General Convention: Windsor Report Response

[Episcopalian]

There is yet no full transcript, but a general overview, including quotes from Bishops and Priests is available here. More is to come shortly.

One quick quote:

"Our homosexual agenda is Jesus Christ ... Are we not in this debate because we have seen the fruits of the Spirit evidenced in the lives of our brothers and sisters in Christ who happen to be gay?" he [Bishop Gene Robson] said. "This debate is not, principally, about saving the Anglican Communion -- we cannot make decisions about what the Communion will or will not do."

Thoughts?

[suzer1013]

Frankly, I'm beginning to think I don't care if the denomination splits. That goes for any denomination. In fact, I might just be more willing to go back to church if it does. I'm a cradle Episcopalian, and I'd love to be able to go to a church that is fully inclusive and would bless my relationship just as it does for heterosexual couples.

Another part of me simply doesn't care what the church does. I think God looks down with sorrow on our bluff and bluster as we argue over the inherent worth of some of His children.

I follow this story with interest, and hope the Episcopal church will make a decision on the side of Equality, Love and Justice, and that it will be God's will.

Susan

[Episcopalian]

Thank you for your post, Susan, and for sharing your perspective.

[Daniel]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060615/D8I8BEN00.html

Ah....a slip of the finger and the title didn't get finished! It should read "Robinson".

I met the Bishop here in NYC when he spoke at St. Luke in the Fields after the Gay Pride Parade. (One hasn't lived until one hears a congregation full of men sing hymns at the top of their lungs.)

The link above is from the Huffington Post.

What I hear Bishop Robinson sayiing in the statement above is that, if there is a split, this side of the Atlantic cannot be held responsible for it. And I agree with him: To assert that he or any other gay person is somwhow responsible for a split is to 'blame the victim' for the abuse being heaped upon them. As Liberal Crozier has stated in another thread, there are postive things about spilts. There is no appeasing fundamentalist whereever they are found.

[Episcopalian]

Perhaps a schism in the Church will prove to be beneficial for progressive and gay Episcopalians, Daniel, and it may allow conservatives and fundamentalists to shape a church that is more in line with their perspective. However, I'm concerned about a sentiment that was expressed in a post from Dash in a separate thread that speaks to this issue of division:

Originally Posted by Dash

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.

This approach towards resolving disputes in a religious community, particularly as it relates to the issue over inclusion of the GLBT community in the Episcopal Church, is becoming common on both sides of the issue - progressive and conservative - and I question its merit. Essentially one says,

"Fundamentalists are wrong, so we don't need them,"

or,

"Gays and Lesbians are wrong, so we don't need them."

I'm oversimplifying the issues - I realize that - and this may not have been exactly what Dash was getting at, but I'm hearing this idea more and more often from many people on this Forum, as well as from members of the community.

Schism is theoretical, and inevitably leads to more division. Practically, we will always have to be in relationship with people we don't agree with, even those who are vehemently apposed to our rights, our beliefs, or even our inherent worth as Children of God. The real issue at hand, at least as I see it, is not who is responsible for the possible schism. The real issue is reconciliation.

Perhaps this idea of "cutting off the old to make way for the new" needs to be re-examined. Perhaps the "new" should be something truly new: unity. Reconciliation. Understanding. Mutual understanding. Division is easy. Working to understand, and reconcile with your adversary is not.

Thoughts?

[Vanessa White]

I definitely agree that reconciliation should be the ideal goal, how can we all work together toward the goal of being lovers and followers of God and Jesus Christ, and to try to emulate his teachings as consistently as possible? At least, that is what I seek for myself and my family in a church community. I don't know that I necessarily want to be resigned to the fact that splitting is just the natural progression of things to come, for the Episcopal church or any other ( I was born into a Catholic family, but converted to Methodist, along with my partner, two years ago, and we belong to our local congregation along with our daughter,who was baptized there last year). We took great pains to find the Methodist church as embracing, especially our local congregation. However, the recent debate over decision 1032 being upheld has me very concerned about the future. I don't know if a split is the answer, I am just concerned about the prevailing message from the highest members of the Methodist church that being gay is not okay. My pastor is very embracing and loving in how she has welcomed us as a family, but she may be faced at some point with us not being able to be full members, or face repercussions herself. Times like these have me thinking about leaving any formal church attendance, but my daughter would be the one who would suffer with that decision, she has a great love for it now.... it is beautiful to watch!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Episcopalian

"Fundamentalists are wrong, so we don't need them,"

or,

"Gays and Lesbians are wrong, so we don't need them."

I'm oversimplifying the issues - I realize that - and this may not have been exactly what Dash was getting at, but I'm hearing this idea more and more often from many people on this Forum, as well as from members of the community.

Schism is theoretical, and inevitably leads to more division. Practically, we will always have to be in relationship with people we don't agree with, even those who are vehemently apposed to our rights, our beliefs, or even our inherent worth as Children of God. The real issue at hand, at least as I see it, is not who is responsible for the possible schism. The real issue is reconciliation.

Perhaps this idea of "cutting off the old to make way for the new" needs to be re-examined. Perhaps the "new" should be something truly new: unity. Reconciliation. Understanding. Mutual understanding. Division is easy. Working to understand, and reconcile with your adversary is not.

I see your point and have read what Dash has expressed on the matter. I wouldn't frame his point, however, in the way that you've done above, though, he is of course, more than able to speak for himself. Yes- it may be an oversimplification in that it frames the 'argument 'as that which opposing sides take in a school yard brawl. Of course, this is what happens when two sides connot see eye to eye. (The more metaphysical way to put that last statement might be 'ego' to 'ego'.)

As someone who has been watching this matter unfold from the choir loft over a number of years (as well as gay marriage and the blessing of gay unions within the Episcopal Church) and has his own history with a fundamentalist family dynamic, I do not see how the matter can be resolved, when in fact, fundamentalists are loath to see things differently. Yes. A 'live let live' philosophy would help tremendously in the matter, but unlike gay persons, who don't have a choice in the matter, fundamentalists really can change their thinking. Call them wrong or misinformed, in the end, the facts of human sexuality are stacked against them.

My own family endeavors to keep a don't ask don't tell policy in force most of the time in regards to my being gay and matters of faith. Should we go back in the closet as it were and stop ordaining openly gay persons to somehow assuage those frightened of horses? I for one say no. Likewise, I cannot stop being myself when I am with my family, even though my being gay still discombobulates them now 20 years later. Have they educated themselves about the matter over the years? I wish I could answer in the affirmative. The truth is they want to be perceived as being 'loving' without so much as doing the real work of 'loving'- that is- seeing God as blessing me as I am.

Now. If one can focus all attention on Reconciliation, that would be a helpful thing. But I do not perceive the 'opposing' side as being interested in that.

Another metaphor comes to mind: "You can lead a horse to water....."

[BruceChris]

Another metaphor comes to mind: "You can lead a horse to water....."

I heard a slightly different version of that joke, but they tell me I can't say that one on the air........

I keep reading different versions of "Well, of course sinners can be Christians. We're all sinners, and we want everyone to accept Christ and become a Christian" and, "Of course, you can be either a Christian, or a Ho-Mo-SEX-U-Al, but you can't be both". (And no, I'm not equating the two)

Don't these people ever listen to themselves? They don't seem to realize that they are running SLAM! smack into the very brick wall that they have been working so hard to build. I am afraid that Dotti and Roby are right, we are going to have to befriend these people, one at a time.

You have all heard the story of the Good Samaritan. Many forget that the whole point of the story was that the Samaritans were a despised people. (A lot of children these days never quite pick up on that) It amazes me no end that Straight Allies have far more credability on matters concerning GLBT stuff than GLBT people do.

So, we have to start out as Samaritans, and then teach so many people that we are good Samaritans. Sounds like a lotta work.

Peace and Love, BruceChris

[suzer1013]

Originally Posted by Episcopalian

Perhaps the "new" should be something truly new: unity. Reconciliation. Understanding. Mutual understanding. Division is easy. Working to understand, and reconcile with your adversary is not.

Thoughts?

I've been with the "work toward unity and reconciliation" camp for many years, but, as stated above, I'm beginning to think division might not be such a bad thing. At this point, I liken it to a marriage in which a wife is being verbally and emotionally abused and harassed by her husband. She has stayed in this relationship most of her adult life, gone to couples therapy, read self-help books, talked with her husband, begged and pleaded for him to treat her better, prayed to God for things to change, but the abuse continues. Is there not a point where she deserves her freedom from that broken relationship?

I wish I could say I believe in unity, but when I am being oppressed by those who use religion as a weapon, there is also an element of self-protection involved.

I will be grieved if the church splits -- there certainly are positives and negatives that would go along with that split. But I also would be relieved to know I could at last be a part of a larger church that does not see my love as sinful.

Finally, I disagree that division is easy -- it is terribly painful and difficult, and will cause much anguish. I think both reconciliation and division are difficult choices for everyone. Will GLBT members and their supporters be willing to wait another 50 years as the church continues to meditate, pray and discuss this subject? I doubt it. Unending studies and discussions of the matter (which have already gone on ad nauseum for years) are wearing thin, I think. Thankfully, though, the discussion seems to be a bit more polite and respectful than in other denominations (though maybe I haven't been privy to the worst stuff).

Susan

[Dash]

You know, my thoughts on "reconciliation vs. reformation" are still turning, turning, turning. I don't know how much more (of genuine substance) I have to offer than what I stated in the other thread. Make of it what you will.

The Liberal Crozier's post in that thread was a hefty plate to digest. I had to do some extra work on my own to process all that he wrote. I'm so glad that he wrote it though, because it provided a broader field in which to wonder about these things.

When the ELCA put the gay issue on the back-burner a few years ago, I was very upset. My decision then was that I loved my Lutheran Church, but when I left, I would probably not seek another. My thought was, "In the end, if they are forced to make a choice, they'll choose against me every time."

There's schism happening all the time as gay hearts are broken again and again by lackluster support. And those divisions, those wounds are in some ways far more painful than the great rifts that form in denominations. They hurt far more, but they are less visible.

Of course, now I've got a regular (Episcopal) Church gig, and like it or not, I find myself in Church most Sundays. What's worse...these lovely people that pay me to sing in their Choir like me. They barely know me, but they read the same spirit in me that other lovely Church people have read. And, truth be told...as much as I wish it weren't so sometimes...I've grown to like some of them too. It doesn't change the fact that gays like me are still essentially outcasts in the mainstream denominations.

My question now, as I'm readdressing the issue of reconciliation versus walking my own way is this: What is the real value of reconciliation on a global scale?

I know the value of individual reconciliation. There's no question that bringing people back into relationship with each other can heal hurts...that it can repair the social structure upon which we all rely to one degree or another for support.

But I want to know the actual benefit of binding large groups of congregations that are spread across the globe to one consensus....a consensus that may be onerous to many. What do we all gain?

If I leave a Church, they lose all the gifts that I bring. I lose all the support they offer. If I stay in a Church that doesn't acknowledge or accept me, I endure an unhappy state, while the Church still benefits from all the good things I bring to their community. They may actually be changed by getting to know me, but the larger global community can never be touched in that way. And, since we're dependent on the global consensus, my own congregation--that might otherwise offer me full sacramental participation--has it's hands tied.

I don't yet understand what the global church gains by holding back segments that are moving in new directions. Are they really damaged by the separation? It's not like a congregation that splits. Now there is devastating pain and animosity that endures unmercifully. The Church I grew up in, split that way--but not before doing dreadful wrongs against itself. Is the global communion caused the same kind of pain by a split? It's not bound by years of personal friendship. No figurative language will succeed in making an Episcopal in Kenilworth, Illinois the personal friend of one on the other side of the globe. The only thing they may share are similarities of worship structure. How then can the two people hurt each other by choosing different paths? Or is it important for a denomination to maintain a monolithic appearance?

Blah, blah, blah...tired of thinking...time for bed.