a tip of the iceberg. But I hope at least a bit of this helps! God bless you in your lifelong journey and peace be with you.

 

[jbuck919]

Thanks especially to cMatt25 for a fine post, to which I would like to add the following:

Some denominations and individual Christians are selective in which moral teachings they back up with passages from the Bible. In fact, it is necessary to be selective when using the Bible in this way. If people were consistent in using scripture as the foundation for morality at that level of specificity, there are things that passages in the Bible clearly condemn that modern Catholics and other Christians condone, and vice versa.

Nothing is going to stop some people (including many conservative Episcopalians) who have concluded that homosexuality is immoral from using those Bible passages–they are simply not bothered by the inconsistency. But thoughtful Christians who seek a less leaky container for their conviction must look elsewhere. The Catholic Church does not in fact base its teaching on Bible passages, but on the concept of what it calls natural law. The individual conscience is then given the task of deciding whether and to what extent to accept, with or without question, the Church’s exposition of natural law as a basis for moral teaching regarding human sexuality.

 

[po18guy]

Hi Julie, I’m not an Episcopalian and have never, at least not yet, set foot in an Episcopal church. So don’t necessarily hold me to any of this. I would love for an Episcopalian to come by and address your concerns better than I ever could.

But for just maybe a start to help in understanding I will offer some things I have heard/read.

I once heard Bishop Robinson sight the many other things in the Bible that Christians do not take literally.

And not necessarily by TEC but I also have seen Sodom explained more as a hospitality problem rather than so much as condemning homosexuality.

I have seen it written that we must remember English translations of Scripture did not come about for many many yrs and verses can take on meanings that were never intended. And what is natural to you or I might not be so for another.

I have also found the following helpful in my understanding.

religioustolerance.org/homconlib.htm

"Rather than concentrating on the seven “clobber” passages, they derive their beliefs from biblical themes of love, caring for other humans, inclusiveness, and justice. When they do study the “clobber” passages they often interpret them very differently and conclude that the Bible is silent on loving, committed consensual same-sex relationships. Typical interpretations are:

Genesis 19 discusses the city residents’ intent to rape strangers.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemns same-sex behavior, but only in Pagan temples.
Various passages in Deuteronomy, Judges and Kings condemn prostitution.
1 Corinthians 6 condemns child molesters.
Romans 1 and describes heterosexuals going against their nature by engaging in same-sex behavior.
1 Timothy 1 contains thoughts similar to Romans 1.
Jude 1:7 accuses the men of Sodom of intent to commit bestiality: having forcible sex with a non-human species – angels in this case."

Another site which may provide understanding of this issue is

gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/gay_and_christian_yes.htm.

There’s a link about homosexuality and the Bible.

What I have presented is just a tip of the iceberg. But I hope at least a bit of this helps! God bless you in your lifelong journey and peace be with you.

This is riddled with relativism and 20th century revisionism! Find one faith, anywhere on earth, that explained away homosexual behavior, oh, before the 20th century. Truth is not malleable! How can anyone attempt to justify, by their own authority, what the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic faiths (and others) have held to be abominations since day one?

Some will twist scripture to their heart’s content. It does not represent revealed truth, and all will be judged according to how they respected the truth - or how they twisted it to justify their particular sin. Every reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in scripture is crystal clear - their moral depravity caused their destruction. Sodomite men were very hospitable: they wanted to accommodate the angels who visited Lot - by raping them. They refused women, desiring men only. Hello?

This answer sounds like Pontius Pilate! “Morality? What is morality?” Good grief!

 

[po18guy]

Thanks especially to cMatt25 for a fine post, to which I would like to add the following:

Some denominations and individual Christians are selective in which moral teachings they back up with passages from the Bible. In fact, it is necessary to be selective when using the Bible in this way. If people were consistent in using scripture as the foundation for morality at that level of specificity, there are things that passages in the Bible clearly condemn that modern Catholics and other Christians condone, and vice versa.

Nothing is going to stop some people (including many conservative Episcopalians) who have concluded that homosexuality is immoral from using those Bible passages–they are simply not bothered by the inconsistency. But thoughtful Christians who seek a less leaky container for their conviction must look elsewhere. The Catholic Church does not in fact base its teaching on Bible passages, but on the concept of what it calls natural law. The individual conscience is then given the task of deciding whether and to what extent to accept, with or without question, the Church’s exposition of natural law as a basis for moral teaching regarding human sexuality.

Bottom line: If you, jbuck919, think homosexual behavior is fine, it actually is fine?

 

[nhylan]

This is riddled with relativism! Truth is not malleable! How dare you attempt to justify, by your own authority, what the Judaic and Christian faiths have held to be abominations since day one?

Twist scripture to your heart’s content. It does not represent revealed truth, and we all will be judged according to how we respected the truth - or how we twisted it to suit our disorders.

Your answer sounds like Pontius Pilate! “Morality? What is morality?” I know that you are struggling and have removed any religious identification from your info, but, really now.

And then there are those that mask their self-righteous attitudes in cute little sound bites like “relativism.” I think thats probably the go to word here when arguing about just about anything.

Cmatt’s explanation sums it up pretty well, Many other parts of the bible aren’t taken literally why that one? I mean thats the real question right? why is that stuff which opposes homosexual acts (not homosexuals themselves) observed when say owning slaves aren’t? now if you were to argue that that the homosexual act is a sin because it is out of wedlock thats different. I personally believe thats true, its a sin out of wedlock. But then who are we to judge what a person does in the privacy of their own home? I’m uneasy with openly gay priests who do not have at the very least a legally recognized union (like a civil union or marriage). It at least represents some promise of exclusivity. The Christian God is a God of love, we as Episcopalians would rather focus on God’s love for us and ours for Him. That doesn’t mean we don’t obey God’s rules whenever we feel like it. We ask questions because we are thinking reasoning beings, when a question is raised we examine it if we find the answer flies in the face of tradition then we need to be very careful in its implementation. I DO NOT believe the American Anglicans did a very good job in implementing this change, it seemed a little hasty to me personally. This stuff always happens though, people get angry, they join the Catholic church, then people in the Catholic Church get angry and they join the Anglican Churches. Happens all the time everywhere.

 

[po18guy]

And then there are those that mask their self-righteous attitudes in cute little sound bites like “relativism.” I think thats probably the go to word here when arguing about just about anything.

Cmatt’s explanation sums it up pretty well, Many other parts of the bible aren’t taken literally why that one? I mean thats the real question right? why is that stuff which opposes homosexual acts (not homosexuals themselves) observed when say owning slaves aren’t? now if you were to argue that that the homosexual act is a sin because it is out of wedlock thats different. I personally believe thats true, its a sin out of wedlock. But then who are we to judge what a person does in the privacy of their own home? I’m uneasy with openly gay priests who do not have at the very least a legally recognized union (like a civil union or marriage). It at least represents some promise of exclusivity. The Christian God is a God of love, we as Episcopalians would rather focus on God’s love for us and ours for Him. That doesn’t mean we don’t obey God’s rules whenever we feel like it. We ask questions because we are thinking reasoning beings, when a question is raised we examine it if we find the answer flies in the face of tradition then we need to be very careful in its implementation. I DO NOT believe the American Anglicans did a very good job in implementing this change, it seemed a little hasty to me personally. This stuff always happens though, people get angry, they join the Catholic church, then people in the Catholic Church get angry and they join the Anglican Churches. Happens all the time everywhere.

How delightfully insulting and condescending. So, practicing homosexuals in your faith’s leadership is something to be desired? Really? OK, so how do we then integrate drug addicts, robbers and thieves into the faith? I mean, they have their reasons, and they love God too.

Not one word in scripture about those in Sodom and Gomorrah not loving God -only about them disobeying Him. You spoke of the natural law: Why does it exist?

And, excuse me, it is relativism, by the very definition of relativism. Did you fail to notice that you are on a Catholic site? What are you searching for, agreement, or validation?

 

[TimothyH]

The view that homosexuality is any way not gravely disordered is rooted, at its most basic level, in a very shallow understanding of Trinitarian theology and the sacramental nature of creation, especially man and woman.

God the Son loves God the Father with a total self sacrificing love. God the Father returns this selfless love to his Son and this interchange of selfless love produces the Holy Spiirit. Catholics testify to the way in which Holy Spirit is produced through the infinite exchange of love between the first and second persons of the Trinity in our most basic profession of our faith, the creed.

*

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son​

, *​

One could say that the Holy Spirit is the “Heavy breathing” (if you will permit me to use the term) of the Father as he loves the Son and the Son as he loves the Father. This is not so far fetched when we realize that the word "Spirit’ comes from the Latin word “Spiritus” which literally means breath. The Holy Spirit as literally the “Breath of God”, produced through the infinite love between the first and second persons of the Trinity is basic trinitarian theology.

Pope John Paul II called spousal union “The primordial sacrament.” Remember that a sacrament uses visible, created things to reveal invisible, spiritual truths. Spousal union, where a man is completely committed to a woman and the woman is in turn completely committed to the man, each giving themselves totally in selfless sacrifice, is sacramenta,l in that it reveals to use the inner working of the Trinity - Father loving Son and Son loving Father. As the Holy Spirit proceedes from the Father and the Son’s infinite self sacrificing love, so does a child proceede from spousal union between man and woman. Spousal union not only reveals to us the hidden truths of the innermost workings of the Trinity, it is God’s means whereby man and woman through their masculinity and femininity, are supposed to live out trinitarian love in their day to day lives in a very real way.

I can understand how an Evangelical or other Church with no understanding of the sacraments would not understand the sacramental nature of creation in general and spousal union in particular. What is difficult to understand is how a Church like the Anglican Church or the Episcopalian Church which recognize all seven sacraments in one way or another could not understand how marriage and spousal union were designed by God to mirror the innner workings of the Trinity and how any distortion of that is contrary to how God designed man and woman.

To extend that distortion to the sacrament of Holy Orders and therefor to apply it to the priesthood of Christ is a grand absurdity to me.

-Tim-

 

[Third_Day]

=nhylan;7621261] Many other parts of the bible aren’t taken literally why that one? I mean thats the real question right?

That’s where Tradition come in. Homosexual sin has always been condemned throughout all of Church History based on scripture and the natural moral law.

The Christian God is a God of love, we as Episcopalians would rather focus on God’s love for us and ours for Him

.
He is also God of wrath for those who disobey Him.

 

[CMatt25]

And then there are those that mask their self-righteous attitudes in cute little sound bites like “relativism.” I think thats probably the go to word here when arguing about just about anything.

Cmatt’s explanation sums it up pretty well, Many other parts of the bible aren’t taken literally why that one? I mean thats the real question right? why is that stuff which opposes homosexual acts (not homosexuals themselves) observed when say owning slaves aren’t? now if you were to argue that that the homosexual act is a sin because it is out of wedlock thats different. I personally believe thats true, its a sin out of wedlock. But then who are we to judge what a person does in the privacy of their own home? I’m uneasy with openly gay priests who do not have at the very least a legally recognized union (like a civil union or marriage). It at least represents some promise of exclusivity. The Christian God is a God of love, we as Episcopalians would rather focus on God’s love for us and ours for Him. That doesn’t mean we don’t obey God’s rules whenever we feel like it. We ask questions because we are thinking reasoning beings, when a question is raised we examine it if we find the answer flies in the face of tradition then we need to be very careful in its implementation. I DO NOT believe the American Anglicans did a very good job in implementing this change, it seemed a little hasty to me personally. This stuff always happens though, people get angry, they join the Catholic church, then people in the Catholic Church get angry and they join the Anglican Churches. Happens all the time everywhere.

Wow I had no idea I did that well. But thank you jbuck and Nhylan for thinking so.

Nhylan, good post. :clapping: I never have understood why those who do here, cast the “relativism” stone. I can only guess it’s meant to be hurtful to the person hit with it. As you might know I have been the target of attempted hits. But as a thinking, reasoning believer I actually consider it a compliment along my lifelong faith journey. Towards I believe Him. So for those who cast it, I’m unsure if they realize they miss the mark. May God bless each of us along our walks towards the ultimate truth. And peace.

 

[CMatt25]

And, excuse me, it is relativism, by the very definition of relativism. Did you fail to notice that you are on a Catholic site? What are you searching for, agreement, or validation?

Guess I have a different definition than you. It is not relativism to me when folks are on their paths, walking in faith towards whatever the ultimate truth turns out to be. Walking by faith and not by sight. Many members one. I think of relativism more along the lines of not believing in ultimate truth. But nevertheless, I understand many Catholics are here to defend their faith. But we are also on the non Catholic forum where we can discuss various beliefs.

OP herself said "It is not my intention to offend anyone. I am just interested on how they interpret those Scriptures "

So some of us give an answer and right away we are attacked as relativists, revisionists, or somehow lacking truth as Catholicism defines it. It took centuries for Catholic teaching to be formed and spelled out in its many doctrines and so forth. Some disciplines or guideines have even been revised. And I think it was the United Church of Christ whose slogan was “God is still speaking”. Peace.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

OK, I’ll bite.

First, I am Episcopalian, but I do not justify homosexuality. I launched a thread over a year ago stating that no matter what other justification one might find, it is clear to me that Jesus would not approve of novel sexual practices.

Episcopalians who do justify homosexuality do so with several arguments, mainly cultural. First, of course is that the time of the book of Leviticus is different from our time, and the strictures against homosexuality (and a host of other things) simply don’t apply in modern times. They take an anthropological view that homosexuality prohibition was justified in a society where births of children was necessary to communal survival.

As far as Paul goes, they argue that Paul had not seen a loving monogamous homosexual relationship, so he was really railing against wanton indiscriminate lust, not sexual orientation.

I can understand the argument against Leviticus, but Paul’s statements are hard to deal with. Paul was living in a cosmopolitan world in which urban homosexuality could exist and not threaten the survival of an urbanized race. He knew his arguments were not based on survival.

I am not sure whether or not this question has been posted before…if it has and I missed it, my apologies.

I have wondered how these preachers justify homosexuality when the Bible clearly states it is an abomination for a man to lie down with another man, etc. That it is unnatural for a woman to lie with a woman. How are they interpretating this Scripture. Sorry, I do not have the exact quotes here.

It is not my intention to offend anyone. I am just interested on how they interpret those Scriptures. Thank you!

 

[po18guy]

Guess I have a different definition than you. It is not relativism to me when folks are on their paths, walking in faith towards whatever the ultimate truth turns out to be. Walking by faith and not by sight. Many members one. I think of relativism more along the lines of not believing in ultimate truth. But nevertheless, I understand many Catholics are here to defend their faith. But we are also on the non Catholic forum where we can discuss various beliefs.

OP herself said "It is not my intention to offend anyone. I am just interested on how they interpret those Scriptures "

So some of us give an answer and right away we are attacked as relativists, revisionists, or somehow lacking truth as Catholicism defines it. It took centuries for Catholic teaching to be formed and spelled out in its many doctrines and so forth. Some disciplines or guideines have even been revised. And I think it was the United Church of Christ whose slogan was “God is still speaking”. Peace.

By Webster’s it is relativism. Scientists cannot work by individual truth. They rely on universally known factors. Consider: Homosexual behavior, after what, 5,500 years of human history, just in your and my lifetime, has suddenly morphed from intolerable, to tolerable, then acceptable, then “normal”. Truth has not changed. Nature has not changed. What then, has changed?

Maybe we both need to back off (me, at least ) and let genuine Episcopalians tell us. Sorry for my brusque response, but many of us Catholics find relativism to be anathema, to coin a phrase.

 

[CMatt25]

By Webster’s it is relativism. Scientists cannot work by individual truth. They rely on universally known factors. Consider: Homosexual behavior, after what, 5,500 years of human history, just in your and my lifetime, has suddenly morphed from intolerable, to tolerable, then acceptable, then “normal”. Truth has not changed. Nature has not changed. What then, has changed?

Maybe we both need to back off (me, at least ) and let genuine Episcopalians tell us. Sorry for my brusque response, but many of us Catholics find relativism to be anathema, to coin a phrase.

That’s ok. I understand many Catholics believe their faith reveals all known truth and believe they can know with absolute certainty, and therefore can find another faith or belief anathema. God bless you in your walk and peace.

 

[guanophore]

That’s ok. I understand many Catholics believe their faith reveals all known truth

No, CMatt. No Catholic here on CAF has ever claimed such a thing. This is just one of your favorite calumnies to bring against Cathoilcs.

The fact that God has revealed Truth does NOT equate to “all known truth” and you know that very well. You like to say things like this when you are put on the spot about your moral relativism.

and believe they can know with absolute certainty, and therefore can find another faith or belief anathema. God bless you in your walk and peace.

This is also an untruth, CMatt. God has revealed to the Church all that we need to know to live according to His precepts. It is His Truth, that He preserves infallibly by His Holy Spirit.

Catholics are not at liberty to depart from his commandments, and neither are we at liberty to “find another faith or belief anathema”. Those who reject the Truth He has revealed anathemaitze themselves by rejecting His revelation of Himself. We are called upon to reject falsehoods and lies.

Besides, beliefs are not “anathema”. That term means accursed. Only people can be accursed.

 

[JulieAA]

Good morning and thank all of you for your insights.

Again, it was never my intention to “divide” only to “understand”. We all have the foundation of Jesus Christ, and that is important. Jesus knows the heart of every individual, whether that individual is truly seeking God’s “Truth” or his/her own truth. If one’s heart is truly open to God, the Holy Spirit sends His wisdom. For myself, I am searching for understanding through this forum, but prayer is primary.

 

[CMatt25]

No, CMatt. No Catholic here on CAF has ever claimed such a thing. This is just one of your favorite calumnies to bring against Cathoilcs.

The fact that God has revealed Truth does NOT equate to “all known truth” and you know that very well. You like to say things like this when you are put on the spot about your moral relativism.

This is also an untruth, CMatt. God has revealed to the Church all that we need to know to live according to His precepts. It is His Truth, that He preserves infallibly by His Holy Spirit.

Catholics are not at liberty to depart from his commandments, and neither are we at liberty to “find another faith or belief anathema”. Those who reject the Truth He has revealed anathemaitze themselves by rejecting His revelation of Himself. We are called upon to reject falsehoods and lies.

Besides, beliefs are not “anathema”. That term means accursed. Only people can be accursed.

Hello Guan, you seem to want it both ways.

Today you say “truth does not equate to all known truth”.

But then in another response to me you said my “theory” that truth can not be known does not hold water.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7594208&postcount=65

Either you believe revealed truth is all truth known to you or you believe truth does not equate to all your known truth. I’m now confused Guan as to which it is you do believe.

See Guan my “theory” as you like to call it is simply true reality. Before you can get to the point at which you are, we must first unlike non believers have a faith in a Creator/God. Then unlike those of the Jewish faith for instance we must place faith in the NT. Then you must place faith in Catholic Church interpretation of Herself and all Her other interpretations of Scripture. You place faith in ECFS, the Catholic Church’s interpretations of their wrirings, and faith early Christians got everything right. See Guan those are a lot of faith steps to take before you start thinking you know what the ultimate one truth is with absolute certainty.

So if relativism means one believes in an ultimate truth but recognizes it takes faith to believe what it is and in reality know we do not know with absolute 100% certainty. Walking by faith and not by sight. Then Guan I am pleased to wear the badge and am not the least bit offended. But if you need to think you can now with absolute certainty, then that’s fine with me.

And it was po18guy who said “many of us Catholics find relativism to be anathema”. So I am pleased you disagree.

God bless you Guan and have a peaceful day!

 

[benidict]

So I guess Moral Absolutes in todays liberal mindset are the true evil?

 

[CMatt25]

So I guess Moral Absolutes in todays liberal mindset are the true evil?

Nope never said anything about evil. I may not the hold same faith as someone else. But I try not to detest nor judge their faith or belief as cursed, evil, or anathema. As I understand it is faith we walk by. Not sight. God bless.

 

[benidict]

Nope never said anything about evil. I don’t judge anyone’s faith or belief anathema.

Hi Matt. this was not really directed at you. Im just preparing to play devils advocate. would that be ok, or should you and I do this p.m. It could be fun. I dont really think this would be appropriate for younger ears where I can go with this. and we do have younger viewers here. Peace and prayers for you and yours my friend.