Two of the country's largest Episcopal congregations-both in Fairfax County, Virginia-will vote next week on whether to leave the U.S. church over the ordination of an openly gay bishop (and other perceived heresies) and to affiliate instead with a vehemently anti-gay Nigerian archbishop.
Social conservatives hope a split will establish a legal structure that would make it easier for more like-minded congregations to depart the national denomination.
From a short-term perspective, the Episcopal Church can ill afford such defections after years of declining membership. But in the long run, a commitment to the gospel message that embraces the worth of all, and a rejection of selective literalism motivated by anti-gay animus, would offer a far better prospect for the renewal of a vibrant, spiritual community.
More. Conservative Judaism's governing body votes to permit same-sex commitment ceremonies and ordination of gays, with some stipulations.
53 Comments for “Going My Way?”
posted by Randy on
I’m not an Epsicopalian, so perhaps it’s not my business. But if it were, I would kick them to the corner so hard they would feel it for months.
Good riddence to bad rubbish, I say.
posted by James on
As an Episcopalian, I’ve been watching this closely. I don’t think the “anti-gay” forces are entirely evil, or entirely wrong. Acceptance of gays does not mean acceptance of all forms of homosexual expression–some forms of homosexual expression are, in fact, sinful. I think the gay community is largely responsible for presenting an image of itself through its rallies and parades, and its flamboyant, exotic, and amoral behavior which would suggest to most observers that such behavior is intrinsic to being gay.
I am working to demonstrate in my church that I’m a normal guy who wants a normal marriage and family, but I have to constantly combat people’s image of what being gay is, an image which has been planted by Rosie O’Donell, Lance Bass, George Michael, Elton John et. al. And I think the conservatives in my church are right to call that sort of amoral value system unChristian.
I think the church needs to offer both acceptance AND accountability. Until the visible gay community is willing to admit that much of what it presents is unhealthy, toxic, and yes, sinful, it can’t expect any organization with traditional values to easily open its doors.
posted by dr on
“…sinful, it can’t expect any organization with traditional values to easily open its doors.”
Do you really think that these people are upset about the what the gay community does, rather than the fact that homosexuality exists to begin with?
If you do, you’re delusional. And pointing to pride rallies is claiming that social conservatives either too bigotted or too stupid to separate a part from the whole.
Has the New Hampshire bishop been running a bath house out of his church? What about a leather boy meet-up in the parking lot? No, he’s been attempting to live as normally as any of us can, with a partner of 16+ years. And he’s a much more visable example of a gay man embracing the values of his church than you are.
But of course social conservatives will have none of it. He’s gay, and that’s all they need to hear. It’s reactionary and its visceral to them.
So you have about as responsible an example of a homosexual as there is, and in response? They throw their lot in with a Nigerian who believes that the state ought to enter bedrooms and arrest homosexuals.
And really, you’re focusing on old one part of a greater issue. The people who are calling for the split are just as upset at the naming of a female bishop too. That they’re so threatened by a woman is a sign of who we’re talking about.
So go ahead and try to get in the good graces of these people. Maybe you’ll peal off a few of them from their hateful little circles. But they’ll never let you in.
posted by Greg Capaldini on
James, to put it simply: Church authoritarians CHOOSE the flamboyant face to represent the gay community because this suits their underlying desire to fend off an “otherness” they fear and/or don’t understand.
posted by James on
Why is the gay community in such denial about the effect of presenting themselves as flamboyant, exotic, perpetual adolescents at rallies and parades? Yes, yes, we know this is just a “minority” of the gay community, but it is the one we allow to represent us. Don’t you think allowing such people as Rosie O’Donell and Lance Bass to be the face of the gay community is going to have consequences? Maybe, just maybe, our public displays are the reason society is reticent about giving us the right to marry or make us leaders in church.
I don’t particularly admire Gene Robinson–he is, after all, an adulterer. I don’t think he is a good choice for an overseer of Christian community. Why not choose a gay man who has shown the maturity to be in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship?
Why can’t the gay community deal with the “repentance” part of the Christian equation–that is, turn around, away from toxic, self-destructive behavior, towards behavior which is healthy and prudent? If the conservative leaders saw a majority of gays trying to live normal lives based on traditional values, they would be forced to admit their bigotry and have to accept us. As it is, they have too much evidence coming from the gay community which all too easily reinforces the stereotypes the conservatives want to believe.
posted by dr on
“Maybe, just maybe, our public displays are the reason society is reticent about giving us the right to marry or make us leaders in church.”
Again, are the people who are so distressed by this too stupid or too bigotted to draw distinctions, or are they just using this as an excuse?
“Why not choose a gay man who has shown the maturity to be in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship?”
16 years with the same partner. What more do you want? Yes, it is adulterous, but that’s because he is not allowed to get married in his church or his country. IMO, any God worth worshiping would make an exception in that case.
“Why can’t the gay community deal with the “repentance” part of the Christian equation–that is, turn around, away from toxic, self-destructive behavior, towards behavior which is healthy and prudent?”
Because, for the kinds of Christians you defend, repentance means “ex-gay.” Not repentance for the handful of flings most people, gay and straight, have while they’re young. They’ll accept nothing less.
“If the conservative leaders saw a majority of gays trying to live normal lives based on traditional values, they would be forced to admit their bigotry and have to accept us.”
You mean in the same way segregationists saw blacks living normal, moral lives and had to accept them? Oh wait, that didn’t happen.
posted by Godless Sodomite on
“Why can’t the gay community deal with the “repentance” part of the Christian equation–that is, turn around, away from toxic, self-destructive behavior, towards behavior which is healthy and prudent?”
That’s an argument that might get you somewhere with Christian gays. But we certainly are not all Christians; I definitely am not and have no interest in being one. Most gay people I personally know are either apathetic to religion in general, or outright atheistic. Selling us a notion of “Christian repentance” doesn’t really mean anything outside the dogmas of your faith.
What I find most offensive about Christianity is the insistence from all too many Christians to enforce their prejudices into law. It’s obvious to them that their god is completely impotent in making me conform to whatever it is that they’d have me do, so they need to enforce laws against me. If Christianity weren’t so pernicious, I could easily ignore it.
Given that there’s strength in numbers, I’m always pleased when a Christian group splinters. It shatters their political power piece by piece.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
So one group of fanciful mysticists argues with another over which group’s fairy tales are “closer to the truth.” Big deal.
posted by Ray Eckhart on
“I don’t particularly admire Gene Robinson–he is, after all, an adulterer.”
http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/030706/letters/index.html#VGRchronology
August, 1972 V. Gene Robinson and Isabella ‘Boo’ Martin are married, All Saints Church, Peterborough, New Hampshire, USA.
May, 1986 Gene and Boo separate; Gene moves to Wilton, New Hampshire (five miles away), sharing joint custody of daughters Jamee and Ella.
March, 1987 Boo meets Robert McDaniel, by May they are engaged to be married; Gene moves to Concord, NH, where he is now employed as Canon to the Ordinary.
August, 1987 Boo and Gene’s divorce is final; the Rector of Grace Church, Manchester, accompanies them to the judge’s chambers for the final decree, and then they return to Grace Church, where they mark the ending of their marriage, the mutual release from their wedding vows (symbolized by the return of their wedding rings), and the pledging of themselves to the joint nurture and care of their children?all within the context of the eucharist.
October, 1987 Boo and Robert are married (within a couple of years, they have two sons).
November, 1987 Gene meets Mark Andrew while on vacation.
February, 1989 Mark leaves his career with the Peace Corps and moves to New Hampshire to be with Gene, Jamee, and Ella.
July, 1989 Gene, Mark, Jamee and Ella host a ‘Celebration of a Home’ from the Book of Occasional Services.
posted by Casey on
“I don’t particularly admire Gene Robinson–he is, after all, an adulterer. I don’t think he is a good choice for an overseer of Christian community.”
How far is this from “I don’t particularly admire Saul/Paul–he is, after all, a persecutor of Christians. I don’t think he is a good choice for an overseer of Christian community”?
You speak about the importance of repentance, but clearly forget that we are called upon to forgive as we have been forgiven, and to accept that sincere repentance. Gene Robinson has turned toward truth, and his past experiences are part of his spiritual journey – haven’t you ever noticed that sometimes it is those who have lived the hardest lives who have the most insight into the importance of a loving, forgiving God? Robinson feels a call to Christian ministry, and those in his care have respected that call, and his work. It isn’t our role to question that call, but to trust that God works in His way.
posted by dr on
“How far is this from “I don’t particularly admire Saul/Paul–he is, after all, a persecutor of Christians. I don’t think he is a good choice for an overseer of Christian community”? ”
It’s pretty far, but it think it’s more that Gene Robinson’s life blows his arguement that conservatives will respect “moral” gays right out of the water, so he’s trying to defame him.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
James wrote, “Yes, yes, we know this is just a ‘minority’ of the gay community, but it is the one we allow to represent us.”
Huh? If I don’t urge the government to violate the freedom of assembly of people who like to parade, I am somehow responsible for them because we are both same-sexers? Surely you know better, James. Are all straight people to blame for all the hetero trash on TV? This is just nonsense. How about holding people responsible for their own behavior?
“Don’t you think allowing such people as Rosie O’Donell and Lance Bass to be the face of the gay community is going to have consequences?”
Hey, Rosie persuaded Bill O’Reilly to support gay adoption. What have you done, big shot?
“Maybe, just maybe, our public displays are the reason society is reticent about giving us the right to marry or make us leaders in church.”
So if we behave ourselves, maybe the majority will condescend to recognize our God-given rights?
“Why can’t the gay community deal with the ‘repentance’ part of the Christian equation….”
If I had anything to repent, it would be a private matter between me and my conscience and whomever I had wronged, not for the benefit of hypocrites who presume to judge others while shoving their willfully ignorant dogma down other people’s throats.
“If the conservative leaders saw a majority of gays trying to live normal lives based on traditional values, they would be forced to admit their bigotry and have to accept us.”
Oh, please. Are you serious? Even you refuse to respect Gene Robinson despite his perfectly honorable behavior. By the way, do you advocate prohibiting all divorce? And do you advocate finding out the facts before making an accusation against someone?
If gays all had to behave like Stepford Wives in order to deserve basic civil equality, it would be a false equality and pursuing it would be an obscenity. But we deserve equality as we are, just like our non-gay neighbors. And we are slowly winning it. And by the way, we do not all fit your caricature, nor can you possibly justify holding me responsible for particular behaviors foreign to me that you dislike and which you selectively emphasize to justify smearing our entire community. Why don’t you get with NL and organize a False Generalization Caucus?
posted by James on
Your opinions are good opinions, but they are not “gay” opinions. One’s choice in one’s religion has nothing to do with being gay. Believe what you want, be as morally relativistic and as agnostic as you want, but don’t claim it as the default gay belief.
On many issues, I am on the side of the conservatives in my church. I do support women’s ordination and gay marriage, but I also stick to an orthodox understanding of the Creeds. None of this has anything to do with being gay. I like Bishop Schoori for her stand on gays; I don’t trust her Christology. I’d rather have a presiding bishop with an orthodox Christology than one who supports gays, so I don’t particularly support her. It would be nice to have a presiding bishop who clearly believes Jesus is God and believes that gays can marry.
You can attack my opinions because you disagree, but you can’t say “You’ve got to change your mind or you can no longer be gay!” I would like the gay spectrum to more visibly include those of us who have traditional values and orthodox faith. If the gay community were truly supportive of diversity, you would have no problem with gay Christians like me.
posted by Bobby on
Here’s the liberals version of being sensitive and respectful towards other people’s cultures.
December 06, 2006
Nativity scene on UT campus draws a stir
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid40122.asp
A Nativity scene that features a gay couple standing in for Joseph and Mary, a terrorist as an angel, and Lenin, Stalin, and Marx as the three wise men is causing a stir on the University of Texas campus in Austin, according to Austin television station KVUE.
The gay couple, Gary and Joseph, is part of what the Young Conservatives of Texas is calling its “ACLU Nativity scene.”
“The idea is to bring attention to the ACLU and also to bring attention to the issue of taking down Nativity scenes during the Christmas season or trying to silence, you know, the word Christ and the word Christmas,” Tony McDonald of the Young Conservatives of Texas told KVUE.
Will Harrell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, called the scene “festive,” adding that because the group enjoys First Amendment rights, it should be allowed to display the scene. “Keep in mind, nothing in the First Amendment requires that you be accurate about the information. The First Amendment protects parody as well,” he said to the station. (The Advocate)
posted by Gomer on
I think that James and Bobby should get married in the Pentecostal church and have a full brood of Jelly Babies!
posted by dalea on
No matter what gay people do, christians will hate us. This is not surprising. What amazes me is the number of gay people who continue to and drool at the feet of said christians.
We are who we are. Period. End of discussion. If christians can’t deal with us as we are, end of discussion. I can see no point in talking with the deliberately obtuse.
So, christians don’t like us. BFD. Let us move on.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””One’s choice in one’s religion has nothing to do with being gay. Believe what you want, be as morally relativistic and as agnostic as you want, but don’t claim it as the default gay belief.””””
Neither are your beliefs, so stop whining that gays should go in for some notion of repentence you support.
posted by dr on
“Here’s the liberals version of being sensitive and respectful towards other people’s cultures.”
It’s so nice to see that young conservatives consider us on the level of terrorists and Stalin. Real respectful right Bobby?
“If the gay community were truly supportive of diversity, you would have no problem with gay Christians like me.”
James, you need a new arguement. Every time someone brings up substantive points you come back to this idea that somehow other gay people don’t respect you, or have a problem with what you believe, rather than addressing any arguements.
No one has a problem with what you believe, until you start demanding we conform to a moral code we don’t share in order to suck up to people who will hate us no matter what. That’s capitulation, not respect.
posted by James on
No, my beliefs aren’t the default beliefs for gays–but the Creeds are the default beliefs for Christians. My comments don’t have anything to do with the gay community in the world at large–my comments have to do with gays who want to be Christians in a traditional Christian denomination. If that is important to you, as it is to me, then there are certain beliefs and behaviors which the church has the right to expect–for instance, a commitment to sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships as the ideal (if not always the real) for human sexual expression, gay or straight.
The church is about acceptance, but it is also about accountability. And that’s just beyond much of the gay community’s comprehension. Most gays don’t seem to have the maturity to be part of a group which sets limits or asks you to consider other people’s feelings. Maybe being part of a group which calls people to adulthood would be a good thing for many gays to experiment with–since so many seem to enjoy experimenting with everything else.
posted by novaseeker on
Hi James —
I can get to a certain degree what you are saying. It’s true that some of the images we as a community present to the media in situations like Gay Pride parades and the like send mixed messages about what we are about, and also tend to perpetuate stereotypes about gays in the minds of straights. Of course, it’s also true that straight people choose to prefer to accept those images as normative for gay people, and block out contra images of gay people, and that has to be taken into consideration as well.
As for the religion issue, of course a lot of gay people are going to have hostility towards religion because a lot of religious people have hostility towards gay people. There’s a sense of being beseiged by conservative religious people that is a very real one, and the advent of politicized conservative christianity in the US has certainly had a large anti-gay element to it.
“I do support women’s ordination and gay marriage, but I also stick to an orthodox understanding of the Creeds.”
The thing is, though, there is definitely pretty much 2000 years of Christian moral theology that says that homosexual activity is capital “S” sin. There’s no really easy way around that. Yes, people use textual criticism, historical readings of the Bible, rational discourses about nature and the like, but all of those are merely attempts to get the churches to move away from a position that has been held for pretty much two millenia. It’s very much a central part of typically Christian moral theology about sex, and has been for a long, long time. So clearly a lot of gay people are going to be hostile to some degree or other towards that.
“It would be nice to have a presiding bishop who clearly believes Jesus is God and believes that gays can marry.”
With all due respect, I think this is a wild goose chase. The people who are more likely to have an orthodox christology are also more likely to have an orthodox moral theology … and it’s very unlikely in the ECUSA at least that someone would have one but not the other. Doctrinal orthodoxy goes hand in hand with moral theological orthodoxy, and while someone’s unorthodox christology may bother you, your own unorthodox moral theology about homosexuality will likely bother the person with an orthodox christology … as well as many other people who tend to care more about moral theology than abstract christology in general.
“I would like the gay spectrum to more visibly include those of us who have traditional values and orthodox faith.”
In theory I don’t disagree, but I would point out that it is not at all orthodox to believe that homosexual activity (monogamous and committed or not) is in accord with Christian moral theology. It puts you at odds with most of the ‘orthodox’ believing christians almost be definition. So while I sympathize with your suggestion that your christian faith should not impede your aability to self-identify as gay, nevertheless your attitude towards homosexual activity will impede your ability to be considered an orthodox christian believer. I do not think you can separate formal theology like christology from moral theology … they go together in the eyes of most believers, and hence these kinds of splits are inevitable over issues like women and gays.
posted by Bobby on
“Social conservatives hope a split will establish a legal structure that would make it easier for more like-minded congregations to depart the national denomination.”
—And what’s wrong with that? It’s called freedom of association. Conservatives shouldn’t be forced to hang out with people they don’t like.
The world is not inclusive, deal with it.
posted by dr on
“—And what’s wrong with that? It’s called freedom of association. Conservatives shouldn’t be forced to hang out with people they don’t like.”
Nothing. No one is trying to stop them, and the sentiment here (from everyone but James) seems to be that if they’re angry enough to leave, then they ought to leave.
The only thing “wrong” is that the people who are attempting to split are trying to claim $25 million of property of the church they are leaving, which is trying to have their cake and eat it too.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Dalea wrote, “No matter what gay people do, christians will hate us.”
You are falling into the trap of talking as if gay people are over here and Christians are over there. As it happens, a great many gay people are themselves Christian, and do not require the permission of self-appointed gatekeepers in order to be so. The problem is not with Christians generally, but with Christianist theocrats.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No one has a problem with what you believe, until you start demanding we conform to a moral code we don’t share in order to suck up to people who will hate us no matter what.
I would put it this way; how do you know, since no one has ever tried?
And before you start trying to cite Gene Robinson, remember this; social conservatives dislike him, not merely because he’s gay, but because his theology is gay first and Christian second. If Robinson could make it clear that his being gay doesn’t completely gut his Christian beliefs, that would be one thing; however, all that he’s shown in all his time in the church is that he can make excuses for even outright antireligious bigotry by people because they’re gay, and that, to do so, he will try to reinterpret the Bible to prove that Jesus was gay because the twelve apostles were men.
People know that Robinson supports gays who call his fellow Episcopalians “bad rubbish”, “fanciful mysticists”, and “Stepford wives”, and claim the Bible in which he supposedly believes is nothing but “fairy tales”. They also know that, as dalea and the vast majority of the commentors here openly state, that being gay and being Christian are incompatible.
What do you expect them to do? Support a bishop who himself blasphemes their faith and aligns himself with those who insult and profane their beliefs, their faith, and their Scriptures?
posted by ETJB on
“Why is the gay community in such denial about the effect of presenting themselves as flamboyant, exotic, perpetual adolescents at rallies and parades?”
Why do you say that they are? I hate to burst your little bubble but “the gay community” has little control over who marches in a public parade or what footage certain groups choose to focus on.
Gay Pride parades are often like Mardi Gras or a College frat party. However, heterosexuals dont accuse such immature or wild events as making straights look bad.
“Don’t you think allowing such people as Rosie O’Donell and Lance Bass to be the face of the gay community is going to have consequences?”
Darling, if they are “the face” of “the gay community” then it is because they have lots of time and money and pr skills with the media.
BTW, I am not a Christian, so I am going to allow this and other Churches to sort their bigotry out forthemselves.
“Why can’t the gay community deal with the “repentance” part of the Christian equation.”
(1) Because this “gay community” is not all Christian or even a part of your Christian sect.
(2) Because the message is not simply be a ‘better gay’, but ‘stop being gay’. Period.
(3) Becuase, well. This is American and responsibility died when Reagan took over.
posted by dr on
“I would put it this way; how do you know, since no one has ever tried?”
Tried what? Living monogamously? I have 2 couples on my block that have been with each other for 10+ years. The vast majority of gay people live monogamously. This hasn’t stopped them yet.
“And before you start trying to cite Gene Robinson, remember this; social conservatives dislike him, not merely because he’s gay, but because his theology is gay first and Christian second.”
Bullshit. They’re talking about signing on with a bishop who talks of gay people as being worse than animals and who says he can’t stand to be in the same room as them. And Gene Robinson was brought up as an example of someone who has been in a monogamous relationship for 16+ years, but still is not respected by these christians.
“What do you expect them to do? Support a bishop who himself blasphemes their faith and aligns himself with those who insult and profane their beliefs, their faith, and their Scriptures?”
No one’s asking them to. However, people like James are inexplicably desparate for the approval of these people, when its obvious that, unless we all become ex-gay, they’ll never give it.
posted by James on
Believing that sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships are the moral norm for gays is not being “ex-gay” anymore than such relationships make you “ex-straight.” Basing your moral choices on an orthodox understanding of Scripture and tradition is not ex-gay, either.
I agree with the above assessment of Gene Robinson–he’s the Lance Bass of bishops and Katherine Schoori is the Rosie O’Donell (the heterosexual version). I don’t think they represent the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. However, I don’t want to split the Church–I just want better, more orthodox representation. That comes with presenting good candidates and getting them elected.
I’m not really sure why believing that Jesus is God is somehow incompatible with being gay. Is there something in the gay gene that forces gays to reject anything orthodox and traditional?
posted by dr on
“Believing that sexually exclusive, lifelong relationships are the moral norm for gays is not being “ex-gay” anymore than such relationships make you “ex-straight.” ”
No one drew has said or implied that. What we’re trying to drum into your head is that the people who claim to speak for all things “orthodox and traditional” don’t care whether you’re celibate or promiscuous. They’ll never, ever, approve of gay people, let alone a gay relationship, no matter how loving, exclusive, and lengthy it may be. They have their verse in Leviticus and they’re sticking to it. Hence they not just side with the Nigerian Bishop I mentioned, but likely share his views.
“I’m not really sure why believing that Jesus is God is somehow incompatible with being gay. Is there something in the gay gene that forces gays to reject anything orthodox and traditional?”
Again, you’re the only person saying this. There is nothing inherently contradictory in being gay and being a Christian. As for all things orthodox and traditional, considering that they’ve been used as a club to beat down gay people, rhetorically, politically, and physically, I think we’re right to be suspicious of them. And don’t you dare respond with any of that “It’s only because of Pride Parades” crap. Tradition has been an excuse to beat up on gay people long before that began happening.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I would advise people not to rely on NL’s characterization of Gene Robinson’s beliefs. And be sure to note his earlier comment about “one group of fanciful mysticists argues with another….”
posted by raj on
Richard J. Rosendall | December 6, 2006, 3:54pm |
I believe you are confusing NDXXX with NEL
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The vast majority of gay people live monogamously.
Um….yeah. Been to Gay.com or Manhunt lately? Or maybe a Pride rally?
It really gets old when people like you and Richard, Dr, blabber how they shouldn’t be judged by a Pride parade, but say not word one when the people in that Pride parade justify their actions that you don’t want to be judged by based on the fact that they’re gay.
Bullshit. They’re talking about signing on with a bishop who talks of gay people as being worse than animals and who says he can’t stand to be in the same room as them.
And I can’t blame them.
That bishop, in terms of religious beliefs, is far better than the one who supports gays who call his fellow Episcopalians “bad rubbish”, “fanciful mysticists”, and “Stepford wives”, and claim the Bible in which he supposedly believes is nothing but “fairy tales”. Why should they side with a “bishop” like Robinson who represents a group that publicly denigrates their faith and sacred texts and calls them names?
And, dr, your entire attitude is summed up neatly by this statement (added emphasis mine):
What we’re trying to drum into your head is that the people who claim to speak for all things “orthodox and traditional” don’t care whether you’re celibate or promiscuous. They’ll never, ever, approve of gay people, let alone a gay relationship, no matter how loving, exclusive, and lengthy it may be. They have their verse in Leviticus and they’re sticking to it. Hence they not just side with the Nigerian Bishop I mentioned, but likely share his views.
Or, phrased in a similar situation, “No one else loves you. You’re fat and you’re ugly and you’ll never be able to find someone else. You’re lucky I put up with you at all; nobody else would.”
Given that James is an Episcopalian, I think he’s in a far better position to judge about what Christians, and particularly Episcopalians, believe, think, and care.
But that isn’t the point of the discussion; what IS the point is to silence the dissenter from gay leftist dogma. Granted, dr, you’re more subtle than those who just call James names directly, but your insidious attempt to make him doubt his own ideas, observations, and opinions is no less destructive or corrosive.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I would advise people not to rely on NL’s characterization of Gene Robinson’s beliefs.
They don’t have to; there’s an easy example available in plain English.
In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: “Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as ‘the one whom Jesus loved’ and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That’s who Jesus is, that’s who he was at heart, in his earthly life.”
There you have it folks; the reason that Scripture refers to the apostle John as “the one who Jesus loved” is because they were gay lovers. The fact that he travelled with a bunch of men is even more proof that Jesus was gay.
And of course, what was he doing?
The comments came at the end of a sermon in which Bishop Robinson dispensed with his notes and spoke freely of his experiences growing up as a homosexual.
An old rule of thumb is that church was supposed to be about God, not about your sex life. However, as Gene Robinson shows, his sex life is what’s most important to him, not God.
Again, Richard, what do you expect the Anglicans to do? What do you expect them to do? Support a bishop who himself blasphemes their faith and aligns himself with those who insult and profane their beliefs, their faith, and their Scriptures?
posted by novaseeker on
“I’m not really sure why believing that Jesus is God is somehow incompatible with being gay. Is there something in the gay gene that forces gays to reject anything orthodox and traditional?”
No I wouldn’t argue that. My question is that if you believe Jesus is God, then why not believe what the Christian church (in whatever form) has taught about homosexual activity for the last 2000 years? In other words, why believe one thing and not the other? Isn’t that a case of picking and choosing, and doesn’t it open you up to the obvious critique of orthodox believers that you only reject the traditional teaching about homosexuality because you, yourself, are gay?
That’s what I struggle with. Why believe one and not the other?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
My question is that if you believe Jesus is God, then why not believe what the Christian church (in whatever form) has taught about homosexual activity for the last 2000 years?
I quote from Luke 6: 1 – 11:
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”
Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
On another Sabbath he went into the synagogue and was teaching, and a man was there whose right hand was shriveled. The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath. But Jesus knew what they were thinking and said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Get up and stand in front of everyone.” So he got up and stood there.
Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?”
He looked around at them all, and then said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was completely restored. But they were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.
In short, it wouldn’t be the first time that the “established teaching” has been gone against, and by far more-qualified individuals. Not agreeing with the established church on every single thing is hardly grounds for claiming that one isn’t orthodox or traditional.
But before you get excited, remember that Jesus did it the right way; he pointed out known and unambiguous authority, he respected and cited the Scriptures, he applied common sense, and he respected the opinions of his opponents. Most believers would have no problem with that.
But what they get are people like Bishop Gene Robinson talking about his sex life and adolescent fantasies in the pulpit, trying to re-interpret the Bible so that Jesus was gay, and supporting people who call the Bible “fairy tales”, the Episcopalians “bad rubbish” and “fanciful mysticists”, and rejoice over the splitting of the church.
It’s not surprising that many Christians, given Robinson’s example, find it incomprehensible that one can be gay and Christian; it’s already a given in the gay community that it’s impossible.
posted by James on
The Creeds are the standards of the Christian faith, and there isn’t a moral rule anywhere in them. I believe, as did Paul, that “Love is the fulfillment of the law.” I think there are many theologians today, not the least of which are Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Archbishop Rowan Williams, who see that the Church’s earlier injunctions against homosexuality are not part of the gospel message. The Church has looked at the message of Jesus and ended slavery, ordained women, accepted the divorced, and even eaten shrimp! We are becoming more aware that in every generation Jesus calls to the marginalized, and we learn in each generation just who the marginalized are.
I would be happy to invite any gay person to my church, which is both tolerant and conservative. My pastor has already told me that if I find myself in a marriage-oriented relationship, he would happily bless it, and he would likely have the consent of the bishop to do so. I suspect that most of my congregation would show up and wish me well.
I think that’s because they are nice people, but I think it’s also because I’m not part of the “gay leftist agenda” (my new term, thanks North Dallas Thirty). They see a guy who is just like them–not in the sense of being a Stepford Wife, but someone who shares the same beliefs and values, and who, unlike Gene Robinson, doesn’t wear his sexuality on his sleeve.
Ironically, I get more rejection from the gay community. Why is that?
posted by Antaeus on
In response to dr’s: “They’re talking about signing on with a bishop who talks of gay people as being worse than animals and who says he can’t stand to be in the same room as them.”
ND30 says, “And I can’t blame them.” !
Is there anything else to know? Whatever minutiae he has mastered, Dallas wields a double-standard against his gay brethren, though carefully exempting himself, since he sides with our tormentors. He’s a either a straight troll or deeply sick.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I can’t blame them, Antaneus.
Said bishop may not be very whoopee on gay issues, but unlike Robinson, he doesn’t blaspheme, reinterpret Scripture to make Jesus gay, think his sermon should end with details of his sex life, or align himself with people who call the Bible “fairy tales”, the Episcopalians “bad rubbish” and “fanciful mysticists”, and rejoice over the splitting of the church.
The latter points are far more important to most Episcopalians than having a gay bishop, especially when said bishop has made it obvious that his only qualification for or concern in his position is his sex life. Therefore, I can’t blame them for choosing the one bishop over the other. I may not like their choice, but it’s the best of two bad options for them.
Furthermore, given that the only person here who even seems to be Episcopalian in the first place is James, while the rest of you have made it clear that you’re not going anywhere near any kind of church, I fail to see how these people are “tormenting” you — unless, as in the case of the Minneapolis bus driver, the thought that there are people out there who disagree with you and voice their opinions is something that drives you batty.
And as far as your “gay brethren” remark, the only thing you and I may have in “brethren” is that I am attracted to and partnered with a man. That simple fact does not require me to indulge your antireligious bigotry, your inability to tell people to stop having public sex, or whatever other leftist cause that you’ve attached to “being gay”. I can do far better than that when it comes to associations.
posted by Novaseeker on
I understand full well that arguments can be made to reconcile otherwise Christian belief with homosexual activity. I’m familiar with most of them, although I am no longer a believer myself.
My point is not that arguments can’t be made, it’s that as soon as you start to make them you will, of course, begin to lose the support of at least *some* of the ‘orthodox’ believers. When I was a Christian, my own experience was that the more ‘orthodox’ believers cared very much about moral theology, at least as much as they did about formal theology such as christology. Therefore my point is that once the gay issue becomes an issue in such a community, it is only to be expected that some (or perhaps many) of the ‘orthodox’ believers will take issue with it, simply because a new interepretation of the Church’s teaching, a reinterpretation of its earlier teachings or a recasting of its teachings to deal with a contemporary situation will all seem to such believers to be a departure from the faith.
I’m not suggesting it’s impossible to be gay and Christian, but it is hard. It requires a reinterpretation of what Christianity has always taught about homosexual activity. That may be a good thing for the church (from the perspective of someone who wants to be an otherwise ‘orthodox’ believer but also actively gay), but one has to expect that many other ‘orthodox’ believers are not going to agree, and that splits will happen. To me it seems inevitable, in fact.
posted by James on
So, if I’m not accepted by the gay community because I’m an orthodox Christian, and I’m not accepted by the church because I’m gay and happy to be so, where do I fit in? Members of the gay community, for all their cries of “tolerance” and “diversity” and their Rainbow flags, are just as nasty as the religious conservatives I’ve encountered (see a selection of the above posts and those in the Amusing Bishops thread). I just want a place to hang out and be myself–is there a gay bar with a Bible study?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
James wrote, “Members of the gay community, for all their cries of ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and their Rainbow flags, are just as nasty as the religious conservatives I’ve encountered….”
And many other members of the gay community are not. Kindly stop the false generalizations. If you refuse, then you are yourself practicing the intolerance you preach against. Many of us have long pointed out that diversity properly includes diversity of opinion, and have long criticized the intolerant gay left for refusing to recognize that truth. By the way, we here at IGF are big on free markets and entrepreneurial solutions to problems. If you want a gay bar with a Bible study, why don’t use the Internet to hook up with like-minded persons and set about creating such a bar?
posted by James on
Now that you ask me, I realize that I don’t want to start a Bible study in gay bar because I don’t like gay-specific organizations. It would be like creating a special Bible study for Lost fans–the fact that I’m a Lost fan doesn’t mean I’m incapable of participating in a Bible study which has people who don’t like Lost.
This thread is about how gays can participate in an organization which is not designed for them specifically. The usual gay response (and this yet another generalization) is, whenever there is trouble, to scream shrilly “You people are so mean and homophobic!” And then they do something shocking, like show up at the altar rail in a Gwen Stefani wig. And then make a dramatic exit, slamming the door behind them.
Or, like Gene Robinson and Katherine Schori, they try to change the fundamental values and beliefs so that those who are part of the church to worship Jesus suddenly have to deal with an agenda which has nothing to do with the basic foundation of the group.
I don’t want special Bible studies. I’m sorry I brought that up. I want to be a normal man in a normal Bible study, which, in fact, I am. While it is true that I frequently over-generalize, it is also true that there are a lot of gays who happily promote the stereotypes.
I think if gays stopped trying to be special and exotic, and simply tried to be men among men, and choose just to be another average member of another average church, many of the goals we want would be within our reach.
posted by Novaseeker on
[i]I think if gays stopped trying to be special and exotic, and simply tried to be men among men, and choose just to be another average member of another average church, many of the goals we want would be within our reach.[/i]
While I agree that people should refrain from being outrageous for its own sake, as I don’t think this really is effective (really applies to gays and straights, but in this context let’s keep it focused on gays), I don’t think that this would really get us our goals. I think a lot of people, for example, who are against gay marriage know gay people in their lives who are “normal” (for lack of a better word), but they still don’t support gay marriage. Also, acting “normal” for a gay man is different by nature … I mean even if you aren’t camp or flamboyant or pushy about your gayness, try being considered as a man among men when you walk in holding your boyfriend’s hand, or giving your boyfriend a warm hug when he shows up (things straight men can do with their girlfriends without anyone blinking). There’s the still quite common heterosexual male “ick factor” when it comes to gay men expressing their love for each other, and there’s no easy way around that.
I guess what I am saying is that we can try to blend in if we wish to, but in many respects trying too hard to blend in just leads us to the same old restrictions on expressing ourselves that we have always had … sort of a universalized “don’t ask, don’t tell”, which is not something that really allows us to be open about who we are. Until expressing love for other men is “generally accepted male behavior”, a guy giving his boyfriend a warm hug or holding his hand will draw as much disgust, really, as the camp guy at the altar rail in a platinum blonde wig. What doesn’t draw disgust is keeping our love lives to ourselves, but that, again, just restricts us from expressing ourselves in perfectly harmless ways that straight people are permitted to do, and therefore in the long run isn’t that helpful.
posted by James on
I think it would be great if gays limited themselves to the behavior of people who are romantically involved. I think we have the right to same public displays of affection as anyone else. But for the most part, straight people don’t do anything all that exciting in public. I think if gays stopped trying so hard to be dramatic and exotic, and just acted like normal people in love, the “ick” factor would dissipate. Should I ever be romantically involved, I plan to exhibit the normal range of public behaviors, in church, at work, on the street–but I’m not going to wear a flag or purposely stop traffic to French kiss.
I don’t have to work to blend in. I’m not that different. I’ve never doubted my masculinity. Far from knowing I was “somehow special” at an early age, I’ve always felt pretty much the same as the guys around me, except for one thing. So I don’t want a “special church for special people.” I want to be part of the same thing everyone else is part of. I don’t think immature, outrageous behavior will get me there. I’m hoping I’ll get there just by being myself, honestly and authentically.
posted by cesquaq on
james and novaseeker: you’re both so selective in your view of gays! james again hasn’t actually been to a gay pride parade or festival. you only catch snippets on the news. gay people don’t choose what the news shows, the news chooses that. normal queers with kids and gay christians, and sober queers aren’t news. that one queen with the feather chaps and 3′ blue beehive wig is news. you keep prattling on about gays needing to be less visible, but we’re not the ones choosing who gets their picture taken. tons of queers are drug free, spiritual and monagamous. you’re perpetuating the myth as much as the homophobes. you really make me sick for not allowing gays to mature. it’s just like a teenager that made some non traditional chioces and is now 40 and you won’t let them be an adult that has learned. i hope you never have children. to treat people that way is disgraceful.
posted by cesquaq on
BTW: gay isn’t just about being a man. there are lots of women who are gay. to limit our public behavior to that of a couple in love will (this is fact in my experience)get us taunts, whistles, and men inviting themselves into our bedrooms. a str8 couple publicly being overtly sexual will garner no such reaction. novaseeker had it right to point out that you holding hands or giving a warm hug or quick goodbye kiss will disgust str8 men. like the same behavior by my woman and i will get catcalls. and for your info we are not big ole dykes. we’re just regular grlz. my woman deeply believes her faith and her mother is an ordained united methodist minister. we also have a friend that is an episcopal minister. none of us or our friends are the gay you insist we all are.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
James wrote, “The usual gay response (and this yet another generalization) is, whenever there is trouble, to scream shrilly ‘You people are so mean and homophobic!’ And then they do something shocking, like show up at the altar rail in a Gwen Stefani wig. And then make a dramatic exit, slamming the door behind them.”
I think you know perfectly well this is nonsense, but you don’t care because it sounds good to you. There are a great many gay Episcopalians who are entirely traditional in every way except that they are self-respecting gay members of their congregations. Your silly caricatures are just that, James. They do not illuminate anything except your own mind.
You have provided scant evidence to justify your harsh characterizations of Robinson and Schori. If you seriously wanted to resolve differences instead of tossing around cheap slash-and-burn comments, you might address their stated views as they themselves would characterize them, give them credit for being committed to their faith and for having intentions other than destructive ones, and explain without insults how and why their sincere views (which you will take pains not to caricature) are misguided. Otherwise, you are like the right-wing critic of Mary Cheney and Heather Poe who stated – motivated by sheer bias – that their purpose in having a child was to deny it a father. If your are truly secure in your own position, then you should not be risking much by at least briefly evaluating those you disagree with on their own terms. It is generally more persuasive to show how someone’s position falls apart even going by his own assumptions and values. But you don’t seem to want a serious and civil argument.
posted by Marc on
Just when I think the other side will have a rationale argument for their views on why they don’t like gays, they come up with this little gem:
“And then they do something shocking, like show up at the altar rail in a Gwen Stefani wig. And then make a dramatic exit, slamming the door behind them.”
Is this one of the lost Will & Grace episodes? OK, so some of the gay community likes to express itself in flamboyant ways; I still fail to see why such harmless fun is such a threat to the straight community. Do we watch Mardi Gras parades and think the same thing? This ideal of conformity being the only way to express God, social norms, etc. is starting to get old by now. And it is simply the result of prejudice disguised as self-righteous indignation. I say let the church splinter as much as it wants. The remaining members will be all the better for it.
posted by James on
It really drives me insane that people are in such denial about how the gay community presents itself. We really do come off as a bunch of thong-wearing, Rainbow-flag wearing, 24/7 out ‘n proud, wierdos. Your response, “Well, we all aren’t like that.” OK, OK, OK, there is a small percentage of gays which lead normal, traditional lives–but, girlfriend, look around you! Most choose moderate to extreme flamboyance. If they aren’t actually wearing a Stefani wig to the altar rail, they’ve got some Versace on them somewhere.
I play on the church softball team. It’s just a bunch of guys. It’s great. Then I do something at the community theatre. It is annoying–it’s so fierce, I can’t breathe.
If you are in such complete denial about the overall flamboyance of the gay community, which more than swallows up any of the more traditional side of the gay community, then I really don’t know what to say.
It is just insane that I have to defend my view that many, yea, most gays are overdramatic perpetual adolescents. Yes, let’s give an A+ to those who have moved out of the gay ghetto and shown us other options–but let’s not be in denial about how most gay men choose to express themselves.
(P.S. There is a good site called Thinking Anglicans which is covering the whole schism thing. That’s where I’ve learned about Gene Robinson and Bishop Schori. Most people on that site like them.)
posted by James on
Oh, and about Mary Cheney–well, actually, I kind of like her because she’s not a leftist. I imagine she and her partner are sincere about wanting a family. But there are gay couples, not naming names, Rosie 0′
Donell, Dan Savage, Melissa Etheridge, who want to have children because its the new go-with-anything accessory. I think they just want a new experience and when they get bored, the children will suffer.
I also think that when Rosie talks about taking baths with her daughter and talking about her vagina, it’s wierd. And it makes it more difficult for other gay couples to raise a family.
posted by marc on
And it really drives me insane, James, that some people still are pushing this “traditional values” nonsense – especially after six years of an administration that is, to put it kindly, an embarrassment. Do stereotypes exist in the gay community? Of course they do. Stereotypes aren’t created out of thin air, but that is still a moot point. Whether or not gays are flamboyant ignores the larger picture that society is not comprised of one type of person or perspective. It is positively Orwellian for you to find it necessary that gays act “normal” by your definition. ( I should have seen the church softball connection coming.) We live in a diverse world, one that changes each and every year. (The “traditional” family of the 1950s, for example, barely exists today.) You need to accept that or find a nice cave to live out the rest of your naive days.
posted by cesquaq on
“But there are gay couples, not naming names, Rosie 0′ Donell, Dan Savage, Melissa Etheridge, who want to have children because its the new go-with-anything accessory. I think they just want a new experience and when they get bored, the children will suffer.” EXCUSE ME???? who are you to judge who really wants kids and who doesn’t? melissa ethridge and dan savage aren’t the publicity whores you make them out to be james. they’re the gay people you want all gays to be. not the wig sporting, flag waving queers you’re so obsessed with. yes the world knows they’re gay, but it’s not all they are and it’s not all their lives consist of. i’m with marc: find yourself a nice little time bubble and crawl in.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
James, if you really want to combat gay stereotypes, you might start by not addressing other men as “girlfriend.” Then you might realize how counterproductive it is to give stereotypical gays more credit than they deserve. Your attitude is similar to that of the antisemite who only notices Jews when they fit his negative stereotypes, then convinces himself that all Jews fit his stereotypes.
The vast majority of gays do not live in coastal urban gay ghettos. But even a great many of us who do (I live in Dupont Circle) do not fit your stereotype. In short, James, while I have pretty much given up hope of your recognizing your error, you do not know what you are talking about. Go ahead and repeat your foolish and false generalization another hundred times. You will still be wrong. Worse than that, your point is irrelevant. If law-abiding gay people need to conform to someone else’s idea of respectability in order to deserve equal protection of the law, then this is no longer America. That I will not accept. And as I previously noted, this set of assumptions on your part is belied by the steady progress that we are making. You write as if everybody hates us, when in fact, the numbers continue to improve in our favor. That suggests that the real gay people out there, in contrast to your preferred bogeymen, are winning over more and more hearts and minds of their fellow countrymen.
posted by James on
Richard, you sound somewhat like James Dobson offering advice to Ted Haggard, but I don’t think I’m in need of “restoration therapy.” I realize you think that your conclusions are self-evident, but I’ve decided to trust my own observations and experiences of the gay community. I realize that I should probably submit to your kind of therapy at some time so I could fit in better, but I really have experienced the gay community as toxic and self-destructive. And I’ve experienced enough, IMHO, to draw those conclusions. Rather than submit to the pressure of the various James Dobsons of the gay community who want me to deny my experience, I’ve decided to trust what I see and think and feel, and live my life accordingly.