So we had an open discussion meeting tonight down at the church, to talk about the Episcopal Church’s decision to approve Gene Robinson as bishop, and it’s resolution on same-sex unions (we’re going to study it some more, but we acknowledge that it’s happening on some localities, and we’re not going to forbid it) affects people’s relationships to God, to the Church, and to our parish.
Two remarkable things happened.
1. We had about 50 people, over 10% of the congregation. That’s almost unheard of for Episcopalians.
2. Over half of the folks there spoke. That’s pretty damned unusual, too.
Lots of interesting stuff was said. What I found most intriguing is that you could not look at someone and say, “That person’s a good Christian and Episcopalian, therefore they are pleased/displeased by what happened at General Convention.” Some old-timers in the parish are deeply disturbed and troubled and are speaking of withdrawing. Others, of equally weighty credentials, are supportive of the GC’s actions, and happy with them. Anyone who thinks it’s a simple matter of “right-thinking” people falling on one side or the other of the debate would have been very disappointed.
We had folks expressing confusion. We had folks who were generally okay with it, but didn’t know what to tell their kids. We had folks who were obviously deeply angry about it all. We had folks who told their stories of being gay, or of having gay relatives. We had folks who talked about homosexual debauchery and pederasty.
(My own five minutes of fame was a brief recounting of how, contrary to the sense of “Christianity has been a monolithic, unchanging set of Scripturally-based theology since its founding, that the history of Christianity is one of constant evolution and revolution and revelation, from the tumultuous centuries of the early Church, to the Reformation, to the acceptance of (outside of Catholicism) of priests being married, to the rejection of slavery, to the acceptance of women to the priesthood. Each of those times were beset by accusations of radicalism and abandonment of Scriptural authority. Just ’cause it’s “always been that way” doesn’t mean that it should be, or that changing is, per se, wrong.)
One thing that multiple people, on all sides of the issue, noted was how neat it was that we could come together to discuss events, our feelings about them, and how we could remain in communion. It was not the classic “Come to Jesus” meeting, where the orthodox party line gets laid down and everyone learns how to toe it. Rather, it was more of a “Jesus, come to us” meeting, searching for clarity, and for community while discovering it.
It will be interesting to see what comes from this. I heard many painful stories (and, rhetorically, a lot of stupid arguments, and not just from folks I disagreed with). This evolution of the Episcopal Church is far from over, and I worry about the people we will lose — but not as much as I am happy about the honesty we will gain.
Sounds like everyone feels vested in the church, which can only be a good thing from where I sit. Glad to hear that the situation brought out so many folks.
Me, too. Though there are evidently some folks who have, sadly, already decided to jump ship, or withdraw from the congregation in some fashion.
As a congregation, many people come and stay because of what they feel as a welcoming and friendly atmosphere. I think that’s helping in this matter.
I have a question on your point. On what basis do you change and on what basis do you stay the same? All of the historical examples you gave the proponents used Scripture to show how the church had been misinterpreting it. This present controversy seems to abandoning Scripture altogether — at least as an authoritative basis to resolve controversy. Note this exchange between CBN reporter and Robinson:
I think both sides miss an important point, the Bible does not condemn homosexual orientation but rather homosexual behavior. We should take seriously the fact that the temptation concerning homosexual behavior can be so strong that those who have put it in strong language as “I don’t have a choice.” In that, the Bible would not disagree and gives a concept that can be applied to those who are straight. Note Romans 7:14-20:
In the sense that homosexual advocates talk about it, none of us have a choice. We are all slaves to sin. If we weaken the law and say something that is wrong is right, then we remove the basis people would come to Jesus to be freed from it. The last thing people should do is to come before a holy and righteous God on our “own too feet”. If we water down the requirements, that’s what people will do. That’s why fighting for the truth is important. As Jesus said we shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free.
I would agree with Robinson that, in the cases cited, Scripture is out of date — as it is out of date about wearing clothing of mixed fibers, or avoiding touching a woman when she is “unclean,” or women keeping silent in the churches, or women wearing hats in church.
Scripture cannot stand on its own, because it is always interpreted. It’s certainly something to pay attention to, to weigh heavily in the balance, but if it were all that were necessary, then giving it to humans in written form would seem to be unnecessary, as would be the council of the Holy Spirit.
Go through Leviticus. Heck, go through Paul’s epistles. Are these all things which must still be done, as dictated by Scripture? Which do we no longer consider valid, and why — and is that a matter of revelation and consideration of Jesus’ message, or a matter of simply deciding what makes sense? Do we worry about planting fields with two kinds of seed? Eating meat with blood still on it? Do we always rise in the presence of the aged? Do we clip off the edges of our beard? Have we so mixed up what is right from wrong?
Can homosexuals choose to lead a celebate life? Certainly. Some of them do, as some heterosexuals do. Many gays who do so do it from fear, or from self-hatred; some, like most of those straights who do it, do it as an offering up of themselves to God. The celebate life, though, is not for all, as Paul himself recognized. That a life of companionship and love, including the sexual expression that God gifted us with, is not to be allowed to gays as it is to straights, even though the distinction between the two, in important particulars, is trivial, seems to fly in the face of God’s love for all his creation, and for the joys which he has provided to his children, made in his image.
I suppose, fundamentally, I do not see anything wrong, per se, with homosexual behavior, insofar as I am able to understand the wrongness of so many other things God commands against. When I judge it against the Greatest Commandments Jesus identified for us, I do not understand how it stands in opposition to it, and, in fact, support it. That, as much as anything, makes me think that the Levitican and Pauline injunctions against it are no more meaningful than the ones alongside that few if any of us would still consider valid restrictions on behavior.