New Hampshire Epsicopalians Nominate Openly Gay Bishop

Tom,

Have you read Peter Gomes book 'The Good Book'. Someone borrowed it from me and never returned it. At any rate, it is very well written and deals with many topics including homosexuality, and women. I do not know that I am convinced by his arguments about homosexuality but they are interesting.

Gomes is an African American clergyman, openly gay, and holds some chair (no jokes please) at an Ivy League University.

North

 

Bill, your point is well-taken and I basically agree with you. I think that there are cases where a pastor's sexual orientation is relevant, but I think it's a mistake for any pastor to be about a particular issue, whether that issue is homosexuality, anti-homosexuality, abortion, colonialism, or soy cheese. Bishop-elect Robinson has said that he intends to be "a good bishop, not a 'gay' bishop," and the conservative Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh has likewise (by all accounts) treated gays within the church with respect and dignity. There are instances where a pastor's sexual orientation is relevant, and I think a pastor should be obviously gay about as often as a pastor is obviously straight. In my ideal world, any pastor should feel entirely free to say "my partner [X]" or be seen exchanging the usual acceptable level of public affection, but there should also be more to the pastor as a human being than that--other causes, other controversies, other issues, and other ways of relating to his or her congregation.


Cheers,

 

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, I like gays and the social acceptance of gays.

But on the other hand I think that this kind of thing tends to politicize the church, to polarize it and perhaps even to drive out those who aren't quite ready to accept thought-reform yet.

I realize that there is an aspect of thought reform to much of religion, a turning away from sin or a turning towards merit, or whatever you want to call it.

But it needs to be performed gently, I think. If it is shoved in the face of people who aren't ready for it, if those people feel that they are being used to further other people's political agendas and if those agendas elbow aside consideration of things that people find important in their own lives, some of them may choose to walk away and seek spiritual solace elsewhere.

I see this New Hampshire move as being idealistic but probably unnecessarily divisive.

 

I don't know; I generally don't like it when an issue dramatically comes to a head like homosexuality will next month in the ECUSA, but let's look at it on an individual level. Bishop Douglas Theuner is set to step down and, after an extensive and lengthy search process, Rev. V. Gene Robinson came up as the logical nominee, then was elected by a wide margin. At what point should this process have been interrupted? If Robinson was a natural candidate, shouldn't he have thrown his name into the hat? And if he was supported by the majority in this diocese, shouldn't he have been elected?


Cheers,

 

Thanks for this, North; I haven't read it, but it sounds fascinating and I've added it to my reading list. Do you happen to know offhand of a book that makes a sympathetic conservative case on these points...?


Cheers,

 

There is another problem with the Bishop elect other than being gay. He apparently (according to our paper) came to the conclusion that he was gay and then left his wife and daughters to pursue his lifestyle. If I recall something similar occurred with Mel White (ghost writer for Falwell & others).

Frank Pittman in Psychology Today once addressed this sort of issue. He is supportive of homosexuality as a choice. However, he said (I am paraphrasing) it is as unethical to decide when you wake up one morning that you are gay & now going to leave your responsibility as a father/mother and spouse. He felt this was as unethical as waking up one morning and deciding you were going to abandon your family because you were in love with someone else.

Applying this to the Bishop-elect (Robinson??) with the *strong* caveat that I am only familiar with what was printed in the paper, I see ethical concerns. He evidentally decided to pursue lusts of the flesh over responsibility to his family. He may well have financially supported them and according to the paper has a good relationship. Nonetheless I sincerely hope that in Christian maturity he has struggled with the innate sin involved in this decision. Apparently, it is still something that Mel White does as I recall he answered Falwell's addressing of the ethics of the decision by saying he basically (again paraphrasing) felt the weight & sorrow of that decision. God can certainly forgive the sin but it was sinful nonetheless (gay issue aside).

North

 

A good point. I've heard it said that he left his wife and kids, but I'm not clear on whether he left as in packed his bags and headed off to seek his fortune, or left by mutual understanding after talking it over with his wife. I have seen plenty of cases of the latter, which I would not regard as sinful; the former would obviously be a different story, but I haven't seen any indication that that's what he did. The fact that he's on good terms with his family suggests to me that either he handled the situation well, or acknowledged that he hadn't and took responsibility for it.


Cheers,

 

I know you academic types look down on this sort of thing, but my GUT feeling after reading this thread is that all you'd have to do is insert BLACK or HISPANIC or whatever in place of gay, and you'd have a conversation that sounds like a pro-v. anti-Jim Crow.

All the political issues about bringing in a gay leader are just rationalizations for discrimination.

One can live in the closet, but because your sexuality IS WHO YOU ARE to a great extent, it needs to be expressed.


Good grief. I'm disgusted.

All you anti- types enjoy your rationalizing. I'm sure that's how you look in the mirror at yourself without throwing up at your hypocrisy.

 

Re:

This is also my gut feeling, but a conversation consisting of gut feelings wouldn't be very productive, would it?

Sometime last year, there was some sort of hullaballoo about whether a gym had the right to fire an overweight aerobics instructor. The gym's argument was that yes, they were entirely within their rights, because the whole selling point of an aerobics class for many people is that it'll get you into good shape, and if your instructor isn't in good shape, that makes the product harder to market.

Well, the way many conservatives see this is that the whole point of a church is to bring you into a biblical, God-centered life of worship. They believe that homosexual behavior offends God. Therefore, to them, a gay minister would be very much like an overweight aerobics instructor.

Now, I will always oppose the exclusion of gays and lesbians from any organization, secular or religious, and I would be lying if I said I wasn't absolutely thrilled at the prospects of an openly gay Episcopal bishop. But I think it's very important to understand what people really believe and why they really believe it, because that's the only way you're likely to change anybody's mind.


Cheers,

 

If you mean me then you need practice in reading comprehension. Or a far more open mind than you possess.

 

Re: Re:

Yup. And that's why Dr. King was a great man. It was a full time job going through all the steps to convince the logically challenged. My gut tends to be logical, by the way.

 

Re:

If this is directed at all in my direction I have a couple of comments. I understand if I recall correctly from previous posts that this issue is personal for you but....

The first comment is that you first paragraph is nonsense and mixes apples and oranges in terms of any understanding of scriptural/moral/ethical issues.

Second is you are coming across as somewhat self righteous yourself (again I understand where this issue is very close to you and you are sensitive to it). This brings up another point that is an irritant (not directed to you). People use 'homophobic' to describe anyone who objects to practicing homosexuality. It is a hyperbole and a distortion of the word phobic. To disagree with the homosexual lifestyle is not a phobia (unnatural fear). I can not enjoy having a spider in the house but that is not arachnophobia. I may not agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle for a Christian but it in no way (at all) effects the way I interact, treat, or work with homosexuals I know. I respect their right to choose a lifestyle and fully realize that within that lifestyle they may be no more or less moral than heterosexuals. I think it was Billy Graham that said 'homosexuality may be a sin BUT IT IS NOT the sin'. I have seen homphobia however. I worked in a family restaurant where the woners and some of the male waiters were gay. One of the husbands of a waitress would not even set foot in the restaurant because of it...that was a phobia.

I also am not upset that folks like Peter Gomes (The Good Book) are gay clergy and attempt to reconcile that lifestyle and biblical imperatives. It does not bother me at all and I find it intellectually profitable to discuss the issue. I also have no reason to dount the integrity or honesty with reagrd to the belief of Reverend Peter Gomes.

I am somewhat sad for you that you find people who diagree with you to be rationalizing, and you are disgusted, and assume we should be throwing up at ourselves. You need to work through some issues yourself so that you can approach the subject with less hatred & anger and more objectivity. Just because someone disagrees with you is not tantamount to desiring persecution of anybody. It may shock you to know that I do not sit around work telling my gay friend who is a good church going Roman Catholic that she is going to hell.

North

 

Today's update of Anglicans Online seems timely, and sums up my attitude about...well, debates in general (though it focuses on the current ECUSA controversy):
http://anglicansonline.org/


Cheers,

 

That's pretty heartfelt.

The problem is that your opponents probably feel equally strongly. Guts speak loudly, but not with one voice.

But even if you really are righteous and everyone else a bigot, you still need to consider the pragmatics of the situation.

Is it best to charge into a divided church like a bull into a china shop and announce triumphantly that you are imposing your own social change agenda on them?

Do you really expect them all to be magically transformed by your spirit because you are more righteous than they are? Even if it's true, is it a realistic expectation?

I'd suggest that if a gay man is going to be nominated as bishop, his qualifications for bishop should be emphasized first and formost. His sexual preference should not be hidden, but it should not be emphasized any more than a heterosexual's would be. He's not becoming a bishop because he gives good blow jobs.

But shoving his sexuality out in front, as this thread does, and acting as if it is the most significant and most interesting thing about the man, simply reduces him from being a human being into being a symbol. And it almost guarantees that he will be a lightening rod for controversy and divisive in his church. He won't be "the bishop" who happens to be gay, he'll be "the gay man" who happens to be the bishop.

That's not good for his church and it's probably not very good for gay rights either.

Feel free to flame me for these comments if you like. I don't live or die by the gaseous emissions of your gut. I've got a very opinionated, flatulent (and in my own eyes) righteous gut of my own.

 

I'll get even more simplistic, since my simpleness is such a pain for some of you:

The Bible is an old piece of allegory made by men who saw women as property and any threat to their position as analogous to blasphemy.

I do not trust such a book as written. It is garbage.

All this pontificating is just nonsense.

What I have said may be an insult to some, but to me, since the Bible is often used to oppress and justify some of the worst behavior mankind has ever seen....well...it stands to reason it would be used to justify separation, hatred, etc.

This thread has been an entertaining view of just how the hatred can be justified, even by the brilliant and/or educated.

P.S. I don't care much about social change. As long as the Bible is used to justify hatred and separation, there will be no change. Some of this logic is as bad as the Taliban B.S.

 

Bill, I think the issue is that while there are plenty of openly gay men and plenty of bishops, there aren't very many openly gay bishops. I don't think I'm reducing him in any way by calling attention to the fact, and I don't think the ECUSA is reducing him in any way by calling attention to the fact. This is a big deal.

Pope John Paul II began his tenure as "the first non-Italian pope" or "the Polish pope" because his ethnicity made a difference. The Episcopal church's first woman bishop in 1988 was "the first woman pope" because her gender made a difference. This is important not because a gay bishop is some kind of sideshow freak, like the devil chicken or the elephant man, but because it sets an important precedent: if there is one gay bishop, there can be others. And if there can be others, that sends a powerful and positive message to gays and lesbians who feel left out of mainline religious denominations.

You said in a previous thread that the MCC is so popular because gays and lesbians need a place where they can believe that God loves them. Well, here's an even bigger fish. It may be divisive, but I don't think it'll be that divisive; female priests were supposed to be divisive, and the sky didn't fall. There are still ECUSA dioceses today that won't ordain women, and I'm sure that there will still be ECUSA dioceses in the future that won't ordain gays and lesbians. But if there is a gay bishop, that sends a clear message about just how far a homosexual parishioner can go in the ECUSA--a mainline church, not a special "gay church." And while it won't be a universal thing, I'm sure it won't stop there--you can bet that decision-makers at the ELCA and PCUSA are watching closely. Bishop-elect Robinson is a man and a symbol. He has a heavy weight on his shoulders and, judging by what he has said in the press, I'm sure he knows it. But Christianity was founded by a man who had a heavy weight on his shoulders, so he's in good company.


Cheers,

 

The Bible is not one piece of anything, nor is it one book; it's a diverse collection of traditions that speak out against the powerful more often than they speak for them. If you want to say that the Bible is mythology, I won't argue with you; but if you want to say that a vast and complex tradition of mythology is garbage or patently false, that tells me that you're treating the mythology as something more--or something less--than mythology. If you dismiss Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes as "garbage," I'd hate to see your opinion of Homer or Shakespeare.


Cheers,

 

Well, how's that for ecumenism? (Of course I meant to say "the first woman bishop.")


Cheers,

 

Re: Re:

====



Speaking as an evangelical Christian,

With your usual insight , you have, Tom, identified the reason for the position of many conservative Christians: Many of us believe the Bible is authoritative over faith and practice ,and that it teaches homosexual acts are sinful. If any think we are wrong in our interpretation of Scripture, that one may wish to show us our error. I would appreciate that. I am not yet, until my doctorate is received, inerrant! We do not see in the Bible that being a woman or hispanic is sinful , so IMO that comparison above made by someone is groundless. However, a portion of us evangelicals do not feel women either should have *some* of the leadership roles in the church. But race is absolutely no issue and is a non-sequitur in this discussion!

There have been attempts to argue either that the Biblical prohibition is culturally based, therefore no longer relevant, and even some bold exegetical arguments have been advanced to show that the texts dealing with homosexuality, as Romans one, are misinterpreted by such conservatives as I who deem homosexual acts sins . I think both of these approaches are doomed to failure. But I'd be happy to hear the Biblical bases for an opinion contrary to mine. To argue on nonBiblical bases , of course, will sway not the conservative Christian from his position.

A third way that some within "Christendom" may attempt to counter their more fundamentalistic "brethren" is to point out the loving and forgiving nature of God in Christ. And this is not without merit , but it still falls short IMO as repentance is involved with grace.

But fourth, my personal problem with condemning in general homosexuals, is occasioned by the Scriptural injunction to avoid judging others , but to judge oneself. I genuinely see myself a miserable failure in living up to my perception of God's standards. I am too busy trying to correct personal faults to throw rocks at others. Perhaps those reaching for the rocks are more sanctified than I or perhaps they are blind to their own faults.

Nevertheless, it can be argued that even higher standards are in the NT required for church leaders than for congreants(eg 1 Tim 3) . So, whereas I cannot given my own shortcomings justifiably condemn homosexuals ,even though IMO Scripture teaches such acts are sinful, I can question that one who practices that sexual preference should be a bishop over me.

Others, of course, with different convictions than mine, with perfect freedom, may choose to have such a one as their religious leader.

 

Bill --

I think that you and North both exhibit an authentic and humane conservative faith that responds to homosexuality in a reasonable and consistent way. Neither of you are homophobes or gay-bashers, any more than an Orthodox Jew would be intolerant for keeping kosher or a strict Buddhist intolerant for rejecting alcohol. I respect the fact that you're committed to your faith, and can't change it at will just because it seems to make sense from a secular perspective.

For my part, I'm in a similar bind; the Bible informs my faith, but I consider it the work of deeply religious and highly intelligent human beings of an earlier time. Because I consider the Bible to be the work of human beings (though not necessarily "men," as wannaJD has argued--the most prolific storytellers in many traditions are women), I can't elevate any specific passage above humanist concerns. (I can only hope that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is just a metaphor!)

I would like to see both gay and traditionalist Episcopalians continue to be represented in Episcopal churches, and I suspect they might, because there are elements inside of the Episcopal Church (Cursillo, Episcopalians United, et. al.) that tend to be fairly conservative, and because many bishops--such as Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh--continue to profess a conservative theology, even as they agree to coexist with those who don't. As long as there is an element of support for conservatives within the tradition, I don't think there will be a full-blown schism. But this is a concern that should be addressed, and probably soon; with gay Episcopalians reeling from Lambeth '98 and conservative Episcopalians reeling from New Westminster and Bishop Jeffrey John's appointment (the UK's answer to the Bishop Robinson election), a certain amount of primal scream therapy is probably warranted. If the church fishes or cuts bait now, I think the damage will be reduced in the long run.

Well, don't let anybody tell you that religion and theology are boring!


Cheers,