Conservatives Leaving or Left Behind?

Sodomy has always been filthy behavior.
And it has always had an offensive stench.
But by all means continue to argue otherwise.

According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

Wonder what Luther would say...Racist and sexist "warts" and all.

Ms Schori just spoke at the National Press Club. In forty minutes, she never mentioned Jesus once. She never cited one verse from scripture. Mr. Balmer states he has doubts about the future of the new province. He needs to worry about his own backyard.

It is disappointing that an Episcopal Priest is less than straightforward and so confrontational in his approach to this subject. The rancor and lack of honesty on both sides of this issue does harm to all Anglicans and Episcopalians, and this article only adds fuel to the fire that the press loves to fan. It's sad that Mr. Balmer seems to have forgotten the vow he took to spread the reconciling love of Christ, but perhaps the success he enjoys as a liberal author has altered his priorities.

While I do agree that the true church is better off without these narrow-minded conservatives, unfortunately, in many cases and particularly in Virginia, they are leaving but taking the physical church properties with them.

DOTHERIGHTTHING:
Martin Luther didn't "break relations with the Roman Catholic Church and form his own church." He was excommunicated by a Church that could not respond to the allegations of corruption (which, as it turned out, were accurate) that Luther confronted it with. Luther had no intention of forming his own church, did not coin the term "Lutheran," and in fact never liked or used the term. His purpose was to, as you say, "work at change from within," but the organization apparantly made that impossible. Interestingly, nearly all of the changes Luther pushed for have, in the intervening 500 years or so, gradually been adopted by the RCC.

Religious philosophies based on scripture are just a mess, and this entire blog is perfect example of that.
This is why I'm a unitarian unviersalist, we don't waste time quibbling over whether this example of scripture overrides the moral teaching of another piece of scripture. We just follow the do unto other philosophy and somehow most of us turn out to be pretty good people.
When it gets down to it, this is all just a big discussion over who gets control of alot of property, and whether they should allowed to be gay or not. What alot of nonsense!

Well said, until the "goodbye and good riddance" part, Mr. Balmer. I welcome the "traditionalists" back and pray they see this wisdom, as you wrote it: "Although Jesus said nothing explicit about homosexuality, he did, however, have something to say about divorce - and none of it good." Humility by both sides, with tolerance, will make for a reasoned and faithful and supportive unified church.

"Love one another with a pure heart, fervently. See that ye love one another."

I suspect Gene Robinson has obeyed this directive, albeit with faults along the way. Who among us does not have faults? Can we please stop with the picking and choosing of scripture and realize that:

a) life and love are complicated, including our love of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; and
b) it is the job of the church to get at the essence of the bible, not its individual words taken without digesting the whole of it.

"Jesus loved us o'er the tumult."

Who among the Episcopalian faith can be said to love us all, and who needs to be called out as having some measure of hate in their hearts?

after reviewing bishop robinson's biography on wikipedia, i admit there are many things in his personal history that are compelling. that aside, it is disingenious to dismiss all criticism of him as knee jerk homophobia. fidelity is fidelity, be it straight or gay. and bishop robinson has failed that criterion. gayness should not be a free pass. there are legions of committed gay people who are worthy of support, whatever their endeavors. bishop robinson is not one.

This issue is really about a church initiated on breaking away from the Christian tradition becuase they wanted to get with the times. Henry VIII saw his church as the best way to be progressive with the issue of marriage. Nothing changes. There is a lot of discussion about Jesus and the two commandments and the fact that love always means allowing someone to do whatever they want sexually and not only not condemning the act but actually condoning it. Your sins are forgiven now go and sin no more. Jesus did not condone sinful behaviour in his commandments to love one another as ourselves. Loving ourself is not simply license to do whatever we want because we want to. Therefore that license does not extend to others. We are called to love, but not say wrong is right. Love goes beyond just agreeing. Most churches have adopted this backyard barbecue approach to these moral issues and believe simply getting along is the apex of love. It is not. Love is as often disagreement as agreement. Loving a person with homosexual tendencies is the same as loving a person without homosexual tendencies. But love does not negate the inherent sinfulness and disorder of acting out such tendencies in practice. Homosexual tendencies in a human can be accepted without being condoned. And the outright encouragement seen in various of today's churches goes along the same lines as birth control and immature/illicit sex, abortion, divorce and a myriad of other issues that the protesting churches have all fallen into line with one after the other. Most traditional churches at one time condemned the outright hijacking of the sexual union of married individuals that is called birth control. All but one. I would encourage those serious in faith and a closer relationship to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to read and study and pray your way to the church founded by Christ and his disciples here on earth and that has withstood (certainly not without is humanly blemishes) the millenia. All churches built on protesting the original Christian church are built on a foundation of sand and eventually become subject to the whim of man, not Christ.

"Christianity is not, and was never meant to be, worship of Jesus."

This points to one of the main reasons that this is happening in Episcopal denomination. The liberal clergy have been able to foist this on the laity because of our atrocious knowledge of Scripture.

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I am saddened by Mr. Balmer's take on this split...by his previous work I believe him to be more nuanced and reflective than this writing seems to be. What a tired reflection, that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. On the issue of human sexual expression He said nothing about pedophilia either, He said nothing about bestiality....and so on. This is a terrible time, I find myself at a point where I don't know what to say to my gay brothers and sisters. Yes they are beloved by God, yes they are members of the household of faith. Yes, they are part of my family...and I theirs. But I cannot fault the traditionalists for upholding a high view of scripture, which clearly has nothing affimative to say about same gender sexual contact. Nor can I possibly agree with the crowd that constantly tries to set the church's adgenda by attempting to fathom which way the cultural wind is blowing...to hear the PB talk about the affirmation of all things gay as a new revelation of the Holy Spirit makes me laugh out loud. This is the crew that cringes every time they are forced to be in the same room with those with pentecostal leanings. The split, as Mr. Balmer well knows, is about so much more than a gay bishop. And as anyone can see, the "progressive" wing of the Episcopal church is so progressive that at current rates of decline it will be roughly the size (and have the intellectual vitality) of the flat earth society in another decade or so. Perhaps God has kicked us all to the curb.

I wish that this discussion had been started on a better foot by Professor Balmer. He reinforces the all-too bitter nature of this dispute and furthers the idea that the break from the Episcopal church is about the homosexuality issue. As a member of one of the dissenting American Anglican churches myself, I can tell you that we are deeply pained about the fact that we are splitting away--we are not ignorant of what we are doing, but we do feel like drastic times call for drastic measures. I also want to affirm that this is not about the homosexuality issue for me (although I will certainly admit that there are those within some of the dissenting churches who make it their number one priority, and I disagree with those types of people as much as I would disagree with the Episcopal Church leadership--especially people like John Shelby Spong), it is about a broader move away from historical Christian orthodoxy (denying the Resurrection, denying the Trinity, lacking a devotion to radical mission, placing little to no importance in Scripture as it has historically been interpreted). Furthermore, I want to mention that I am in no way giving a rubber stamp to everything represented by the dissenters, for example, I agree with the Episcopal position on ordaining women in the priesthood, and I will work within the church to see if this can be included. Finally, I want to affirm that the North American Anglicans do not vilify all Episcopals--by no means. I know that there are many Episcopals who disagree with their church hierarchies' positions on many issues, but who desire to stay to help reform the church from within and who feel very uncomfortable about such a historically unique step to break away from the church. I hope this post represents a little bit more of a balanced perspective from a North American Anglican.

People aren't leaving The Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church is leaving people.

It's more than just "the gay thing." It's bishops questioning Virgin birth, or playing fast and loose with Biblical teachings to make a secular point.

But what many of the above posters have danced around is the selection process for clergy. You see, it used to be the very best and brightest who got the call to be priests. Nowadays, an unfunded oceanographer can become Presiding Bishop.

Lest we forget! Lest we forget!

As a cradle Episcopalian, I am sad about the split-off of dioceses and parishes. However, I am not confused about Christianity. Christianity is not, and was never meant to be, worship of Jesus. It was always a question of being pointed to the Father. Whatever happened to "love God" and "love your neighbor as yourself"? On these two commandments "hang all the Law..."

Folks who split off from the ECUSA are welcome to go, of course, but it's absolutely untrue that the ECUSA left THEM - or "left Christianity." The Episcopal Church is engaged in trying to live out Jesus' commandments to love God and love our neighbors as we love our own selfish selves.

I have to agree with "good riddance." These people who want permission to hate, and to exclude from fellowship the people they hate, are not Christians. Jesus didn't give that permission. He specifically said for us to love each other, and in particular those who don't seem to deserve our love.

Thus the radical nature of Jesus' life and message, and thus the 2,000 year old difficulty with living out the Good News. I personally believe that Jesus would be horrified to witness what people do to each other in his name.

Rob-Roy - It's not a popularity contest.

In my mind, Martin Luther's chief sin was committed when he broke relations with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and formed his own Christian church, instead of remaining united with the RCC and working for change from within it. The most serious negative effect of Luther's breaking faith with the RCC was the resultant, ever-increasing disunity in Christianity (though he probably was unaware at the time as we all many times are unaware of all the repercussions of our own sins when we're "in the act".)

"Goodbye - and good riddance."

Ah, yes. Let's get rid of all those "fundies." Let us slur them with epithets like "homo haters" while we drive them from our church.

The denomination was already the fastest declining. Ms Schori had the worst population adjusted decline while bishop of Nevada. Despite this, the liberals chose her to be presiding bishop. Now, she rules by fiat and whim, violating canon law right and left to purify the denomination. Believe anything you want, EXCEPT traditional Christian thought.

Poor Mr. Balmer will get his purified denomination, cleansed of people that can actually grow a church. How ironic that he predicts the demise of the new province which is growing exponentially.

Now if folks were also a fan of Bruce Chilton and his epic work entitled RABBI JESUS -- The Jewish Life and Teachings That Inspired Christianity -- An Intimate Biography published in 2000 by Image-Doubleday.

We are now in 2008, almost 2009 and yet Christians have yet to fathom an observation of Chilton's that can be found on Pp. 172, to wit:

.... Rabbi Jesus' spiritual discipline was the crucible of what would within a century, become a new religion. The elements of this new religion -- the Kingdom, the one like the person, [The Son of Man -- alternate translation] Chariot, Spirit, exorcism and purity -- were all taken directly from Judiasm. ... Part of the heat in the reactor that generated Christianity was caused by the pressure from Antipas; part came from Jesus' insistance that the disciples have the same kind of faith in him that they had in his Abba. This was an outgrowth with his identification with the "one like a person." Jesus had begun to see himself as part of the heavenly court. That identification would lead, in time, to a funde3mental mistake. Christianity would reduce the angelic "son of man" in all its resonances and complexities to Jesus as THE ONE AND ONLY [Emph Ours] 'son of God." In Jesus' exile from Galilee in the years between 27 and 29C.E. we see how the Trinity began to take root in Christianity, gradually crowding out any other understanding of heaven until the angelic center of Jesus' own spirituality was lost.

In a complex international environment that today exist, where Jesus is seen as only a Prophet in Islam, I do not go quite that far. For me, Jesus is the Son of God, but alas this allows for other traditions to also have their great saints/gurus/saviors and it does not diminish in one iota, the credibility that Jesus holds in mine belief structure.

Boy, you Christians seem to have problems with an awful lot of people.

Spidermean:

Miracles do happen, I actually agree with u on this one.

I dont understand why if a homosexual believes in the bible and christianity, that they would do so knowing it harshly condemns it to the point of death (They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway: Romans 1:24. And I'm sure there are more medievil horrors in there).

It seems insane to support an institution that so clealy reviles you. One can only ponder if as god made man in his own image that maybe god himself is in the closet!!

It is interesting though how the changing moral zeitgeist has made many of these 1st century ideals seem so utterly disgusting by todays standards.

Before going to the cross, Jesus said: "I-once I am lifted from the earth will draw all men to myself." These words are a call for unity, especially among Christians. Unfortunately, Christians at times, like this, make a mess of those words.

Whatever differences exist among the various Christian denominations should be worked on privately and not in a forum like this.

How much better it would have been to demonstrate your love for God, by helping your fellow Christians prepare for Christmas.

"Should they leave the Episcopal Church? Yes, of course they should leave. They already have."

No, in this case, they did not leave the church. The church in many areas, not limited to acceptance of homosexuality, left Christianity as it is given to us in scripture and tradition. To remain true to the historic principles of the faith, these 'schismatics,' as you put it, had to pull away.

This is a terrible and painful split, and the deeply felt convictions of those who choose to follow scripture's guidance against the current of both their culture and their church deserve more than a flippant 'good riddance.'

I offer my thoughts on Biblical Marriage, which seem a propos to this discussion:

Talking Points for the Religious Right's efforts to legislate "Biblical Marriage", with references to the textual support found in the Bible:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Spiderman

Homophobia is not part of Christianity; it is YOUR add-on. Therefore, please YOU do not call yourself a Christian.

A gay-hater, maybe, but not a Christian.

"Likewise, their men have given up natural sexual relations with women and burn with lust for each other. Men commit indecent acts with men, so they experience among themselves the punishment they deserve for their perversion." (Romans 1:27)

What's about this Bible verse that the gay marriage supporters don't understand?

Invent your own religion and don't BASTARDIZE Christianity. Call yourselves some other names but NOT Christian. That would solve the problem.

Let's look at Mr. Balmer's muddled "argument". Paul states that a bishop should be a husband of one wife. But because there are divorced and remarried bishops in the Episcopal denomination, then there should be homosexual bishops, too.

Sorry, Mr. Balmer, the twice divorced, thrice married bishop of Northern California is a disgrace as is Mr Robinson. (And let's just not talk about the retired bishop of Utah who "married" his homosexual lover and had five previous marriages between the two of them.)

And no Mr. Balmer, the new province hardly defines itself in terms of homosexuality though the Episcopal denomination is increasingly defines itself in terms of its pro-homosexual agenda. Homosexuality was hardly mentioned at GAFCon, but the liberal revisionists drone on and on about "inclusion", homosexual rights, etc. The inclusive church they are building is very monochrome in ideology (lefty looney) and Caucasian.

The Episcopal Church was born of the decapitated head of Ann Bolyn, at the direction of the mad King Henry the VIII.

So what?

Almost all religious accomodations are the result of violent political coercion, even military conquest and occupation. Or, else, an expedient compromise of some committee, seeking to avoid conflict, that no one really agrees with.

So why be so proud?

All religions, all without any exceptions, are far removed from any real God, and none of them can be right. All are mere cultural settings, into which we are born, and we must all accomodate our experiences and our doubts to these already-existing theological institutions, and navigate our way, as best we can through the religious institutions that have been handed to us, ready-made.

I do not think that basing a whole church on principles of homophobia is anything to be proud of, and I do not think anything that promotes an anti-gay agenda, and that demonizes and vilifies gay people can be thought of as "principled."

I was under the impression that the split was at least as much about claims against the Trinity. Homosexuality isn't a major theological issue, IMO, but central doctrinal disputes are a different kettle of fish entirely.

I am amused by the post merely based on its utter disdain for those who have taken a very principled stance on an issue that the writer simply disagrees with. You do not see that often in this forum. "Get lost and good riddance". That is surprising. But hell hath no fury like the gay mafia and that mindset. However, I also do not miss the irony that we are talking about the Anglican church that is the result of a schism from the Roman Catholic church based only upon appeasing a monarch Henry the VIII on the issue of divorce. The Anglican church is up to its old tricks again. However, it is actually the existing church and its hierarchy that are breaking away from a group of the faithful rather than the other way around. This issue is very similiar to the early issue. We are going to do this becuase we "want" to even though it flies utterly in the face of the Gospels, biblical history and tradition. The self-serving parsing of the Gospels and biblical passages done by the author is somewhat comical. It shows the level of argument that is required for someone who is a teacher of "theology". Jesus said very little about incest, abortion, bestiality and various other unnatural and disordered and down right evil and sinful topics as well. I would like to see the author advocate on behalf of incest on the same grounds as he argues on behalf of legitimizing the active and open practice of homosexuality in the churches magisterium. I will not hold my breath.

Thoughtful post! I totally agree with you about "the ruse of selective literalism" amongst conservatives.