Sarah ([info]saritat42) wrote in [info]christianleft,
2007-09-25 21:15:00
  • Previous
  • Memorize
  • Share
  • Next

Episcopalians to stop ordaining homosexuals

I learned that the U.S. Anglican/Episcopal church has agreed to stop ordaining gays and lesbians from this story on the BBC website. The official statement from the church is on their website.

I'm not Episcopal, but I was very happy to be in the Twin Cities in Minnesota in 2003 when the church voted to ordain Gene Robinson. I would love to hear what Episcopalians think and the reactions in their communities.
Tags: gay rights, theology

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    switch

    Your IP address will be recorded 

     
    Help
  • 14 comments

[info]helcat

September 26 2007, 04:30:01 UTC 4 years ago

it's consecration to the episcopate (bishopric) that we've agreed to put a hold on, not ordaining them to the priesthood. It's meant to be a compromise to avoid a global schism and put the smack down on the Global South, who have been sowing all manner of discord in the communion.

i help run a site called The Episcopal Cafe (http://www.episcopalcafe.com). We lean left, although we try to balance it up when we can. if you want a better understanding of what we're going through, feel free to stay tuned there. Personally, I'm pained by the decision to compromise, but when you look at the last part of the statement, you know we're not giving up yet.

[info]kisekileia

September 26 2007, 04:35:33 UTC 4 years ago

You're still ordaining them to the priesthood? Oh, good; that makes it clear that the church is still taking a pro-LGBTQ stance, but has just stopped doing the things that were causing serious disruption in the global communion. I feel much more at ease with it then. I'm glad there was strong language opposing the intrusions by bishops outside the U.S., too.

[info]kisekileia

September 26 2007, 04:33:27 UTC 4 years ago

That's a shame. I think it's understandable that they value keeping the Anglican Communion together, especially since it means they retain a voice in it, but it's sad that things came to this.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury really wants to respond to this in a balanced way, though, he'll censure Akinola for his intrusions into the Episcopal church and his opposition of civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Deleted comment

[info]helcat

September 26 2007, 05:25:41 UTC 4 years ago

The whole two steps forward one step back process is sometimes very infuriating, but in some ways it's the price we pay for being part of something as stable and traditional as a mainline denomination.


That's an interesting way of looking at it, and I hope it is in fact just one step back. My relationships with church leaders are a blessing at this time when the mainstream press is out there misreporting things left and right. No pun intended.

[info]moveablefeast

September 26 2007, 12:35:51 UTC 4 years ago

as stable and traditional as a mainline denomination

Heh. I know what you mean, I do! But in some ways, the mainline isn't stable at all. The overall attendance in ELCA, just like in TEC, has been on a real downward trend. There's a part of me that feels like the mainline is about as stable as the housing market.

[info]aeditimi

September 26 2007, 11:47:49 UTC 4 years ago

I had to read the article a couple of times before I saw that it was just bishops and not all clergy that were being restricted. That just raises more questions for me, though. What a strange place to draw the line. If a pastor can be gay, why not a bishop? What is a bishop if not a pastor who demonstrates the gifts and graces for greater leadership in the church body and is elected by her/his collegues? Why are the qualifications different than for clergy in general? (although I ask this question of my own denomination, the United Methodist Church: if a pastor is simply a member of the church who demonstrates the gifts and graces for pastoral ministry, why are the qualifications any different?). I think it's a shame, and shameful that the argument for unity is used. Unity isn't true unity if it is achieved by excluding others.

[info]macychick

September 26 2007, 13:37:54 UTC 4 years ago

I think it's a shame, and shameful that the argument for unity is used. Unity isn't true unity if it is achieved by excluding others.

EXACTLY!

[info]moveablefeast

September 26 2007, 12:28:57 UTC 4 years ago

I think this is a step made to try to begin to bring the Anglican Communion back together. In that sense, it is good. Having ridden out the first rumblings of a split, and knowing how painful the whole process was and still is in many ways, I can see how this is good.

On the other hand, I'm one of those rare dissenters who would rather see a theologically orthodox gay person be a bishop than a theologically liberal heterosexual person. For me, this brouhaha has never been about sexual orientation; it's been about a theological drift in the Episcopal Church. I haven't felt welcome in the Episcopal Church in years, having felt that the word of welcome extends to any set of theological beliefs except those that could be termed "evangelical". The political/social leanings of TEC are probably far more in line with my own than the political/social leanings of my own congregation (a dissenting congregation that left TEC in 2006), but I don't see myself returning to TEC as a congregant. This doesn't change things for me.

[info]kisekileia

September 26 2007, 18:44:53 UTC 4 years ago

This is interesting. I recently started connecting up with an Anglican church (LGBTQ-positive), and it's going well so far, but I hope that I won't run into trouble with people thinking I'm too far right for them. I'm fairly liberal--although I believe the Bible is all "inspired by God" in some sense, I don't believe sections like early Genesis or Revelation should be taken literally, and I believe modern situations can make it reasonable to not act as the Bible prescribes regarding issues like homosexuality--but not John Shelby Spong liberal. I do believe that the Gospels are largely accurate, including about Jesus' divinity and resurrection. Do you think I'm likely to run into trouble because of that?

[info]moveablefeast

September 26 2007, 19:24:05 UTC 4 years ago

I suppose it depends on where you are and who you talk to, really.

I'm guessing that I'm a step or two to the right of you, theologically speaking. I don't have a problem with Genesis or Revelation not being literal but allegorical/cultural/whatever, but I'm a bit of a stickler for the divinity and uniqueness of Christ, the Resurrection, that kind of thing.

Where it sounds like you and I would disagree would be in contemporary application of scripture - I'm more inclined to believe that scripture trumps culture (particularly the New Testament, as opposed to ancient ceremonial law which I don't believe is binding anymore), and I think that's where a good portion of my disagreement with TEC comes from these days.

[info]kisekileia

September 26 2007, 19:44:42 UTC 4 years ago

Yeah, I think we're pretty much on the same page regarding your second paragraph. Way back when I was much more conservative than I am now, the issue I left the United Church of Canada over was the divinity of Christ. Regarding your third paragraph, it sounds like you're where I was a year and a half ago.

With contemporary application of Scripture--I'm curious about your take on the homosexuality issue. I wouldn't say culture always overrides Scripture, but I do think that sometimes (as with homosexuality) situations change so that Christian behaviour should too.

[info]macychick

September 26 2007, 13:36:34 UTC 4 years ago

That's terrible. And here I thought that Epscopalians were more tolerant than their Catholic friends. Seriously, I don't get what the big deal is about homosexuals. Yes, the Bible says it's a sin, but it also says it's a sin to eat pork.

[info]roseross

September 26 2007, 14:20:29 UTC 4 years ago

I think it's fear. And not of homosexuals. I think these are generally fearful, unstable times and when that happens, people look for targets to take it out on. It always seems to be a minority, and I don't think that's coincidence. In Africa, the fear and social instability are much worse and so is the persecution. But here in the U.S., the Bush administration shamelessly chose a peaceful, law-abiding internal group and set them up to be the target of prejudice. Oh, the prejudice was always lurking in the hearts of some -- but it was politicians who gave them permission to take their bigotry and make it law. And all so we'd be busy with internal turmoil rather than complaining about warfare and corruption within our government.

I guess that's cynical but I think Bush has been a driving force in nurturing the problem. If people didn't feel their secular leaders were giving them the green light to act out their biases, I don't think the Leviticus quoters would gain so much ground in church councils.

[info]silent_muse06

September 26 2007, 15:21:14 UTC 4 years ago

it did in the old testament, but the food laws were repealed in the book of acts. the laws regarding homosexuality were not.

just sayin'. :)
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…