We're All Created in God's Image, But Ordination Not a Right

It seems to me, Nunivek, that you've completely deconstructed your own rationale for being in opposition to gay marriage and gay clergy, here:

"Yeah the term "gay lifestyle" is pretty weak. So to clarify:
To some degree my thoughts would extend beyond those who experience same-sex attraction to any sexual orientation. My point is that from a Christian perspective our identity should not be found in our sexual preferences but in Christ. Fulfillment does not equal being married or having sex with the person or gender that one desires. In fact, all of us experience singleness for at least a part of our lives if not the entirety of it. It is not sexual experiences or even marriage that fulfills a person ultimately.
It's not only homosexual-oriented people who have to give their sexuality to Christ, rather this is something that is demanded of all Christians."

If this is so, after all, why is heterosexual behavior or appearance of such so necessary to 'Christianity' in some people's eyes that people try to harm gay couples, Christian or not, via political power?

Certainly, here, a major and mainstream Church doesn't find these interpretations of 'images of God' more important than whatever Christ-centered things having gay clergy presumably leads to. Yet some political Christians claim that if the Episcopalians don't obey *them* then they obviously aren't 'putting Jesus first' as you seem to insist the law do to people regardless of our religion.

Certainly if you want to denigrate all gay people and our marriages and capacity for love in the process, it has a way of becoming everyone's business.

Wish it weren't, believe me, but here we are.

I have recently written a book on the subject “The Image of God.”
The Book is called The Image of God in This Generation, and is available at Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble.com, booksamillion.com, and most other bookstores. The book deals with God as an unchanging God and how we in this generation and every generation can be in his image.
According to the Bible, the only humans who were created in the image of God were Adam, and Eve. The son of Adam and Eve, Seth, was said to be born in the image of his parents.
Adam and Eve being born in the image of God had nothing to do with being human (for God is not human, but God is spirit). The image of God spoken of in Genesis is the Sinless nature of God. Adam and Eve were created without Sin, just as God is without Sin.
When Seth was born, he was born to sinful parents. By the time Seth was born, Adam and Eve had sinned, and Seth thus inherited the sinful image of his parents.
Nowhere else, and about no one else does the bible use the term image of God. Only Jesus who is God was born in the image of God. We however do become more like the image of God the more we obey him.

Coloradodog, your response may be flippant but its certainly worth a response :)

Yeah the term "gay lifestyle" is pretty weak. So to clarify:
To some degree my thoughts would extend beyond those who experience same-sex attraction to any sexual orientation. My point is that from a Christian perspective our identity should not be found in our sexual preferences but in Christ. Fulfillment does not equal being married or having sex with the person or gender that one desires. In fact, all of us experience singleness for at least a part of our lives if not the entirety of it. It is not sexual experiences or even marriage that fulfills a person ultimately.
It's not only homosexual-oriented people who have to give their sexuality to Christ, rather this is something that is demanded of all Christians. Does it mean that some portions of the Christian community will never be married or engage in sexual practices, yes, but that is not a tragedy (nor is being married a negative thing), but a reality that should be fostered healthily within intimate Christian fellowship where the love of Christ is the centre.

@Paganplace, my comment was not meant to be disrespectful, It wasn't meant to be a diatribe against you or anyone within the GLBT community. This article and my comment is not about GLBT who are not Christians, rather it is about how the Church should interact mean internally with Christians and their sexuality.

Obviously though, since our two different cultures interact on a regular basis the discussion and decisions within the Christian community can effect the surrounding culture, and in fact that is what the Gospel tends to preach, yet the beauty of that is that is not meant to be through force, violence, power, or political action but through humble love and service. Something that the Church obviously has much to work on.
Thanks for your civil discourse.

MGT2:
"People have been pronouncing the death of the church for centuries. Jesus comforted his disciples by saying that not even the gates of hell will prevail against the church.
Like everything else, this too will come to pass."

Well, that's pretty tidy, since only the Church claims there's any 'Gates of Hell' trying to 'prevail' in the first place.

Now that you're thus reassured, ...Can I have my civil rights now?

Well, Jim, I certainly agree with you that a church does not have to ordain a gay if it doesn't want to. But using the church for gay bashing and as a Political Action Committee for anti-gay ballot initiatives like the Mormons do is stepping over the line.

Congratulations, by the way, for you kinder, gentler rhetoric this time. Even though I disagree with and fear almost everything you stand for I'm happy to see you've toned down you snarky "people of faith" remarks and now sound less and less like your rabid homophobic mentor Dobson.

"Nunivek writes:

"Having a homosexual orientation does not mean that a person has to live a gay lifestyle."

*laugh.* So, since it actually gets pretty Betty Crocker around my house, you don't mind if we're a gay couple? Or do you just pretend we're in some 'lifestyle' you think is more fun to fulminate about? :)

Mr. Daly.

Whether or not a Church sees fit to ordain gay clergy isn't about "Rights." Our *rights* are about rights.

You certainly don't have any essential *right* to impose your homophobia on a church or 'the church' that decides homophobia just isn't the most important thing in their world.

Obviously, your idea of what a church or 'the church' should do with respect to LBGT people is not one the Episcopal church sees fit to be constrained by.

Of course, the faith-group where *I'm* clergy sees 'God' as She of many names and untold faces, so all this scuffling among Christians over various singular 'Images Dei' or just *how much* humanity you deign to say you confer on certain minorities just seems kind of...

Well. Maybe you're missing something.

Nunivek writes:

"Having a homosexual orientation does not mean that a person has to live a gay lifestyle."

---------------------------------

Oh kind of like having a heterosexual orientation does not mean that a person has to live a "straight" lifestyle?

So, it's OK if you are gay but you must be celibate?

People have been pronouncing the death of the church for centuries. Jesus comforted his disciples by saying that not even the gates of hell will prevail against the church.

Like everything else, this too will come to pass.

I appreciate the vague attempt at nuance that the author begins by talking about those within the Christian community that experience same-sex attraction. This certainly is not a small number, and there is definitely beginning to be a thaw in the taboo of Christians talking about this issue, and providing support and care for their brothers and sisters.
The nuance hinted at by the author did not however extend far enough, in that there are many Christians who will experience same-sex attraction for the rest of their lives and still be eligible and qualified for Christian service and leadership.

Having a homosexual orientation does not mean that a person has to live a gay lifestyle. Is this potentially a major personal sacrifice, yes, but it is one that should not be done in isolation and it is one that is consistent with Church tradition and biblical teaching. As following Christ often means putting aside our desires and finding our fulfillment and identity in Him rather than any thing or experience that we could ever have. Not living by our own personal desires, however deep-seated they are, apparently is incredibly subversive to today's culture.

But it's God who calls the clergy, not the church. Sometimes God calls those who are gay or lesbian. And that's cause for rejoicing.

Farnaz1Mansouri1,

Refusing to ordain gays is nothing like refusing to ordain persons of color. The analogy between skin color (which is literally superficial - the Latin word means "on the surface") and sexuality (which is at the core of the human experience) is old, worn-out, and was very weak in the first place.

I have marked your words on a number of occasions, and while I have no idea what you are working for, I have no doubt that those who oppose freedom and the truth of the human person in God's plan are working vigorously and daily to undermine and overthrow Holy Church. I have no doubt at all.

In the U.S., religious institutions do not get their nonprofit status because they have promoted this value or that trendy in America at the time. Rather, America has always believed in promoting religious freedom and pluralism. In some folks' minds, though, there is apparently no room for disagreement or pluralism.

One thing I am very confident of though, is that our days in the Church are not numbered, but are to last beyond the very end of days. From Nero to Attila, from Frederick the Great to Henry VIII, from Napoleon to the Nazis, we have buried all our enemies and outlasted every last predictor of our immanent demise. We have a promise from the Lord of Heaven and Earth that the gates of hell itself will be unable to overcome us. If, for 2000 years, a significant portion of our own membership has through idiocy or malice tried to tear down Christ's Church, what makes you think that you and your little band of self-righteous, self-pitying whiners will be able to do anything to us?

Even if you murder us, well, our earliest enemies noted that when murdered, Christians seemed only to multiply.

Do your worst.

Sorry, but the days of those with your view are numbered. (Check the human rights calendar.)

Refusing to ordain gays is tantamount to refusing to ordain blacks, browns, et al.

Any religious institution that discriminates against gays IN ANY WAY should lose its nonprofit status, at the very least.

Mark my words: It will happen. There are those of us fighting for change every day.

Jim, I think that is the crux of the debate: obligating Christians "to make them leaders, teachers, and spiritual guides within the context of a faith community whose beliefs and convictions they don't endorse."

Then they cynically accuse the community of bigotry and ulterior motives when this is resisted.

Here is the question they need to answer: Would they be willing to allow a Christian who does not endorse their beliefs and convictions to become the leader of their organizations?

Would that make any sense?

fr the article:

>...Others struggle every day, and in a very real way, with powerful same-sex attractions. Are we willing to reach out to these people with love and compassion? Yes. Do we regard them as fellow human beings made in the Image of God? Absolutely....

Another load of claptrap. daly and his fotf CULT hate glbt's, and he knows it. The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree, in this case from dobdork's branches. Why don't they focus on their OWN family, and leave GLBT's alone? Are they "scared" of us?

Jim Daly wrote:

Do we regard (homosexuals) as fellow human beings made in the Image of God? Absolutely. Does this imply that we are also obligated to make them leaders, teachers, and spiritual guides within the context of a faith community whose beliefs and convictions they don't endorse? Certainly not. That just doesn't make sense.

*****************************

So you imply that homosexuals are incapable of being spiritual leaders. That somehow their genetic material predisposes them to be lacking the basic skills and qualifications to be a minister of faith.

I believe, sir, that you are terribly misguided.

And you justify your position as if to say that, a homosexual who seeks to become a spiritual leader will intentionally attempt infiltration of a religious community that does not share his/her values and beliefs.

You're right... that doesn't make sense. What is it that you are really afraid of?

Jim,

Your commentary is dead on! I agree whole-heartedly with your reasoning and your deference to the Word of God.

In response to JONATHANWEINTRAUB: Jesus is the central and climactic figure of the Bible. He was sent to save the world from eternal separation from God. He was sent to pay the penalty of sin, so that *all* people may have a right to everlasting life.

As it relates to women's roles in the Bible: In order to rightly divide God's Word it must be put into the proper context (i.e. historical, symbolic, literal, etc.) Historically, women in the biblical era were uneducated. Therefore, they lacked the proper authority to teach and hold leadership positions in the early Church. Because they were uneducated,they were more susceptible to being swayed by false prophets and false teachers, which was as common then as it is today. To put such a passage in the proper context, consider this: Anyone who lacks sufficient understanding and knowledge of the scriptures is obviously ill-suited to teach or hold a position of authority over his fellow brethren. I'm sure you'll agree that it would be imprudent for a church to appoint someone who just accepts the Christian faith as leader of the flock. Certainly, such a person must first be nurtured in the faith. Put it another way, a teacher must first have been a student!

Those who have an understanding of God's Word and still reject its principles, it's teachings, and it's authority, are equally ill-suited to exercise authority.

Jim,

Thank you for clarifying Focus on the Family's belief that it's own rather narrow interpretation of scripture is the only "truthful" interpretation, and more importantly, that Focus finds itself to be so self-important that it can dismiss other faiths through the use of the slogan "serious Christian".

In Loudoun County, VA, we have many churches that align themselves with Focus on the Family in their core beliefs. For example, the Grace Community Church (http://www.gracecommunity.ws/AboutUs) published the statement below in their Doctrine (note the parallel reference to God's "created design"):

"Women play a vital role in the life of the church but in keeping with God’s created design, they are not permitted “to teach or to have authority over a man” (1 Tim. 2:11). Leadership in the church is male."

I would hope that mainstream America finds the above statement to be both extreme and shocking. The Bible should not be used by one group to claim authority over another, should it? Why did God sent Jesus to Earth? Was it not, in part, to deconstruct the authority of the Jewish priesthood and to grace *all* people with His word?