Thanks for letting us know that there are clergy who publicly believe that unions that are legal are bless-able.

In other words, dearly beloved, let it be marriage.

"In other words, dearly beloved, let it be marriage."

Posted by Josh Thomas | October 21, 2010 1:44 AM

Absolutely, Josh. Absolutely.

First, I need to say that I am absolutely in favor of legal equality for all couples, straight and gay, but the church is not the same as the world, and, to the extent the church follows the world or ever-meandering liberal opinion, she makes herself superfluous.

I am reminded of an episode of the Simpsons, where the minister of the church that Homer and Marge attend concludes that since gambling is legal, it must be moral, must be OK. This is the same sort of conclusion Episcopal clergy are arriving at, utterly conforming the church to secular society. St. Paul would hardly have concluded that since same-sex unions are legal, they must also be OK for Christians.

If the Church was interested in "conforming itself to secular society," as Mr. Abernethy claims, we'd have TV sets in our sanctuaries, not altars.

It's time to retire that aging canard, pal. We gather for church, not to watch NASCAR.

We live in a time when the current generation of young adults increasingly rejects all of Christianity because of the political opposition to same-sex marriage they see from Christian leaders on TV.

This has serious consequences for their souls and for our Church. TEC struggles very hard to get our inclusive message out - but they don't hear us; more sensational voices drown us out. We must be persistent and creative, because we're talking about the very essence of our baptismal covenant.

This generation has made a moral choice about Gay people, Gay rights and Gay marriage - namely that inequality is unacceptable and un-American.

I think we ought to listen to their moral voices. I believe that because I was around in 1964, when my generation also made a moral choice that racism was unacceptable - no matter how much older people tried to defend it, no matter how hard the political system resisted change.

Discrimination is wrong. It's immoral, and the Holy Spirit will dismantle it no matter how many Thurmonds get in her way.

If TEC's Standing Commission produces some watered-down blessing that is less than marriage in those states where same-sex civil marriage is allowed, we will be telling today's generation of young adults (and all generations to come) that we are afraid to live up to the full implications of our faith - afraid to follow the Holy Spirit we claim to love.

That's not the message I want us to send. I'd like to see my Episcopal parish on the same corner at 6th & Ferry a hundred years from now, not boarded up, knocked down or paved over.

When secular society is fairer and more courageous than Christians are, we're the ones who have to play catch-up. The fact that other Churches are even slower on this than we are is daunting for all of American Christianity.

Lemme see if I have this straight, Craig A: if the State grants legal equality to same-sex couples (which you favor), that means it's "of the world", and the church must oppose it within her hallowed sanctuaries?

Or do I miss the finer points of your logic? O_o

More to the point: same-sex couples, the ones directly involved is this subject, are going to perpetually present themselves at the altar for Christian marriage ("accepting no substitutes"). That's just a GIVEN, Craig.

How long are YOU prepared to block them?

JC Fisher

To JCF: I am not opposed to legal equality; as I tried to make clear, I am in favor of that. And, of course, the state is a part of the world.

This is the same world that Paul exhorts Christians not to be conformed to, still a pretty good idea, I believe.

What I am opposed to is trashing the New Testament definition of Christian marriage.

What TEC needs to do, I think, is grow a backbone and assert its own standard of marriage, as found in the Book of Common Prayer, the church's two marriage canons, and the New Testament. The definition of marriage is something that TEC has gotten right, and it should be maintained.

Abandoning those Christian standards is not just accommodation, but a capitulation. The church may as well shut down, if it is just going to mimic secular society.

If liberalism embraces, say, polygamy, will the Episcopal Church be required to make that change as well? Is there any limit to the process of de-Christianizing TEC?

With regards, Craig

I will accept your regards, Craig, if you will answer my question.

JC Fisher

Craig, I am a transgendered Christian woman. Who am I allowed to be married to in church, a man or a woman?

With respectful regard to your sincerely held views, why is the church being 'superfluous' if it seeks to bless a couple in the tender love and commitment of their relationship and fidelity, whether male, female, or intersex, or whatever? Why does my marriage to a man? woman? whatever gender you believe a transgendered woman is allowed to woman... harm your marriage to a woman in any way? Surely the only thing that harms heterosexual marriage is heterosexual infidelity? Why is the equal care and recognition of gender-variant marriages 'superfluous'?

Isn't it, really, the insistence that scripture has to be interpreted literally, that makes it hard to recognise the psychological and gender and sexual complexities, and integrities, that are actually about people whose love transcends gender, and is about love and commitment?

Would you be as literal about a humanity with no ancestors, created outside animal evolution, or Noah's ark and the worldwide flood that wiped out all other lifeforms in human memory, etc?

Why is a fallible bible a threat to faith and love?

Were women really to be subordinate sometimes because of a sin committed first by Eve? Was that ancestorless Eve necessary for Paul's views on women? Was Paul as infallible as the Pope?

What I'm saying is that, as you will well know, there is no monolithic way of responding to the bible. Christians may take fundamentalist views on it, and still have love and faith. Christians may perceive it as the searchings of faithful authors, trying to make sense, like us, in their own times, in their own cultures, as we in our turn try to...

...trying to discern ways of affirming God's love... and not all coming to the same neat, boxed up, solutions.

Life can be complex. Diversity need not threaten majority orientations at all. I'm a transsexual woman. Who does the church say I may marry? A man or a woman. And why oh why should it matter, if I have faith and love and kindness?

I ask, because St Paul was not aware of transgender surgery, or computers, or evolution calling Eve's 'first sin' into question (was there not death in the world, long before humans existed?).

In short, the integrity of your faith appeals to me, but so does the integrity of the Rev Robinson's faith.

God bless you.

sorry, typo:

"allowed to woman"... should read "allowed to marry"

Dear JC Fisher: To answer your question, I am not blocking anything. The decision, for or against same-sex weddings, is up to the Bishop. As it happens, our Diocesan Bishop adheres to the New Testament definition of marriage (hurrah for Bishop Wolf; long may she reign!).

If words mean anything, same-sex marriages are something other than Christian marriage, as defined in the New Testament. Why can't they then take place in UUA (Unitarian) parishes, or before a Justice of the Peace (as in Massachusetts), where they are not a problem?

And *my* question remains unanswered: if liberalism comes to embrace, say, polygamy, will the church again be told that it has to make that adjustment, in the name of the sub-ethical slogan of "inclusion"? Are there any limits to this process of conforming the church to secular society, which, in New Testament terms, leads to an open-ended ethical disaster?

In a society with religious freedom, Christians and our churches should be free to adhere to our own standards, the standards of the New Testament and the Book of Common Prayer. There are actually more important things than gaining the admiration of liberal society.

With regards,
Craig

Craig:

If words mean anything, same-sex marriages are something other than Christian marriage, as defined in the New Testament.

Two (unmarried, unrelated) Christians (not Unitarians, God love them) seek marriage in the Church. How can you possibly construe anything in the New Testament that would prevent them from doing so? [NB: if you cite the Clobber Verses (canards!), I will be compelled---due to my "backbone"---to deny you my regards.]

And *my* question remains unanswered: if liberalism comes to embrace, say, polygamy

Sorry, but not being a theological "liberal", I really can't comment (Ask one of our Unitarian friends, perhaps?)

While it's common to cite (ad nauseum) "Bishop Spong" when describing the theology of TEC, MOST Episcopalians (both in my experience, and I think reflected at our GCs) are (au contraire) creedally orthodox. Theologically, Episcopalians aren't a terribly innovative bunch (Just ask Kevin Thew Forrester. Disclaimer: Although had I been in the position to vote, I *probably* would have voted to confirm him).

Specifically re polygamy. Is there a Polygamy Caucus in TEC I'm unaware of? (an advocacy group called "Claiming the Polygamous Blessing"? O_o). Have we been ordaining the openly polygamous (in openly polygamous relationships) for 30+ years? Craig, do you even KNOW a polygamist, or an advocate for same, within TEC?

I'm an Episcopal lifer, who's been all around the USA in TEC. I've never met one yet. I don't believe there is ANY plausible reason, to suspect the General Convention of the Episcopal Church would come to "embrace polygamy". Can I ask where you came up w/ the example of "say, polygamy"?

JC Fisher