I don't understand why TEC wants to continue in the Anglican Communion? If it believes in its process and decisions for the full inclusion of GLBT, walk apart from the Anglican Communion or join a second level system of membership. That way, it could still have fellowship with those Anglican Churches that support it, but still follow the dictates of its own conscience. Seriously, what's the problem or issue.

Thanks to the Chicago Consultation for this statement, and especially the reminder about how dangerous it is to be glbt in some parts of the world.

The ABC can denounce anti-gay violence 'til he turns blue in the face, but as long as he repeats lies about glbt people [that they 'choose' a 'lifestyle' or that they have a sexual 'preference,'] he abets and aids the violence.

It is especially egregious that he barely mentions the blatant border crossing - in violation of the Council of Nicea - by bishops from the very countries with the worst record of human rights violations against glbt people. Yes I mean Nigeria.

This is not just hypocrisy; it is moral disorder.

'The Chicago Consultation believes that, like the church’s historic discrimination against people of color and women, excluding GLBT people from the sacramental life of the church is a sin'

Sorry but it is sentences like this that make my blood boil. This is simply dishonest and serves to paint a very unfair picture of opponents

Nobody is suggesting that homosexuals are excluded from the church. What is at issue is the sexual licence such people have within the living out of Christian faith.

If the agenda of revisionists were simply about inclusion there would be no dissent...but in honesty the fight is for sexual licence to be granted to those of a homosexual inclination. That changes the goal posts considerably.

I think it is very important that people stop misrepresenting those they disagree with on both sides.

And if you say 'to deny me sex is to deny my identity' that is to raise a point hitherto unkown in CHristian theology.

Often in the career of politicians a moment arrives when the voters see through them. From this moment on, they lose credibility and usually never regain it. For Rowan Williams, this may be the moment. The measured and gracious response by the Chicago Consultation rightly puts its finger on the sinful character of the exclusion of glbt people from the sacramental life of the Church. I think that should be read as a personal judgement on Rowan Williams. He should consider his position.

I do not see monogamous committed couples as sexual license. There is a quite a lot of difference between them, and such conflation of the two makes my blood boil.

Maybe someone would point me in the right direction. The Chicago consultation makes frequent reference to 'baptismal theology'. Just what is this and where might one learn about it? I realize I may be behind the times, but what is special about baptismal theology as opposed to any other kind?
Thanks in advance.

Doug:

TEC wishes to remain part of something it was integral in creating. The Anglican Communion without the Episcopal Church is like a human body missing a limb.

"If the agenda of revisionists were simply about inclusion there would be no dissent...but in honesty the fight is for sexual licence to be granted to those of a homsexual inclination"

It's not about "sexual license." It's about all of the sacraments for all the baptized.

I hope this was ["sexual license"] a slip of the keyboard of some kind; surely you do not believe that the sacrament of marriage is merely a license for two people to have a sexual relationship?

The wording in the BCP [p. 423] states that the union of the two people is "...intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given to one another in prosperity and adversity, and, when it is God's will, the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord."

When I think about the gay couples I know, many of whom are my age, and have been together for years, many of whom have raised children to be loving, caring adults, I think the words above well describe their relationships.

Allan,
The "baptismal theology" to which the statement refers is expressed in the Baptismal Covenant in the baptismal service in the American BCP, the Canadian BAS, and the English Common Worship. The basic idea is that all Christian people, by virtue of our baptism, are members of the Body of Christ and commissioned for ministry to and with one another, using the gifts which God has given us.

What we are also saying as GLBT people is we will neither play the continuing role of victim, nor will we be kept outside the door.

Ed, you also have misread what they wrote. They do not suggest that gay people are 'excluded from the church' but excluded from the sacramental life of the church. It is simply a fact that, in the present state of affairs and according to Abp Rowan's reflections, gay people should not be ordained if partnered, are denied the sacrament of marriage (or any similar blessing) and in certain corners even absolution unless they truly consider any sexual activity they may have had to be immoral and worthy of repentance.

By licence (sic) did you mean latitude or freedom?

In response to Allan K's questions, the Baptismal Covenant in the 1979 American BCP (pp. 304-05) follows. It has become fundamental and extraordinarily important in the life of the American Church.

The Baptismal Covenant

Celebrant: Do you believe in God the Father?

People: I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

Celebrant: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

People: I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

Celebrant: Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?

People: I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Celebrant: Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?

People: I will, with God's help.

Celebrant: Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord.

People: I will, with God's help.

Celebrant: Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?

People: I will, with God's help.

Celebrant: Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?

People: I will, with God's help.

Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?

People: I will, with God's help.

Fr. Ed, you refer to "those of a homosexual inclination."

Sorry, Father, but I am not someone "of a homosexual inclination." I HAVE a sexual orientation that is integral to who I am. Or do you think of yourself as someone "of a heterosexual inclination"?

Baptismal theology? One presumes this is means the theology of Baptism, which, in the words of the Episcopal Church's Catechism, is that "Holy Baptism is the sacrament by which God adopts us as his children and makes us members of Christ's Body, the Church, and inheritors of the kingdom of God."

Often, in conversations like the one we are having, reference is made to our promise, as part of the Baptismal Covenant, to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being."

My understanding is that baptized gay people are asking the people of God to regard them as truly and fully members of Christ's Body and to honor our commitment to justice and peace and respect for their dignity.

Seems a modest request, but apparently lots of people have trouble complying with it.

This issue was on the front page of the NY Times -- America's pre-eminent newspaper -- today.

Not only is the Anglican Communion important for its international scope and size, but the Episcopal Church remains far more important than its small membership numbers would otherwise merit.

We have never had an established church, of course, but we have almost from the beginning had establishment churches, of which this was the first.

"but in honesty the fight is for sexual licence to be granted to those of a homosexual inclination."

No it's not,
and to suggest that my same sex household of the last 6 years where the 2 of us have shared everything for better and for worse, for richer and for poorer is simply "license" makes my blood boil. That these thoughtless lies about the lives of people like me get repeated as if they are truth makes my blood boil to a froth.

I'm grateful for the Chicago Consultation's efforts to push back against efforts to turn these pernicious fictions into legislation, and to make the Gospel welcome truly universal.

May I inquire of Ed Tomlinson where I should apply to receive my 'sexual licence' ?

The Chicago Consultation is beautiful - a real object lesson in loving theologically grounded communication.

Cynthia Gilliatt also expresses a beautiful truth.

I have noticed that there is a good deal of sexual diversity - I would not want to label it 'licence'-- among Anglo-Catholics in general and SSC in particular. I would ahve thought that they would welcome the Chicago Consultation statment -if only in private.

The resolute hot button issue really is about whether queer folks have any practical or ethical goods in their daily lives - work, relationships, the whole kit and kaboodle that makes up daily life in an average western democracy.

Our traditional answer - from scriptures, from nearly every single traditional church authority which anybody bothered to ever take seriously - clearly was: No, categorically, No. Never. Ever.

Now, even rather strict conservative believers have backed off. They still talk emotionally in negatives about queer folks - as if we still believed that no practical or ethical good by definition existed in the folks' daily lives and relationships - but in practice when pressed, only a certain few will go whole hog on the traditional nothing but, negatives.

Even then, really familiar traditional things are never going to get mentioned very often - queer folks cause bad weather, stillborn cattle, crop failures. Causing the downfall of civilization, or of church life - well that is still pretty popular a claim.

Why have conservative believers abandoned the crop failures bit? Because we know it just isn't true; and so far as anybody can tell, it never, ever was true. How did that change happen? Well. A lot like all the other changes happened in our corrected views of queer folks. Yup, that whole kit and kaboodle of changes, right now ending up with straight folks and gay folks, pretty much alike when it comes to their sexual behaviors. Of course gay couples cannot officially get married in any and all places, but we still appreciate the sound practical and ethical goods innate to their committed relationships and parenting. Goods little damaged by their not being straight.

Is one couple still different from another? You bet. Every straight couple is different from another next door. But those differences do not have the heavy practical or ethical weights which conservative believers would prefer to still preach they bear.

We are really in a replay of nearly every significant past empirically-based change that anybody would care to pull out, from our real history of changed thinking.

Truth train is a comin. No flat earth stuff. Count on it.

"Sorry but it is sentences like this that make my blood boil. This is simply dishonest and serves to paint a very unfair picture of opponents

Noboody is suggesting that homosexuals are excluded from the church. What is at issue is the sexual licence such people have within the living out of Christian faith. "

What you call sexual license I call using the gospel to encourage LGBT people to live in stable, monogamous relationships. That's the "license" we desire. So sorry if that makes your blood boil, perhaps if you were in a stable, monogamous relationship you wouldn't be having these feelings.

"I think it is very important that people stop misrepresenting those they disagree with on both sides. "

Then stop calling a desire to enlarge the compass of a church asking God to bless relationships towards the LGBT community a "sexual license". It seems evident that you are selfishly and conditionally proclaiming the gospel, not to mention the sacraments, to be withheld from a wide ranging community of people of whom you obviously haven't a clue about. That'd be a start.

"And if you say 'to deny me sex is to deny my identity' that is to raise a point hitherto unkown in CHristian theology."

Damn straight I am. Get with the program, God's call to each and every one of us isn't history, it's history that is constant and being made right now.

"Truth train is a comin."

That's worth framing!

What will happen if a two-track Anglicanism occurs?

Surely the CofE will remain in full communion with TEC and ACC. We have our own ecumenical process, not just in America with Lutherans and other mainstream Protestants, but with many other Anglican and others around the world.

We also have many cordial if not "full communion" relationships with other churches. Locally, many Episcopal churches work with others daily. We may not have seats on some Communion bodies, but we will be welcome as we always have been in many places. As long as Canterbury does not allow a competing church in the US, we will be the recognized Anglicans at home.

Moreover, in 25 years, history will surely have ended this silly debate, and educated worldly people will look at it with the same bemusement that they look at creationism now.

DougD's question?

TEC isn't interested in walking away from everybody else, probably for several good reasons.

One, whether we like it or not, admit it or not - our planet is functionally shrinking. We are less and less distant from one another; and short of a planetary catastrophe that kills earth period, we are all going to be crossing paths with each other, even more frequently. What is learning diversity and tolerance, talking across our differences, about, otherwise?

PS. The believers who categorically think they never, ever cross paths with competent, thriving queer folks, are probably quite mistaken and even stubbornly self-deceiving.

Two, TEC is a founding member of the modern global communion.

TEC lobbied, helped to get a whole lot of global things up and running - Lambeth, Primate Meetings, Ang Consult Council - Chicago Lambeth Quad. We helped a big list of things to happen. We are already involved with lots of global program and global peoples stuff.

If we are not loudly preaching very nasty stuff about queer folks, so what? We changed for good reasons that still apply. Changing was not bad faith or bad Anglican citizenship.

Three, the real history of empirical corrections to believer thinking runs so parallel to the queer issues; surely TEC is encouraged to take a much more generous view.

Decades of very careful study and reflection – then our understanding that queer folks are not as dangerous or as evil as our legacy said. We still have to live together in peace; surely the customary Anglican vitamin of agreeing to disagree is helpful. In historical Anglican fashion, TEC does not knee jerk presume that believers agreeing to disagree comprises the utter disaster, as sadly some say must necessarily be the case.

We are ordering our own Life the best we know how.

We think setting an honest example of facing the empirical data about queer folks is a common sense way of: (A) being provisionally honest in good conscience, plus (B) setting a good example for other Anglican believers.

We pray and believe that setting a good, honest example leaves us open to correcting any other errors we made or make.

We are not running away because there is really nowhere else to go on our small planet.

Our corrected views or practices are truly not harming anybody. Upsetting conservative believers is not the same as harming them, period.

Pat O'Neill replied to Doug Durgen's incredulous question with the following: "TEC wishes to remain part of something it was integral in creating. The Anglican Communion without the Episcopal Church is like a human body missing a limb."

I would suggest that the issue is much more complex than Mr. Durgen would like to imply; the Church of England, itself, will not be of one mind on this matter, and the ABofC hardly speaks for his entire clergy and lay members.

There are indeed some Provinces, such as Nigeria and Rwanda and Southern Cone, where the overwhelming majority of bishops and clergy would prefer to shut out the US Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Church of Canada.

And there are other Provinces, such as Scotland and Wales and Ireland, where the overwhelming majority would prefer to remain an inclusive Communion.

And there are yet others, such as England and Australia, where the views are rather mixed.

Remaining inclusive, even to the point of tolerating differences with Christ-like charity, is what the Anglican Communion does so well, and has for centuries.

We are not Roman Catholic, and we are also not Baptist, and we long ago rejected the Puritan approach, and our inclusive diversity is a blessing.

Besides, I doubt that Rowan Williams really wants to preside over the break-up of the Church of England, just to keep up his concept of worldwide numbers.

The Chicago statement focuses on the points on which TEC and Canterbury agree -- but the sticking-point of disagreement is rather glossed over.

These blog threads provoke my inner kid. I'm rubber and you are glue. Whatever bad names you call me, bounces off me, and sticks on you.

But seriously. EdT? Let's step briefly through key highlights, changed believer thinking about sex.

Traditionally, believers focused on sex acts. Observable, concrete. Our view of human nature was externalized; people were (A) what they did, plus (B) how others perceived what they did. (Bruce Malina, Richard Rohrbaugh) Keeping the law meant above all, doing and not doing, and being perceived by the tribe or community to be so, keeping the law from God.

Readers of the OT prophets, followers of Jesus of Nazareth went further – right into our human heart.

Ancients knew three dominant patterns of same sex behavior. 1-Warriors raped foes, prior to killing them or enslaving them. 2-Pagan worshippers in sacred sex rituals. 3-High Status Males having any sex they wanted with anybody of lesser status, including children.

Fast forward, today. We are vexed to assert mindlessly that a committed queer couple is categorically-definitively equivalent - practically, morally - to 1,2,3. Today, do we not know that being straight does not innately preclude people - from possibly being excellent and exemplary, or possibly being just horrible? Ditto, being NOT straight?

Yes. Religions still cling to sex acts and categories, maintaining status quo.

Still. Maybe not so terrible a stretch, really, to finally admit after long centuries: A gay person's heart is expressed and touched by sex acts with another man or woman, just as a straight person's heart is touched and expressed by married sex. Yes, then. Queer folks have heart in sex just as much as straight folks, with just about the same or similar ethical goods or bads.

In a modernized approach to weighing sex ethics, we use every available best practice. We look at sex acts and behaviors. We look at social and legal contexts, like being consensual, being married. We look at qualitative relationship indicators, and we look at heart stuff. We need all of it, for straight people, for gay people. Even then we cannot always absolutely tell what people are doing, ethically.

So we still have God as ultimate judge, ultimate knower of the human heart.

Those believers who claim to know queer hearts with the certainties that belong only to God? Well? Perilously close to wanting to usurp God's place, I'd say.

What gets to me his the hypocrisy in the Church Catholic. Isn't +Rowan Cantuar aware of the fact that, in the 1960s, Anglo-Catholic theological schools operated by the CofE were hotbeds of homo-sexuality? If, as intimated by Dean Knisely of AZ, +Rowan is pandering to Papa Ratzinger, his ecumenical parterner, is +Cantuar not aware of the fact that a large percentage of RC priests/bishops today are gay men, most of whom are still "in the closet"? Living a lie is a virtue for +Rowan Cantuar?

Jim Pratt, Dr.Primrose and Jnwall, and all,

Thank you for responding to my question about Baptismal Theology. That is very helpful. It may be interesting to note that those of us Baptized before the current US PB version (79) did not make any such undertakings as part of their Baptism.

I wonder about the wisdom of making something promised by one's sponsors quite so central to the theological enterprise, as many baptisands do not in point of fact make any promises at all.

The point about seeking justice and dignity for all remains a very worthwhile undertaking.

"The Anglican Communion without the Episcopal Church is like a human body missing a limb." - Posted by Pat O'Neill

Or its heart (AND brain!)

[NB to EdT: not "sexual license" but MARRIAGE license (and blessing, too!)]

Re: Baptismal Covenant
US BCP, and Cnd BAS p. 179:
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all
people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People: I will, with God’s help.

CofE 'Common Worship' p. 73
Here or at the beginning of the Sending Out, a minister may say
to the newly baptized who are able to answer for themselves
Those who are baptized are called to worship and serve God. ...

Will you acknowledge Christ’s authority over human society,
by prayer for the world and its leaders,
by defending the weak, and by seeking peace and justice?
With the help of God, I will.
==end==
Commentary: Note the glaring difference in ecclesiology here. Over on this side of the pond ALL people reaffirm both the Apostles Creed AND the covenant question "Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?"

Am I splitting hairs here? I think not, but others may disagree. Perhaps someone more familiar with the CofE rubrics on the rite may comment.

Also the CofE rubrics state that this section is an "or" option to the other optional summary prayer:

These words may be added
N and N,
today God has touched you with his love
and given you a place among his people.
God promises to be with you
in joy and in sorrow,
to be your guide in life,
and to bring you safely to heaven.
In baptism God invites you on a life-long journey.
Together with all God’s people
you must explore the way of Jesus
and grow in friendship with God,
in love for his people,
and in serving others.
With us you will listen to the word of God
and receive the gifts of God.

I guess for us in North America justice, peace and respect for human dignity, is important. MANY church fathers beginning with Athanasius, stated clearly that we are 'logikoi' - rational creatures, made in the image and likeness of God. If we turn away from caring for those who share our human nature we are denying our essential common created nature (ousia). In the 4th Century Gregory of Nyssa chastised those who turned away from helping lepers and were not even able to see them as human beings. We need to do the same for all, regardless or race, creed, colour, or sexuality.

Ed has it backwards.

This has nothing to do with sexual license or sexual activity. The church has always looked the other way as long as gay and lesbians did it in the dark with curtains drawn, the lights out and felt somewhat guilty about it after. Heck, you can become a King or a Bishop as long as you keep the facade up.

But as soon as you self-identify as gay or lesbian, whether you are actually having sex or not or even intend to, all hell breaks loose. That's the sin for people like Ed.

I spent many years with people just like Ed. When I have been in conservative Christian environments and came out, no one ever asked me if I was sexually active or not, or what my viewpoint on sexual ethics are. Saying I was gay was enough. That revelation meant that I was sinning and on my way to hell and it was time to leave to protect the children from being tainted by my presence. These same Christians who fight against anti-discrimination laws in employment aren't fighting against people who want to have sex at work. That isn't the threat. It's the self identity that's the problem.

Ed has it backwards. This has nothing to do with sexual activity. The whole anti-gay backlash is all about separating us from our self identity, self worth and sense of integration and wholeness. We can't be "gay" or "lesbian", we have to be "homosexual" or "homoerotic" or in fundagelical Newspeak which is designed to put as much distance between us and what we feel as possible, have "homosexual inclinations" or "same sex attractions". But sexuality is much more than what you do, it's what you are and both gay people and right-wing Christians know it. That's what this is all about.

Ed has it backwards. He's just not empathetic or self aware of his own sexuality enough to realize it.

The question is, how long should TEC keep helping to whitewash the sepulchre that the AC has become. By staying in the AC, we are empowering injustice - we are directly contributing, financially, emotionally, and spiritually, to nonsense like Williams' and wilful ignorance that speaks of "chosen lifestyles" and "homosexual inclination."

The Anglican Communion should be left to bury itself.

Allan K:

Have you attended a baptism at your parish since 1979? If so, you have been asked (and presumably answered) those questions.

"Thank you for responding to my question about Baptismal Theology. That is very helpful. It may be interesting to note that those of us Baptized before the current US PB version (79) did not make any such undertakings as part of their Baptism"

I was baptized with the form in the 1928 BCP. However, all present join with the sponsors and persons to be baptized in the creed and promises.
So those are part of MY baptismal covenant.

Allan K,

"It may be interesting to note that those of us Baptized before the current US PB version (79) did not make any such undertakings as part of their Baptism."

True, but many will have affirmed the same covenant at their confirmation, and everyone present at a celebration of baptism makes a reaffirmation of their baptismal covenant using those words. The baptismal covenant isn't just a set of promises made by one's parents or sponsors long ago. It is something that continues to grow as we grow into it.

A very important point not to be missed here is that this baptismal covenant is new and optional in CW, but has been around in the North American churches for a generation. To my knowledge it is virtually unknown elsewhere in the Communion. I think it is essential that the North American Churches explain this understanding of the baptismal covenant very clearly in all of their conversations with the rest of the Communion, because without that understanding, it is much more difficult for others to understand what those North Americans are up to. Sometimes what has been so deeply internalized seems obvious, and when someone else hasn't internalized the same thing, and thus can't see the obvious, bewilderment follows.

"those of us Baptized before the current US PB version (79) did not make any such undertakings as part of their Baptism."

This is a thing for me too. It appears to change the theology of baptism from acceptance of the gospel and prayers that the candidate may receive "that which by nature they cannot have" into something that seems to skirt the entire issue of redemption. The traditional rite saw membership in the Kingdom as something granted to us by God and for which we ought to be grateful. I see no problem with that. The current rite, and we use much the same in Canada too, seems to be all about commissioning us to go out and be militant for the Gospel. Nothing wrong with that either, but there's very little about the theological facts that we a) are far off from God by nature, and b) cannot bridge that gap through our own actions, but by His grace. This, of course, comes from a modern abhorrence of acknowledging that we humans can be in any way fallible or (hush, be quiet, don't say that)sinful. It is an understandable position, coming as it does in reaction to a traditional requirement of self abasement that was so intense it could be seen as insulting to God Himself, so the pendulum has swung the other way. But surely we can acknowledge our fallibility, sinfulness, and need for grace without the traditional selfabasement that often contained a not too subtle strain of masochism, can't we? There's a difference between not being worthy to even contemplate the concept of God on the one hand and, on the other, thinking ourselves so worthy we have the right to demand just treatment from God. I don't think either of those extremes is very good.

I am at a loss for words. Both regarding Cantuar and Ed Tomlinson (and the link about "the theology" behind the anti women stand isn't bad either ;=)

sarcasm intended; I have asked for such a one several times on these boards and never got anything but guilty silence...

"...in honesty the fight is for sexual licence to be granted to those of a homosexual inclination."

Ed, how can you possibly say that this statement is made "in honesty"? Anglicans have been asked by three successive Lambeth Conferences to listen to gay people. Not to be swayed, not to be anything other than simple Christians listening to the experiences, the hurts, the joys, the lives of other human beings made in the image and likeness of God just like you were. You clearly have not done that, if you seriously believe that seeking to be kind to life long committed monogamous unions is "sexual license" or if you consider me to have "homosexual inclinations". Do you not see how your use of that phrase shows your ignorance of gay people and the issues being discussed here? How can I trust someone who knows absolutely nothing about me and mine, yet presumes to speak in stereotypes and untruths about me? Seriously, I could respect any conservative who said "I have listened, I have heard your story, but I still believe God is calling you to celebacy, that it is sinful and against God's plan for you to be sexually active." But I can't have any respect at all for someone who vehemently condemns something he clearly has no understanding of at all. That's just mindless legalism, and we Christians are clearly called away from that. I have misgivings about the whole liberal inclusiveness thing, I think it's a lot more selfserving than people will admit, and I think that some of those pushing it are incredibly arrogant in their behaviour. But I also believe that these things pale in comparison to the dishonesty, self-aggrandizement and arrogance of the Right. Frankly, Ed, it is behaviour like you show here that convinces me that in this, the Right is wrong.

What you say here is simply untrue. I choose to believe it is because you have not been educated as to what is actually going on. The alternative to that is to accuse you of blatantly unChristian behaviour.

You are free to believe homosexuality is in every instance contrary to the Gospel, and that those who disagree with you are committing a grave error that will result in unrepentant homosexuals being lost from the Kingdom as the sinfullness of our actions condemns us to Hell, unwarned and cruelly huldered into our sin by mindless liberals who would rather risk souls than be judged by the world to have excluded someone. You are even free to preach that openly. You are free to debate it. You are NOT, as a Christian, free to misrepresent, to lie, to slander, or to defame us or those who support us. This claim that what is being sought here is nothing more than sexual license is nothing but falseness and scaremongering. Please retract it and go educate yourself about what is really being sought here. No need to change your mind as to the sinfullness of homosexuality, just make sure you know what you're talking about before you make yourself look really bad in public. And stop insulting the rest of us.

re: Allan K's observation "I wonder about the wisdom of making something promised by one's sponsors quite so central to the theological enterprise, as many baptisands do not in point of fact make any promises at all."

If one is even marginally faithful with attendance at regular Sunday worship in TEC, the BCP liturgy provides frequent opportunity to re-affirm those baptismal vows at various points during the church year and grow into a more mature understanding of them. One may be baptized only once, but one never stops hearing about it... and hearing about it... and hearing about it..., liturgically speaking, for the rest of one's churchgoing life!

"But surely we can acknowledge our fallibility, sinfulness, and need for grace without the traditional self-abasement that often contained a not too subtle strain of masochism, can't we?"

I'm not familiar with the form of baptism used in Canada, but when we respond to the questions, "Will you....?" Our response very clearly acknowledges our need for grace, because each affirmation is, "I will, with God's help."

And indeed, every good thing we do, we do with God's help.

I am genuinely bemused as to the anger and hostility which my post has drawn out. Having read and re-read my post it is not abusive to gay people in any way.

It merely points out that there is a difference between accepting homosexual people whilst adhering to the traditional Christian teaching that sex is for marriage only - and suggesting that to accept homosexuals must include allowing them sexual relationships. Is that so awful a distinction to highlight- surely it goes to the heart of the issues?

Seems to have hit a raw nerve though! Hence the incredibly harsh and abusive rants against me. Is it not possible for the readers of Thinking Anglicans to debate issues with those who hold to the official teaching of our church without resorting to insult?

A couple of further points to make about the Baptismal Covenant as we use it in the Episcopal Church: it has been noted that that it is reaffirmed by almost every person who has attended a baptism since 1976 (when the 1979 Prayer Book was approved on first reading in General Convention, and officially in trial use). However, we also need to note that it has been reaffirmed at almost every Easter Eucharist in that same time. It is certainly incorporated into the Easter Vigil liturgy, and is encouraged in the rubrics for Easter Day celebrations. So, as opposed to the "alternative status" in Common Worship, and in the New Zealand Prayer Book, for us it is affirmed by whole congregations both regularly and frequently.

Second, to appreciate the Baptismal Theology of the Episcopal Church one needs to set the Baptismal Covenant in the context of the full Rite of Baptism. We still renounce "the world, the flesh, and the Devil," if in terms a bit less stark. We still explicitly accept Christ as savior, claim trust in his grace and love, and promise to "follow and obey."

We acknowledge the reality of sin. In the Baptismal Covenant itself we ask, "Will you persevere in resisting evil, and whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?" Note that it is "whenever," not "if ever." In the Prayers for the Candidates we pray that they be delivered from sin and death. In the consecration of the water we acknowledge that Jesus "lead[s] us, through his death and resurrection, from the bondage of sin into everlasting life."

That said, with James we also proclaim that "faith without works is dead." Thus, we expect of one another more than intellectual affirmation of our Christian faith and life. Thus, the Baptismal Covenant includes (as do other parts of the Rite) affirmation of proclamation, service, and love for neighbor as self (if, again, in less literal language).

So, while most of us would say that the Baptismal Covenant affirms our understanding of both Christian faith and Christian life (as if those were truly separable), our "baptismal theology" is expressed throughout our Baptismal rite, and also in our Easter liturgies - and, for that matter, throughout the 1979 Prayer Book.

Many thanks to Ford Elms and Nom de Plume who have raised some issues which I think need further discussion.

(1) Is it appropriate for a national church to change the theology of the service of Baptism by introducing a 'Baptismal Covenant', even if the change is a good one, without making the entire church aware of the change in intention? In such important matters of theology, ought we not all to be on or near the same page? Should there not have been some conversations on changing the theology surrounding Baptism to include a 'Covenant theology'? Especially if you intend to base your forthcoming actions on the new text.

(2) In what sense is it acceptable to 'slip in' a theological change and then require that any who have read the words in public must thereafter be beholden to the new theology? I have attended Baptism, and it never occurred to me that I was making the kind of formal commitment which might later possibly be used as 'proof text' against me or others. This does not seem to me to be the correct way to make theological changes.

I am not opposed to the new 'Covenant' theology - just the way it was introduced and the arrogance of those who assure me that having been caught reciting the words, I am now snared for all eternity.

++Rowan back in 2000, when ABp of Wales, wrote in his book 'Christ on Trial' (p85), "I long for the Church to be more truly itself, and for me this includes changing its stance on war, sex, investment, and many other difficult matters... Yet I must also learn to live in and attend to the reality of the Church as it is . . . and to work at my relations now with the people who will not listen to me or those like me - because what God asks of me is not to live in the ideal future but to live with honesty and attentiveness in the present." His role as ABC is being defined by others, and he has chosen to see 'Church' in the widest terms: but he has not lost his integrity, and may just be trying to come to terms with the cost of having to 'see things whole'; and needs not to be victimised. He gets enough of that from those who know what he has written, and don't like it.

Allan K, I don't quite understand your question about a "theological change" that was "slipped in." First, taken in context of the full rite, the Baptismal Covenant doesn't itself represent a lot of theological change. It seems to me that was seen in other, more functional ways, such as seeing all the baptized as full members of the Body of Christ, allowing for communion of infants or changing the understanding of Confirmation. And those changes, while new to Episcopalians, perhaps, were hardly new, as they are consistent with Orthodox Christian practice for centuries.

Second, this was hardly "slipped in." The process of liturgical renewal that led to the Episcopal Church began in 1967. While I don't have my copies of the earlier trial uses (the "Green Book" and the "Zebra Book"), I think this change in baptismal focus was already apparent in those books. There were, of course, some clergy who failed to educate their people about what was going on; but that's different from implying that the Episcopal Church did this in a process somehow subversive.

Finally, it's hardly been "slipped in" in usage, when it's introduced in each baptism with the words, "Let us join with those who are committing themselves [this child] to Christ and renew our own baptismal covenant." The introduction of the Baptismal Covenant in the Easter Vigil is longer, but equally clear in stating that the congregation is "to renew the solemn promises and vows of Holy Baptism...."

As for a national church changing from the theology received from the Church of England: the Episcopal Church did that in its first Prayer Book in 1789, when it incorporated the Eucharistic Liturgy of the non-juror Episcopal Church of Scotland, rather than that of the 1662 Prayer Book of the Church of England. We didn't ask England then, and we didn't ask England in 1979. On the other hand, England has long had two Prayer Books: the official 1662, and the authorized the Alternative Service Book in the 80's, replaced by Common Worship. Some national churches use the 1662 Book in translation, while others have revised their books a number of times. While liturgical scholars have certainly talked, I don't think there has ever been the sort of Communion-wide consultation you envision. Why such consultation might be necessary for ordination of women or inclusion of glbt persons in all sacraments of the Church, when it hasn't been for our Prayer Books is an interesting question I haven't seen addressed.

"Is it appropriate for a national church to change the theology of the service of Baptism by introducing a 'Baptismal Covenant', even if the change is a good one, without making the entire church aware of the change in intention?" - Allen K.

A good question. Having been an assistant to the TEC bishop who chaired the Standing Liturgical Commission that drafted the 1976/1979 BCP, I have some backround information that expressed the the "mind of the Church" re. "social justice issues" related to the Baptismal Covenant. Two documents that come to mind were the Lambeth 1958 guidelines for Prayer Book revision. The other document was the Vatican II document, Lumen Christi, considering that Rome allowed non-RC theological observers to participate as drafters of Vatican II documents (Canon B. Pawley of Canterbury was one of the official Anglican observers, as was +Moorman of Ripon).

The primary characteristics - namely race, gender and sexual orientation - are indivisible when forming any coherent anti-discrimination policies by Church or State, reiterated here by the Chicago Consultation.

Williams' argument that "if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline" should be compared with the Civil Rights movement, a parallel one to the one commencing with the Stonewall riots exactly 40 years ago.

There are dangers for the Church of England in leading the 'track' of this bi-Communion defined by its opposition to the partnerships and priesthood of a section of the faithful deemed to be at odds with the 'Church Catholic', when society as a whole is required by law not to discriminate on such grounds.

In order to maintain that "a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle" seems to contradict the assertion that "no Anglican has any business...questioning...their place within the Body of Christ".

Regrettably, no change in the C of E is likely while pursuing this vision of closer ties with Rome. Shall we expect a moratoria on women bishops once the legislation is in place until the 'Church Catholic' is in agreement on this too?

All this removes decision-making away from the laity and hands it over to the ever-powerful and out-of-touch episcopate. The only hope for liberals is if the emotional ties with the Communion's oldest overseas' alliance are just too strong to be easily severed. And the composition of Synod will surely catch up with Convention sooner or later - although it could take a couple of decades.

Ed
"Seems to have hit a raw nerve though! Hence the incredibly harsh and abusive rants against me. Is it not possible for the readers of Thinking Anglicans to debate issues with those who hold to the official teaching of our church without resorting to insult?"

I have read this whole thread a few times now, and all I've come across is people trying to engage you with serious arguments.
Could you possibly quote a few examples of harsh and abusive rant and of insults?

Goran,

You are being extremely disingenuous. Opponents of WO have their 'theology'. I don't agree with it, any more than you. But to deny them the fact is ... dishonest.

For a start, check out Ed Tomlinson's blog site. Or, ad nauseam, Jeff Steel's (temporarily suspended) 'De cura animarum'.

We fight. We should fight. But when we fight, we fight cleanly.

"It merely points out that there is a difference between accepting homosexual people whilst adhering to the traditional Christian teaching that sex is for marriage only - and suggesting that to accept homosexuals must include allowing them sexual relationships."

It appears Ed has chosen the lifestyle of the blind and deaf.

"Is it not possible for the readers of Thinking Anglicans to debate issues with those who hold to the official teaching of our church without resorting to insult?"

Is it not possible for those who claim to hold the "official position of the Anglican Church" to engage issues without resorting to insult? I mean, Ed, it was you who dismissed my entire life as a "homosexual inclination", and claimed that an attempt to discern God's will for lifelong monogamous relationships to be nothing more than an attempt to license hedonism. Do you actually NOT understand how rude, insulting and ignorant these statements are? Well, try this:

I believe the Sacrament of Matrimony is nothing more than an attempt to give license to the hedonism of people afflicted with heterosexual inclinations. Given how many of you, at least those who come here to post, will admit to having trouble remaining faithful to their partners, it seems these people who suffer from these heterosexual inclinations have a hard time controlling them. Even when you do vow lifelong fidelity, your inability to control your inclinations is so great that you break your vows in well over 50% of cases. But the Church was so merciful to you that She changed 2000 years of Church teaching to repeatedly give you the license to indulge your inclinations with one new partner after another, all you have to do is make a new vow that is no more real than the old one. I've never had a problem being faithful. Perhaps those heterosexual inclinations are far stronger than my homosexual ones. Or perhaps our relationships are about more than just sex, so that my love for my partner is able to overcome any temptation to stray, whereas you who suffer from heterosexual inclinations base your relationships solely on sex, so when the temptation to stray presents itself, you have no other basis to your relationships to keep you faithful. Is that it?

See how insulting it is? The question is, if you can feel insulted at what I just wrote, why are you surprised when I take offence when you write the same things about me?

"Hence the incredibly harsh and abusive rants against me."

This is just laughable. Is your need to be a victim so great that you really believe you have the right to insult and dismiss people's lives and families and if they take offence at that, THEY are attacking YOU? Really? I simply can't believe that you can't see the insult in your first post, nor the ignorance you reveal by making it.

"It merely points out that there is a difference between accepting homosexual people whilst adhering to the traditional Christian teaching that sex is for marriage only - and suggesting that to accept homosexuals must include allowing them sexual relationships. Is that so awful a distinction to highlight- surely it goes to the heart of the issues?"

Yes, it does...because you accept the idea that marriage must be between a man and a woman--thereby insisting that any sexual relationship between two men or two women (no matter how loving and monogamous) must, perforce, be illicit.

(1) Is it appropriate for a national church to change the theology of the service of Baptism by introducing a 'Baptismal Covenant', even if the change is a good one, without making the entire church aware of the change in intention? In such important matters of theology, ought we not all to be on or near the same page? Should there not have been some conversations on changing the theology surrounding Baptism to include a 'Covenant theology'? Especially if you intend to base your forthcoming actions on the new text."

Are you now suggesting that each national church should have to subject proposed changes to its liturgies to the whole communion for approval? The changes from the 1928 to the 1979 prayer book went through all the processes required by the canons of the Episcopal Church. Discussion went on for years and years before final approval.

"(2) In what sense is it acceptable to 'slip in' a theological change and then require that any who have read the words in public must thereafter be beholden to the new theology? I have attended Baptism, and it never occurred to me that I was making the kind of formal commitment which might later possibly be used as 'proof text' against me or others. This does not seem to me to be the correct way to make theological changes."

Again--"slip in"? This wasn't some late night legislative session, with a last-minute amendment made just before the vote. And if you can't make the kind of "formal commitment" the Baptismal Covenant asks, I have to wonder what kind of Christian you truly are.

Ah EdT, talking across our differences is hard, we've gotten so distant from each other. Nevertheless, worth our efforts.

Your summary of where the church supposedly stands is simply too closed, too pat, too self-satisfied above all. It begs all the important, core questions that revolve around the allegedly closed hot button issues (sexual ethics, human nature).

Nothing allegedly has changed, then, in believer understandings. We modern folks know nothing about queer folks that was not already known to everybody across history; or so the position presumes. In legacy particular, what we claim to know about queer folks is in fact patently false - i.e., that queer folks are simply straight folks behaving very badly, stubbornly, willfully, a me-first Anything Goes Crowd Looking For Cheap Thrills.

Anger? You bet.

Don't you feel angry if or when somebody automatically repeats lies about you? What about, if somebody goes further, simply presuming against all odds that you are unethical, terrible, Anything Goes Cheap Thrill sort of person? Our received legacy beliefs are in fact all negative about queer folks. Our legacy has never had any positive thing to preach about queer folks. Our beliefs have even simplistically assumed that, really, queer folks do not and cannot exist.

Culturally and in church life this has built up into a hidden institution called The Closet. If folks are going to stubbornly insist upon behaving badly, then the very least they can do is hide it. Be silent. Be invisible. Be sorry in some way for what they have been doing, even if they have been doing it behind closed doors, out of sight. Sorry for being straight yet behaving badly.

Anger? Gee, you bet.

Queer folks have been powerless and silent for long, long, long centuries when faced with any of the falsehoods preached about them in the pat, closed, final revelation of the legacy beliefs.

Insult added to injury, the lies being so neatly preached denigrate some of the best parts of the real human nature that queer folks do possess, for real. That is, the capacity to give of self, the capacity to commit in love, the capacity to speak honestly and accurately out of conscience and self-knowledge. Deny those, erase those, and you have significantly diminished queer people; leaving them emptied out, a sketch of human if not subhuman.

Anger? Yes, but also hope for change, good corrections.

Ed Tomlinson wrote: "... the incredibly harsh and abusive rants against me. Is it not possible for the readers of Thinking Anglicans to debate issues with those who hold to the official teaching of our church without resorting to insult?"

People have bee quite mild, as far as I can see. It is you, yourself, who are misrepresenting.

Ed's bemusement and the ABC's mishandling of this issue reveal the need for deeper listening from them. If hostility and anger are aroused, then perhaps it is good to think why. Also, I would suggest, they both need to attend as much to the psychology as well as the theology surrounding this issue, affecting real people with real lives and loves.

Father Ed,
Could you quote some of the responses you would categorize as "harsh and abusive rants" and some of the "insults" to which you claim to have been subjected? I have skimmed through the responses to your post about people with "homosexual inclination," and I see some firmly-worded responses objecting to your assertions about gay and lesbian people, but I see very little that could, in my view, be classified as "harsh and abusive" or "insults". Or, are you simply asserting, as so many "conservatives" seem to do, that merely to disagree with you is "harsh and abusive" and an "insult"?

To the substance of your most recent post: The problem with the position you advance is that it fails to consider what a harsh burden it is to impose celibacy on an entire group of people. And, it isn't merely celibacy that is being imposed, it is self-denigration and self-loathing: a gay or lesbian person cannot simply be celibate (as I happen to be, since I am not in a monogamous, committed relationship); he or she is expected to see his/her sexual orientation as a fundamental flaw (which I refuse to do). The piled up bodied of lesbian and gay people who have tried to obey these impositions witness against them; they are death-dealing.

By the way, do you think Jesus' words in Matthew 23 are a "harsh and abusive" rant, or did the Scribes and Pharisees having it coming? In particular, see Matthew 23:4 about binding heavy burdens, "grievous to be borne" on people.

Marshall,

I think maybe you answered your own question. You wrote: "I don't quite understand your question about a "theological change" that was "slipped in.""

Your final sentence "Why such consultation might be necessary for ordination of women or inclusion of glbt persons in all sacraments of the Church, when it hasn't been for our Prayer Books is an interesting question I haven't seen addressed."

I think you have answered your own question. That is precisely the point I was trying to make. How come we have major consultations over LGBT inclusion or women's ordination and schism is threatened over the outcomes, while a seemingly major Prayer Book change slides through with little attention?

Because of that the average person-in-the-pews has no conscious idea that all of a sudden being a member of the Body of Christ not only involves all the old responsibilities, including loving our fellow members as we do ourselves, but now claims that we also have to have respect and concern for all men and women, no matter their interest in Christianity or the morality of their lives. Sure I should have respect for Muslim terrorists as human beings, but there is no requirement surely that I need give them the love and indicia of fellowship that I give to my fellow Christians. It seems to be a question of who gets into the tent.

Granted, any human can become a member of the Body of Christ through Baptism. This does not require that they agree to any Covenant over and beyond the historic duties and responsibilities of being a member of the Body of Christ. To add a new responsibility because it sounds nice in a multi-cultural world leaves me somewhat flat. It's OK, but it does not suggest any reason why we should include LGBT folk that was not already there in the requirement 'to love neighbor as oneself'.

It seems to me to be a case of the bad expression of a good policy which was already in place.

"Because of that the average person-in-the-pews has no conscious idea that all of a sudden being a member of the Body of Christ not only involves all the old responsibilities, including loving our fellow members as we do ourselves, but now claims that we also have to have respect and concern for all men and women, no matter their interest in Christianity or the morality of their lives. Sure I should have respect for Muslim terrorists as human beings, but there is no requirement surely that I need give them the love and indicia of fellowship that I give to my fellow Christians."

There isn't? I think you need to re-read the parable of the Good Samaritan.

So what are the "historic duties and responsibilities of being a member of the Body of Christ"? Perhaps they include these:

"If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads." Romans 12:20.

"But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." Luke 6:27-36.

I think that's much more extreme - and much harder - than what the Baptismal Covenant requires. It merely requires us to "seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself" and to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being."

'...and suggesting that to accept homosexuals must include allowing them sexual relationships. '
(Ed)

'Allowing' ? You are in truth in no position to 'allow' anything. Your condescension is amazing. No wonder folks here are reacting !
Btw How do you explain that there a gap between what SSC 'allows' and its members actually 'do' ?!

AllanK,
"add a new responsibility because it sounds nice in a multi-cultural world"

Can you tell me which of the promises constitutes a "new responsibility" above and beyond what has been expected of baptised Christians from the beginning?

"now claims that we also have to have respect and concern for all men and women, no matter their interest in Christianity or the morality of their lives."

"Now" also have to respect? "Now"? 2000 years seems like an awfully long "now".

"there is no requirement surely that I need give them the love and indicia of fellowship that I give to my fellow Christians"

There is no requirement to love people who aren't Christians????? One of the two Essentials parishes here is called rather ironically the Church of the Good Samaritan. I've toyed for some time with persuading some drag queen friend to go with make up bruises on his face and body of a Sunday morning, lie down by the steps with his frock torn, shoes gone, hose full of runs, wig askew, and see how many of these Good Samaritans would prove themselves Levites after all. What has stopped me is the belief that I would actually be proven wrong, that someone would actually stop, and I would have the painful, yet gratifying, experience having my reason for scorn taken away. After this, I'm not so sure that's a foregone conclusion. How widespread is it in Evangelical theology that Christians are only called to love those they judge worthy? It isn't the first time I've heard this. Who is teaching this heresy? Given the fact that you yourself are a redeemed, forgiven sinner who, I presume, takes literally our Lord's admonishment to "judge not lest ye be judged", how do you consider yourself qualified to sit in judgement of anyone's worthiness? Where is it you find the list of the people God tells you it's OK not to love? 'Cuz truth to tell, there's a lot of people I would be grateful to be relieved of the burden of loving.(And that's the only bit of this that isn't sarcastic)

"the arrogance of those who assure me that having been caught reciting the words, I am now snared for all eternity."

Ah, perhaps that's the issue. You aren't supposed to "recite" the words like some mindless formula, you are supposed to pray or say them with meaning. If you are merely reciting the words, it would be better for your soul if you just kept silent.

Marshall, annd other TEC readers: the other change in the TEC prayerbook's "baptismal theology" is the downplaying of confirmation. In the traditional or mainstream Anglican understanding, inclusion of someone baptised as an infant into the church membership, involved them taking upon their baptismal promises for themselves in confirmation.
Am I reading this right. If so, this change would appear worthy of rather more consultation between provinces than it received.

Allan K, I can see a number of problems with your approach to the 1979 BCP baptismal ritual, with its "covenant." The most basic one is the notion that it represents a "change" in theology about baptism. That isn't the case. Rather, what the 1979 rite does is make explicit what has always been true of baptism. It may upset and trouble some folks to find out just what it is that being baptized requires of them, but that doesn't change the fact that baptism does require these things of them. It would require them of us even if we didn't have the 1979 rite.

I also think you are misrepresenting the transparency of the process that led to the adoption of the 1979 BCP rite. This rite was widely discussed, tested out, and then voted on at General Convention (twice!). It is basic to our polity that, when General Convention does something as significant as adopt a revised prayer book, this book is then binding on all members of the church.

You wrote, further: "...there is no requirement surely that I need give them [e.g., Muslim terrorists] the love and indicia of fellowship that I give to my fellow Christians." This statement indicates why the 1979 rite was and is so necessary, because it makes explicit that the view you express here is incorrect, since it goes directly contrary to what Jesus taught us. Please have a look at Matthew 5:43-47. According to Jesus, you ARE required to give Muslim terrorists "the love and indicia of fellowship" that you give to fellow Christians; if you don't, then you are no different from all the other people who love only those who love them, or who love only those of their own community.

Of course, we all fail constantly to fulfill Jesus' commandments. We're sinners, after all. But the baptismal covenant isn't a pledge to be perfect; its a pledge to be transformed by the grace of baptism; our baptismal vows are vows to be what God makes us by the work of the Holy Spirit, not what we can be by our own strength... which is why I can't agree with Ford Elms' argument above against the 1979 baptismal vows; I think it misunderstands the nature those vows.

"Could you quote some of the responses you would categorize as "harsh and abusive rants" and some of the "insults" to which you claim to have been subjected?"

I echo this question, especially because, as an ordained gay woman, I was deeply hurt by what you wrote, and was, yes, very tempted to reply with anger and harshness. If I had, you would for sure have known it, and everyone else, but for the fact that the fine and fair people who monitor this discussion would not have let me post hatefulness.

I do think you are sadly misinformed about human sexuality, and stuck in 19th c. biblical exegesis.

That constricts and limits your ability to respond positively to God's Good News. I'm sorry for you.

One thing to note: anti-gay forces insist on understanding "gay" as the name of a (repulsive) sex act, and nothing more. No matter that many gay men don't indulge in that sexual practice; it's still the picture by which they judge us all.

Talk all you want of love, relationships, community, and the bigots will still scream SEX at you. Why is it wrong to teach tolerance of gay families to school children? Because even to say "gay" is to expose preadolescent children to the concept of anal intercourse! Hence Ed Tomlinson's impression that gays aren't seeking support and recognition for their relationships, but rather are insisting on "sexual license." ("Gay = anal intercourse," is a useful ploy. Acceptance advances when gay people's relationships are seen as a contributing part of the community, but acceptance is stopped cold if "gay" immediately fills the mind with dirty pictures.)

Murdoch

Allan, I can't account for the fact that you weren't aware. However, I have a rather better opinion of the perceptiveness of the average person in the pew.

Mr. Tomlinson, is it possible for you to accept people telling you the official teaching of *your* church is wrong without assuming it is an attack?

"We also urge all Anglicans, including the Archbishop, to regard the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the body of Christ as nothing less than a Gospel mandate and a requirement of our baptismal vows. To understand this issue as simply one of civil liberties or human rights — to which the Gospel also calls us — does grave injustice to our sisters and brothers in Christ and our fundamental understanding of baptismal theology."
- Chicago Consultation's reply to the ABC -

This, surely, is the real nitty-gritty response to the ABC's message that needs to be propagated amongst all Christians. To agree with the extant principle of St.Paul - that "In Christ, there is no difference between male and female, Greek and Jew, slave and master" - is surely to accept the basic truth that all human beings have an equal dignity before God. And who among us would dare to question God's wisdom in creating all humanity in God's own image and likeness? Who can question the integrity of those whom God may choose to call into the ministry of God's Church?

Allan K (I quote the AV, so it's official) -

St Matthew 5
44 But I say unto you, "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth the rain on th just and on the unjust.

Confession of our faith does not make anyone our neighbor or brother. Creation by God does.

"Every human being" iow. No creation of the US '79 BCP. Suck it up, bubba.

Thank you to all who have been kind enough to respond to my prior posts. Your comments have made me re-think my position. I have no desire to disparage or ignore my neighbor.

You ask for examples:

'Ed has it backwards. He's just not empathetic or self aware of his own sexuality enough to realize it....'

...harsh when you read what my actual views are
http://sbarnabas.com/blog/2009/07/27/pray-for-gay-christians/

'It appears Ed has chosen the lifestyle of the blind and deaf.' - despite me ONLY stating what the Anglican Church itself officially, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church teaches regarding the call for celibacy outside of marriage

Don't you feel angry if or when somebody automatically repeats lies about you? What about, if somebody goes further, simply presuming against all odds that you are unethical, terrible' ....where have I called anyone unethical and terrible? I am only suggesting that there is a difference between including homosexuals and blessing sexual relationships

'your need to be a victim so great that you really believe you have the right to insult and dismiss people's lives and families' ...again please show me where I do this?

And finally the charming comment left (but deleted) from my own blog reading 'you are getting so creamed over on Thinking Anglicans'

Guys, I have no beef with homosexuals. Really I don't. But what I am finding amazing is the outrage of some on here when I simply stating the current teaching of the church universal (with the exception of ECUSA), recently spelt out by ++Rowan.

It seems some have deliberately ignored the instruction of the Church concerning clergy entering such unions and this is clouding the issue. Of course your love needs aknowledging, but as of this moment, it is a forbidden love if demonstrated sexually, and that is problematic.

I am struggling with the 'demand' from such people when their relationships, rightly or wrongly, arebeing lived out in direct contradiction to the rules.

Whilst a campaign to allow clergy to enter gay unions might be applauded, to currently live within one as a priest is to have put a cart before a horse...SSC or not! And now it means that the theological debate is charged with emotion and tension, guilt and outrage.

Many of you appeal powerfully to the heart, and I hear your pain and longing and it DOES move me, but I am also trying my best, as a priest, to be faithful to what scripture teaches and the church currently preaches. My personal desire and opinion is at odds with my beliefs truth be told...that is the problem. I seek to obey not override.

Finally much as I am moved by your accounts of love we must be careful not to base our theology on feelings alone. I have known people who fall in love whilst married who could use similar argument to defend adultery. Please understand I am not saying here that gay relationships = adultery- just pointing out that arguments based on feelings are not always good places to begin theology.

To my knowledge those in the religious life forgo sexual intimacy as do many priests in Rome and Constantinople. I would sturggle to if they broke the vows they had made on entering the church. That does not mean I struggle with those outside of the church who have chosen such lifestyles.

Is sex really a right for those in holy orders? THAT was my question and I did not even provide the answer.

Should some have chosen to hold off ordination until the church allowed for gay unions? I cannot say but it nevertheless seems a very disengenous argument to suggest we must alter church laws to make legal arrangements simply because many are flouting the rules. I might have sympathy but it is not good theology.

"I can't agree with Ford Elms' argument above against the 1979 baptismal vows; I think it misunderstands the nature those vows."

It wasn't an argument against, so much as a pointing out that the whole baptismal liturgy has taken on a very different slant, one that downplays ideas of human fallibility, unworthiness, and sinfulness. I agree that the BCP wallowed in these things a bit much, but it is still the case that we are fallible creations of an omnipotent Creator, at least according to the Christian mythos, and that we are far off from God by some willful action of our own. I guess I could be called SemiPelagian in my concepts of our personal role in our own salvation, but I do believe we need God's grace. Some may be uncomfortable with the BCP's heavy emphasis on sinfulness and unworthiness. The pendulum has swung the other way now, and we consider "I will, with God's help" to be a sufficient statement of our reliance on God. I am uncomfortable with this, since I think it is the opposite extreme. But I do like the new rite, though the language is hideous. I happily renew my baptismal vows, well, not actually renew, since I was baptised with the old rite, whenever the liturgical opportunity arises.

ABC (paraphrase): "These news that North American Anglicans are wanting to take the Gospel seriously are most disturbing."

"Obadiah Slope,"
I agree that there does need to be serious conversation about Confirmation, which I recall someone referring to as "a 'sacrament' in search of a theology." Yes, the 1979 BCP does appear to have instituted a "change" with regard to the importance of Confirmation. However, if you look carefully at what traditional Anglican formularies have said about this ritual, you can see that the 1979 BCP simply made explicit what has always been implicit. For one thing, classic Anglicanism rejects the identification of Confirmation as a sacrament (see Article XXV of the 39 Articles); it has "no visible sign or ceremony ordained of God." Thus, from an Anglican perspective, the Church has every right to dispose of or modify it, and individual churches within the Church can do so without all other churches agreeing (see Article XXXIV, "Of the Traditions of the Church"). Another fact to keep in view is that the Eastern Churches have ALWAYS joined 'confirmation' (they call it "chismation") directly with baptism, and the baptizing priest performs both rituals. In those Churches, there is NO subsequent "mature" ritual acceptance of the baptismal committment; people simply grow into their baptismal identity, and are nourished with the Eucharist from infancy. This ancient norm is increasingly being embraced in the Episcopal Church (and in many parts of the Anglican Church of Canada). TEC's BCP follows the well-established Anglican practice of marking the baptized with the sign of the cross, and allows for the use of Chrism (pg. 308). I'd like to see the process begun with the 1979 BCP continue so that episcopal "confirmation" ceases entirely to be any kind of "gate" in the church. It may be helpful to have various kinds of rites of passage for people as they grow and mature in the Faith, but none of these need to be obligatory. Two Sacraments are quite sufficient. At least, that's what the the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Catechism, and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral say.

obadiah:

Yes, the change in the importance, and perhaps the understanding, of confirmation is a change from previous Anglican practice, although, once again, consistent with Orthodox Christian practice and so hardly "new."

I appreciate that you grasped the intent of my question about insistence on consultation on matters of sex (clumsy, but it can include ordination of women) when there was no insistence on wider consultation for Prayer Book revision. Surely Prayer Book revision is a higher level issue in discussing what it means to be Anglican.

The 1979 American book, the Alternative Service Book in England (succeeded by Common Worship), the New Zealand Prayer Book, and other efforts at revision came in the same context, and followed the constitutional processes of the national churches in question. I can only imagine there was broad consultation within those national churches. I know there was opportunity for that within the Episcopal Church, and that a minority of clergy resisted having that discussion within their congregations. As I recall the consultation on revision among liturgical scholars was both international and ecumenical. Each national church trusted the scholars, and trusted the intent: to reclaim in the Anglican tradition practices from the Patristic church that had been lost in the Medieval church (a very Anglican position!).

There is still expectation that, as the Rubrics put it, those baptized as infants will “make a mature public affirmation of their faith and commitment to the responsibilities of their Baptism [with] laying on of hands by the bishop." It is required in Canons in that for elective office (and of course for orders), one must be confirmed. I do think that's something we haven't made as plain as we used to; and with no restrictions on communion and regular lay practice to enforce it, there hasn't been as much pressure. We still consider Confirmation sacramental; but since we no longer consider it "completion of baptism," it doesn't stand out from Matrimony, Unction, Reconciliation, or Ordination. It is different: we expect it of all, while the others are based on individual vocation or needs. So, I don't think the theology of Confirmation has changed, but our practice has.

Should there have been broader consultation on Prayer Book revision across the Communion above the level of scholars? Perhaps; but it wasn't seen as a need at the time.

See also the Preface to the 1789 BCP.
Columba Gilliss

Fr Ed: "It seems some have deliberately ignored the instruction of the Church concerning clergy entering such unions and this is clouding the issue. Of course your love needs aknowledging, but as of this moment, it is a forbidden love if demonstrated sexually, and that is problematic..."

But, Father Ed, it is NOT just "some." The vicar of the Anglo-Catholic parish where I went as a teenager was "outed" in the press, and then had to resign; so was my diocesan bishop; so were many other clergy I knew, among them the late great Brian Brindley. My training incumbent was in his parish for nearly 30 years until retiring recently, during which time he had a non-stop succession of partners through the vicarage. Another friend has been living for more than 10 years now with his partner virtually hidden from the parish in the vicarage.

These are not isolated cases, Fr Ed, and these I have mentioned are all men who are SSC/FiF members. The culture of hypocrisy in the C of E, especially the FiF/SSC anti-women axis in the C of E is astonishing, and it really is time it ended.

The truth is that Anglo-Catholic parishes attract lots of gay people, and always have done, and have always been run predominantly by them too. Some have refrained from sexual relationships, but many, and, given the number of times my bottom was pinched by them when younger, I would say most, not. This culture of denial and sanctimoniousness is just nauseating. The problem is, that gay clergy look at how the Church treats those who have the courage to come out, and then think "Oh dear, I don't want all that hassle: I'd better keep it quiet." And so they end up living double lives, and growing more and more bitter and twisted as the years pass. This is unhealthy, surely you agree? Isn't it better for the Church to encourage people to come out, to help create a safe space for them to do so?

If you doubt what I'm saying, then consider what happens to gay bishops. It's in the public domain that a number of English bishops are gay. And yet can a single one of them ever say so openly and articulate anything that could be positive or inspiring about their sexuality to a young person looking for role models? No, they just try and avoid talking about the subject at all, and hoping they will be spared media attention. Can that possibly be good or healthy for them, the Church of England or the rest of English society?

'My personal desire and opinion is at odds with my beliefs truth be told...that is the problem. I seek to obey not override.'

That is a very honest and admirable admission. Fr Ed Tomlinson is not a bigot. My own view is that it is very important to make space for him and his kind, just as it is very important for him to make space for 'us' (fill in as appropriate) and our kind.

"But what I am finding amazing is the outrage of some on here when I simply stating the current teaching of the church universal"

The outrage is NOT at your statement of the teachings of the Church universal! You did not merely state the teachings of the Church universal, for starters, you were rude and insulting, and people reacted accordingly. This has been clearly explained in post after post. It is not your statement of teachings that make people angry, it is your rude insulting manner, and you now know, or should, why your manner is rude and insulting. Suppose I characterized heterosexual marriage as nothing more than a Church sanctioned way for people to satisfy their "heterosexual inclinations" and implied it was nothing more than a permit for sexual wantonness. How would they feel? I have clearly told you I have no issue with your beliefs on homosexuality, but with the ignorance you so blatantly display in the way you talk about us, so you can come down off the Cross, this isn't about attacking a true believer, it is about reacting to a rude believer. I am not attacking you for your fidelity to that traditional teachings of the Church on homosexuality. I am angry because you came on this site speaking rudely and ignorantly about gay people, and when that provoked anger, you tried to make it into you being attacked for your beliefs, and disingenuously claimed not to understand why the things you said were insulting and ignorant. Your last post does seem to have taken some of this to heart, despite your claim not to understand it. It's really simple, Ed, you are free to hate me if you want, you are free to love me while thinking my relationship is sinful if you want, you are not free to misrepresent me, or otherwise dissemble. That's what you did in your first post, and that's why people are irate. If you had started out here with the tone of your most recent post, you might have been received differently. Now, why is it so hard for you to show respect for gay people or their supporters that we have to go through all this rigmarole before you even begin to get it? I don't know how to be clearer, so if you still don't get it, I can't be of any more help in clarifying what's wrong with your attitude.

I want to acknowledge, Ed T, that in your post of Thursday, 30 July 2009 at 1:39pm BST, you seem to be doing more "wrestling w/ the angels" than I've seen you do up till now (continued use of the execrable word "lifestyle" notwithstanding).

But considering that this entire thread is prompted by TEC's actions at GC: you seem unwilling to admit that the ***the status quo within the AC***, in regards to the banning of same-sex couples from the Sacrament of Matrimony (and hence, clergy couples similarly), is THE PROBLEM, which TEC is *trying* to address.

If you've got a better solution, then please, let's hear it.

The status quo is absolutely untenable---as I would hope you realize what with "My personal desire and opinion is at odds with my beliefs truth be told"---and moving beyond it (as led by the Gospel and the Holy Spirit) is ESSENTIAL.

"Marshall, annd other TEC readers: the other change in the TEC prayerbook's "baptismal theology" is the downplaying of confirmation. In the traditional or mainstream Anglican understanding, inclusion of someone baptised as an infant into the church membership, involved them taking upon their baptismal promises for themselves in confirmation."

I would argue that the development of the baptismal rite, and hence of the theology underlying it, involves not so much the downplaying of confirmation as the restoration of a higher view of baptism. The problem with confirmation was that it was used as a remedy for a defective view of baptism. Baptism on that view was seen largely as a form of inoculation, with confirmation used as a completion of the rite of initiation - the booster shot as it were.

A higher view of baptism as full inclusion in the Household of God does imply a downgrading of confirmation, but only because the defects which confirmation once corrected are now no longer present in the baptismal rite.

As to consultation, there has been quite a bit of it in theological and liturgical consultations across the Communion.

Nom de Plume, William K and Marshall.
@marshall: "I can only imagine there was broad consultation" (with churches making similar changes which alike the TEC are majority white, first world churches)
.
@Nom de plume "theological and ltrgical consultations"
A question for both of you: Why not bring the issue to the ACC as in the case of Polygamy? That would have been true consultation by the TEC.

For evangelicals, the importance of confirmation is to allow a baptised infant to take on their promises for themselves. Chrismation at baptism would hardly seem to answer that issue.
the TEC prayerbook would seem to suggest a baptismal regeneration viewpoint. Would TEC redaers agree?
I would agree with William K that confirmation is not a sacrament. And yet for many it has proved a helpful experience. Why deny people that?
As to recovering what was lost in a past era, the confirmation service in the first Anglican prayerbooks emphasised the view that we are justified by faith alone. That comes from even earlier times than the patristic period.

EdT, I am still mystified for the time being at how you can insist on the negative church tradition's unbridled prohibition on queer folks in committed relationships; while at the very same time deny that your prohibition has anything at all, necessarily, to do with saying that such queer folks are being unethical, terrible, and all the negative beliefs and low life benefits attributed to queer folks by our going legacy package.

What else does tagging all possibilities of of a person's sex life, as sexual license, mean?

Further – what sort of thinking encourages you to tag somebody's in this way, without the condemnations inevitably seeping deeper into their underlying sexuality or sense of sexual-embodied core self?

Isn't the legacy package of negatives precisely applicable to the deeper sense of sexual-embodied core self? Isn't weighing that empirically-ethically-theologically our modern challenge?

I cannot quite see how a prohibition stands, isolated, sufficient – all on its own, apart from the rest of the negative judgments allegedly made on all queer stuff by our legacy.

Most believers at some point or other, will speak negatively of sex – but in instances where people are being irresponsible, deceptive, and/or abusive in their sexual interactions with others broadly considered.

Your negatives sound way bigger, way deeper? If not, what sex patterns are ethically okay for queer folks, under what circumstances, given what human motives, in what sorts of relationships?

Of course we are not just talking to you or about you or with you. Your views represent a complicated something which is part of our shared global legacy. Even people who never go to church are already involved in this legacy and in changes.

What ethical and practical positives do you understand to be embodied in stable enduring queer affections of sexual love and care for another man or another woman?

"We are not Roman Catholic, and we are also not Baptist, and we long ago rejected the Puritan approach, and our inclusive diversity is a blessing." - Gerry Hannon -

This sets the present dilemma in its proper context. The traditional stance of Anglicansim was to reject both the institutional absolutism of Rome and the 'sola scriptura' attitude of the other reformers. We claim both our catholic heritage together with a 'reasonable' acceptance of continuing reformation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is what Anglicanism is all about. So that when such disputes as are here involved arise (on gender and sexuality) which require a new insight, the Church must be open to a proper and just re-assessment of previous
attitudes which are in conflict with, and contrary to, the proclamation of Gospel Truth.

We ought never succumb to the need to preserve an antiquated and out-dated theology of human nature which belies modern scientific evidence. Gallileo has been vindicated. Need one say more?

Thanks EdT for shifting our grounds. So, if queer folks love is truly love; our problem is that it is still officially prohibited, and further, that most of our official explanations of this phenomenon completely fail to say anything much that is positive, let alone frankly recognize what is happening, as love, sweet love.

Does this imply two corollaries?

One. What should believers do, in circumstances where anybody discerns that official church teachings are in grievous error? We're talking serious, flat earth error here; error with unholy effects on the target in question, queer folks, and their family or friends.

Two. What if anything, should believers do to honestly bear witness to a corrected understanding in their own personal dicipleship, implicitly helping along a wider correction in official teachings?

Looking around a bit, I would say that believers and even people outside the church are doing any number of try outs in the range of coping responses.

Queer folks outside church life are simply trying to get on, decently, with their work and love in daily life. That may seem unrelated; but in fact, just getting on with good living may be a considerable factor in change happening over any conceivable long run.

People inside church life are questioning, talking about their changed views. Queer folks speaking up, allies, too.

Provisional changes feed back into the larger change for the better cycles; we get a spiral of change, not isolated occasions of change.

As the several strategies have been followed, considerable positive change has happened. Nigerian or Jamaican Anglicans still have permission to kick queer folks in the head, joyously for the time being. Other Anglicans, not so much. Folks on the sidelines, praying, holding doubts are still part of the change picture, too.

In that regard, Rowan is dead wrong. Change comes stealing across our believer landscapes, one by one by one by one. By the time official teaching acknowledges change, it is so widespread and settled that no ripples show. Think the Vatican apologizing for Galileo or Copernicus. Mattered, yet not like it would have mattered in the hot button day.

In response to Obadiah Slope; what I remember as most important to our Vicar, when I was confirmed as a 13-year old in Coventry, was that I did not use hair oil on my head as the Bishop was going to soil his white gloves if I did so. In other words, the teaching about the administration of Confrimation at the time was insufficient.

If confirmation is to be restored, it needs the appropriate teaching before being adminstered.

"Don't you feel angry if or when somebody automatically repeats lies about you? "

Which is why we are angry with the official position of *some* churches within the Anglican Communion and the Orthodox and RC's.

"Many of you appeal powerfully to the heart, and I hear your pain and longing and it DOES move me, but I am also trying my best, as a priest, to be faithful to what scripture teaches and the church currently preaches. My personal desire and opinion is at odds with my beliefs truth be told...that is the problem. I seek to obey not override."

At some point, obedience becomes a fetish, Mr. Tomlinson. I can see pain in you, as well. I think some of the pain comes from realizing that you're looking to maintain a comfortable position in certainty that has simply never been part of "The Plan."

Obedience, within limits, is a fine discipline. But when it fails to recognize the very real human limitations necessarily part of any institution - including what we call church - and that that human limitation necessarily fights against growth and realization in favor of stasis and self-preservation.

There is the ideal Church, but it has never been on Earth and will never BE on Earth, for, when perfection comes, all of what we call "church" will be gone, redundant, unnecessary. This may seem bleak. To one who has given his life to this institution's service, it may seem nihilistic, but it's not. It's simply humility.

"Obadiah Slope,"
I have come to regard myself as a "Protestant" Anglican (I don't use the term "evangelical" because it implies things I don't affirm). I agree that those baptized as infants need to take on the promises themselves. But, I question the imposition of a one-time rite-of-passage for that purpose. There are many ways to take on and embrace one's baptismal identity. It's a life-long process. In TEC, we have the renewal of baptismal vows that takes place every time a baptism takes place, and this rite is REQUIRED at the Easter Vigil, whether or not there are baptisms. So, in any given year, I probably recommit to my baptism six or seven times (at least).

A basic problem I see with the way "confirmation" is often practiced is that it treats baptism as somehow incomplete without it. But Scripture and Tradition make it clear that baptism effects complete regeneration, the New Birth, etc. We require no other action.

And speaking of "baptismal regeneration": ABSOLUTELY, the TEC BCP is unambiguous about this; baptism effects regeneration. But the 1662 English BCP and all other BCPs directly deriving from it also teach baptismal regeneration. Please read through the 1662 baptismal rites. There is no way to dodge the clear teaching of baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration is rock-bottom Anglican teaching... and that rock-bottom teaching is based on Scripture (see, e.g., Acts 2:38).

Yes, we are justified by faith alone, but classic Anglicanism has never set that truth over against the fact that Scripture teaches baptismal regeneration, as if it somehow negated it. Indeed, Martin Luther, the original "Protestant," believed in baptismal regeneration, and you'll find the doctrine in the Lutheran Confessions. Unlike some of those who claim to be his disciples, Luther had no trouble holding together BOTH the Scriptural teachings of justification by grace alone through faith alone AND of regeneration through baptism, and neither should we.

Ron,
I agree 100%. Confirmation without teaching is worse than useless.

WilliamK
At this moment I think we are walking the paths of Anglican ambiguity in at least some of the prayerbooks. Ambiguity has it's advantages, it binds you and I together.

I think a lot of confusion and conflict in our debate is arising because I am still not decided on this issue and whilst I might want to affirm and include, I cannot just abandon the teaching of the church down the ages, the teaching of most Christians today and the teaching of scripture without some very good theology to back it up. It is that theology I am seeking and as yet am not quite there. Much argument seems sociological and feeling based, not doctrinal and scriptural...but I remain open minded.

Whereas for most of you guys, perhaps understandably, your minds are fixed. You have reached a point that I am not at. You have no question at all in your minds that active gay relationships are no bar to living out the faith. That is fair enough...but it does kind of stifle discussion. For in a strange way- it is you liberals and not this staunch traditionalist whose minds are closed!! It is an irony that is often born out- liberalism is itself very fixed in some ways.

That is not a criticism per se, given your theology and experiences it is understandable. You may be right and i may be proved too cautious by history. But please be careful not to shoot down those undecided and silence any hint of suggestion that gay living is not ok. Unless that opinion is at leaast entertained -how can one have an honest discussion?

And just because I suggest it may not fit Christian living does not mean I therefore consider it wicked, disgusting etc. Ultimately usery is unbiblical and I have no credit card or loans....but that does not mean I think badly of those who do!

drdanfee I must confess I simply do not understand what coresexuality etc is? You speak a language of inclusion that is simply not on my radar! But I do not think I have a negative or repressed sexuality at all. Am very happily married and have many good friends who are gay. Feels healthy to me.

"It is that theology I am seeking and as yet am not quite there. Much argument seems sociological and feeling based, not doctrinal and scriptural...but I remain open minded."

Try "Reasonable and Holy" by Tobias Haller.

Ed
"For in a strange way- it is you liberals and not this staunch traditionalist whose minds are closed"

But this is lovely.
Are you seriously expecting me to have an open mind about my own life?
Do you really think I have got to the age I am without having worked through who I am and what my relationship with God is, at least in its core principles?

Or are you seriously suggesting that I should, at the back of my mind, have this nagging doubt that the conservatives may be right after all and that I will then have to divorce and bring my children up on my own - with all the pain that involves for everyone... just because I have been a bit careless in thinking it all through in the first place?
Please!!!

Ed "For in a strange way- it is you liberals and not this staunch traditionalist whose minds are closed!! It is an irony that is often born out- liberalism is itself very fixed in some ways."

I know that is a view oft-repeated by people on the conservative side of the current debate. I should say, though, that I was brought up with the traditional view, tried to live according to it, and found it didn't work for me: I wasn't called to be single - I find God at work through my relationship with my partner - and yet I was clearly also called to be a priest. My own view has been moulded most strongly by knowing very many gay people in ministry. There are a lot of bitter old women-hating closet gay men amongst the C of E clergy; there are many who are publicly single and privately badly-behaved in a harmful dichotomous way; many who cannot even articulate anything useful to the society they are ministering to about their sexuality; and I didn't find the prospect of turning into someone like that attractive, frankly.

You may say that's all personal, and therefore somehow less valid than "pure" doctrine, but all Christianity is personal, ultimately, isn't it, because we are caught up in our love of the person Jesus, whose whole work was dealing with people at a personal level rather than imposing "pure doctrine"? The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, after all.

As I understood it, the Church of England, having always been the liberal, reasonable church, never having taken a hard line on such issues (as opposed to the RC Church or fundamentalist non-conformists) is exactly the place where Oxbridge theology-trained choral evensong-loving incense-swinging types like me have long been at home. Hard-liners have plenty of other options in the ecclesiastical firmament, after all. I think the Church should be grateful when anyone at all wants to come to church and get involved in this day and age, rather than trumpeting this appallingly self-defeating message of being choosy about who it will allow to come through the door. It's not as if the Church is having a great deal of success attracting anyone else either, is it?

Ed, I understand where you're coming from, but I think the problem for me is that it leads one on to morally untenable territory. Like the Archbishop of Canterbury saying that gay issues are not "simply matters of human dignity".

So what, then, does God require of us - is God's plan for us human indignity? I'm sorry, that simply does not compute with me - and as a conservative Catholic, you must have difficulty with the idea of a human concept of the divine plan centred on intolerance and indignity rather than beauty or order, surely?

If you want evidence in creation for the rightness of gay relationships, look around you in the created world - are gay people living good, Christian, godly lives in faithful, loving, committed, relationships?

For me, and I think for most of gays of my generation in the West, the debate is over. We can't actually really remember a time when we weren't equal and valued members of our societies. I'm sorry if that certainty is difficult for you to handle. Either the church walks with us or it walks away, in my view into the dustbin of history. There is no way in western Europe in 2009 that a church can be homophobic and hope to minister to more than a tiny sect.

"And just because I suggest it may not fit Christian living does not mean I therefore consider it wicked, disgusting etc."

Ed, I am struck by how your tone has changed. I say that because I rarely see it in conservatives, and I believe it warrants acknowledgement and respect when it occurs. But you still seem not to get it. It was NOT your suggestion that noncelebate homosexuality was not compatible with Christian living that was the problem. It was your insulting tone, your use of demeaning phrases like "homosexual inclinations" and you suggestion that the blessing of lifelong monogamous gay relationships was really just blessing sexual hedonism (I use that word because 'licence' seems to suggest to some that you are talking about some sort of legal permit). That was the issue, and a big issue for me, actually.

I am on the fence about gay marriage. I am leery of changing something that has been established for 2000 years, especially when my generation rebelled against it as nothing more than crowd control. I have read some theological work, very good stuff, that has allayed that somewhat. But I'm still conflicted. It isn't that I think my relationship any less, nor that I think that this is solely about people forcing the Church to "validate" their relationships to atone for past wrongdoing, and I certainly don't think it's about liberals selling out to the world or having no faith, etc. like the conservatives accuse them of, and what I saw you as accusing them of, actually, with your "blessing sexual licence". But I also see that these things ARE there in some people, along with the self aggrandizement of being the hero defending the downtrodden. But there's a lot of hypocrisy, falsehood, pride, and general selfabsorption on both sides.

I do see it far more severely in the right, actually, the behaviour of the leaders of the conservative side in this shows me pretty clearly that they wouldn't know the Gospel if they tripped over it, and I am sure that if they had been religious leaders 2000 years ago, Caiaphas and Temple elite wouldn't have had the opportunity to get Jesus cricified, these conservatives would have beaten them to it by a comfortable lead. Can't have anyone challenging the status quo. So, while I am on a very uncomfortable fence, I see clearer discernment of the Gospel in the left. When the Dromantine Communique was released, I was very upset. Then, Matins for that Sunday had Psalm 46. Exactly what I needed.

"Obadiah Slope" wrote:
WilliamK
At this moment I think we are walking the paths of Anglican ambiguity in at least some of the prayerbooks. Ambiguity has it's advantages, it binds you and I together.
-------------------------------------------------
I'm always happy when "Anglican ambiguity" can bind us together. But I must confess that I don't see where/how "some of the prayerbooks" are ambiguous about baptismal regeneration. Which BCP do you use? I just reviewed the 1662 rite for the "Publick Baptism of Infants," and it hammers away at baptism being regenerative on nearly every page. For example, this is the prayer that follows the baptism: "SEEING now, dearly beloved brethren, that this Child is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this Child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." Note what it says about what the baptism has achieved: "this Child is regenerate."

I understand that there are Anglican evangelicals who are uncomfortable with the teaching of baptismal regeneration (as are most non-Anglican evangelicals). But I have a real problem when these Anglican evangelicals speak as if baptismal regeneration were not foundational and basic Anglican doctrine. It's dishonest to do so. If evangelicals are going to refer to members of TEC as "revisionists" for their stance on the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Church, then I believe the term "revisionist" must also apply to those who would reject the clear teaching of our formularies (Prayer Books, Thirty-Nine Articles, Catechism) that baptism effects regeneration/the New Birth. Indeed, rejection of something tied directly to salvation seems a far more severe "revision" than something merely to do with discipline and morality. Yet, I am willing to remain in communion with people who reject the clear witness of Scripture and Tradition that "baptism...now saves" us (1 Peter 3:21). Evangelicals clearly reject the authority of Scripture on this issue; but I still believe they are faithful Christians! ;-)

"......is exactly the place where Oxbridge theology-trained choral evensong-loving incense-swinging types like me have long been at home."

Wonderfully put Fr. Mark..well, maybe not the incense anyhoo.

Ed, as two others have put it, we've not arrived at these conclusions overnight, and I daresay, at least for myself, have seen a wide gamut of human dysfunctionalness when a), a person forces themselves into a pretended celibate "lifestyle" with disastrous results, and/or b), pretends against their nature and ruins another spouse's life. Do you REALLY think that we are the closed minded ones on this?

You're a cleric, haven't you seen the strife of dishonesty, inability to control sexual urges and broken homes do to people and not just their relationship with God? I mean, they've got to be happy with themselves first before they can enter into a loving relationship with their Creator...
Think for crying out loud.

We have at this moment, an ability to offer encouragement towards the LGBT community a path to stability, peace and self-acceptance, and your type are fighting this while Rome burns away in our increasingly secular society (which also threatens Fr. Mark's incense swinging, as well as my love of evensong)

DON"T YOU GET IT???????????

"There is no way in western Europe in 2009 that a church can be homophobic and hope to minister to more than a tiny sect."

Gerry, I'm on your side, but you must know that this means nothing to conservatives. Conservatives, as far as I can see, have two conflicting ideas about this. First is that their message of intolerance for gay people is actually quite popular. I have no doubt that it is in some circles. Clarity of religious Law is comforting, especially in troubled times, and people tend to get more rigid in their religion as a result. They also cast themselves as "countercultural" fighting aganst the evil world that is trying to oppress them. This is powerfully attractive, especially to the young. And you can't forget that the radicalism of Islam is supported by the young. It was young people who supported the revolution in Iran, for instance. Young people can be quite conservative, even fundamentalist, if you treat them badly enough. Couple that with highly emotionally charged worship that substitutes emotion for contemplation, and you've got a very attractive thing for some. Then there is the romantic view of them standing for the Gospel against a swelling tide of liberal hedonism. I suspect they would see the little sect you describe as a romantic image, a return to the good old days of the bad old Roman Empire, when martyrdom was common, and little groups of Christians bravely soldiered on. Now, I don't detect much of this in Ed, just frustration, hurt, and a sense of being persecuted. But the threat that the Church will become nothing more than an insignificant little sect, like it was in the early Roman days really isn't a bad thing for some.

'I think the Church should be grateful when anyone at all wants to come to church and get involved in this day and age, rather than trumpeting this appallingly self-defeating message of being choosy about who it will allow to come through the door. It's not as if the Church is having a great deal of success attracting anyone else either, is it?'

Absolutely right, Fr Mark. Most people I know (who are mostly agnostic/atheist) are indeed appalled by Tom Wright and his ilk and mistakenly think all church people are like that. But, as I keep saying, I don't think Fr Ed T is like that and I badly want him (and his sort) to remain within the C of E, which is falling apart for many reasons, but not least because of this dreadful, dreadful, ME, ME, ME, I WANT IT ALL attitude, which afflicts 'liberals' just as much as 'Evangelicals' and 'Traditionalists'. (See e.g. the posts on Blackburn Cathedral's new policy.)

By the way, I'm on j.l.moles@ncl.ac.uk and would love to hear from you.

Ok help me out here. Bearing in mind I am being rational and seeking to tease out the root of your thinking, it has been said:

'Ed, as two others have put it, we've not arrived at these conclusions overnight, and I daresay, at least for myself, have seen a wide gamut of human dysfunctionalness when a), a person forces themselves into a pretended celibate "lifestyle" with disastrous results, and/or b), pretends against their nature and ruins another spouse's life. Do you REALLY think that we are the closed minded ones on this?

You're a cleric, haven't you seen the strife of dishonesty, inability to control sexual urges and broken homes do to people and not just their relationship with God? I mean, they've got to be happy with themselves first before they can enter into a loving relationship with their Creator...
Think for crying out loud.

We have at this moment, an ability to offer encouragement towards the LGBT community a path to stability, peace and self-acceptance, and your type are fighting this while Rome burns away in our increasingly secular society (which also threatens Fr. Mark's incense swinging, as well as my love of evensong)

DON"T YOU GET IT???????????'

...ok so here is my question. Could the same argument not be stated by a paedophile who genuinly feels he/she loves the children they abuse? Or by a barren (lets not get sidetracked) incestous adult? Does that mean that becomes ok?

I am not saying that homosexual relationships are the same as these things, just trying to demonstrate that the emotive argument only works in so far as we have conscensus on what is/isnt healthy.

Ed: What is it that you don't understand about two consenting adults?

I need a beer.

Ed:

You may not be explicitly saying that homosexual relationships are the same as pedophilia or incest, but by making the comparison you are certainly saying they come from the same sort of urges.

The research says that pedophiles are almost always the victims of abuse themselves; their illicit sexual urges are not part of a natural development of the human psyche, but the result of an aberration forced upon them by others.

As for incest, although I'm not as familiar with the research as I am for pedophilia, it appears that the same can be said for it.

OTOH, the vast majority of the research on homosexuality reveals no abusive relationships in the past of those who describe themselves as gay. Their sexual development appears to be quite normal and natural.

Ed
If you want to be taken seriously round here, you should do some basic homework.

Paedophilia is about abusive and violent relationships with unequal victims.
Who has ever asked you to accept those?
Who is asking you now?

You have to move on from this un-thought through nonsense if you want us to respect you as a conversation partner.

Now let me tell you that I googled your parish website yesterday and saw that lovely photo of your family.
Do you remember those early stages of your relationship with your girlfriend, when you realised that you might want to dare to spend the rest of your life with her? It was scary, wasn't it. And it took a lot of prayer and courage to even contemplate joining yourself wholly to another person for life. But it was worth it, compelling. The two of you were going to be soulmates forever. You would share hopes and dreams, ride out life's disappointments together, you would live in sacrificial self giving love with each other.
Did you have pre-wedding nerves? It's huge, isn't it, this getting married. The gravity, the immensity, the responsibility of it can be overpowering.

And that moment when you both stood before God and made solemn life long promises to each other. Will you love her, cherish her, be faithful onto her…? No wonder the response is “with God’s help I will”. It’s too big an undertaking for us to contemplate on our own. It needs God’s help, God’s support in our lives.
Phew… what a moment!

But that’s just for you. For me, it’s clearly nothing more than wanting to have a blessing of sexual license. And I also have to explain why it’s different from wanting to rape a child.

And you really think that I’m the one who has some explaining to do here?

1: "Am very happily married and have many good friends who are gay. Feels healthy to me."
- Ed Tomlinson -
2: "ok so here is my question. Could the same argument not be stated by a paedophile who genuinly feels he/she loves the children they abuse? Or by a barren (lets not get sidetracked) incestous adult? Does that mean that becomes ok?"
- Ed Tomlinson -

Dear Fr. Ed.,
1. As a happily married man, it is just possible that you may not be able to feel any empathy with people in a gay relationship (unless, of course, you happened to be bi-sexual or were closely related to a gay person). This is quite understable, but not any excuse for believing that there is no merit in faithful, committed gay relationships.

2.Your question here seems to put paedophilia and
incest in the same category as homosexuality. This is a very common supposition from the majority heterosexual community. I suggest you do a little study on what exactly the difference is, and then put another question - more suitably referenced.

Oh dear, Fr Ed, don't for goodness' sake go down the comparison with paedophiles track!

Abusing people has nothing to do with the mutuality of a consensual loving relationship.

Raising the subject of paedophilia in this context was an insensitive thing to do, Father. Not least because many languages use "paedo" or some similar term as a form of abuse for gay people, and we need to get away from that whole daft way of speaking.

My question to you would rather be to ask how love between two people of the same sex is any different than love between two people of the opposite sex? You love your wife, and the Church of England is so liberal as to allow you to be in married relationship with her and also represent the Church as a priest. (The RC hierarchy would say that if you have a vocation to priesthood, then you cannot also have a vocation to the married life.) The C of E will even allow you, should that loving relationship come to an end, to divorce and take new lifelong vows in church and still represent it. You don't find more extremely liberal and accommodating treatment for straight people than that in any other mainstreamm church.

I love my partner, I would suggest in just the same way as you love your wife, and living with him is self-evidently a healthy thing for both of us, and yet the very thought that such may be the case is sufficient to send Tom Wright and Michael Nazir-Ali into fits of indignation at such unheard-of and incomparable evil. Who are the people making judgements in an overly emotive and unbalanced way, I wonder?

I am not putting this tricky question to be either unpleasant or rude. And I was explicit in stating that the relationships I highlight are NOT the same thing, for the good reasons you demonstrate (ie two consenting adults make for a very different soil to an imbalance in power and emotional maturity)

You miss my point I think.

The Church has 'traditionally' stated that homosexual relationships are disordered. You wish to refute this - I want to understand how you counter the traditional arguments.

I use the word disordered in a strictly biological sense here and am not wanting to claim YOU are disordered, or your love is disordered, any more than me. However we need to understand why the church has tradionally said what it has.

One must ask, if God views such relationships as equal to marriage (and therefore worthy of his blessing), why he has not blessed such relationships with the gift of new life? The human body is designed for the coming together of man and woman (being a fallen world not all of these work out) but the biological design points to this model. It does not point to the coming together of man/man or woman/woman. This is what has fuelled the natural law argument.

So if one accepts, from the design of our bodies, that homosexual love is, even in some small way disordered - it is very hard to distinguish WHY this disordered relationship is worthy of God's blessing in the same way as marriage.

And if one form of disordered relationship why not another. We end up basing our decision on which is taboo within society and which is not.

Consent is of course vital in one regard, but not in regard to the giving of Christian blessing. Two adults could consent to sado-masochism and we would not be expected to bless this.

And what of the bible's lack of endorsement? Can we just brush it all under the carpet?

Tough questions - and I do note how wonderful homosexual people (like Henri Neuwen etc) somehow speak of God's love triumphing over this disorder. But the wuestions remain nonetheless.

Finally what of those who claim to be bi-sexual? Should the church say choose one partner or allow for multiple partners. And HOW do you decide?

Really I am not seeking to be mean at all. I am trying to have a rational debate, viewing the issue from all sides, that I might better understand the systematic theology involved when you state that we need to change what the church has always taught

Many thanks- it is an interesting debate thus far.

In an article on racism in The Guardian some years ago, it's what Gary Younge called "the bullshit before the but" - you know, the comments that start "I've got nothing against blacks but..."

If you say you have nothing against gays, then don't compare them to paedophiles. If you need to make that argument, find another comparator to make it with. The gay=paedophile argument is a repellent one that puts people in danger (and I'm not picking on you specifically here, Ed - e.g. see my letter in the CofI Gazette at http://url.ie/25mu )

You can't say "I've got nothing against gays but that argument is so like what a paedophile would say in the same situation." If you had nothing against gays, you wouldn't compare them to paedophiles. End of.

I can't take people seriously when they claim to care for me and then throw sly references to incest and paedophilia into discussions about me.

Right, I'm away off to walk on Belfast Gay Pride - hope the sun wins its valiant but often doomed struggle with the Irish weather for a change...

@WilliamK
Which prayerbook? the 1662 BCP is constitutionally enshrined in the Anglican Church of Austalia. In my Diocese "an Australian Prayerbook" (1978) and the local "Sunday services" issued by the diocese are used.
Are all baptised regenerate? Does the sign always convey the gift? The case of Simon Magus in Acts 8 would seem to cast doubt and the words of 1 John 2:19 who speaks of church members who "went out from us, but they were not of us"
The Articles (25) emphasise that sacraments are "effectual means of grace" (as you rightly point out) AND that they must be recieved worthily "And in such only as worthily receive the same have they a wholesome effect or operation". In Article 27 it is those who recieve baptism "rightly" who are grafted into the church.
The evangelical view is that the articles (and the prayerbook) look forward to the faith that a baptised infant will have in Christ. The "ex opere operato" view of baptism, that you ably put is not the only one that readers of the 1662 prayerbook held/hold.
Thus in the 1662 service we "beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this Child that thing which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same."
When does the child become a lively member of the congregation?
To assist this we we have confirmation "that children, being now come to the years of discretion, and having learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism, they may themselves, with their own mouth and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm the same"(1662)
And that is where I entered this conversation, by remarking that in downplaying confirmation the TEC has made the sort of change that should require the widest consultation.

"but in honesty the fight is for sexual licence to be granted to those of a homosexual inclination. "

What in the world do you imagine gay people get up to in monogamous relationships blessed by the Church that we wouldn't be doing otherwise? Honestly, sometimes I believe that the real obstacle to the acceptance of gay people is the fervid imagination of some straight ones.

O.K. Ed, so all heterosexual couples that are incapable of producing an offspring should not marry, so every priest in the AC, get your fertility test kits ready.

But we can bless Foxhunts, small craft (and not so small craft) here on the Great Lakes in the spring fit-out, the new organ the church installed and the statute you placed in your Anglo-Catholic parish church as well. God forbid we'd do it to Jack and Jake in their sixties who want to be together as they grow older, because they're "disordered".

What is sick is that a (straight) couple get married-after the baby's coming of course-, fall into the trap of actually discovering that they don't like each other's presence, break up the relationship which plays havoc with the child's formative years and all hell breaks loose-BUT-that's all "ordered"; i.e., not "disordered".

Meanwhile "natural law" also keeps gays and lesbians being born into these dysfunctional married families as children who are relegated to spend the rest of their lives in bars and cruising highway rest stops, because they are DISORDERED and are PROHIBITED from being encouraged to enter into more stable relationships because of YOUR lofty pronouncements that are held in concrete by some in the church!

"One must ask, if God views such relationships as equal to marriage (and therefore worthy of his blessing), why he has not blessed such relationships with the gift of new life?"

One must also ask if God might after all!

One of the hardest things that I had to endure in my early adult years, was to be able to question what I was taught, and I think it high time that you did as well.

As somebody else put better than I on this blogsight, closing doors is the last thing the church ought to be doing in it's history at present. And you want to limit it ever more? Because that's EXACTLY what your attitude and dogmatic approach will do to the church in the long run.

It's more than about MAKING BABIES and overpopulating this limited space we live in with more of ourselves, it's about forming relationship of love, trust, care and affection that matter in life, and right now the church is in the ridiculous position of fighting that!

That's what DISORDERED!!!!!!

Ok so in your responses I discern a lot of hurt because I raise the question but no clear or decisive answer. Indeed the only real answer seems to be 'you are not allowed to ask that if you wish to be my friend'. That is surely not how we do theology?

This leaves me where I began. Wanting to affirm people on a personal level but unable to do any more than that becuase of the teaching of the church throughout the ages.

As the necessary theology to overturn what has always been taught does not seem to have been done in a systematic manner, save stating 'we are nice people and in love' or 'you cannot afford to say no' It strikes me I have little firm ground on which to state I have authority to give God's blessing. If there is a more solid basis do please provide it, I genuinly would love to hear it.

People can call my current policy of blind eye dishonest. But it is my politest way of finding a middle line between honouring Christian doctrine and acepting people in a non-judgmental way. Until I see a more scriptural and doctrinal response I feel unable to move on from this.

"Finally what of those who claim to be bi-sexual? Should the church say choose one partner or allow for multiple partners. And HOW do you decide?"

Oh for crying out loud! We're talking about this on another live thread on TA right at this moment.
Go and read the comments.
But basically - being bisexual means having the innate ability to love people of either sex. You then choose your life partner the same way other people do - you marry the one you fall in love with.

As for wanting to know more about the theology of same sex relationships, I already asked you to read Tobias Haller's Reasonable and Holy.
It would be helpful if you acquainted yourself with his theology first and then told us what further answers you still require.

Is the production of offspring necessary to convey (or even impute) God's blessing?

Because then that's not Christianity, Ed.

That's a Fertility Cult! [Ironically, that which Christianity has triumphed over so many times the past 2000 years]

***

Erika, have I mentioned lately that I (chastely, non-polyamorously ;-/) LOVE you!? [Esp. re 1 August 2009 at 6:43am BST]

"One must ask, if God views such relationships as equal to marriage (and therefore worthy of his blessing), why he has not blessed such relationships with the gift of new life? The human body is designed for the coming together of man and woman (being a fallen world not all of these work out) but the biological design points to this model. It does not point to the coming together of man/man or woman/woman. This is what has fuelled the natural law argument."

So, should we withhold the blessing of marriage from those who are too old to have children? Or, should a couple prove to be infertile, require them to divorce? Is there no "blessing" to a relationship other than procreation?

Ed - the gay=paedophile comparison is a particularly vicious and spiteful one. It puts people in danger, and that is not hyperbole. Doing the theology of homosexuality that way is a bit like doing the theology of Judaism starting with the premise that the Jews killed Christ. Surely a man of your intelligence does not need to plumb those depths?

I'm not a theologian, don't pretend to be one, just an ordinary lay person forced out of comfortable complacency in my own parish by the state of the Church in the world. I do my theology, such as it is, by what I see and live. There's an old and venerable tradition of it. What is patently vicious and spiteful cannot be theologically correct. If your way of doing theology cannot accept that sort of real world feedback loop, I'd suggest you look at the way you do theology.

I'm sorry, Ed. You confuse me. For example, you ask, "why [God] has not blessed such relationships with the gift of new life?" as if childbirth were the only, or even the most significant form of "new life." "If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation," which is to say, participating in new life in Christ. My first wife and I had children; but she left me. My second wife and I have not, but after 21 years I can assure you that we have experienced a number of significant aspects of "new life" together. I am an Associate of an Episcopal monastic order. I am married and the Brothers are not; and yet they have experienced in their vocations and in their celibate relationships "new life."

The question of God's blessing of GLBT relationships is one of discernment, and not only by those within those relationships, that their relationships can show the fruits of the Spirit. The issue is not one of inherent holiness, for, as obadiah has been reminding us, none of us is inherently holy, nor any of our relationships. Rather, we can look at relationships and see those that demonstrate holiness (by faithfulness, sacrificial love, and a desire to share love and compassion with others); and those that do not.

The thing is, we can only see that if they are, and we allow them to be, honest. If they are closeted, we cannot engage in that discernment (or, for that matter, the listening that Lambeth has called for since 1988 or so). Thus, the Church's interpretation of a handful of isolated verses has actually prevented their honesty and our discernment. We are called "to live in the light because we are children of the light."

I would suggest, too, that you are not aware of the physiological, psychological, and sociological research that has led many of us in the United States to the conviction that this reconsideration is necessary - hardly matters of emotion. however emotionally important this is to some. In that research listening to the lives and experiences of GLBT persons is central, important especially in qualitative research. Their experiences, while emotionally meaningful for them, are also facts that can be considered.

Further, Ed, we are sacramental, we Anglicans. We believe that in the Spirit, Christ continues to be meaningful and active in the world. Thus, all truth is rooted in God. While it may be new to us as we discover it, that doesn't mean it's new to God. We presume God new about quarks from creation; but it took us quite a while.

So it is with this new knowledge. The fact that it is new to us, and new to the Church, doesn't mean it's new to God.

So, what is the Church to do? As Anglicans, being sacramental and believing that Christ continues to be active, and to be creative, in the Spirit, we have done pretty well at incorporating new facts without losing our faith. We've managed, along with most of our culture, with such things as vaccination and surgery, not to mention autopsy; and even with Gallileo's and Copernicus' new understanding of the universe. We can consider this new knowledge, too; but only if we will. "Councils can and have erred," as the Articles say. Well, perhaps the General Convention errs now; but I'd rather take the risk of erring when considering facts than erring by ignoring them For our capacity to discern facts, like our capacity to discern the Spirit (and arguably the two are related), is itself a gift of the Spirit, and part of what it means for us to be "in the image and likeness of God."

"Until I see a more scriptural and doctrinal response I feel unable to move on from this. "

You had your mind made up (fossilized I suspect) for many years now.

One last question. What would you do if one of your kids turned out gay? Think hard about that one as you look at the altar at the 0800 communion service today. Until then, I see no further need to engage my energy to discuss with a person who is so inflexible as well. Have a nice life.

Ed, you can't expect people to offer up a theological critique that might take many thousands of words on a message board like this. Go to a library; the theology you seek has been around since at least the 1970s.

I will simply observe that, for me, whether people can have kids or not is irrelevant. God deigns that some people should be homosexual, and God's purposes are largely inscrutable. It is not for you to say that some people in God's creation are ontologically superior to others and therefore only they are entitled to intimate relationships. That does not follow: God has created them both. That should be enough for you.

If you say that the purpose of sex is procreation, then take up the Vatican's position and shun artificial contraception and all sex not open to life. At least then you would be consistent.

I said it on another thread, but Ed only appears to read this one.

Some people are fertile, others are not.
Some choose to have children, others don't.
What is it that is intrinsically sinful about not having children?
Where is the theology that explains how being childless is living in sin?

The way some people talk, you would believe the only value in their marriage is sex and babies.
What a desperately poor life these people must lead!

EdT, glad to hear that you are noting the conflicts between your heart and your obedience to the alleged official church teachings.

That' is a common dimension of the queer believer paths. Almost nobody who follows Jesus of Nazareth and is also a queer citizen has failed to walk something of that harrowing path.

My references to deeper sense of core sexual self, stems from two things - typical, no? for me? - research and personal experiences. Much of the current research tries to conceptualize and investigate deeper, core sense of sexual self? Why use such terms? Well, so that we can avoid getting all hung in for the moment in traditionalistic arguments over sex as nothing but condemned behaviors. Gender identity research also plays into that deeper sense narrative, since trans people may live for decades as their incongruent gender and be taken as such happily by everybody else (including their spouse, children, neighbors) - yet still perceive the seemingly deeper, invisible call of their inner core gender identity.

Experience? Well quite a few queer folks - though perhaps not the younger ones? - have come to their sense of sexual orientation by seriously trying for several years - to change it precisely as the official teachings encourage? Using all the available means which are encouraged?

Trying to mess with yourself for quite a while, at that deep level? IS - a harrowing, absolutely terrifying range of depth experiences, let me assure you. Hard to explicate, actually, in detail. Going that hard and that deep on yourself almost spontaneously provokes the deep biological-psychological mechanisms which kick in during heavy traumas - to sort of wrap all that suffering in at least partial amnesia. My rule of thumb is that all believers and counselors who genuinely desire to claim they know exactly how to assist queer folks to turn into straight folks, must first go through several years of that change effort themselves, no holds barred. If after going through all that; they can still say it was not hurtful or damaging, let them preach. I will still cry out against their mistaken guidance, ethically bound as a professional who knows the research.

Suffice to say that the required effort practically destroyed me, physically and as a functioning personality; while engendering such grief and conflict in my extended family -especially for the intent believers - that it nearly did not survive intact. That's how seriously USA Bible Belt folks tend to take their religion.

The good news? There is no dearth of either the published research, nor the painstaking ethics and theology to take that research into accurate account. I know that most conservative faith communities block mention and access to all of that work; just as a matter of course. But, truly the scholarship does exist across a range of investigation, reflection, revisiting.

Perhaps ET is no longer following this thread. Still, I think the issue he raises is serious and merits follow-through (though I've said it before). Here we have a guy/priest who keeps to the orthodox line for reasons of conscience but is by no means a bigot. He is not your/our enemy: the enemy is people like Tom Wright, bullying authoritarian, or Rochester, unprincipled opportunist. (Of course, we must love them, but we must also fight them!) In practical terms, in this life, it is impossible to convince ET. So? What follows? What follows, for me, is cooperate as far as possible. In the same way, in the church I attend, I have no doubt that some people 'objectively' disapprove of me (married, not yet divorced, living 'in sin' with woman by whom I have small child) and of a gay couple, whom everyone knows to be gay. In practice, we are much liked, in some cases loved, and the same applies to the gay couple. There is such a thing as decency, as non-judgmentalism ('judge not', etc.), and they used to be pre-eminent Anglican virtues. But to a considerable extent they still are. In practice, Erika and 'Choirboy' could attend ET's church, and he would not criticise you, would welcome you, would support you. It's not absolutely ideal, but it's not bad. It's actually good. I write as one having had considerable gay experience and having been for a long period convinced I was gay. I don't 'renounce' that, though it's not where I am now nor where I shall be for the rest of life.

thank you for the post and ability to see where I am coming from John. Because my church is very much a hospital for sinners and not a holy club for the virtuous, there are many people whose lives are not flawless- and yes that involves a good number of homosexual people- but that really is not the issue. For me there is a huge difference between accepting people where they are and altering doctrine to meet them there. For that I would need very good biblical evidence...which is the bit I am still missing on this one.

Ignorance is the enemy.

No, Ed could be my friend - not a dear or close one, rather, a close acquaintance - but he could never be my priest. I could not trust him, as he does not trust me. He cannot seem to discern without dogma and rigid moral codes. He is unable to discern what is essential in human relations with one another and God outside that that he's told. These are, for me and a great many others, serious pastoral failings.

Unfortunately, such pastoral failings are the norm and standard practice in the more conservative forms of religion.

John
In practice, I have attended anti-gay churches, but I make pretty sure I don't walk in hand in hand with my partner or ask to become a member of the PCC.
In practice, I would be treated with huge condescension as a sinner the righteous would graciously forgive in Jesus' name.
In practice, a friend of mine attends a church like this every week, and although everyone is rather nice to her, when she did not know how to deal with a stalker at one point and turned to her parish priest for help, she was told that the stalker was God's way of trying to make her go straight.
You can write to me offline and I can give you countless other examples of what happens in practice.

In practice, I don't trust places like this, I don't trust people like Ed who claim to listen but clearly aren't hearing, and who still see us as sinners with a huge moral problem first, and as whole unique individuals with our own integrity second.

When Ed and people like him can say that they disagree with my theology but that they respect it, just like we might disagree about the virgin birth or transubstantiation, I shall feel safe and welcome in their churches.
For as long as they talk about having to consider me as an unrepentant sinner, as someone merely seeking sexual license, as someone living such a bad life that God himself refuses to condone it which is shown by the fact that he does not bless it with children.... they may not be bigots but they're not exactly providing a welcoming space for me to meet Christ in either.

So Mark Brunson, any priest who does not agree with you, or accept your world view, has 'pastoral failings?!' That is really quite a statement. I wonder how you will be challenged and made to think?

By your rationale I guess Pope Benedict has pastoral failings, as did Mother Theresa...and Billy Graham and S. Augustine and indeed the vast majority of saints throughout the ages who doggedly stuck to the doctrines and rules of the Church.

" For that I would need very good biblical evidence...which is the bit I am still missing on this one. "

And one more time: Tobias Haller, Reasonable and Holy.

It's no good continuously asking for evidence when you then refuse to read it.

Ed
When a priest speaks in terms of my inclinations, my wanting sexual license, my behaviour, my attractions... when he reduces what I am to sexuality and when he sees my relationships in sexual terms only.... then he is not merely disagreeing with an opinion I may hold.

He shows that he has absolutely no understanding of who I am, of what makes me me, of my real concerns.
And when he engages with me on a public forum, and despite me trying to tell him what it's really like, completely ignores everything I say but insists that he knows better without engaging with a single one of my arguments ...

Why would I trust someone like that? Why would I believe he could be pastorally sensitive to me?

Ed,

You've just proven my point. You are unable to separate out what I said from what you felt, and, as a result, lashed out.

Pastoral failings.

Yes. I would say anyone who is unable to free themselves from the grip of dogma in the face of humane reality and compassion has absolute pastoral failings. I've yet to see that in any of the ones you mention, other than Pope Benedict, and then only if you mean the present pope.

If nothing else, the fact that I cannot trust you, Erika cannot trust you, and now feel that you are overtly hostile displays a massive pastoral failure.

Erikka I was not aware we were discussing you. I thought we were exploring the Christian response to homosexuality.

If we cannot do that without people taking every question and exploration personally we really won't get very far.

I do find it rather sad that because I am honest enough to raise doubts on here I am accused of being:

fossilised, pastorally failing, ignorant, backwards, someone who does not listen, part of an 'anti gay' church (which is hugely misrepresentative and unfair), bracketed with a priest who was horrid to a lesbian being stalked. etc etc

hmmmm?

Oh and I shall read the book you mention but I am normally only able to do so once such things have been delivered by the postie!

Ed

Thank you for ordering the book.

But please please please, it is really important that you understand that what for you is a nice tricky theological problem, for me is the core of who I am, of my life, my being, my faith.

This is not a nice bit of theoretical conversation!

Or would you have said to a slave that God wants him to remain in bondage, but hey, why get upset, I don't mean this personal?
Would you have said to a black man that the bible says he isn't equal to whites and that he therefore has no right to vote, but, oh for crying out loud, why get all emotional about it when I'm not talking about you - how can we have a rational conversation about this?

Please - you cannot possibly be so far removed from reality!

"I do find it rather sad that because I am honest enough to raise doubts on here I am accused of being:

fossilised, pastorally failing, ignorant, backwards, someone who does not listen, part of an 'anti gay' church (which is hugely misrepresentative and unfair), bracketed with a priest who was horrid to a lesbian being stalked. etc etc"

What in the world did you think was going to happen?

Do you really think all that compares to what *we've* been accused of?

Do you really think that because you hold traditionalist views and we don't that that somehow raises you above criticism?

Do you actually believe that we should be led by you like little children on matters we understand quite well, thank you, while being emotionally-detached grownups in dealing with you? How can you not understand how deeply and personally offensive it is to each of us to say, in essence, "Look: you don't understand you, but I do. I know you *think* you're okay, and I sympathize and all, but you can't convince me that you're not deeply disturbed and somehow mystically incomplete because of this book and people who were forming theology before we knew that magnetism wasn't witchcraft!"

That's what you're saying here, Ed. Okay. You may not mean to, or want to, but it doesn't matter 'cause that's what you're saying. Do you see how that might seem a *tad* arrogant and cold to us?

If all that will convince you is finding that passage in the Bible that says "Ooops! Leviticus and Paul were wrong. Gays are great!" then, no, we can't be in the same church. That should not surprise you nor lead you to any protestations of hurt feelings and shock.

Erika,

Of course there are C of E churches of the kind you mention (not, I think, here in Durham, though there are certainly C of E splinter churches like that). One can avoid them. I entirely agree your friend was treated disgracefully. But you yourself once noted on a blog how at a very bad time for you (forget details) one of the most solicitous members of the congregation was some very Evangelical guy who presumably disagrees with you about just about everything on one level - but on another level, clearly, does not. There are such people. Many are far better than I (or, presumably, you). I think it is a mistake to fight every fight, to push people up against the wall (I know how hard it is for gay people - that is why I 'came out' in this and other posts). There are decent people of every conceivable church persuasion, many of whom are tacitly agreeing to compromise, to 'park' things beyond a certain point. But that 'tacitly' is very important - many of them (not, of course, all) can't admit that that is what they are doing, because it would seem to weaken their commitment to orthodoxy. It's not necessarily exactly parallel, but in my view, Father Ed has gone as far as he reasonably can, considering his sort of orthodoxy.

Stop trying to control the conversation for once Ed, and by the way her name is Erika, not Errika.

I have to agree, your dismissal of at least three people telling you their actual feelings (not to mention the three figure culmination of years in their added ages-bet you dimes to dollars we're all older than you-) and you get angry and start whining about changing the subject.

We take personally, because it is VERY PERSONAL!

"fossilised, pastorally failing, ignorant, backwards, someone who does not listen, part of an 'anti gay' church (which is hugely misrepresentative and unfair), bracketed with a priest who was horrid to a lesbian being stalked. etc etc"

Not to mention using a sweeping fallacy in the same name as pedophiles, and an incestuous adult.

Is this a "traditional teaching moment?" Uh, an Epiphany moment?

Did you look at the altar the other day and wondered what it might be like to have your own child come out to you? Going to use "Traditional Christian Teaching"? Think it'll do any good?

"no clear or decisive answer"

Ed, you HAVE been told, in several different posts, why the comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia is not only a fallacy, but is insulting as well. Granted, some other posts have provided you with no answers, just indignation, which you should have expected. Some might say you DID actually expect indignation and incited it deliberately so you could claim to be mistreated by others here. It is what I usually think about such things, but for some reason, I don't see it specifically in you. Perhaps I'm falling for what has become your reasonable tone. But I copied the comparison to use as a quote for what would be my post in response, when I finally had read all the others. I eventually didn't bother because SEVERAL people had explained the fallacy of gay=pedophile to you. That you seem not see that it has been explained is quite odd, and certainly looks on the surface like an attempt to make yourself out the misunderstood martyr. Like I said, when you first posted here, that's exactly what I thought you were going to do. Then I began to think of you as someone more considered, who really was grappling with the issues. Now, I'm not so sure again.

John
thank you for remembering my story.
I agree, there are individuals who do not share my views but with whom I can worship.
But this does not apply to the whole tenor of a church. My own church is a fairly liberal village church, the man I was talking about is not representative of the congregation as a whole.
If he was, I could not remain in this church.
In particular, I could not remain if the priest was anti-gay, because he could have no credible pastoral role in my life.

That's not to say I couldn't pop in every now and then on the odd Sunday, but that's different from being a fully accepted and valued member of one's local congregation.
There is no single credible reason why I should want to be somewhere where I feel deeply uncomfortable.

John
"Father Ed has gone as far as he reasonably can, considering his sort of orthodoxy."

This is the question, isn't it.
And I think I'm with Ford here - I don't really have a problem with people who believe that homosexuality is a sin, provided they don't pretend they know me better than I know myself, provided they have understood that I have no inclinations, no attractions, that I don't exhibit any behaviour, and who do not need to be told why I'm not like a child rapist or someone who fancies sleeping with her mother.

I struggle with people who spout all these ideas and who don’t even realise what they’re saying to me and what effect it has on me. People who then complain that I’m taking it personal when it really has to be an abstract conversation about homosexuality, because what could possibly be achieved by taking people’s emotions into account.
But it IS all about emotions. It IS all about love, not about sex. It is about commitment, about friendship, about all those things heterosexual relationships are made up of.
How am I to respect someone who sees me as a theoretical issue, a purely theological problem with one particular bodily function?

I personally do not think that there is any credible anti-gay theology and I believe that conservatives resort to insults and bearing false witness because if they saw us as we truly are, they would not be able to maintain their fiction that God doesn’t want us to be lonely because we’re particularly sinful.

But I must also admit that I have at least one conservative blog friend (and I use the word friend advisedly) , a priest, who is adamant that homosexuality is wrong, and who nevertheless knows exactly what we’re really like. And I know that his belief causes him genuine anguish and yet he feels he cannot change his thinking.

It’s because conservatives like him exist, rare though they are, that I haven’t yet given up all hope.

"To my knowledge those in the religious life forgo sexual intimacy as do many priests in Rome and Constantinople. I would struggle to (sic) if they broke the vows they had made on entering the church. That does not mean I struggle with those outside of the church who have chosen such lifestyles.

Is sex really a right for those in holy orders? THAT was my question and I did not even provide the answer." - Ed Tomlinson -

Fr. Ed., I've been trawling through your various contributions to this particular site and topic in an effort to understand your exception to the realities of 'sex and the Church' and have only just cottoned on to what you are here implying:

1: that all priests and religious *forego sexual intimacy* and
2: that sex may not be 'a right for those in Holy Orders'.

In the first instance, history tells us that - in the Roman Catholic Church alone, there has been a great deal of sexual activity in the lives of both clergy and religious - not only gay and lesbian but, more problematically, paedophilia.

In the second instance, I can hardly believe what you are saying here. You, yourself, have said on this site that you are a happily married man with children. Are they adopted, or the result of your own sexuality? If the latter, then obviously those in Holy Orders do have a right to a sex life. So do priests in the Holy Orthodox Churches

Erika,

Thanks for responses. My church is also 'fairly liberal'. To use one of your yardsticks, I'm on the PCC and so is one of the gays. A previous rector would have blessed the gays. I'm pretty sure the present one would too. But on the whole, it's 'fairly liberal' in the sense of mutual tolerance, not theologically liberal. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. Who would want to be in a church run by Holloway, Cupitt or Pluralist?

ET is a complicated person, I think. Rigid, often strident orthodoxy co-exists (co-habits, perhaps) with real goodness and benevolence and even a sort of liberalism (he supports civil partnerships, though presumably he would never call them marriages, as you or I might/would). One bit of me strives to build bridges (of course the other bit is raring for a fight!). Some of the FiF crowd I simply can't stand - others seem to me much more complicated and more worthy. They are surely - many of them - excellent priests, and I intuit that in practice they 'park' things. ET has gays in his congregation and supporters of WO. When Jeff Steel qua curate preached a sermon attacking gays and WO in his FiF church, some walked out.

All best.

John
maybe you're made of sterner stuff than I am. I could happily live in a church led by Holloway or Pluralist, because I would be allowed to worship according to my understanding of God, and all debates would be purely theological ones about the nature of God and of our faith.

What I cannot do is be somewhere where I personally am the bone of contention, where the essence of what I am, rather than about what I think, is the focus of controversy.
It's a bit like expecting ET to relax in the company of strident feminists who dislike much of what men represent, and wonder why he couldn't trust Germaine Greer to be truly pastorally sensitive to him.

I've suddenly been wondering about EdT and others, in the context of any CoE listening process that is, was, or possibly in future could be - going on. Any pointers on those resources? Wouldn't a Google bring Changing Attitudes, Modern Churchpeoples Union, Ekklesia, and other resources for investigation, all right up? What complex circumstances of isolation leads EdT or anybody else these days (a certain other few conservative posters come to mind, too) to presume (A) few critical resources exist because I have not got around to reading them in any great detail, and/or (B)if a preponderance of change stuff existed, surely it would signal its powers by rather quickly persuading church leaders?

drdanfee
I suspect that some of it isn't to do with not knowing that those resources are there, but in not understanding why they should be useful.

How many conservatives have you heard around here who insist that unless you can show in the bible where same sex relationships are allowed, they cannot be accepted?

Many of the people who ignore the huge body of research and theology in this field ignore it in all other areas of Christian theology too - which is why so much of it is flat earthism.

You have to accept that complexity and nuance are possible before you can even begin to accept the possibility that anything Changing Attitude, MCU or Ekklesia might tell you could have any real value at all.

Pls cite me as an exception, as I rely solely on facts and statistics. The fact that the bible or NT says something does not make that thing true. It is, however, often necessary to engage in biblical exegesis. When we do so we are debating the point 'what does the bible say?' *not* the point 'is it true?'.