Gay Bishop

[Kortpeel (imported)]

[FONT=Arial]

Hi All,

I see that the Anglican Church in the US is steamed up over the appointment of a gay bishop. Why the fuss?

Surely whether a man is gay or not is a matter of simple fact? It is not a matter for a moral judgement. No one can be blamed for what he is. It makes no more sense to blame a man for being gay than it does to blame a person for being, say, left handed.

On the other hand one can blame a person for what he does. Those clerics who have been molesting children in their care certainly are culpable.

But to all those "Christians" who oppose the appointment simply because the man is gay, I say grow up and get real.

Kortpeel

[radar (imported)]

[FONT=Arial]

Hi All,

I see that the Anglican Church in the US is steamed up over the appointment of a gay bishop. Why the fuss?

Surely whether a man is gay or not is a matter of simple fact? It is not a matter for a moral judgement. No one can be blamed for what he is. It makes no more sense to blame a man for being gay than it does to blame a person for being, say, left handed.

On the other hand one can blame a person for what he does. Those clerics who have been molesting children in their care certainly are culpable.

But to all those "Christians" who oppose the appointment simply because the man is gay, I say grow up and get real.

Kortpeel

Hi Kortpeel,

Let me preface this by saying that I am not trying to start an argument here. This is a sincere attempt to understand your view of this. I'm not making any value judgements, but merely explaining the motivations behind the value judgements of others.

Anyway, I can certainly understand how a gay man might find such attitudes offensive, but you have to keep in mind one key fact: Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and while some denominations see it as more metaphorical and others more literal, it is nevertheless the center of Christian belief. And it condemns homosexuality. Because it's in the Old Testament, in particular in one of the first five books that make up the Torah, it applies to Jews, too. Moreover, the true believer cannot pick and choose to which Biblical tenets he will adhere, but must accept them all.

Given that, I would certainly expect the Anglican clergy -- especially the clergy -- to object to the appointment of an openly gay bishop. After all, in their eyes, if he's actively engaging in homosexual behavior (i.e., if it's what he does), then he's openly sinning, and is therefore unqualified to be a bishop. In other words, it's a matter of faith, and of maintaining the integrity of one's beliefs, not a matter of growing up and getting real.

We could debate the validity of Judeo-Christian theology forever, but this is neither the time nor place to do that, nor would it ultimately resolve your differences with them, and I rather doubt that I'm the best candidate to debate it in any case. Suffice it to say that it is, in the end, a matter of faith and one's belief system.

I am curious, though, as to how you see it as wrong for the Anglican hierarchy to reject such a man for high position, when not to do so would be a violation of their faith? Am I missing something here? As a practical matter, did the man not know that such behavior was considered a sin when he first sought the priesthood? In that light, how is it reasonable for him to expect the fundamental tenets of the faith to be overturned for his benefit? I am curious as to the justification. Not arguing, mind you, just asking.

[colin (imported)]

[FONT=Arial]

Hi All,

I see that the Anglican Church in the US is steamed up over the appointment of a gay bishop. Why the fuss?

Surely whether a man is gay or not is a matter of simple fact? It is not a matter for a moral judgement. No one can be blamed for what he is. It makes no more sense to blame a man for being gay than it does to blame a person for being, say, left handed.

On the other hand one can blame a person for what he does. Those clerics who have been molesting children in their care certainly are culpable.

But to all those "Christians" who oppose the appointment simply because the man is gay, I say grow up and get real.

Kortpeel

It is not actually the Anglican Church in the US that is steamed up, but the Anglican Church in other parts of the world. The opposition to the ordination of this Bishop is being lead by the Archbishop of Venezuala and his support largely comes from the Southern Hemisphere.

The Bishop in question was elected to the position with the full knowledge of his sexuality. Once again, it boils down to weak leadership. When Canon Jeffrey John was elected as suffragan Bishop and it came out that he was gay although he declared that he was actually celibate, the Archbishop of Canterbury tried to fudge the issue and refused to give clear direction. In the end, Canon John declined the appointment.

The whole row simply proves that there is no such thing as christianity in the Anglican church. It is too simple to say that it is proscribed in the Bible, so are many other things which are happily accepted. Organized religion is very good at ignoring the bits it doesn't want to. The reek of hypocrasy over this whole affair is overpowering.

LOL

[Andrew (imported)]

Whilst my own denomination, The Unitarian Universalist Association, does not have bishops, we do have Ministers. And some of those Ministers are gay, some openly gay, and some practicing gay. The UUs have had such Ministers for decades. And women Ministers since the middle 19th Century. Don't know if we have any openly Eunuch Ministers.

:catclock:

[Paolo]

At least with an openly gay Bishop, what you see is what you GET - unlike the SURPRISE of Catholic priests. I guess we all like surprises better.

[Issinoho (imported)]

Hi guys,

Interesting topic huh. Well im not kicking of a fight here either. I wanted to say that in the bible homesexuality is condemned. Even christ mention that men who lie with men would not enter the kingdom of God. So if you are a Christian (ie someone who follows the teachings of the christ and of the bible) then.... follow the teachings of the Christ & the bible.. all or nothing.

I personally beleive that you cannot be an openly practicing gay Christian, by definition the two dont add up. So the bishops have to decide which is more important to them? They're faith or their sexuality?

I'm surprised at how many other gay guys there are that feel the same about this as me. It aint homophobia (obviously coz Im gay myself) its just like trying to be Chairman of Enron & the Chairman of the communist party in China all at the same time... the two just dont mix. I have a lot of respect for the christian ideal, it's just the institutions that supposedly represent christianity that put me off.

Therefore I am starting my own religion "ISSINOHOISM". Followers MUST shop at selfridges & Harvey Nicks at least once every year & must make a pilgrimage to Tiffany's at least once in their life. Steak Must be eaten on a sunday (along with the sacred peppercorn sauce), Gym membership is compulsary but any one who actually goes is "shunned" especially if they start looking better than the rest of us hmph. Sex can only take place with human people, and only between the months of January - December. Everymember must have a picture of saint Justin of the Timberlake in their house, car, office whether you're str8 gay or other.

There are ten commandments aside from the above but they are left blank for members to fill in themselves (eg 1 thou shalt not mix grape n grain on a week day, 2 thou shalt not get up on sunday morning to do housework if more than 3 beers were consumed the night before....etc) you get the drift.

Any takers

[Kortpeel (imported)]

Hi Kortpeel,

Moreover, the true believer cannot pick and choose to which Biblical tenets he will adhere, but must accept them all

Suffice it to say that it is, in the end, a matter of faith and one's belief system.

I am curious, though, as to how you see it as wrong for the Anglican hierarchy to reject such a man for high position, when not to do so would be a violation of their faith? Am I missing something here? As a practical matter, did the man not know that such behavior was considered a sin when he first sought the priesthood? In that light, how is it reasonable for him to expect the fundamental tenets of the faith to be overturned for his benefit? I am curious as to the justification. Not arguing, mind you, just asking.

QUOTE]

****************

Hi Radar,

Thank you for such a well considered and balanced reply.

Let me try to see where our differences are. First of all I think one should be wary of taking the whole of the Bible as the word of God or even of divine inspiration. I strongly suspect that various kings and leaders in Old Testament times were more than ready to edit the texts to suit their own immediate political objectives. We know that the Christian church did exactly that with the gospels at the the Council of Nicea some 300+ years after the crucifixion.

To me the condemnation of homosexuals in the Old Testament is inconsistent with the loving God who is Himself responsible for them being there.

To accept all of the tenets of the Bible as the direct word of God leads to fundamentalism - a state of mind responsible for many of the problems facing the world today. One has to pick and choose with careful discrimination. And perhaps with God's guidance.

A

matter of faith and one's belief system?

Agreed.

With regard to the Anglican hierarchy, Anglican leaders have usually been enlightened and forward thinking. Well certainly from the second half of the 20th century onwards. They even accepted the ordination of women at long last. My own feeling is that our view and understanding of God and of morality evolves as mankind progresses and becomes more able to comprehend the awesome mystery of God through His creation.

The Bible is a vision of God for a simple pastoral people with no technology. To depend exclusively on what is written therein for one's belief system is to deny one's own God-given itelligence as a sentient human being. One has a duty to think for oneself and allow God to download updates into one's mind.

And thank you again for taking it seriously.

Regards

Kortpeel

[An Onymus (imported)]

For the record, to my knowledge, there is no statement in the bible which explicitly condemns lesbianism. A close reading of the verse which is usually taken as a proscription of male homosexuality, reveals a paradox. The verse says it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man "as he would with a woman." But--that would only be possible if the man had a vagina, or if it were assumed that the woman was being sodomized. If sodomization were being referred to, you would expect that to be stated, since it's generally considered that sodomization of a woman is the exception, rather than the rule. It's of course true that the verse was probably intended to discourage homosexuality, but the wording is nevertheless ambiguous, at least in the translations I am aware of. And what the heck were David and Jonathan up to, anyway?

[sag111 (imported)]

At first i wasent going to respond to this for as you can see everyone has thair own opinoin and i cant see anybody changing thoes opinions.

I also beleave we need to follow what the Lord says and that is what so many seem to forget and that is to love his children as he loves us.To many like to be the judge but he also said we are not to judge or we will be judged.Now i am not saying that what is going on with this bishop is right or wrong for others with a lot more authority will have the last say in this matter.But what i am saying is we need to show more love to all no matter who thay are .This is where i see the christian comunity has a problen with for thay see somone thay dont agree with and thay tend to demonise them instead fo trying to understand them and in doing so all thay do is make an enemy that will never listen to them or ever be thair friend.If i had felt this way i would have missed out on one of the best friends that i have and that for me would have been the real sin for me.

We can vent all we want to but if we dont show love for others than who cares about this bishop

[JesusA (imported)]

I’m afraid that the theology involved in this issue is a can of worms (as is ALL the theology that I’ve been reading lately). The original texts were written in different languages, compiled by individuals who had an axe to grind. Translated by others who were pushing particular agendas. Copied by scribes who were not always very careful to be accurate. (For example, there are nearly 5,400 surviving manuscript copies of all or part of the New Testament in Greek. No two of them agree in all of their wording (except for a few of the tiniest fragments of only a few words). It has been estimated that there are about 300,000 differences that can be counted between these texts – many more differences than the entire number of words in the New Testament. If there are that many differences, what is the “accurate” text?) Modern translators even disagree on what some of the words that they are trying to translate mean. The Anchor Bible volume on Genesis, for example, has a lengthy footnote about one word in the original that occurs nowhere else in any written source and has no equivalent in any related language. Its translation is simply a guess from context (which is very ambiguous).

Arguing the theological merits of “God’s” approval or disapproval of homosexuality is the modern equivalent of arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It’s all based on limited and disputed texts.

Better that we move our discussion of gender preference to whether it is learned and volitional or whether it is genetic or created prenatally, in utero, and not subject to any volitional choice. If it is created before birth, then it could be argued that it is “God’s will” that an individual be gay, lesbian, or transgendered. How can we humans condemn anything that is “God’s will”???

Just within the past week, two completely independent scientific studies have been published strongly indicating that gender preference is set before birth. One is posted on the Archive at Genes May Contribute to 'Gender Identity' (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4248), and the second, based on a study of the human “startle reflex” is linked from it.

An earlier study based on analysis of brain structure is posted at Research on homosexuality (http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2039). This one is probably less controversial because it is attempting to understand homosexuality in sheep. (I grew up on a farm and, yet, there are definitely homosexual rams!) The human analogy from the research is very clear.

We can NEVER convince some of the religious based on the texts of their faith. The only hope is to convince them with strong evidence from another source.