It is rather striking how much this debate resembles a much earlier one -- namely the Donatist controversy of the fourth century, with some of the African bishops (not inappropriately, given geography) taking the Donatist position and the North American ones taking the orthodox one. The main objections to ordaining gays seem to be almost a confusion of Christian error with an older Levitical and pagan concept of ritual impurity and contamination -- if one believes that one can be contaminated by the impurity of a priest or fellow parishioner, then exclusion is the only way to avoid such contamination (thus the Donatist worry about the inefficacy of sacraments performed by those not in a state of grace). But the New Testament rather uniformly rejects this model of sin as ritual pollution (miasma). Even if homosexuality were a sin (which I don't think is necessarily the case) the fear of it is based on a radical heresy which was condemned by the Roman Catholic church over 1600 years ago and in Article XXVI (of the 39 articles)

Moreover, if the only people who could be ordained were those free of sin, given that the only man we believe to have been completely free of sin died on the cross nearly 2000 years ago, we would face a rather drastic shortage of clergy.

"Moreover, if the only people who could be ordained were those free of sin, given that the only man we believe to have been completely free of sin died on the cross nearly 2000 years ago, we would face a rather drastic shortage of clergy."

Don't you see any difference between 1)"having sinned", repenting, and being forgiven, and 2)continuing to sin, with no repentence?

One can be "free of sin" if one repents and is forgiven. A person who commits A sin can most certainly be forgiven. A person who continually commits the same sin over and over, obviously is not "repentant" and therefore can not be forgiven.

Call me old fashioned, but I'd like to see a priest or bishop that can be an example of moral behavior for my 11 year old son, not someone who ignores scriptural teachings and does whatever feels good to him.

One of the lessons of the Holocaust is that when one section of humanity allows itself to lose respect for others, even ordinary people are capable of acts of unspeakable inhumanity, cruelty and injustice. The same point was recently exemplified by the soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners: it is possible, not because of any special evil on the part of the perpetrators, but because of an attitude which dehumanises others and therefore permits inhuman treatment of them. When Jesus in one of the great commandments teaches us to love our neighbour as ourselves, he is teaching us to see others as ourselves and to respect and treat them as we respect ourselves and as we would wish to be treated. But he accompanies the teaching with an explanation of who our neighbours are: they are not just those like ourselves, they include those who are seen as from utterly different and stigmatised communities: that is the parable of the good Samaritan. In parts of Canada and the USA, gay people are more visible than elsewhere and this may make it possible to observe the normality of their lives and the value of their relationships. In other communities, heterosexual people may have nothing to go on but a possibly natural dislike and fear of those understood to be fundamentally different from themselves. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the disagreement within our communion, I hope that mutual love and humility and unity may even now prove themselves our strongest Christian values.

Great amateur theologizing, Sara. The Donatist controversy was about apostate clerics returning to orthodoxy and not being accepted by a rejectionist party that had remained orthodox during the period of Roman persecution. The analogy to Donatism would be in Griswold, Robinson, et al. repented of their errors, but the African church still refused to admit them to communion.

I am sure that Sarah was not saying that it is the North American bishops who are taking the orthodox line! But perhaps she did not mean it in that sense.

Some of the comments in the newspapers and in this forum have been wounding, and one or two make one recoil at the prejudice doled out to those who feel (rightly or wrongly) that some churches have departed from the teaching of holy scripture. Clearly some writers cannot distinguish between homosexual orientation and practice, and somehow imagine that conservatives (for want of a better term) reject gays per se. This simply isn't the case.

A letter that was posted a week or so back, puts the case both lovingly and clearly. Andy Mcquitty was asked by someone whether gays were acceptable at his church. Part of his letter reads as follows:

"I really love the spirit of honesty in your letter, _____. You were careful to let me know that you are in a gay relationship, and that as a result you've had a hard time finding acceptance in Texas churches. I don't want to be presumptuous, but I sensed that you were indirectly asking me a very important question in your note. I'd define that question as, "Will my partner and I be loved unconditionally at IBC through the church's affirmation of our gay lifestyle?"

____, your honest and forthright approach is refreshing, and deserves an equally honest and forthright response. To the question I think I hear you asking, here's my answer. You and your partner will absolutely be loved unconditionally by the people of IBC, because IBC has the conviction that all people are loved unconditionally by God. How could we not extend what we have so graciously received?

On the other hand, our understanding of God's unconditional love is not that it means anything goes. The Bible teaches that all of us are sinners, and though God always loves us, He hates our sin and calls us to repentance and holiness. The Bible is clear that homosexual practices are unwelcome to God. We are a Bible church, and as the scriptures would never affirm a gay relationship as good and acceptable to God, neither would we.

So how can I say you all are welcome to come to IBC and would be loved here? Simple. All of us have our issues. Nobody is perfect. We're all just sinners saved by God's grace, seeking to live our lives more and more like Jesus. No, we don't affirm homosexual practice here. But neither do we affirm adultery, gossip, lying, gluttony, or any other of a multitude of sins many hundreds of our people walk through these doors with every week. We're not in the business of condoning what God calls sin and enabling people to feel good about violating God's standards. But neither are we in the business of scorning and rejecting wounded people who sincerely want to find and walk with God. We are in the business of declaring the grace and forgiveness of Jesus Christ and the enablement He gives to grow and to change according to God's will.

In other words, we believe God says to all people: "I invite you to come to me just as you are, because I love you. But don't expect to stay as you are, for I want to transform you more and more to be like my Son Jesus." That's why we believe God wants our church to be a grace-giving community that accepts people where they're at while challenging them to grow in holiness."

Super letter, I felt. It has struck me for some time how easily the conservative point of view has been identified with hatred, rejection and prejudice by people who advocate that others should listen, but who themselves are not listening. In my church there isn't the slightest hint of rejection. But we are ALL encouraged to move on in our faith, and become what Jesus would have us be.

Actually, I am saying that the North American church *is* taking the orthodox position. The main
*theological*, as opposed to ecclesiastical, issue in the Donatist controversy was that of whether the priest being in a state of grace affected the efficacy of the sacraments. The orthodox position (taken by Augustine) was that although one should strive to appoint priests who are morally good, the efficacy of the sacraments depends on the acts of God, not of humans.

The comment by Sara is confusing to me. She seems to be suggesting that an anglican in an active homosexual relationship is not forever barred from administering communion because there is no ritual uncleanliness for Christians. But surely this has nothing to do with it. I thought the reason that someone in an active homosexual relationship should be barred from the priesthood was that our priests should be repentant sinners willingly undergoing sanctification. As anglicans we take our definition of what is sin and what is not sin primarily from the whole of scripture, interpreted but not contradicted by reason and tradition. The argument that homosexual sex is free of sin by these standards has not yet been clearly made. Therefore, the literal reading of scripture is the best we have, therefore homosexual sex is defined as sinful by anglican standards.
Am I misunderstanding Sara's comments? I hesitate to post on the "thinking Anglicans" site for fear of making a fool of myself, I'm sure someone clever out there can show me how I am wrong.

Mutt --

Tried to send you an encouraging word but was told your email address was no good --

At a time when "Hotel Rwanda" is playing (sadly, in limited release) one could hope that more people could recognize oyur point!

One must hope that the Holy Spirit will, in time, prevail

Sara, I don't believe I've seen any anglicans doubting the efficacy of the sacraments when administered by priests who for what ever reason might not be in a state of grace. You'll need to point to some anglican url where people are saying, 'don't go to that church or the sacraments won't work / aren't valid' or something similar to it.

If you look at the issue more closely, it's the question of whether church leaders *should* be appointed who have certain views and lifestyles, this 'miasma' business may sound convincing to you, but I believe it obfuscates the issue. At the moment obfuscation is quite dangerous and is likely to invoke anathemizations. If there's no clarity, it's unlikely indeed we have a chance at 'walking together.'

As I recall, when Peter and Paul first began taking the Gospel message to the gentiles, the other apostles weren't clued in by the H.S. and they disagreed and opposed the move. Therefore, when the Living God does speak, some might be left in the dark for a time for whatever reason. On the other hand, the literal reading of scripture appears to also be taken out of context. There are no chapters about men laying with other men. There are no single whole paragraphs even. There is also the overiding message of the Gospels that teaches us a general approach to all things, guidelines, if you will, that are not specific. I see in the Beattitudes that I am to free the oppressed, for example. And I also see that I am to see that right prevails. I also find no quarter for judging my neighbor or for my own pride or my own will--all these actions belong to God. And nowhere, and that would be underlined if I could do so, is there ever any allowance for me to hate anybody.

Annie