There’s a legitimate and long standing strain of pacifism in Christian history. It’s a minority position, but it’s been there. No legitimate strain approving of alternative sexual practices has ever existed. God created us male and female, and there it stands. Marry, or abstain.

What this bishop really means is, “Shut up.”

Katherine,
While what you have stated about creation and sexual practice is undoubtedly true, there are those who want to have it both ways. I am sure that there are many adulterers who wish that the Church would cut them some slack. For my money, if the “church” is going to OK same-gender sex, then it should quit obsessing about adultery and fornication, for there will be no logical basis for either of those stances.

If human sexuality is such a core part of our being – and, by the way, I think it is – then the Church has a choice between two courses: 1) abide by what is found in Scripture regarding marriage between one man and one woman or chastity in singleness, or 2)just declare that God got it wrong and that anything goes as far as expressing one’s sexuality. Anything else is hypocritical as “Love” can be used to trump any scruples about sexual behavior.

Of course, if a church decided to go with option 2, I think that body would cease to be Christian in any real sense, because I do not remember Jesus ever making a statement that anything goes.

James Jones, Jim Jones, same name, different flavoured kool-aid. Results, same.

Allen, some have noted that it is precisely tolerance for fornication and adultery that preceded the current difficulties.

Essentially there is no “Anglican theology.” There is plenty of opinion but no theology. Of course, we are all welcome to our individual opinions and no one can really tell us that our opinion is wrong. But then honestly, if your opinion is liberal you are an enlightened progressive. However, if your opinion is conservative you are a hideous Nazi.

Mr. Johnson, I think you are too hard on Bp Jones. There are many pacifist bishops, who maintain that they are right, but allow that others may conclude othewise.

Bp Jones’s error in the analogy, in my opinion, is that a Biblical case may be made for pacifism, as well as for self defense and a just war.

There really is no Biblical case for the sodomy lobby. The main justification seems to be that you can ignore inconvenient Scripture if your natural urges are strong enough. If that argument is accepted, you’ve demolished the logical supports of having something we call the Word of God.

As Katherine notes the debate on pacifism is both legitimate and longstanding. The revisionists today did not find anything in Scripture or Tradition that caused an “Aha!” moment. Their motivation and justification comes from culture and politics, and, in some cases, self interest.

Then let us apply “a variety of ethical convictions” across the spectrum, e.g. “Thou shalt not steal” could have a monetary sin level, say over $50, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” could apply only to the next-door neighbors, not those who are in the second house over and beyond, and “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” shall mean that which is “holy” to the individual, such as the watching of “Sacred Football.” And on an on. How nice, according to this clown, that God has allowed us to have such a variety of ethical convictions. Too bad He only provided for ONE Lake of Fire.

Always a little worried when people start talking about the actions of Jesus in relation to war/foreign policy in general.

Jesus allowed himself to be crucified by those who saw themselves as his enemies. For my personal salvation I am thankful. Applied and extended to foreign policy? Not a good idea.

“Just as the church over the last 2000 years has come to allow a variety of ethical conviction about the taking of life and the application of the sixth Commandment so I believe that in this period it is also moving towards allowing a variety of ethical conviction about people of the same gender loving each other fully.”

*sigh* This is why some people need to be beaten about the head with the collected volumes of St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Summa Theologicae”.

Yes, there is a tradition of Christian pacifism. Yes, the Pope for one has expressed the view that the State should not use capital punishment while others say that it is a legitimate function. But one thing both pacifists and those who support capital punishment agree on is that murder is wrong. Nobody is going around saying “Your interpretation of the sixth commandment only applies to those who do not have a genetic component to their homicidal psychopathy.” No-one, as yet, has argued that the ancient Hebrews had no knowledge of modern psychiatry and genetics and so did not understand that for some people, the instinct to chop up strangers with an axe is inherent and not a matter of choice.

“If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them?”

I cannot believe the man said this. I cannot believe it. Swap out “gay” for other sexual alternatives and see how it runs.

“If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful adulterous/incestuous/polygamous/under-age relationships are wrong what will their sin be? That in a world of such little love two or more people sought to express a love that no other relationship could offer them?”

Seriously, what is the guy on? It may be very sad that Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith are madly in love and cannot find any comfort in their unhappy marriages, but is he seriously saying that so what if they have a long-running affair lasting years and only break their marriage vows with one another, and what harm does it do if it’s a sin?

If it’s a sin, it damns your soul to Hell, is what harm it does. I feel a strong tempation to festoon that last with exclamation marks, but I will refrain, because as Terry Prachett has pointed out, multiple exclamation marks in a written communication is a sign of wearing one’s underpants on one’s head.

“…for our sexuality like ethnicity is not a matter of choice. It is a given.”

Well, our gender is a given. I have to argue with his use of “sexuality” in this context. He is confusing gender with sexual activity. We don’t have to act on all our urges.

Who cares about those pointy hats unless they’re from Rome or a minority non-mainstream church with such – and even then, I’d be extremely careful about a given bishop’s orthodoxy before submitting myself to him. [The same applies to the Orthodox.]

I’ve no respect any more for mainstream “Anglicanism” – they can ALL literally ‘go hang’!! That Mr. James Jones is just one such who should be cannon-fodder for the gallows as a soul-murderer!!!!

Christopher -

I have to take exception to one of your points: by failing to censor Spong (and Pike before him), TEC did, I think, act (fail to act, technically) officially and corporately. In fact, Spong would have been in a homosexual relationship, had he been so inclined, since his doctrine of sexuality is precisely that of Robinson’s. Which is to say that Robbie’s ordination didn’t mark anything new in the life of the Episcopal Church. Rather, it simply “made flesh” what was already widely accepted teaching.

I will admit that prior to 2003, I had a hope that TEC might pull back from the edge of the cliff and avoid the plunge. But I think that was wrong. In 1994, Spong presented the Koinonia Statement, which included this statement:

But we also believe that those who know themselves to be gay or lesbian persons, and who do not choose to live alone, but forge relationships with partners of their choice that are faithful, monogamous, committed, life giving and holy are to be honored. We will continue to relate to these couples with our support, our pastoral care, our prayers and our recognitions, in whatever form is deemed appropriate, that God is indeed present in their life together.

90 TEC bishops signed it.

Why is Gene Robinson different in essence from any other those bishops?

Once again, if you swallow Pike and Spong, why on God’s green Earth would you strain at Robinson and Righter?

But there *isn’t* a difference of ethical opinion about whether or not unjust killing is wrong! There is only a difference about which killings are unjust; and whether some or all are called to the harder path of refraining even from killing that is just.

Translated to the language of sexuality… There is no difference of opinion (among Christians) that extramarital sex is wrong. Nor is there even a difference of opinion about what is ‘extramarital’ – that’s pretty clear cut, to say the least.

There is only the question of whether some (scarcely all!) are called to the harder path of refraining even from marriage.

I agree with Fuinseoig; a sack full of the Summa applies about the head and shoulders should do the trick. If you need extra heft, add a few shelves of the Church Fathers.

Ken, I guess what I was getting at was that 2003 made everything “legal.” We all knew that was what TEO believed but the bishops, clergy and laity voting on it in convention made it official. Prior to 2003, folks like Louie Crew, Susan Russell and the rest of the Integrity crowd were extremist goofballs. After Robbie got his pointy hat, Integrity became the Episcopal mainstream and people like me became the “extremists.”

To add on to what Chris said, from the point that people like Chris and me became seen as the “extremists” meant and means that we are to be exterminated at all costs. There is no tolerance to our position.

Once again, the finger-pointing is at the gaygaygaygaymemememememe rather than the root of the problem – not believing and obeying the Word of God. The gay stuff is just one issue that is cherry-picked. Abortion and fornication among heterosexuals are other issues swept under the carpet as being inconvenient. They are just symptoms of the problem.

Stupid LibProt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USLAHPQ0-8g

The comments of James Jones are not logical. His comparisons are not legitimate. His arguments are not valid. What is evident in the church today is that those advocating revision are confused and confusing.Their thinking is muddled. Rom. 1:28-32.The conservatives who balk at the call for unity in the face of heresy are called schismatics. What is clear is that the church will prevail against the gates of hell.

“What Jonesy’s address boils down to, of course, is that the liberal view should prevail but that liberals should be magnanimous enough to cash conservative pledge checks since the reactionaries spend the same money that us good guys do.”

Chris, that about sums it up straight across the board. Triumphant liberals striking a magnanimous pose looks for all the world like smug condescension to me. My assumption is that they think I’m too dimwitted to know the difference.

Actually, there’s no reason at all that gays cannot marry, except that they aren’t attracted to the people with whom marriage would be possible.

Which is unfortunate, but let’s keep things clear: it’s not that gay marriage is evil. It’s that gay marriage is impossible, like square circles.

People who are not called to marriage, for whatever the reason (not interested, never met the right person, other things are the focus of life) are called to abstain from sexual relations. There’s no difference between the situation of a “gay” or “lesbian” and the situation of a man or woman who might be interested in marriage but has not made that commitment.

Wait a minute.
Let’s concede his main point, which is not unintelligent. There is a difference of opinion in the Church, and has been for centuries, about the sinfulness of violence within a context of communal defense. That much is true. Of course, the Church ruled on this issue, and well before Constantine, against the pacifist position, but there is a legitimate and long standing argument there.

Nonetheless, to become a priest, ONE IS REQUIRED TO RENOUNCE VIOLENCE even in communal self-defense! A priest, in both East and West, may not shed blood, except in legitimate self-defense. St Francis, St Martin, St Ignatius, a whole host of saints had to leave the soldier’s life BEFORE they could take up the priesthood. Christian chaplains are not allowed to carry a rifle. Many won’t even carry a sidearm.

By this clown’s own analogy we may conclude that homosexual practice, like military violence, must be eschewed before acceptance into the priesthood.

Christopher –

What AA said:

…the root of the problem – not believing and obeying the Word of God.

My comment came out of recent ruminations on the primacy of doctrine. Praxis matters, of course, but what we believe drives what we do. Hence, both of the bishops suffragan-elect in Los Angeles will encourage homosexually-inclined persons to enter into relationships, although only one of them is actually living in one. I suppose you can say that Glasspool is leading by example, but to my mind’s eye, it’s not logical to approve one without approving the other.

I’d respect these people more if they stopped pretending to accept the traditional views as options (BTW by definition they’re not mere options) and said: ‘Look, we’re a gay church. And we ordain women. Accept that or leave.’

As my friend Brother Stephen (RC) said when the Episcopalians recently came close to saying that, ‘bully for General Convention’.

Ditherers like Dr Williams and the conservative Episcopalians begging to be included understandably don’t get no respect.

Why I’m not a pacifist even though I’m anti-war.

So, what was the situation with Major General Polk of the Confederate Army? He was a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Is it OK for clergy to take a leave of absence to go kill Yankees? (He was killed in battle, so he never resumed his bishopric.)

@Ed the Roman:

As you say marriage has a specific definition and function. It is like a bolt, which consists of a single nut and a single screw joined and working together. Unless you have a single nut and a single screw joined and working together nothing else can ever satisfy the laws of physics governing the definition or function of a bolt. Two nuts (or more) on their own or two screws (or more) on their own can never fulfil either the definition of, or the function of, a bolt regardless of how much one twists the language. If a purpose or function can be found for two nuts on their own or two screws on their own, then a new definition must be found for that function but it can never be called a bolt.

James Jones, Jim Jones, same name, different flavoured kool-aid. Results, same.

That Mr. James Jones is just one such who should be cannon-fodder for the gallows as a soul-murderer!!!!

From: http://themcj.com/?p=9965#comments

This is his parody of conservative views

I really do wonder sometimes why I bother.

Or how about Episcopalian Chaplain William Downey on the Eve of the Feast of Transfiguration, August 1945?

“Is it OK for clergy to take a leave of absence to go kill Yankees?”

JM, you know that somebody is going to say “Yes” to that.

My man Tommy A. covered this bit:

“Question 40. War
1.Is some kind of war lawful?
2.Is it lawful for clerics to fight?
3.Is it lawful for belligerents to lay ambushes?
4.Is it lawful to fight on holy days?”

Short answers:
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Depends – only in cases of extreme necessity or unavoidable.

Longer answer:

“Now warlike pursuits are altogether incompatible with the duties of a bishop and a cleric, for two reasons. The first reason is a general one, because, to wit, warlike pursuits are full of unrest, so that they hinder the mind very much from the contemplation of Divine things, the praise of God, and prayers for the people, which belong to the duties of a cleric. Wherefore just as commercial enterprises are forbidden to clerics, because they unsettle the mind too much, so too are warlike pursuits, according to 2 Timothy 2:4: “No man being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular business.” The second reason is a special one, because, to wit, all the clerical Orders are directed to the ministry of the altar, on which the Passion of Christ is represented sacramentally, according to 1 Corinthians 11:26: “As often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come.” Wherefore it is unbecoming for them to slay or shed blood, and it is more fitting that they should be ready to shed their own blood for Christ, so as to imitate in deed what they portray in their ministry. For this reason it has been decreed that those who shed blood, even without sin, become irregular. Now no man who has a certain duty to perform, can lawfully do that which renders him unfit for that duty. Wherefore it is altogether unlawful for clerics to fight, because war is directed to the shedding of blood.”

2.Is it lawful for clerics to fight?

absolutely! Especially in a crusade against the apostate, heretic, or infidel.

Consider Bishop Adhemar of Le Puy who lead the siege of Antioch, and in
response to the Saracen siege later, had the gates to the city locked to
prevent crusaders deserting!

cat ate my html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Adhémar_de_Monteil_à_Antioche.jpeg

The pacifism issue seems somewhat off topic, but C.S. Lewis has an excellent essay on the subject in the ‘Weight of Glory’ collection. Basically he observes that pacifism gives an incorrect application of the verses from the sermon on the mount which is outside their scope. Using the same interpretation would lead to absurdity. For example in dealing with a spoiled child: “If he steals the jam, give him the cookies also.”

I know that sometimes it stretches us, but never to breaking point, for it seems to me that there is a generosity of grace that holds us all together.

But if it is not worth acting on your convictions with regards to sexual ethics, then why is it worth acting on your convictions with regards to unity? It seems the Bishop’s argument is like an acid that dissolves everything, including the jar that contains it. This is because it is based on a vague analogy. Unfortunately he cannot get more specific, else he would undermine the point he is trying to get you to believe.

Hey, Sinner, I looked at that thread and didn’t find the lake of fire, the gallows, or soul-murder. Never mind, though. On both sides, there are people who take the most extreme expressions of a few and extend them as if everyone in the target group thinks that way. Fun, but not especially valid.