Gay Episcopal Bishop

“well, if fritz says you rock, you ROCK!”

“Awwwwwww.......GROUP HUG!

Well, mebbe not. How about a handshake?
LOL!”

“Just wait till we get the TrailTalk group book club discussion going on Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith"

I'm about a quarter of the way through the book. Interesting take on Mormons. According to Krakauer's views, Joseph Smith screwed up in saying that God reveals himself directly to EVERYONE (which is what he first said, but then changed, apparently realizing that it could be trouble. Yup, just look at all the splinter Mormon/Latter-Day Saints groups)

It compares "fundamental" (with polygamy) Mormons to the Taliban.

Wait'll that discussion heats up on here. I'm gonna have to write Hobbit on that one and see what he thinks. Course, we already scared him away with Mormon bashing.”

“And just to clarify, Hobbit is not a fundamentalist Latter-Day Saint.”

“They allow gay perishoners (sp) and gay priests, then they should allow gay bishops. Anyone see that PBS show on the greeks in Spartus?”

“The LDS Church teaches God is "progressing". They call this The Law of Eternal Progression. As the LDS saying goes "as man is, God once was, and as God is, man will become". This is a fundamental teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

“Where's mutt? 56 religious posts and he has yet to speak up!”

“Speak not the name of the daemon!”

“i'm going to read that book soon, Lizs! so i'll be in your club. ;-) i detested *Into the Wild*, but i'm going to give ol' Krak-head another try, because that book sounds really good.”

“Remember when a Bash was a Party? LOL”

“Where's mutt? 56 religious posts and he has yet to speak up!

Too much catch-up work to do to participate much. Just got back from vacation.”

“OH.

For a second, there, I thought you said 'vatican'.”

““If the sway of public opinion [within the membership of the church] can alter the "moral" implications of the fact that he is gay, then it seems to me it becomes a matter related to the opinion of man and not a matter related to the opinion of God.”

Yes but it would seem that the swaying is being done by the leadership and not the people. I do see your point though. Then again I am not even in the same religion as this church so I am not one to say how they should run their show and I certainly can not judge them or hold them to Jewish standards. I was speaking genericly about religious leaders in general. When my rabbi comes out of the closet then I’ll worry about it. LOL!”

“He's a'comin' for you, Nigal~~~~>:O”

““My own study has led me to believe that since we ignore the food requirements, prohibitions against woman wearing men’s clothing (pants), mixing fabrics, touching menstruating women and many other old testament laws, the above cited passages are not binding.”

This is because these are concerning the Jewish Law. The Law was given to the Jews and the Jews alone. Only certain parts of the Law coincide with the commandments given to all nations. The Law is still binding upon the Jews except for the rights of the Temple because there is no Temple now. When there is a Temple all 613 Mitzvah will be back in place as it should be.”

“I thought Jesus was Jewish and he himself said he did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill? Why in the world would Jesus as a good Jew ever do away with the "old law"? I find that hard to believe!”

“A man aspirering to be a Bishop and gay seems like such a contridiction when it comes to the Holy Scriptures since they (both Old and New Testaments) condemn homosexuality on no uncertain terms. I don't believe such a person should hold any such posistion in the Church, since his apparent lifestyle choice runs counter to the plain teachings of Scripture. Toss him out. Don't threaten the unity of the Church for ONE person. Plus homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible and under the Law God gave Moses, homosexuals were to be put to death, along with Sabbath breakers, murderers, adulterers, talking the name of the LORD in vain, etc, etc. Sounds radical I suppose but it's Biblical.”

“1) I don't think the new testament condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms.

2) Would you bar a Bishop who shops on Sundays? After all this was in the ten commandments.

3) Would you bar an uncircumsized bishop?

4) What about the fact that the early Christian church changed the day of the Sabbath? How does that man made decision square with the 10 commandments.”

“"2) Would you bar a Bishop who shops on Sundays? After all this was in the ten commandments.

3) Would you bar an uncircumsized bishop?

4) What about the fact that the early Christian church changed the day of the Sabbath? How does that man made decision square with the 10 commandments"

These are things of the Jewish covenant. Why would christians follow these things?”

“"He's a'comin' for you, Nigal~~~~>:O"

Tom, my rabbi is a chick. Not to be sterio-typical here but, Reform Judaism have the hottest clergy. If I wasn't married I'd be flexin' my "shicksapeal". LOL!”

“The Bible has been edited and interpreted so many times by kings and scholars I don't think we'll ever know the exact words it said. Even so, it was still written by men ~ God inspired men, but still by men who would have had the views and beliefs of that time period.”

“This is sorta my area of expertise here. I think this is a splendid idea. I have lobbied quite passionately for this theological shift for years. Just like MOTEL 6, we'll leave the...eternal hellfires of damnation on for ya.”

“I stand corrected, that would be MOTEL 666.”

“I don't think I could listen to a sermon from a homosexual clergy.

I mean the whole time, I would be thinking....."Why would I want to take advice from a guy who had a d**k in his a**? I mean... one of the things that I count on at the end of the day is that I won't have a d**k in my a**.

The circle of trust would be broken. His circle would be in real bad shape.”

“Fond memories of when you were in prison, bacpac? I mean, it takes one to know one.....”

“Actually it does not. That is one of the reasons why I don't respect the homosexual movement. They promote lies.

Being opposed to the homosexual lifestyle does not make you a homosexual. Your prison reference is even more stereotypical.

Suck my D**k.”

“Suck my D**k

Ah, is that the secret password for the HMWH club?

And it's not you being "opposed" to the homosexual lifestyle that gave you away. It was your graphic allusion to sex that you're obviously very familiar with:

Why would I want to take advice from a guy who had a d**k in his a**? I mean... one of the things that I count on at the end of the day is that I won't have a d**k in my a**”

“Nigal I was responding to Ohio Hiker most directly... but the Sabbath is part of the 10 commandments - which Christians do tend to embrace.”

“My favorite homosexual lie is the term 'Gay'.

Homosexuality is not gay in any sense of the word. Homosexuals gave the word 'gay' a new meaning.

The graphic illusion of sex is the term, 'Gay'. They should have called themselves '@ssholes.'”

“Wednesday, August 6 @ 2003 General Convention in Minneapolis



The Arkansas deputation visited for quite a while last night processing the significant events of Gene Robinson's confirmation. There is a lot of concern to care for those who are hurt by the church's decision. Bishop Maze said that he thought about ten dioceses were represented among the bishops who spoke to reject and disassociate themselves from the decision. (I believe that there are about 110 dioceses.) As the legislative session began, a spokesman for a group of about thirty deputies made a similar statement of rejection and disassociation. A few deputies then left the floor.



At my table for communion, I was concerned for the deputy that has been sitting next to me throughout the convention. From our previous discussions I knew that he came from a conservative church and opposed Gene's election and the blessing of same-sex commitments. During our Bible Study conversation (we do that daily), he spoke of his having changed his mind and his vote in favor of Gene's confirmation. He feels good about that, and believes it was an act to widen the embrace of Jesus for all people. He is working on how he will discuss his experience when he returns home.



A similar thing happened in the House of Bishops yesterday. Ted Eastman, retired Bishop of Maryland got up to speak and said that he had put away the written statement he had prepared. (He is known to be a conservative on sexuality issues.) But during the silence and discernment period prior to the vote, he wrote a list of reasons to confirm and reasons not to confirm. "Then I reviewed the list and it occurred to me that every reason against confirmation on the negative list was tinged with fear. And every reason on the positive list was tinged with hope and promise. I do not have a vote," said the retired Bishop Eastman, "but I know that God calls us not into fear but into hope and promise."



As it happened, as I walked up to receive communion, I ended up directly in front of Gene Robinson today. I spoke a quiet word of congratulations to him, but it was a bit disconcerting to receive communion with a television camera in my face. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to have to live with such attention day in and day out.



We've been doing other things that don't make the papers. We have welcomed Puerto Rico and Venezuela into the Episcopal Church. Yesterday the house endorsed the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals and asked dioceses to contribute 0.7% of their annual budgets to fund international development programs.



Notes from the sermon:

Feast of the Transfiguration. Preacher Rosemari Sullivan told a story about a mentally ill neighbor whose light and hope seemed to be gone; her eyes had a vacant look. One day she came into the church in a good mood. She was wearing sneakers with glitter and drawings, with the letters "B" and "V" on the sides of her shoes. "Those look wonderful," Rosemari told her. The woman chortled, saying, "Didn't you know what that means? I had a Beatific Vision! I have seen God in glory! It was quite wonderful!" And she had obviously changed. There was a light in her eyes. Rosemarii said, she was a woman who often sat inside their church. She had seen something. From that time, she began to put her life together, piece by piece. Her vision was the beginning of hope. And it was for her an experience of transfiguration.



***

A couple of "contact" things.

Apparently there is a case of pinkeye going through the convention. With this many people doing so much hand-shaking, it appears we are a vulnerable population.



Also, (responding to the now infamous email allegation that Gene Robinson had been criticized for inappropriate contact because he touched a person's shoulder, bicep and upper back during conversation in a public place), an email arrived -- "My bishop hugs me at "the Peace"! Where do I send the email…?"



***

LATE AFTERNOON

I've just returned from the House of Bishop's where they have passed an amended version of the resolution my committee on Prayer Book and Liturgy sent to them about Blessings of committed same-gender relationships. Before passing the resolution, the Bishops removed the paragraph which would have asked for the preparation of rites of blessing which would have then been considered in three years at the next General Convention for inclusion in the "Enriching Our Worship" resource of supplemental liturgical material.



That means that the Bishop's amended resolution will be considered by the House of Deputies, maybe tomorrow. I'm sure that someone will make the motion to restore the paragraph about preparing rites and the Deputies will vote yes or no on that. If the Deputies vote "no" then we'll probably concur with the Bishops and have a resolution; if the Deputies vote "yes" on rites, then we will have to send the resolution back to the Bishops. Late in convention we can run the risk of having nothing passed because the two houses don't agree before the time runs out.



The Bishops did leave this language in the resolution they just reported out: "we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions." That paragraph more explicitly recognizes the de-facto local option circumstances -- some dioceses and some congregations are offering same-sex rituals; some are not. Those which do offer such blessings "are operating within the bounds of our common life."



Gotta run.



Lowell”

“Thursday, August 7 at the 2003 General Convention

Minneapolis



Sleep! Today's the first day I didn't have a committee meeting. Nothing until 9:15.



Let me mention something about the dynamics around the consideration of the question of same-sex blessings and the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church. I have little doubt that a strong majority of the House of Deputies (strong enough to sustain a Vote by Orders) favors asking our Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music to prepare rites of blessing. I'm also 99% sure that a majority of the House of Bishops does also; there is no doubt that if the retired bishops were not voting; blessing rites would have the overwhelming support of the bishops "with jurisdiction."



What happened yesterday when the issue came to the bishops was that many bishops who favor our church's movement toward the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Episcopalians and the blessing of their committed relationships, paused out of respect and care for those who are deeply troubled by that prospect. They recognized that the church is divided by the issue. They wanted to take a "next step" in the process toward blessing and full inclusion, but they also wanted to express their love and concern for those who are faithful members of this church and who strongly oppose. So, the resolution from the House of Bishops which we will consider, maybe today, in the House of Deputies is very much a compromise document.



Here is some more detail about its current form. I'll number the "resolves" since that is how they will be referred to in debate.



Paragraph 1. is a reference to our being grounded in "the saving work of Jesus Christ… expressed in… Scripture, Creeds," holy baptism and eucharist, and the episcopate



2. reaffirms our 27 year old statement that "homosexual persons are children of God who have a full and equal claim …upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the church."



3. "…differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.



4. reaffirms the expectation that committed relationships "will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God", and reaffirms that such relationships exist throughout the church.



5 "…that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions.

6. there will be continued prayer, study, and discernment to include the compilation and development of resources to facilitate as wide a conversation of discernment as possible throughout the church.



7. "That our baptism into Jesus Christ is inseparable from our communion with one another, and we commit ourselves to that communion despite our diversity of opinion, and among dioceses, a diversity of pastoral practice with gay and lesbian people.



8. a statement about our longing for unity as we live within our Constitution and Canons, a belief that this resolution is faithful to our policy and about our further conversation in the Anglican Communion and beyond.



THIS HAS NOT BEEN PASSED by the General Convention; only by the House of Bishops. The full text of what I've summarized above is what the House of Deputies will consider, maybe today.



It is possible that someone will move the restoration of the part of the resolution that the Bishops cut, authorizing "the preparation …of rites for possible inclusion in "Enriching Our Worship" by means of which support and blessing may be expressed for same-sex relationships with the permission of the ecclesiastical authority."



Again, I believe that this last paragraph expresses the desire of the strong majority of the deputies, but I don't believe it will pass. Here's why:



First, there is a desire to be responsive and sensitive to those who hold a traditional view of sexual morality.



Second, many in the house will respect the compromise and the will of the House of Bishops and want to concur with them.



Third, timing is critically important. If we were to pass this with amendment, it would have to go back to the House of Bishops. If they did not concur, they would pass something different, maybe the same resolution as before, and it would have to come back to the House of Deputies. We would likely run out of time and be left with nothing rather than something.



Fourth, compromise is appealing. Both "sides" can go home and claim some victory. Neither got what they wanted.



***



I went to lunch with the AAC, the American Anglican Council, the primary group representing the traditional views opposing any change in traditional moral teachings. I have a lot of friends in the AAC, and I wanted to connect with them. The chaplain gave a marvelous meditation about the study that a scholar/saint made of two luminaries of our past, Tyndale and someone else whose name I don't' recall. The point was, they were in very different camps from one another. Bitter enemies might not be too strong a description. What the scholar said was that their divisions were the results of their passion for God. Their conflict was not because of ignorance nor because of sin, but their conflicts were an outgrowth of their passion for God. Therefore, we should look at our brothers and sisters who are on the "other side" and see them with the eyes of blessing, assuming, unless their actions or words betray another spirit, that they are acting out of their very real passion for God.



***

The word now is that we'll take up the resolution above this afternoon.

Lowell”

“It is 4:40 p.m. in the House of Deputies and we have worked out the terms of our debate. We have microphones for "pro" and "con" and a "procedural" mike.

The chaplain has just prayed. We are debating the newly numbered resolution C051, the blessing of committed same-gender relationships. My earlier email has the substance of that resolution. This is the resolution that passed the House of Bishops by a very strong voice vote.

If this is amended, this resolution is presumably dead, but it would be taking a chance. Getting it to the House of Bishops and back to us would be dicey.

We have 30 minutes for debate. After the first 15 minutes of debate, the house has passed a motion to suspend debate. A request for vote by orders has been sustained. We are now voting. Once again our deputation has voted clergy "yes", lay "divided" -- a divided vote 2/2 is counted as a "no" vote in our system. As I've said before, ours is a conservative system. Whenever the Episcopal Church makes a controversial decision, it's much more than a simple majority system.

We'll see if we get the results before we adjourn this evening.

6 p.m. The results are in. The resolution passes.
Lay Order -- 108 dioceses voting -- yes 58; no 38; divided 12
Clergy Order -- 108 dioceses voting -- yes 62; no 34; divided 12

Lowell”

“Interesting thread...

I don't know what to make of it all. I'm a Catholic. I just sent a "commitment ceremony" gift out to California. I've been to a great Presbyterian gay wedding. The Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit has an active branch of Dignity. It runs meetings and makes mass announcements at one of the churches I attend.

On the other hand, my understanding is that gay rights are a N. American and European phenomenon. I would think that an official policy of gay marriage/hierarchy would seem like a Westernized forced policy to churchgoers in Africa.

The weird thing is that much of the growth in churches like Catholicism - anyone know about Anglicanism? - is in Africa. To me the western, liberalized policies accepting gay rights might just be a red herring in an overall push towards more conservatism as the church de-Westernizes.

Can I ask a question? Did this bishop have a wedding or commitment ceremony with his partner?”

“Can Ohio Hiker or anyone else please point out what passages in the Bible specifically prohibit homosexuality, especially in the New Testament, in “no uncertain terms”?

I’ve already referenced Lev 18:22 and Lev 20:13. If you read a few chapters in either direction, you can see a lot of rules that are ignored or rejected by main stream Christians.

If you can remember the general wording, you can search for the passage at http://www.blueletterbible.org/.”

“RL....i don't think so. i know where you're going but if there's no legle way for him to get married, he can't really do anything....”

“Anglican conservatives say:
P-Q8=>B?”

“what is that peddy?



here's another email from father lowell.....


8/7/03 in Minneapolis

Story from this morning's sermon.
Two angels were visiting on earth. They asked for hospitality from the home of a wealthy family who treated them rudely, gave them no food, and put them into the basement for the night. There was a hole in the basement wall, which the elder angel repaired. The younger angel was outraged. Why would you do such an act of charity to such a mean and miserly family? Things aren't always what they seem, said the elder.

The next evening the angel pair asked for shelter at the home of a poor family, who welcomed them with joy, prepared a meal and insisted that the angels sleep in their own bed while the couple made do for themselves in another room with the children.

The next morning the poor family's only cow was dead. The source of their milk and some of their fuel, the cow's death was a devastating loss. The younger angel was very angry. Why? Why would you allow this to happen to this fine, generous family, when you gave such a gift to the other mean family? The elder angel responded, Things aren't always what they seem.

You see, said the elder angel, there was gold inside the hole in the basement of the other house, and that stingy, miserly and mean family has shown that they are not able to handle with grace the wealth they have already been given, therefore, the gold will be protected from their future greed. And, last night the Angel of Death came for the life of this man's wife, but I gave the Angel the family cow instead. Things aren't always what they seem.

Our preacher, Michael Battle said, God will never take away something without giving something better in return.

***

Description of "classic Anglican tradition" -- from William Countryman

Classic Anglican tradition was formed in the 16th and 17th centuries, in contradistinction to two other types of Christianity, both of which thought they knew the mind of God quite well. One was the Roman Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation, the other the Geneva tradition, whose chief English representatives were the Puritans. Mainstream Anglicans distinguished ourselves from both -- and especially from their assumption that they knew the mind of God in such detail.

Richard Hooker put the twofold theological challenge succinctly in a marginal note he wrote on a religious tract: "Two things there are which greatly trouble these later times: one that the Church of Rome cannot, another that Geneva will not erre." The one was infallible in principle; the other just behaved as if it were. Anglicans dared to think both -- and themselves as well -- fallible.

Our classic approach to scripture is to read it not so much for detailed rules as in the context of prayer, expecting that God will encounter us in its pages. We expect not a divine blueprint for life, but a constantly renewed and renewing conversation with God and one another.

***
Another quote, from Tom Ehrich
Tom attended his first General Convention 27 years ago when in Minneapolis the General Convention was voting on tow controversial issues: the new Prayer Book and the ordination of women. Both passed. He remembers:

"The ground in Minneapolis was ripe with red herrings. Opponents of change threatened dire consequences: division within the American church, alienation from the worldwide Anglican Communion, acquiescence to some 'feminist agenda,' and loss of members...

"As it happened, life went on. Healthy congregations continued to grow and to serve, some now with female leadership. Unhealthy congregations continued to shrink and to turn inward, even though some hired women, thinking a gender change could undo lassitude and self-serving among members. Female clergy found that the joys and heartaches of ministry are gender-neutral. Some female bishops are stars, some are duds. Same as with the men.

"The new Prayer Book proved as capable of inspiring worship as the old. Dead congregations proved as capable of squandering one liturgical form as another. Fussy and stale clergy could kill any congregation's worship. Sour worshipers could stifle any attempt to enliven.

"Some who lost in the voting did go elsewhere. Most remained. Enormous energy went into being pastoral: moving slowly and healing. ...The changes of Minneapolis 1 were timely and, despite the threats, had wide support. Had we not joined other institutions in removing artificial barriers against women, we would have been even more irrelevant and hypocritical. Had we not decided to speak clearly, we would have had even less to say.

"But we need to remember that spiritual health is a relationship between God and person, not an automatic consequence of institutional membership. We need to remember that our call is to servanthood, not to institutional perfection. We need to remember that Jesus was far more radical than our tepid tinkering might suggest. We need to remember that Jesus didn't found an institution, but a circle of friends; he had no regard for hierarchy or for any of the barriers that we consider necessary."”

“Descriptive chess notation for: "Pawn to Queen's 8 (most advanced square on Queen's file) promoted to Bishop, questionable move.”

“okie dokie......gotcha

[quietly backs away from pedxing]”

“The two angels story is very nice.”

“Come on Strat - it was a way kewl pun - promoted to bishop, bad move.

errrr... how about B-QB8=>Q??”

“Excuse me since I don't have a Bible in front of me but the Apostle Paul talks about the wrath of God revealed from heaven against none others than...you guessed it...those who changed the natural use of the women and burn in lust with men (I'm paraphrasing here since I have no Bible in front of me), men with men...working that which is unseemly...what do you think Paul was referring to? Homosexuality! Read Romans Chapter 1. What about Paul's statement that "abusers of themselves with mankind" is referring to? Homosexuals again! He even states that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God! Would that include Gene Robertson??? Doesn't sound like the New Testament is condoning homosexuality, but rather condemning the practice. So what else can I say? I'm just sharing the position of the Holy Bible, not man's opinions. As for those who claim the Bible is somehow "changed", it sounds just like a excuse to me. Don't the Muslims also make similar claims about the Bible???...and the Latter-Day Saints???”

“I didn't know Geo got a new job?”

“After reading these posts, I thank God I'm Catholic.

:^)”

“I just finished helping build an Episcopalian high school. Does this mean that I might be gay and not realize it? Are those the fires of hell that are making this room so hot?
Is this really a non-issue and some people just don't realize it?”