home | board | compass | prayer | eCard

[Main Index]

11/18/2003 Entry: "Henry the VIIIth"

From independent gay forum via PostModern Pilgrim comes

"The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII and his wife Catherine of Aragon, his wife Anne Boleyn, his wife Jane Seymour, his wife Anne of Cleves, his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage."

Our goal then should be to find the Biblically-based ethic that addresses the issue. It is not about whether Gene Robinson divorced his wife to have a male-partner. It is not about whether Gene Robinson is gay, celibate or whatever. It is about the "sexualization" of society and its overwhelming presence as a yardstick for which side of the religious or spiritual fence you are on. The deeper issue is that we are allowing the sexual issues to define us and our faith-positions and political agenda when it should be our faith position that defines the sexual and political.

Posted by Richard @ 11/20/2003 04:11 PM CST

The point these discussions always seem to miss is that it's such a big deal mainly because we make it a big deal. Jesus had a hell of a lot more to say about "ethical" "Christian" attitudes and approaches to money, wealth, poverty, refugees etc than sex. He also had very little time for hypocrites, and people who twist scripture making it say what they want it to without caring/noticing if they are in huge breach themselves. The Leviticus laws most quoted in the homosexual-Christian debates are the same ones that tell us not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fibre clothes. This one goes round and round and round in "Christian" circles but doesn't appear to have a lot to do with Christ, I fear.

Posted by alice @ 11/19/2003 11:20 PM CST

Stanley Hauerwas says Methodists and most mainstream Protestant churches "don't know how to think about homosexuality because they don't know how to think about marriage and divorce."

Although I think that contraceptives in general have been a good development for society, I do see that for many, sex has become nothing more than recreation. But that is an issue of sexual ethics, not sexual orientation and practice.

Moreover, it is not just contraception that has brought the dilemma of "life as recreation" as opposed to life as relationship with God and with each other. Capitalism (and I am a believer in that theory) has brought the baggage that a fulfilled life is one that is rich in materials goods, status, or power. That corruption has spilled over into marriage and family.

Sexual ethics that focus primarily on the act of sex as opposed to the commitment it flows out of are doomed to failure.

"Defense of Marriage" type acts will do nothing to protect marriage because the primary assault on marriage is the attitudes we've adopted in a "throw away society" in which love is a feeling rather than a commitment.

Posted by Joel Thomas @ 11/19/2003 08:23 PM CST

What a brilliant notion. Henry VIII was an immoral man so there must consequently be no problem with homosexual immorality.

Two wrongs don't a right make.

The church is far from perfect and has many warts, yet those warts do not justify acceptance of more warts. If you're blemished then you don't shrug off additional blemishes with a "well, I've already got problems...why's it matter if I don't protest additional ones?"

Posted by Pieter Friedrich @ 11/19/2003 05:51 AM CST

Andrew...I suppose. But...I'm not really sure that Robinson was that much of an "anomaly" even as a priest. He was by no means the only one. Also, much of the Episcopal church is known for being "accepting and affirming" and have been that way for some time. This isn't a new development.

Oh well.

Posted by Jonathan @ 11/18/2003 07:45 PM CST

In response to Jonathan's first comment about how noone's raised a fuss until now, it seems to me that while Gene was just a priest, he could be ignored by the rest of the Episcopal community as an anomaly, with perhaps a few dirty words spared for his bishop for allowing him to keep his parish. As a bishop, however, Gene now has much more exposure and influence, and can no longer be dismissed as someone in a far-away diocese who has gotten away with doing his own thing. I think a gay bishop is only worse than a gay priest in terms of scale; it would have been more consistent for the mainstream Episcopal church to have opposed Gene's priesthood from the moment he divorced his wife. I think the point that sex issues are being allowed to define faith issues instead of the other way around is right on.

Posted by Andrew Duncalfe @ 11/18/2003 07:04 PM CST

There are one or two of that stamp who occasionally pass this way - it'll be interesting to see if they respond.

Contraception also has a bearing on this issue, breaking as it does the link between procreation and sex. But maybe that's for another time!

Posted by Richard @ 11/18/2003 04:14 PM CST

Yup. There are a certain set of people here who are determined to get things back to the way they're "supposed to be"...i.e., a full-blown patriarchal system. Men must be powerful and "manly," women must be weak and submissive. That's why the homosexual issue is so big for them...a gay man is, in a sense, a man who has "betrayed" his gender (at least to their way of thinking) and is contributing to the erosion of male power. Sure, the sexual aspect is part of it...but behind it is the politics of power. It can get pretty ugly.

Many of these people will not stop, and will not be content, until the entire country is being run as some sort of Old Testament-style Theocratic utopia. Problem is, most of the rest of us don't see anything very utopian about that...

Posted by Jonathan @ 11/18/2003 03:57 PM CST

That's a good point Jonathan. I've a feeling that a lot of these disagreements are are about power. Maybe that's where the bizarre conservative paranoia about the "persecution" of the US church comes from.

Posted by Richard @ 11/18/2003 03:38 PM CST

I agree...mostly. I'm not even sure anymore that it's really all about sex. Here's what I can't get my head wrapped around: Gene has been a priest for a long, long time. He has been living with his partner for 17 of those years...very openly, as far as I'm aware. So why did nobody raise a fuss until he was nominated for Bishop? Is a gay bishop somehow worse than a gay priest?

I can't help but feel that, for a lot of the conservative dissenters, the issue isn't really about his sexuality at all...it's about politics. This branch of the church has been wanting to split for a long time (at least since women's ordination came up years ago, probably before then) and the consecration of the first gay bishop was a good opportunity for them to raise a fuss and use it as a wedge issue.

It's ugly, it's dirty, and it doesn't have much to do with the Kingdom of God, in my opinion. I'd respect them a lot more (even while disagreeing) if I could believe it was truly a faith issue for them...but there are so many inconsistencies, so much underhand back-stabbing that has been involved, that they leave me with no choice but to feel that it's about a bunch of guys terrified that they're losing power and machismo in the church.

But then, I'm not even Episcopalian, so what do I know...

Posted by Jonathan @ 11/18/2003 02:34 PM CST