Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Gay Bishop 39

Journal by pudge

The gay bishop of the Anglican church story isn't a new one, but as more church leaders from the U.S. and around the world speak out against it -- and the official consecration of Rev. V. Gene Robinson comes up -- the story is once again in the news.

Robinson was on This Week this weekend. Every time I've heard him, I've liked him and agreed with almost all of what he's said. For example, I think is right about reaching out to the gay and lesbian community, which seems to be his primary focus in this discussion. But I can see absolutely no justification for making the leap from that to "homosexuality is not a sin."

It's one thing to say that gay people should be accepted in the church, should not be treated as outcasts. It is another to say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Robinson talks about how Jesus reached out to the outcasts of the world, like prostitutes and tax collectors and drunkards. But Jesus didn't say these people should be leaders in the church.

One similar example in today's church is a divorced person. Many churches traditionally will not ordain people who have divorced and remarried, as that is considered to be living in sin, because marriage is for life. We've seen a lot more acceptance of divorced people in the last few decades, but many churches still will not ordain them (coincidentally, Robinson is also divorced), because that would be a sign from the church that divorce is acceptable.

To be consecrated as a bishop, as a homosexual, the church is saying that there is no sin in homosexuality. Now, I am not an Anglican. And I am not here making an argument about truth, whatever that may be. I am not trying to tell you that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin. I am making an argument about what the Bible says, and about what that means in the context of the Christian religion.

There are many sections of scripture that speak out against homosexuality, including in thw first chapter of Romans, where Paul describes homosexuality as "(not) natural", "indecent" and an "error", something that is penalized. This is listed among other sins, such as idolatry, unriughteousness, wckedness, greef, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, disobedience to parents, etc. (NASB)

Robinson is correct when he says that God's truth is continually revealed through the ages. But that doesn't mean God contradicts himself. Christianity states that the Bible is God's Word, including this clear statement that homosexuality is a sin. I've not heard Robinson do anything to say how he can dimiss this scripture, and others. I've not heard alternate explanations that both accept the inerrancy of Scripture, and allow for homosexuality to be not sinful.

Again, I am not an Anglican. I really have no horse in this race, it's just an interesting subject to me. But I am a Christian, and when I see a leader of a Christian sect asserting that the Bible doesn't say what it does say, I admit it does bother me, on both an intellectual and personal level.

But beyond saying homosexuality is not a sin, I've never really had serious problems with Robinson or what he says ... until this week, anyway, when he said that the people who are threatening to leave the church are saying this one issue that pushes them apart is "greater" and "more important" than other issues that bind them together, like the Trinity, the various creeds, etc.

That is completely illogical. What if the one issue they disagreed with was that "killing babies for fun is OK?" I wouldn't say that issue is more important than the Trinity, but it certainly is justification for a split. The issue is not whether this issue is "more important," but whether it is fundamental enough that it amounts to a different belief system, such that a split is logically required. If your church says that a section of the Bible is incorrect, and you say that the Bible is inerrant and that this idea is fundamental to your faith, how can that not justify a split?

As the sixth chapter of 2 Corinthians says, "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?" The question is not what issues are more important than others. Again, the question is if this issue constitutes a different system of beliefs. I am not an Anglican, so I cannot answer that question for the Anglican church, and I am not saying Robsinon represents lawless or darkness. I am just saying that if it were my church, I would cease attending if a majority, or the leaders, of the church started claiming things that went against what I saw as the fundamental precepts of the church, fundamentals of my beliefs.

It's not about truth, it's about fellowship between people with like beliefs. The Anglican church in America has changed its stated fundamental beliefs, and people who still hold to those fundamental beliefs are fully justified in leaving -- and in light of 2 Corinthians, arguably required to leave.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gay Bishop More

Gay Bishop

Comments Filter:
  • Romans 1 says the men "burned with lust for each other, men with men committing what is shameful" (NKJV) or "working that which is unseemly" (KJV).

    Burning shameful lust is pretty different from two men having a loving, healthy, long-term relationship, wouldn't you think?

    • A better translation is "the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts." (NASB) And what it is describing as "indecent" is made clear in the part you left out: abandoning the "natural function of the woman." The acts committed with each other instead of with a woman is what Paul describes as "indecent."

      The word "desire" there is a word used only in a negative sense, such as you get the feeling for here. But I don'
  • I'm not any particular sect of christianity. I don't beleif any of them quite has it just right, nor me for that matter, I somtimes wonder what Jesus would say to me. It would probably be something along the lines of "you're doing X, say you're sorry and don't do it again", which I would happily do.

    Sometimes, however, it's pretty plain to see what he would say. Parts of the bible do refer to how we should act internally as a religion with one another, and how we should act externally while non-beleivers
  • To the proponents of schism: Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. I for one want to be part of a tolerant church, and I am proud to be part of a church that selected Robinson as its bishop.

    I'm not gay. But what if I were? Would I want to associate with people who call my sexual orientation a sin? I don't think so. Let them form a separate church, like the Southern Baptists and Methodists (South) did to defend slavery. Soon enough they'll understand the error in what they've done.

    • To the proponents of schism: Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. I for one want to be part of a tolerant church, and I amproud to be part of a church that selected Robinson as its bishop.

      Could you have missed my point any more? Did you even read what I wrote? I favor tolerance, and said so. What I don't favor is rejection of the Bible. Once you reject the Bible, there *is no church*.

      I'm not gay. But what if I were? Would I want to associate with people who call my sexual orientation a si
      • But you can't follow the Bible literally and function in today's world. And the conservatives don't - otherwise they would all keep kosher and submit to their husbands, for starters.

        Anglicans generally have taken an expansive view of the Bible, understanding that it can't always be taken literally, and further that the world has evolved in the last 2000 years. I can respect that the opponents of Robinson have a different theological view of the qualifications for bishop, but they're the ones threatening

        • But you can't follow the Bible literally and function in today's world.

          Then you can't be a Christian.

          And the conservatives don't - otherwise they would all keep kosher and submit to their husbands, for starters.

          No, there is nothing in the Bible about Christians keeping Kosher. In fact, Paul talks at some length about how Christians are not required to keep Kosher. I'm sorry, but a mistake like this makes me wonder how well you know the Bible, that you should be speaking so authoritatively about what
          • Is your problem one of the following:

            1. The Anglicans are making a queer bishop.
            2. That Anglican, queer, soon-to-be bishop is saying that men practicing buggery are not committing a sin.

            I assume it's perfectly OK to have a bishop that's committed a sin. What sins are proscribed for Bishops? Why is buggery not allowed, while other sins might be? (I'm just trying to get at your meaning. I have no idea what the right answer is here.)

            I've read everything you've written here, and I don't see how you get to 'B
            • I assume it's perfectly OK to have a bishop that's committed a sin.

              The difference is between having committed a sin -- even struggling with a particular sin -- and saying that something is not a sin.

              I assume there are stupid not-exactly-biblically-accurate things that a Bishop could say, and still only evoke your ire in regards to that one particular thing he's said.

              If a Bishop were to say that the Bible is incorrect, or is not inerrant, that Paul was not speaking what God told him to speak, then he w
              • Ok. That position makes perfect sense. Your Tevye comment was the only thing that made me think you were saying something else.

                The problem isn't that Robinson is queer. The problem is that he says that buggery hain't a sin, and doesn't lay down the wherefor. Fair nuff.

                One a side note: While I don't think anyone is being inconsistent, something about this conversation is making me feel like I'm debating the rules of Calvinball... :)

          • I am no Anglican, but if this is true, then the Anglican church is not a part of the Christian faith, as they claim. It is a fundamental tenet of what Christianity *is*. You may as well deny the deity of Christ. If Robinson and the bishops are denying the inerrancy of Scripture, then it is no wonder people are leaving, because it is akin to saying the entire Bible is wrong. It is not logical to pick and choose arbitrarily.

            After thinking about this, I understand a lot better the points you make. You

            • According to that, you're right: the Anglican church is most certainly not Christian, if by that you mean Protestant.

              No, it isn't. I do come from a Protestant background, one where the Catholic church is routinely blasted as being heretical etc. But I've studied the actual teachings of the church at Rome and I've come to a different conclusion. The Catholic Church proper does teach inerrancy, it does teach salvation through faith, etc. Many Catholic churches teach the opposite, but what is more common

              • Point taken. However, my opinion is that Catholicism is not a literalist religion, in sharp distinction with Protestantism. I do distinctly remember being taught in catechism and being told by the curate of my school that you have to understand that the Bible was written many years ago in a language suitable for the times, so to speak, and at times not appropriate to ours; and that the important thing was to interpret it in relation with your life and your experiences and not to take it literally.

                I think

                • the important thing was to interpret it in relation with your life and your experiences and not to take it literally.

                  If that statement is to be taken literally , then you were being taught against the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church holds very strongly to the inerrancy of Scripture, the difference is what we've been talking about, that it depends on how you interpret it, and how much you say was only for a given cultural context, etc.

                  And the status of the inerrancy of the Pope (in certain m
      • You can't change what the Bible says because people dislike it.

        You mean like King James did? He removed books that he personally disagreed with. The books of the bible have been edited and "translated" to say many different things. It was put together by a council originally, humans who decided which books belonged in and which didn't. Who's to say that the parts describing homosexuality as a sin weren't added by some homophoic priest?

        I get into this argument with my girlfriend a lot. She belives in
        • You mean like King James did? He removed books that he personally disagreed with.

          You're incorrect. The canon existed long before King James came around.

          The books of the bible have been edited and "translated" to say many different things.

          That's why I always go to the Greek when I have questions.

          It was put together by a council originally, humans who decided which books belonged in and which didn't.

          That's a mischaracterization. The canon was formed not by fiat from church leaders, but by consensu
          • You're incorrect. The canon existed long before King James came around.

            Which is why he shouldn't have removed those books!

            Unless he didn't, but my KJV doesn't seem to have the book of Tobit. Or Judith. or Maccabes (first or second) Many Catholics I know have bibles that contain these books. So who's bible is wrong?

            Actually, if I remember correctly, they were in the first edition of KJV, but removed later.

            Anyway, my point is that different councils have approved and disapproved of different books. t
            • Unless he didn't, but my KJV doesn't seem to have the book of Tobit. Or Judith. or Maccabes (first or second) Many Catholics I know have bibles that contain these books. So who's bible is wrong?

              None of those books were in the canon that preexisted King James. He did not remove them, they were not in the canon to begin with. They are part of the apocrypha [essortment.com], books that, if included in the canon, would have been a part of the Jewish canon, whch was established in 90 A.D., long before the Christian canon (wh
  • Christianity states that the Bible is God's Word

    I believe the bible is the word of God, through the words of men.

    For me, that explains a lot - meaning that there are inconsistencies, errors, etc, in it.

    I've not heard alternate explanations that both accept the inerrancy of Scripture, and allow for homosexuality to be not sinful

    Hmm. Interesting idea. It's widely known that homosexuality, and many other pervous? (that's not the word I want, but it'll do for the moment) behaviors have existed since day
    • For me, that explains a lot - meaning that there are inconsistencies, errors, etc, in it.

      So you can essentially pick and choose what you want to believe under the guise of "interpretation"?

      The fact is, Paul's statements are the same in the original greek. The NASB is widely regarded as one of the most correct, accurate translations. And as far as inconsistencies and errors, show me an error or an inconsistancy in a theological point in the Bible.

      By claiming that the Bible has errors, and is "open to int
    • I believe the bible is the word of God, through the words of men. For me, that explains a lot - meaning that there are inconsistencies, errors, etc, in it.

      That's fine, but it is not what the major Christian faiths teach. The Anglican church, as do all the major Protestant sects, as does the Catholic church, teaches that the Bible is inerrant as originally written. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16
  • Gene Robinson says he believes the bible, but I Timothy 3 [crosswalk.com] lays out the requirements for a bishop:

    This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the

    husband of one wife , vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (F

  • Why would an omnipotent god care about sexuality, and gender preference? An entity like that transcends the laws of physics, can probably witness the interactions of subatomic particles without altering them, probably has no gender to speak of. The bible was written by men, over long periods of time it is amended. So when you speak of scriptures in the book, you are speaking of the stuff men write, and the dogma they create. Religion has always been a device to maintain social order, and law. In this way so
    • Why would an omnipotent god care about sexuality, and gender preference?

      The point of this discussion is how this fits into a particular religion, a particular set of beliefs. You clearly don't share those beliefs, and arguing from outside those beliefs, which is off-topic and, in the contect of this discussion, uninteresting.

      The bible was written by men, over long periods of time it is amended.

      This is off-topic as well, but I hear a lot of people say things like this as thought it were true, and I wo
      • Sorry I'm unintersting to you.

        I have a strongs version of the bible here actually, but I haven't read all of the various translations. It has the 3 major translations of the biblical scriptures, and each word is numbered which brings me into that realm of 0.5% of the meaning of the words.

        I didn't say anything about you and gay folks, just talking about why *people* in general seem homophobic.

        How or why is the dogma of the christianity off-topic here? We were talking about gay bishop, right?

        Anyhoo... so
        • Sorry I'm unintersting to you.

          I didn't say you were. I said that what you had to say had nothing to do with the topic at hand, and was, therefore, uninteresting in this context.

          How or why is the dogma of the christianity off-topic here?

          Because it is my journal entry, and I set the topic, and it wasn't that. Maybe in a future journal entry of mine, it will be that.

  • Ob. outing: I have no stake in this debate, as I'm an Argentine and to me the differences between the reformed churches look Byzantine and more than slightly maddening. However, I have to admit, I'm an apostate by reason of being homosexual; also, I have the lowest of opinions on Paul. But I'll try not to let that color my opinion.

    First off, how can you possibly base the whole issue on the inerrancy of a translation? Neither the Baptist nor the Anglican accept the doctrine of Papal inerrancy, but you impl

    • First off, how can you possibly base the whole issue on the inerrancy of a translation? Neither the Baptist nor the Anglican accept the doctrine of Papal inerrancy, but you implicitly assume that every rendition of the Book is, somehow, inerrant by way of being automatically God-inspired?

      I claim no such thing. I commented on this in other replies in this discussion. I stated my belief, the fundamental Christian belief, that the Bible is inerrant as originally written, and in a particular context. Somet

      • I know you claimed nothing; I was responding in general to other posts.

        Of course he condemned arsenokoitia (that's the word he used, BTW)

        Not in Romans 1, no; he uses the word male, arsenes (arsenes en arsesin, males with males). The word you mention is used in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians. Maybe he hadn't invented it yet. ;-)

        Yeah, I remembered after I posted. I've been reviewing the text, and I feel somewhat revolted by it all. However, it's quite clear what he meant: God exacts commixion as puni

        • it's quite clear what he meant: God exacts commixion as punishment for pride

          I don't think it is clear that he meant that, and I don't think he meant that at all, first and foremostly because I don't think Paul is saying that God is exacting anything, really. The word paradidomai means "handing over to." God does not "exact" commixion, he gives over to commixion, as a citizen would hand over a captured thief to the authorities, who might then punish him. The emphasis is pointing *away* from God exacting

          • I don't think it is clear that he meant that, and I don't think he meant that at all, first and foremostly because I don't think Paul is saying that God is exacting anything, really. The word paradidomai means "handing over to." God does not "exact" commixion, he gives over to commixion, as a citizen would hand over a captured thief to the authorities, who might then punish him. The emphasis is pointing *away* from God exacting commixion itself, but rather on exacting the handing over to it, and this is

            • I don't think any bad blood between us could be conducive to that.

              I realize these are touchy subjects, some of them, and I don't claim to be perfect in this regard, but my aim is for enlightenment -- yours and mine -- and tolerance of differing beliefs. I learned something, and I think others did too, and I hope that everyone realizes more tolerance as a result.

              I don't intend anything personally (usually :-), and hope others don't as well. Not by way of threat, but of explanation, I want this place to

              • Sorry for the enormous delay in replying. I spent like four hours studying the Greek text and phrasing my argument, only to have OS X crash on me. I feel frustrated. I hope it's not Gimp-print what's causing the instabilities. If only /code would store the comments being previewed... :-)

                But if you get a bit heated in your debate, fine. I can take it. Just stay away from belittlement and personal attacks, and give it your best shot. It's all good.

                You were very kind in your reply, and I appreciate i

  • I'm pretty much right up the same alley as you on this one. I really enjoyed reading what you had to say on the matter.

    Personally, I don't care if somebody wants to be gay. I wish they would choose to fight the impulses, both for biblical reasons and because I've so rarely seen a truly happy homosexual. There's no reason why I can't be friends with them, though. It is hard to watch a good friend waste away because of AIDS and die, but even harder knowing that their death was caused by a lifestyle that w

  • Question here, not an argument: What is "gay" when discussing a bishop?

    Doesn't the bishop have to be chaste anyway? Or can there be married bishops?

    If he's not actively having sex with other men, then is his gayness a matter of his desires?

    • Doesn't the bishop have to be chaste anyway? Or can there be married bishops?

      In the Anglican church, yes, and no.

      If he's not actively having sex with other men, then is his gayness a matter of his desires?

      I didn't really want to delve into this in the discussion, because it's a whole separate can of worms, but to be brief, yes, there's a difference, I think. In this case, it is beside the point, as the bishop has a longtime partner.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close