USA Today Guide to God and Gays

[Episcopalian]

I solute Cathy Lynn Grossman (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-06-12-god-gays-cover_x.htm) for her article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-06-12-god-gays-cover_x.htm) in USA Today. I think she's doing something very important here, and I urge you to read not only the article, but the left-column spotlight pieces on the "Four Believers".

Are we entering a new period in the cultural debate over inclusion of gays into the religious community? Is the culture ready to accept our diverse and individual roles as Children of God in the Church?

[Dash]

When the Rev. Mark Coppenger, a Southern Baptist, started a new conservative Evangelical church in Evanston, Ill., in the heart of Chicago's liberal North Shore, he soon found students switching from liberal Protestant churches "where they didn't find what they later came to cherish in biblical teaching and preaching," he says.

One might think, from Rev. Coppenger's quote, that all these liberal, gay-lovin' Northwestern University students were switching in droves back to Southern Baptism. But... the Church website (http://www.evanstonbaptistchurch.org/) reads, "Our first service was on September 10, 2000, and we now average 50 in attendance." They meet in an old business building...which is fine, but these things aren't really indicative of any significant change in the liberal dynamic of the North Shore. Blahdy, blahdy, blahdy, blah...

Anyway...just had to yak about my town.

Personally, I have very little hope that the mainstream Churches will make any progress in our favor anytime soon. I was particularly disappointed when I recently read that the Archbishop of Canterbury had said that the issue of gays in Church probably wouldn't be brought up again in the next two years. Sigh...If even the Anglicans aren't interested in talking about it...

[Episcopalian]

Personally, I have very little hope that the mainstream Churches will make any progress in our favor anytime soon.

I often share that feeling, Dash. It's difficult to maintain hope in the face of so much bigotry and short-sightedness. But, I guess that's why I'm here. That's why I participate in this forum. The act of engaging in dialogue inspires in me a hope that one day the Church will become inclusive of everyone. For me, having hope is a conscious choice I must make anew each day.

As far as the Archbishop Rowan Williams goes, he made an official statement today addressing the General Convention. The text can be read here (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_75771_ENG_HTM.htm). He's not saying much of anything at the moment, except that he hopes that the Windsor Report (http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/) serve as a guideline.

[Lydia]

the Church website (http://www.evanstonbaptistchurch.org/) reads, "Our first service was on September 10, 2000, and we now average 50 in attendance."

Many new churches don't even survive this long.

I'm impressed that they're months away from celebrating their 6th anniversary.

[Lydia]

But I do share your sense of hopelessness, Dash. I don't think change will come anytime soon.

[Dash]

I think that mainstream denominations inevitably focus on maintaining the overall communion. Basically, in order to avoid major rifts, everyone agrees to suppress progressive voices. It has happened in my beloved ELCA too.

The Church is the only tree that hates its own new growth.

And yet, God has clearly written it in Nature: "Fruit will grow on THIS year's bough. Last year's branch must diminish."

As I have followed the struggle between progressive American Episcopals and the worldwide Anglican Communion I have found a new appreciation of "schism." The old growth just hinders the new. Better to cut it off and let the fresh twig flourish without the old getting in the way.

[Emproph]

{Good analogy Dash, good description of the analogy.} :)
------------------------From the main article:
It may mean staying in their church of a lifetime, finding ways to accept — or overlook — teachings with which they disagree.I hear this a lot, here and elsewhere, where people stay or at least want to stay in their church. Would it be effective if they quit tithing? Beyond that, do enough people tithe for it to be an appeal and/or would discontinuing that go against the support that they do have for their church? And then I wonder how much the “closeted” aspect plays in the whole thing.And this if from the other article: Ex-priest rethinks Bible's authority

"the whole purpose of the Bible ... to convince people to set the written word down in order to become living words in the world for God's sake." -Barbara Brown TaylorI think this is how the religious/Biblical inerrancy debate needs to be framed to address the issue. Homosexuality in particular, but a host of other harmful “moral” positions taken solely “because the Bible says so.”

I’ve been researching Biblical idolatry of late as I continue to hear on other forums how “scripture is the cornerstone of Christianity,” essentially making the meaning of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit contingent upon scripture and not the other way around. Maybe not in their minds but that’s definitely the effect I usually see with that attitude. And that attitude is often used to justify self righteous pride with carefree abandon. It’s dangerous dangerous territory.

[Daniel]

Episcopalian- thanks for the article. For me, the heart of the piece was expressed in these lines:

Once, black people, women and homosexuals were viewed the same way by the leading theologians of the times: "They were all cursed by God in Scripture, inferior in moral character and willfully sinful and deserving punishment," says the Rev. Jack Rogers, former head of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and author of a new book, Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality.

Eventually, most churches found a biblical basis for changing their stance on race and gender but not on homosexuality.

And like Dash, I wonder how long the process is going to take. Our lifetime? No matter how long it takes, I believe change is happening under our noses: the existence of organizations and efforts like SoulForce point to it. There is no going back.

[Dash]

I’ve been aghast at the reality that Churches in developing nations have such a fierce influence on the direction of the Anglican Church. So we see sentiments born of countries still struggling with basic needs and fundamental human rights being imposed on Churches that are on the very vanguard of human rights. Like a newspaper being written at a sixth grade level, the Church’s role is handicapped by the lowest common social denominator.

And what is the benefit? Not to say I understand the relationship between the American Episcopal Church and those in other countries, but it would seem that “communion” would mostly be in name. They are certainly not breaking bread together on a regular basis. Would American Churches need financial support from congregations in these countries? Rather, could they not continue to offer developing nations comfort and relief as an organization separated from (for example) Nigerian sensibilities?

(Which would be an encouragement to LGBTQ Church members to keep tithing as well.)

If I had my way, the American Episcopal Churches that believed in their vision for gay inclusiveness would strike out on their own. At last a mainstream American Church could make what might be the most needed affirmation of queer folk in the world. We need that kind of social leadership from the Church. Let the others catch up! All they are doing by surrendering to the will of the worldwide Anglican Communion is hiding their light.

[Liberal Crozier]

No two theological issues have imploded the Catholic and Orthodox Christian jurisdictions and mainline Reformation Churches as have the role of women in either Holy Orders or ministry and the complex questions surrounding the modern definition of same-sex orientation and coupling.

Both Episcopalian and ELCA Dash have exposited their views on the subject. Since this is a rather tolerable " day after chemo" day, and our 3.5 year old is down for a little nap, I thought that I would have the acumen and energy to sit before the computer and compose this.

First of all, Gene Robinson is a friend of mine. I know his former wife and good friend, his daughter as well as his same-sex partner. Of course, Gene received the brunt of criticism because he chose to accept election as an Ordinary, and unlike other Episcopal bishops - did not choose to wait until retirement, or maintain a heterosexual marriage, or both, to disclose their sexual orientation. And in the past, many bishops never disclosed their orientation unto death.

Since the days of the Oecumenical Councils, the Church has dealt with renegades by either declaring them heretical or schismatic, or both. The so-called "Oriental" Orthodox Churches ....the Syrian Malabars, the Copts...are considered both - while the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople decides upon the "canonicity (legality)" of their Clergy and Sacraments of jurisdictions or competing jurisdictions. They rely upon a view of Apostolic Succession best described as views of St. Cyprian in the East.....no legal connection = no valid sacraments.

The Roman Catholic Church is tied to views ( or was canonically, but under Ratzinger, all is being re-defined) held by St. Augustine of Hippo. This belief said that a validly-ordained (consecrated) bishop never loses his authority to administer valid sacraments if he retains the Catholic Faith and Practice.
Throughout the centuries, and as late as 1945 or 1963, the Church has dealt with bishops ordained without Papal approval and selection. The Catholic layperson is often misled by their local Roman Catholic dioceses by confusing the definition between validity and legality based upon intercommunion. The Magisterium usually excommunicates or otherwise silences its opponents. Remember that most all bishops are graduates of the NAC or took graduate or doctoral degrees at the Gregorian. Safe and known choices create few mavericks.....and such men like Duarte Costa, Lefebvre or Thuc were indeed "surprises". Renegade priests are not threats - they are "castrati" - while renegade or schismatic bishops are dangerous...for they create valid but unapproved jurisdictions of the Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church fears the loss of its base in the USA and in Canada. Its largest dioceses are in Mexico City and Rio de Janiero. This is why the late Pope gave "abbreviated intercommunion" to the Polish National Catholic Church in the USA and Canada and the Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasiliera in Rio de Janieiro. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church has a programme whereby Anglican priests are re-ordained into Catholic Orders even if they are heterosexually married. The stipulation is that the Episcopal/Anglican priest was NOT a cradle Roman Catholic. How many Catholics of the predominant Latin rite even are aware of this fact, or the fact that for centuries, the Uniate or Ritual Churches have had married clergy in Europe or the Middle East. They initially had many married Melkite or Ukrainian Catholic bishops who came after the first Russian Revolution, but today's American children are forbidden that discipline.


Protestant evangelical and fundamentalist inroads in Mexico, Central and South America has made a serious impact - to the point that the President of the Honduran Republic is a fundamentalist Protestant from a US-based sect.

The African Anglican Church - born from its many British colonies - often made compromises to convert the faithful...including blinking an eye to polygamist marriages or multiple "accomodations." I am not fully able to understand the level of acute homophobia among sub-saharan negroes in Africa, or the diaspora in the Caribbean,or the Americas. The "down low" is the only acceptable life choice in order to maintain acceptance. The Anglican Communion and Lambeth speak to another institution born during the British Empire that was especially nurtured as part of the new Commonwealth reality with these new nations. It mattered little if the Anglo-Catholics were strong in the Caribbean and the Evangelicals were nearly alone in converting Africa to Anglicanism and Biblical emphasis.

Schism is necessary, IMHO, in order to graft into the Body of Christ a witness to the continuing revelations of the Holy Spirit throughout the millenia. We know that bad or inaccurate biology makes for bad theology.
And yet, grief is the price that we Christians must pay for the love of Him.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is of course, the merger of the Lutheran Church in America and the American Lutheran Church. The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod are ultraconservative in that order, and did not join the ELCA. Several years ago, the ELCA merged with ECUSA without requiring reordination to preserve a clear Apostolic Succession within ECUSA and the Anglican brethren abroad.

The Anglican problematic does not emanate from the two ancient historical parties - Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical....or even the Latitudinarian approach that defines ECUSA today. It is not even about the ordination of women, or the bolder consecration of women to the episcopate - let alone the priesthood or diaconate....( and not the old "set apart" deaconnesses of the past).

Prior to Malcolm's book, we had Norman Pittinger's book on a progressive theology about human sexuality - and homosexuality in particular. I have it in my library, because Dr. P was a close confidant in my earlier years. The then-dean of GTS was a liberal rebel in the bastion of the Latitudinarian seminaries as Nashotah House still remains somewhat - but not totally - the only seminary with cirriculum and culture still embracing part of the Anglo-Catholic movement. Ask any "Son of the House" about women seminarians who are not permitted to serve at the chapel altar or be ordained in the two major dioceses who still sponsor candidates, namely Quincy and Dallas.

In dilectione Christi,

+ The Liberal Crozier

[revtj]

Once, black people, women and homosexuals were viewed the same way by the leading theologians of the times: "They were all cursed by God in Scripture, inferior in moral character and willfully sinful and deserving punishment," says the Rev. Jack Rogers, former head of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and author of a new book, Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality.

Eventually, most churches found a biblical basis for changing their stance on race and gender but not on homosexuality.

It is interesting that the politicians trotted out the gay horse before Nov. elections and it didn't seem to work. Maybe we have ascended the low end of the boogie-man ladder, giving up our old spot to those ^scary^ immigrants?

I’ve been aghast at the reality that Churches in developing nations have such a fierce influence on the direction of the Anglican Church. So we see sentiments born of countries still struggling with basic needs and fundamental human rights being imposed on Churches that are on the very vanguard of human rights. Like a newspaper being written at a sixth grade level, the Church’s role is handicapped by the lowest common social denominator.

Dash, here I go again...I think the voices of the poor, those trapped in wretched political & economic circumstances, and civil war in Africa and the 2/3s world should get heard by Christ's people before western LGBT people.

Ideally, we can all be lifted up together as in South Africa's drafting of the new constitution which includes gay rights. But I feel it is my duty as a minister to listen to the cry of the (truly) poor ahead of (comparatively) privileged western gays who are discriminated against and against whom violence is done, but nothing on the scale of Angola, Darfur, Somalia, etc.

We have to start somewhere. Ms. Summer's I Will Survive means something a whole lot different to us than it does to Africa et. al.

[Steven E. Webster]

Dash, here I go again...I think the voices of the poor, those trapped in wretched political & economic circumstances, and civil war in Africa and the 2/3s world should get heard by Christ's people before western LGBT people.

Ideally, we can all be lifted up together as in South Africa's drafting of the new constitution which includes gay rights. But I feel it is my duty as a minister to listen to the cry of the (truly) poor ahead of (comparatively) privileged western gays who are discriminated against and against whom violence is done, but nothing on the scale of Angola, Darfur, Somalia, etc.

We have to start somewhere. Ms. Summer's I Will Survive means something a whole lot different to us than it does to Africa et. al.

RevTJ: This troubles me. Are you trying to compare oppressions here suggesting that some of the oppressed are more worthy of justice than others? Would it be acceptable for the church of Jesus Christ to postpone discussions of equality for LGBT persons until all of the world's poor have justice?

Is the struggle for justice here really between privileged western gay people and impoverished Africans, or have cynical political operatives (I'm thinking of the neoconservative Institute for Religion and Democracy deeply involved at the heart of the Anglican controversy) found a way to "divide and conquer" by pitting two groups of oppressed persons against one another in order to deny them both justice.

There is still awful poverty and inadequate health care in South Africa. The granting of equality to LGBT persons in South Africa did not hurt the poor, and, unfortunately, did not relieve their poverty either.

The child starving to death from poverty in Africa, and the child headed for suicide and death because of homophobia in the U.S. both end up equally dead. Both are our responsibility as Christians. Hearing the cry of the one, does not excuse us from hearing the cry of the other.

What is truly perverse are African Church leaders who prioritize punishing U.S. Episcopalians for electing a "gay Bishop" ahead of relief of the poor in their own nations. (One way they do this by homophobically refusing aid from the U.S. Church because it is "tainted" by gay people.) I don't lay all the fault for this at the feet of African Church leaders--they are being manipulated by groups like the Washington based Institute on Religion and Democracy.

My brother, a heterosexual, is able to go to Zambia as a Methodist missionary and work on projects to develop and teach methods of sustainable agriculture to help the poor to feed themselves. In the meantime it appears that it would not be safe for me, a gay man, to join him in that work because relatively privileged (and often corrupt) church leaders preach hatred of LGBT persons.

We need to see how all oppression and injustice are inter-woven and not allow one group of the oppressed be pitted against another. My (very progressive) brother observes that he sees more fundamentalist propaganda than progressive Christian outreach in Africa. I'm for us being engaged in Africa, and I believe that if Africans get to know real LGBT persons with a genuine concern for them as brother/sister human beings, they will eventually treat us with mutuality and respect.

Steven Webster

[BruceChris]

I am attempting to address something that I picked up much earlier in this thread. Liberal Crozier's posting. It seems to me that the older a denomination or religious tradition is, the more that it clings to apparently artificial legalisms to "prove", or justify it's legitimacy, and thereby, by implication, to bring into question the legitimacy of other denominations. (Apostolic Succession?) Whatever.

In my not so humble opinion, Whenever two or more of us are gathered in His name, there is Church. As I see it, there seems to be ample evidence to this effect in many parts of the New Testament. If I cling to "my" church, it is because of the wonderful people I have met there. Legalisms and/or faith traditions to legitimate the role of the UCC? I'm not sure they really have any.

Peace and Love, BruceChris

[Daniel]

Are we entering a new period in the cultural debate over inclusion of gays into the religious community? Is the culture ready to accept our diverse and individual roles as Children of God in the Church?

Perhaps the election of a newly elected Presbyterian leader speaking to this issue.

http://www.nyblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=7567

Of the three candidates, Joan S. Gray is in the middle of the road on this issue. Does this mean she's sitting on the fence? Perhaps. But the direction seems to be towards to the acceptance of diversity and away from conservatism.

[Episcopalian]

Daniel, that just may be the case.

An a related note, we in the Episcopal Church have just experienced a revolutionary change of leadership. See this post (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?p=8297#post8297) for details/links.