Same sex unions

[Bob Jenkins]

British flavored background for the Episcopal meeting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/0...179375,00.html

MSNBC NEWS BULLETIN
Same-sex unions
Church votes to recognize them

Details to be added when available



Episcopalians recognize gay unions

Bishops reject liturgy but say churches free to ‘explore’ issue


NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 7 — Even as anguished conservatives protested the confirmation of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, church delegates voted Thursday to recognize same-sex unions, another milestone for the divided denomination.
Aug. 6 — The Rev. V. Gene Robinson will be consecrated bishop of New Hampshire in November, but controversy began immediately after the historic vote confirming him Tuesday night. NBC’s Jim Avila reports.
THE RESOLUTION passed by the House of Deputies of the U.S. branch of the church, made up of clergy and lay people, acknowledged that some clergy were already performing ceremonies to honor same-sex unions with the consent of their bishops. The convention’s House of Bishops passed the resolution Wednesday.
The measure, which passed with 120 delegations in favor and 72 opposed, was a watered-down version of a proposal to include a formal liturgy on same-sex unions in an official prayer book. In the end, the church rejected a formal liturgy but agreed on a statement saying, “We recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.”
There was disagreement over the significance of the statement, since bishops already decide whether to permit same-sex blessing ceremonies in their own dioceses. Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy, Ill., called it “recognition without approval” that allows bishops to continue to set local policy.

OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SOUGHT
Bishop Robert Ilhoff of Maryland said the statement had little practical effect: “It continues the policy that is in effect in all our dioceses.” But he said he understood why gay advocates would consider it a victory, because it brings the practice “to the surface.”
The Episcopal gay advocacy groups Claiming the Blessing and Integrity had promoted the measure as the first time the church had acknowledged in a national document that such ceremonies were held.
Three bishops — in Kansas, New Hampshire and Delaware — authorize same-sex blessings, according to the Rev. Michael Hopkins, president of Integrity. Other dioceses bar them, while some bishops have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, overlooking the ceremonies priests perform.
Gay advocates had hoped that confirmation of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson at this week’s General Convention would build momentum toward approval for an official ceremony.
Robinson, a 56-year-old divorced father of two, has lived with his male partner for 13 years. He was confirmed Tuesday after he was cleared of last-minute misconduct allegations that threatened to delay the vote.

REACTION TO BISHOP’S CONFIRMATION
But strong reaction to Robinson’s elevation continued to be felt at the church’s conference.
Conservative opponents of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop protested by boycotting legislative sessions, turning in their convention credentials and dropping to their knees in prayer as one of their leaders denounced his election.
A handful of the more than 800 clergy and lay delegates either walked off the floor of the meeting or collectively stayed away, while at least three of the nearly 300 bishops refused to participate or went home, saying their distraught parishioners needed them.
Some of those who remained smeared ashes on their foreheads or wore black armbands as an
expression of mourning.
“We are in various stages of grief and will get through to the other side,” the Rev. Robert Certain, a conservative deputy from San Diego, said Thursday. “Christ has used sinful people and sinful churches for 2,000 years.”
“Please give dignity to our grief. Please do not ridicule or make light of our sorrow,” said conservative Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi.

‘SADNESS AND DISAPPOINTMENT’
Archbishop Peter Akinola, head of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, said Robinson’s confirmation “has brought much sadness and disappointment.”
Akinola, whose church is the largest branch of the Anglican Communion after Great Britain’s, expressed astonishment that U.S. Episcopalians were willing to “turn their back on the clear teaching of the Bible on the matter of human sexuality.”
Gay rights loom large on U.S. agenda
His statement said: “The present development compels us to begin to think of the nature of our future relationship, which would be determined after the ongoing consultation with other Provinces and Primates.”
The archbishop of the Bahamas and the West Indies, Drexel Gomez, condemned the appointment Wednesday. He said his province would seek a motion to break communion with the provinces within the church that encouraged such practices.
Church leaders in Asia and Africa condemned the Americans’ decision and threatened to leave the communion, saying homosexuality was against Scripture and unacceptable.

‘IT’S OUTRAGEOUS’
The Episcopal church “is alienating itself from the Anglican Communion,” said the Very Rev. Peter Karanja, provost of All Saints Cathedral in Nairobi, Kenya.
“We cannot be in fellowship with them when they violate the explicit scripture that the Anglican Church subscribes to,” he said. “We’d counsel they reconsider the decision. It’s outrageous and uncalled for.”
Bishop Lim Cheng Ean, leader of the Anglican Church of West Malaysia, said bishops from the communion’s nine-nation Southeast Asian province may discuss cutting ties with the U.S. church at a meeting next week.
“Practicing homosexuality is culturally and legally not acceptable here,” he said.
Britain’s Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement hailed Robinson’s appointment, saying New Hampshire was lucky to have him and urging Anglicans elsewhere to respect the decision.
The group praised the Episcopalians for making “an official and clear step towards creating a genuinely inclusive church.”

ARCHBISHOP COUNSELS REFLECTION
The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the Anglicans’ spiritual leader, appealed for opponents not to act rashly in response to the Robinson’s approval. But Williams acknowledged that it would inevitably have a “significant impact” on the worldwide Anglican Communion.
“It is my hope that the church in America and the rest of the Anglican Communion will have the opportunity to consider this development before significant and irrevocable decisions are made in response,” he said.
The statement was issued in response to a letter signed by 19 U.S. bishops urging him “to intervene in the pastoral emergency that has overtaken us.”

BISHOP REMAINS HOPEFUL
Robinson, in an interview Wednesday on NBC’s “Today” show, said he remained hopeful that his elevation would not trigger a schism among the faithful.
“I believe that the spirit that was here at the convention … will continue in the church, and that spirit pulls us together,” he said.
Robinson, who will officially be consecrated and take office in November, said he expected some conservatives to follow through on their veiled threats to leave the church.
The Episcopal Church, part of the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Communion, has been deeply divided for decades over homosexuality, and the vote on Robinson fueled those tensions. The American Anglican Council plans a meeting in October to decide whether to break away from the church or take other action.

NBC’s Jim Avila in Minneapolis, MSNBC.com’s Mike Brunker, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[Rose Raven]

Draaama-rama. Egads, these people need to develop an edge.

[Epoetker]

They're gay. It's all about the drama and the applause and the me, me, me....

[wienerdog]

I have no objection to gay people being given the same rights that come with marriage. I have a problem with allowing them to "marry." My grounds for this is that marriage has only had a few requisites that have been held throughout history. If we remove those requisites, the concept ceases to have meaning.

And to point out the obvious, too many people hate gay folks. As a Christian, I believe we are obligated to love them as much as Christ did, without giving any sanction to homosexuality. I don't think hostility makes a good witness.

[BeHereNow]

Epoetker:

They're gay. It's all about the drama and the applause and the me, me, me....

Nice. Oh, how I love sweeping generalizations.

:l33t:

[mossrose]

May I please point you all to the "same-sex marriage" forum, where we have already been "discussing" this topic in relation to Canada? (Stupid, stupid Canada......... ) That is all old news up here folks.

[Bob Jenkins]

"May I please point you all to the "same-sex marriage" forum, where we have already been "discussing" this topic in relation to Canada? (Stupid, stupid Canada......... ) That is all old news up here folks."

It much closer to home than Canada and perhaps more relevant. At least, the implications certainly are more relevant. One hundred years from now, Christians will be saying that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality much the same way they mount a defense against accusations of acceding to slavery

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Bob Jenkins:
One hundred years from now, Christians will be saying that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality much the same way they mount a defense against accusations of acceding to slavery

One hundred years from now, there may be no constitutional homosexuals born anymore because we will have perfected the technology for detecting when the hormonal balance does or doesn't shift and can rectify it.

There still may be bisexuals(I mean we all do have mixtures of both hormones in our systems) and if the lights are out who can really tell/care • Edited by a Moderator • and there will still be people who because of personal trauma perhaps decide they want to change genders/sexes.

But hopefully we will show love to these people by not threatening them with verbal/physical abuse.

dlw

Moderator Notice

This forum is intended to be family friendly ... please think about that before you post ... Thanks! ~Sher

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[mossrose]

“ Bob Jenkins:
One hundred years from now, Christians will be saying that the Bible did not condemn homosexuality much the same way they mount a defense against accusations of acceding to slavery ”

Now, please do not lump us all into the same Christian stewpot. there are some "liberal" Christians who do not believe in the truth of Scripture. These are the ones I will assume you are referring to. Others of us will never say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. And the slavery part, I think, is in another thread.

One hundred years from now, there may be no constitutional homosexuals born anymore because we will have perfected the technology for detecting when the hormonal balance does or doesn't shift and can rectify it.

If the world still exists a hundred years from now (God forbid), there might be NO body born anymore, let alone constitutional homosexuals, because we will have done away with marriage for heteros, and abortion will have taken care of the rest. (Oops, abortion is another thread too....sorry).

There still may be bisexuals(I mean we all do have mixtures of both hormones in our systems) and if the lights are out • Edited by a Moderator • and there will still be people who because of personal trauma perhaps decide they want to change genders/sexes.

That is just a little bit TOO graphic, thanks. Remember, there are some younger folk on these boards, who should not be seeing this kind of thing here. It is just totally unnecessary.

Moderator Notice

Edited because the original was ~Sher

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I am sure the younger ones would know what --- is.

I think the correct rule for premarital dating is that if you wouldn't feel comfortable telling your date's mother what you did with your date then it probably is going too far.

dlw

[Bob Jenkins]

mossrose,

"Now, please do not lump us all into the same Christian stewpot. there are some "liberal" Christians who do not believe in the truth of Scripture. These are the ones I will assume you are referring to. Others of us will never say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. And the slavery part, I think, is in another thread. "

You do well to remind me - thanks!

I was specifically looking at those who have agrued from both of those postions.

In time, the vitrol of todays arguements will be gone except for a reduced group of conservative adherants. For I see that the Bible it a statement of the era in which it was written and does not apply, in many ways, to the changed morality of today. I belive the acceptance of homosexually with all it's political implications will have taken place one hundred (or sooner) years from now. I compare this to the process "explaining" slavery

[Bob Jenkins]

"This forum is intended to be family friendly ... please think about that before you post ... Thanks! ~Sher "

Thanks Sher! I was one of the few who did read the offending language

[Da Lone-Warrior]

my apologies to the board.

Bob, yes, to understand the Bible, it is important to understand when it was written, but it is not just a product of its time. Homosexual acts were quite well accepted at the time when the Bible was written.

The writers of the New Testament made a quite deliberate decision to include the proscription against said acts among the rituals of Judaism that would be required for Gentile converts.

As such, the continued vitality of Christianity is based on the radicality of the world-view inherent in scriptures and how it can challenge us to change our received world-views in dynamic ways.

As for slavery, this was condemned in the OT, and the passages in the NT where it is supposedly condoned need to be understood within their context. Paul wrote regarding slavery because the Christians at the newly formed churches were feeling convicted to do something to end/reduce the institution.

Paul's letters are counsels to the churches to focus on other things than this particular issue. In general, the leadership of any organization makes decisions about what sorts of avenues are worth pursuing and encouraging others to do likewise. As such Paul, because of his over-optimistic expectations that the second-coming may have been imminent or the realities of the thoroughly undemocratic nature of the Roman Empire and the scarcity of funds within Christian Churches, chose to tell those churches to not seek to end slavery but to focus on the spreading of the Gospel.

So, IMHO, the interpretations that were used to justify slavery in the US were definitely manglings of the text. For an interesting look at how Christianity came to rationalize slavery, I recommend Mark Noll's book "America's God".

dlw

[mossrose]

This forum is intended to be family friendly ... please think about that before you post ... Thanks! ~Sher "

Thanks Sher! I was one of the few who did read the offending language

Also thanks Sher.

Hey Bob Jenkins. It appears that we can get along a little bit, after all, huh?

Homosexual acts were quite well accepted at the time when the Bible was written.

Not among believers in either Old or New Testament. Show me where you get this, please.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

In the gentile world, homosexual acts were quite well accepted.

If you'd like a view of what secular Rome was like, I can recommend the italian film, Satyricon. Its not particularly pleasant to watch, but it helps one to understand the sort of world the Gospel was confronting.

dlw