On an epistemological note, we all have ‘faith’ in something – even atheists cannot ‘prove’ with ‘evidence’ in a disenchanted worldview (metaphysic). I admittedly have FAITH that homosexuality is harmful to all who are involved – I believe there is a better life for them – not necessarily within ‘heterosexuality’, but rather in God’s pure light – all desires known, no secrets hid. Even if the ‘evidence’ is that homosexuals are genetically prone to that existence, we have to remember that evidence is never really conceptually neutral, and that there is some ‘faith’ in regards to what we do with the evidence, practically. Should we embrace behaviors that are rejected by the historical scriptures and church, even if we have a ‘gene’ that may lead us towards such behaviors.

*A side note – most American conservatives and liberals appeal to an ethical consequentialism – we ought to expand the argument away from enlightenment notions of right and wrong if we are to get into the minds of the early apostles and martyrs – just a thought!

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

IN any case, I grew up in the Episcopal Church and have since left it for the Catholic Church. If the church is going to sanctify gay marriage, I always wonder what their theological argument is against general promiscuity or bigamy or incest, other than the politically correct belief that bigamy is something practiced by incredibly un-hip people in Utah while gay marriage is practiced by incredibly hip people from Martha’s Vineyard.

Could one of the hip apologists for the TEC posting on here explain what the difference theologically between the Church’s new embrace of gay marriage and its rejection of bigamy?

“. Look how long we happily hated Jews, blacks, and Catholics, for that matter.”

By your reasoning, we still hate Jews because we don’t accept them into the Church even though they reject Christ.
No one here and no one I know who objects to ordaining Gay clergy advocates hating anyone. Does AA hate alcoholics because it condemns alcohol abuse?

Oh, Gosh, I just realized I was trying to reason with an out of touch leftist. No matter what you say, they chant the same slogans and catchphrases over and over.

A dynastic, nationalist and Erastian schism from Rome followed by heresy (Protestantism) which was swamped by the ‘Enlightenment’… yet haunted by Catholicism (the old buildings with the old saints’ names, the old clergy titles, the remnants of liturgy) and haunted by what King Henry had done… which produced Anglo-Catholicism which I took on board at face value as a very young man…

… but Michael Grace is right. Anglicanism including Episcopalianism is still on paper a Christian church, at least for now: the creeds are still in the books. But discreet unbelief has been normal there since the 1700s. ‘Don’t believe in that cr*p?’ Neither did the English upper class or America’s founding fathers.

Long before James Pike opened his mouth (he brought that unbelief out in the open), before the first official women priests and ‘out’ gay priests and before anybody seriously rewrote a prayer book.

All ‘Anglicanism’, the Anglican Communion, really is, is a decennial tea party in which your bishops get to meet the Queen. As neither side in this row claims to be the one true church, that invite seems to be what they’re fighting about.

It’s a Protestant church so its doctrine is fallible thus changeable. New Prophecy makes perfect sense for them. If they want to pretend two men can marry each other they can go right ahead. It’s none of my business.

The only thing I still care about in all this is if these people go after our freedom not to pretend that and if they are taken seriously in so doing.

You’re right; they won’t go out of business. They’ll probably settle at below a million members on the rolls.

Most of their few Middle American churchgoers not on board with the rich whites’ New Prophecy got fed up and rightly just left.

BTW the Orthodox Church is the world’s second biggest Christian church. Interesting contrast: a communion of independent churches with not only no Vatican to run it but not even a Lambeth Conference (the tea party once a decade) yet the result is not Anglican (liberal Protestant) but Catholic.

Its amazing how those who support an unsupportable position keep repeating something which is patently untrue.

“. Who will die, or lose their house, or be unable to feed their families if the Episcopal Church ordains a gay person?”
Well the Episcopal Church is clearly dying so I think you have your answer.

.
One more point, its almost absurdly funny how the EC leadership keeps talking about ‘inclusiveness’ and poo poo the dwindling membership, defiantly saying ‘let them leave’ (but leave your money), because, they theorize, if they become more ‘inclusive’ (which means adapting PC dogma) somehow the doors will flood with all colors and creeds (after all this is the episcopal ‘church’) embracing ‘diversity’.
Its in complete defiance of reality because most ethnic group churchs are far far far more conservative than even conservative Episcopalians, and of course some of the most fierce opposition to the ECUSA’s inclusion in the Anglican communion come from the african Bishops.

I have a theory about that. I think, that Africa, they are much closer to death than us. If a family is broken because a husband leaves its not food stamps and latch key kids, its starvation, if you are promiscuous, its not a vague feeling of emptiness, its AIDs.

That’s not to say that engaging in such behavior isn’t deadly for people and civilizations. But our wealth provides a buffer to the consequences. In the same way the Episcopal church’s wealth has provided a buffer to their behavior – but the same result – death is right around the corner.

In all seriousness, the “gay” issue is smoke and mirrors. Who will die, or lose their house, or be unable to feed their families if the Episcopal Church ordains a gay person? What frosts my cookies about my own beloved church, and all of the other churches, is the dead lack of the prophetic voice in relation to the abysmal mess of the economy.

Nathan rebukes David using the example of the rich man, with hundreds of sheep, who takes the lone ewe lamb of the poor man to feed his guest. How is that different than the Masters of the Universe being bailed out of the chaos they created, using the pennies of the poor? How is it different than the insurance companies making record profits while fewer and fewer people have coverage, and those who do are refused care, or refused coverage if it turns out they need care?

The Episcopal Church, all the churches, should be Nathan to the David of the powerful and wealthy, with a finger in the face, and a rebuke on the lips. But, frankly, it won’t happen. We would rather huff and puff about an issue of taste, which is what the gay thing is, at bottom, than talk turkey about real moral, ethical, Christian imperatives like justice, peace, and charity.

You know why?

Because it might reduce revenues, if we really acted like Christ.

New International Version (©1984)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

International Standard Version (©2008)
You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don’t you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

1 Corinthians 6:9

Like I said, the TEC will probably just change the translation.