Episcopal Church Elects First Openly Gay Bishop

[standman87]

Not all of the Episcopalians believe this is right, but the majority is swayed to pro-hedonism.

I have heard some good people disagreeing with the election, but have any of them mentioned the Bible? From Old Testament to New Testament the Bible says to not have any same-sex relationships. And yet this self-proclaimed Christian church is accepting homosexuality. I could see some legal arguments for accepting homosexual issues under government, but the church? This is a church that is in desperate need of some doctrine!  

[Josh]

This is a church that is in desperate need of some doctrine!

I couldn't have said it better myself. That's what I think one of the biggest problems is with the church these days; the Bible tells us to preach the Gospel, but most churches don't seem to have much Gospel.    

[bloop]

Most scripture commonly used against homosexuality is misapplied IMO, but I agree that it's a sin.

[Vlad!]

I have heard some good people disagreeing with the election, but have any of them mentioned the Bible?

A good point, Stanton; the Bible is very clear on this issue. For once, I agree with you strongly on this issue.

If we didn't elect sinners to be ministers, we would have no ministers, but openly unrepentant men should not be elected to the ministry.

[latinchic]

It's pretty clear cut to me.  Who knows what they were thinking.

latinchic [_[  

[Josh]

My pastor addressed this issue briefly this evening, and he prayed that, above all, the name of Jesus will not be mocked in the fact of this blatant rejection of God's Word. Sounds like a pretty selfless and worthwhile request to me.  =)  

[standman87]

Most scripture commonly used against homosexuality is misapplied IMO, but I agree that it's a sin.

This is where this particular sin is rooted: scriptural doubts. They doubt one thing over and over again until they find an alternative meaning. The Openly Gay Bishop was asked a scripture-based question  during an interview by secular, liberal media (not by the church group) and he said that homosexuality was a new thing and that the Bible is culturally based so it is not reliable on this issue. I say bull. This is why I was so against doubting large sections of scriptures' fact base or meaning.

I agree that homosexuality is a sin and should be openly preached against from the pulpit of every Christian church. Never should any openly homosexual take an office of any Christian church that is even losely based upon scripture. Now, this does not mean that I hate homosexuals and wish to kill them or ban them from entering churches. The opposite is true; I love them. They may worship, sitting right next to me. But the second they try to lead me, I am out the door. Homosexuals should not be treated harshly but sternly (I know that sounds like a very thin line.). Every human that enters a church should feel the power of His Law and His Grace.


Not related but what does 'IMO' mean?

[Josh]

Not related but what does 'IMO' mean?

In my opinion.  =)  

[standman87]

thanks josh B)  

[leinad]

[bloop]

Just read the "Gay and Christian" link.  I pretty much agree with most of the guy's points on interpretation, but I don't agree with his conclusion that homosexual sex is not a sin.

[RokrantheGreat]

This is just wrong. A "Christian" gay? That's an oxymoron.

[Guest]

This is just wrong. A "Christian" gay? That's an oxymoron.

Really now?  I know some who'd beg to differ.

[RokrantheGreat]

Really now?  I know some who'd beg to differ.

They can beg all they want, I won't let them.  

[Vlad!]

This is just wrong. A "Christian" gay? That's an oxymoron.

Homosexuality is a sin. So is theft, murder, adultery, and many other things. People often make a bigger deal out if it, and part of that is justified--homosexuals are often unrepentant and don't believe that what they do is wrong. But I think a gay Christian can exist just as an adulterous Christian can exist.

[RokrantheGreat]

Homosexuality is a sin. So is theft, murder, adultery, and many other things. People often make a bigger deal out if it, and part of that is justified--homosexuals are often unrepentant and don't believe that what they do is wrong. But I think a gay Christian can exist just as an adulterous Christian can exist.

You're right, Vlad!. As always .  I, uh, posted in haste. What I really meant was:

A gay Christian leader (pastor, bishop, bible study teacher, etc) is an oxymoron, or should be, anyway. No congregation should allow someone in that kind of sin to lead them.  

[Vlad!]

Yeah, I guess I can buy that.

[leinad]

Stanton, you never answered my question.  If I sounded harsh in my above post, I apologize.  But if we adhere to the fundamentalist understanding of the Bible which you insist on, it seems very clear from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that women shouldn't be pastors.  So what is your stance on female pastors?

[Vlad!]

Stanton, you never answered my question.  If I sounded harsh in my above post, I apologize.  But if we adhere to the fundamentalist understanding of the Bible which you insist on, it seems very clear from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that women shouldn't be pastors.  So what is your stance on female pastors?

Well by George, I meant to reply to that myself and I guess I got waylaid.

Recall this text by Stan:

The Openly Gay Bishop was asked a scripture-based question during an interview by secular, liberal media (not by the church group) and he said that homosexuality was a new thing and that the Bible is culturally based so it is not reliable on this issue. I say bull.

Stan is just saying here that the bishop in question is obviously unaware that homosexuality is NOT a new thing, and that the Bible mentions it several times (something I find disturbing in any bishop, gay or no).

Now as I have mentioned before, I don't believe that the church is necessarily supposed to follow the pasage saying women can't be pastors today. But I will admit that my stance does open a whole can-o'-worms that those who interpret everything literally (often ignoring cultural context and even literary context) can get around: which parts of the Bible ARE valid for today?

My answer is that the entire Bible is valid for today, it's just that you have to intelligently asses which parts are meant for you. This seems like a fairly relativistic way of putting it (as well as an attempt to weasel out of the question, which it may be), so I'll try to issue some of my thoughts on it:
-If the command is issued in both the Old and New Testaments, God obviously considers it to have a lasting importance. Conversely, if the command is revoked in the New Testament, its presence in the Old Testament can be considered of historical importance only.
-If the command is exclusively part of Jewish law, it can be reasonably interpreted that non-Jews don't have to follow it. Paul is pretty clear on this.
-If the command is given as either the writer's opinion or a specific command for a single person, it's fairly obvious that the command is not necessarily applicable to the rest of humanity.
-There is a difference between God telling man to do something for his (man's) own good and God telling man to do something because He (God) cares about it.

Making these fairly general guidelines relevant to the topic ant hand, we see that the first one is important because God mentions homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments as being wrong. Additionally, we see that the fourth guideline could come into play even in the OT. Many of the Levitical laws are issued to keep the nomadic Israelites from dying out due to disease and filth--many times it is mentioned that they are very ling-lived, and I have no doubt that these laws have much to do with it. On the other hand, the law against homosexual intercourse mentions that it is a thing of disgust for God--not just some ceremonial concept of uncleanness. Something that disgusts God is something I'd want to keep away from.

In contrast, and I will only briefly touch on this since it's off-topic, the injunction against female preachers appears as a specific instrucion from Paul and is presented in Timothy as Paul's own opinion on the matter. I'm certainly biased towards my own opinions and feelings on the matter, but I think that the evidence is fairly clear in both these cases.

 

[leinad]

[Vlad!]

[leinad]

[polka_dot]

Argh, I sometimes totally understand why the traditional Mennonites went gung-ho with the whole "follow the Bible to the letter" thing.  It sure requires a lot less thinking than actually trying to understand the Bible.  I believe there is a fine line between following the Bible in understanding and following it like a lemming.  But once you say that one thing (like women wearing headcoverings) doesn't apply to you, where does it end?  What applies to you and what doesn't?  But you know, God gave us brains - and to me, believing that women should cover their hair just because Paul said it to a specific group of people is just a cop-out.  We have to try to understand why Paul believed it, don't we?

Now, my church doesn't allow females to lead a congregation.  They can be children's pastors, youth pastors, etc.  but not head pastor or on the board of elders.  I honestly waver back and forth on my position on this.  I don't believe a woman leading a church is sin, of course not.  God has done many wonderful things through women pastors all over the world.  But in the end, God built us a certain way.  And men are the providers, the leaders.  It's human nature.  And I have no issue with that.  It's all very confusing.

As for homosexuality, I've looked up a lot of passages lately, trying to understand.  And from what I've read, homosexuality always was, and always will be, a sin.  It is always listed amoung things like murder and adultery...which no one even questions being sins.  And I definitely wouldn't want a murderer for a Pastor, even if he was really good at his job.

[Vlad!]

[standman87]

Finally Stanton returns...
(sorry school started and I am beginning the busiest year of my life so far - I am a junior in HS)

My opinion on females leading worship, ... -here comes the part where I say what I believe even though others might strongly disagree- ... the scripture is correct. Wives are to be submissive and this includes during worship time. Now I do not believe being a female pastor is a sin, but unless the female is taking a stand for the truth alone, males should be leading the worship. This command, I believe, puts more pressure on the males, because they are responsible for leading their families. Women can worship and women can speak to God but they should embrace their position in society - which in my opinion has some 'ups' compared to being a male. Now when a female speaks they should be respected - but if all possible the males should take a stand first. Women are so good at being encouragers and their few 'questions' to their husbands have a significant unmeasurable effect. My mom (being a pastor's wife) has most definitely had a profound effect on my dad's ministry without even feeling the need to speak in front of the congregation.

Now for those who will pitch a fit at what I just typed, think about this: How could it hurt a church if male leaders led the way and the women encouraged it with their full hearts?

consider my opinion and respond as kindly as you can - you never know (some of my views are know to be shaky), you might change my perspective.

[leinad]

Wives are to be submissive and this includes during worship time. Now I do not believe being a female pastor is a sin, but unless the female is taking a stand for the truth alone, males should be leading the worship.

 Now when a female speaks they should be respected - but if all possible the males should take a stand first.

Thanks for your reply.  But with your strict fundamentalist view of scripture (which you blamed the lack of for gay clergy), how do you reconcile even this view with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which states that women shouldn't speak at all during a worship service?

[Chainsaw Butterfly]

And if the gay, the adulterer, or the murderer is unrepentant, they were never a christian in the first place.

[standman87]

Wives are to be submissive and this includes during worship time. Now I do not believe being a female pastor is a sin, but unless the female is taking a stand for the truth alone, males should be leading the worship.

 Now when a female speaks they should be respected - but if all possible the males should take a stand first.

Thanks for your reply.  But with your strict fundamentalist view of scripture (which you blamed the lack of for gay clergy), how do you reconcile even this view with 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, which states that women shouldn't speak at all during a worship service?

What I am saying is that women shouldn't have to speak in church but the sins of males make the women more likely to want to speak out. So maybe I should retract one statement I made earlier: I suppose it is a sin for women to speak out during worship. But I still think a women's influence and action are still powerful tools for Christ - maybe more powerful than some male speakers for Christ.

I need to read that whole chapter instead of just looking over this one verse.
I'm still thinking this over so maybe God will reveal something to me thru sleep    

[Vlad!]

And if the gay, the adulterer, or the murderer is unrepentant, they were never a christian in the first place.

Where do you find justification for claiming that a Christian can never be unrepentant? I know there are some passages in Hebrews that can be construed to condemn unrepentant sinners, but can a Christian not be unrepentant for a time (such as the prodigal son) and then realize his error and return? Or would you say that the person was not a Christian until he or she realized the error?

[Vlad!]

What I am saying is that women shouldn't have to speak in church but the sins of males make the women more likely to want to speak out. So maybe I should retract one statement I made earlier: I suppose it is a sin for women to speak out during worship. But I still think a women's influence and action are still powerful tools for Christ - maybe more powerful than some male speakers for Christ.

I completely disagree with this view. But that's another topic entirely...