Monday, February 13, 2012

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Episcopal Divinity School Hosts Seminar by Pro-Polyamory Cleric

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 • 2:28 pm


Says here that “the Rev. Marvin Ellison will be featured speakers on November 13 on a day honoring feminist scholars in the Church at Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts.”

And hey look at that… says here that Rev Ellison claims same-sex marriage is only the beginning:

But those moral innovations may be only the beginning. Why not legitimize threesomes and foursomes? What about bisexuals, who are attracted to both genders? And why not abolish marriage altogether?

Such eyebrow-raisers are posed by Marvin Ellison, the ethics professor at the United Church of Christ’s Bangor (Maine) Theological Seminary, in “Same-Sex Marriage?: A Christian Ethical Analysis,” published by the United Church’s Pilgrim Press.

Ellison was married to a woman but didn’t find that estate “particularly user-friendly” and now lives openly with a gay partner. He’s a clergyman in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and was appointed to the panel that wrote its 1991 sex study, which was rejected as too liberal.

His rather superficial and repetitious book is perhaps significant in signaling a new strategy among liberal Protestants seeking to topple traditional sexual rules. Ellison no longer ponders the Bible passages that have been cited for centuries to forbid same-sex behavior and exalt heterosexual monogamy. He simply ignores them.

The headline news is Ellison’s leap beyond the current nationwide discussion to pursue long-term implications.

He thinks “a lively debate is needed,” for instance, on whether marriage should now be redefined to recognize “polyamorous” people, those involved with “multiple partners.”

The other speaker, The Rev. Renita Weems, is giving a talk titled “Baking Cakes to the Queen of Heaven: God, Goddesses, and Growing Up Black and Female in America.” No indication if those are raisin cakes she’s talking about, but I’m not optimistic.


54 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

”...same-sex marriage is only the beginning…”
I don’t doubt it!

[1] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2008 at 01:44 PM • top

The truth is these folks were probably abused in some way and need Jesus’ healing.  On the other hand they want to open the floodgates and take as many with them to hell as they can.  ARGH!!  Terribly sad. 

So I pray Jesus - heal them, open their eyes, let Your love and peace flow into them.  Amen.

[2] Posted by B. Hunter on 10-01-2008 at 01:48 PM • top

Once you cross the line there is no going back.  Gay unions lead to legitimizing polyamory, polygamy, pedophilia, incest and even bestiality.  How?  When you grant relief to the gays on the basis that they were discriminated against based on their gender, the dam breaks for the others.  The polyamorist says you are discriminating againist them based on the binary nature of marriage.  The pedophile says you are doing so on the basis of age.  The incest afficianado claims discrimination on the basis of familial relationship. The one who wants to enter into a meaningful relationship with “Duke,the wonder dog” claims discrimination based on species.  This is no joke.  Gene Robinson and changes in the law in California and Mass. are only the beginning of a long and painful downward spiral. God has spoken clearly on these matters and we ignore Him at our own peril.

[3] Posted by Don Curran on 10-01-2008 at 01:53 PM • top

It is interesting to read this given that on this site we have “joked” about this kind of thing happening in the future. Wow! The future is here.

[4] Posted by FrVan on 10-01-2008 at 01:53 PM • top

Yes, TEC Province I (New England) had him as featured speaker at their convocation a few years ago as well.  But I’m sure they consider themselves completely orthodox!
http://www.nhepiscopal.org/artman/uploads/p1_2005_convocation.pdf

[5] Posted by Connecticutian on 10-01-2008 at 01:54 PM • top

“Wow! The future is here.”
And it didn’t take long did it Fr. Van? On the matters of Revisionism Episcopal time is like lightening speed. All other things….A turtle would win the race first!

[6] Posted by TLDillon on 10-01-2008 at 01:56 PM • top

And how many people told us that the one had nothing to do with the other (this) and that the other (this) would never happen?

Ellison no longer ponders the Bible passages that have been cited for centuries to forbid same-sex behavior and exalt heterosexual monogamy. He simply ignores them.

TEC is way ahead of him there.

[7] Posted by oscewicee on 10-01-2008 at 01:57 PM • top

Ellison no longer ponders the Bible passages that have been cited for centuries to forbid same-sex behavior and exalt heterosexual monogamy. He simply ignores them.

And therein is the problem, my friends, openly declared for all to see.  TEC is doing the exact same thing, attempting to de-couple Scripture from Church Teachings to insure cultural relevance with 2008 and beyond. 

Pity the road to heaven isn’t paved with “cultural relevance”.  Imagine some of our new teachings, and what they will have to be:

“Blessed are the Culturally Relevant, for they shall reach the afterlife.”

“You should love Cultural Relevance with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, this is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like unto it, you should love your Culturally Relevant neighbor as yourself.”

“Study what this means, I came to demand Cultural Relevance, not sacrifice.”

“Thou shalt not become Culturally Irrelevant.”

There it is.  The core theology of TEC that no one has been able to identify, slipped into some easy to remember former Bible verses.  All done.

KTF!....mrb

[8] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 10-01-2008 at 01:57 PM • top

It’s inevitable.  The only standard of sexual morality allowed by autonomy is consent.  And people will consent to polyamorous relationships.  What grounds exist to restrict any freely chosen sexual activity if consent is the only requirement?  Monogamy cannot stand under such a construct.  Homosexuals understand this.  The path to homosexual liberation is the demolition of all sexual restraint.  For all sexual restraints are intended to privilege heterosexual monogamy.

carl

[9] Posted by carl on 10-01-2008 at 02:02 PM • top

If we are about to enter a recession or even a depression, it will have the benefit of making people realize that life is difficult and that hard choices have to be made.

How many of our “progressive” friends are supported by income from investments?  I have an idea that some of the frothy ideas we have been hearing are due to economic froth and a foolishly hyperactive market.

[10] Posted by AnglicanXn on 10-01-2008 at 02:25 PM • top

And once again, the “leftists” have no idea what they are supporting, for to throw out the idea of marriage between one man and one woman is to open women up to discrimination and abuse of power. Check out this article by Dennis Prager posted on the Catholic Education Resource Center website on the history of Judiasm’s sexual revolution.
Here are the opening two paragraphs - it is very worth a read:

Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.

[11] Posted by Branford on 10-01-2008 at 02:36 PM • top
[12] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 10-01-2008 at 02:37 PM • top

Bless their hearts!

[13] Posted by Nikolaus on 10-01-2008 at 03:05 PM • top

Look for the news media to pick this up and run with it…it has started already.

[14] Posted by Adam 12 on 10-01-2008 at 03:10 PM • top

The national Review piece in #12 is almost beyond comprehension. SSB issues in TEC seem pretty tame. The tip of the iceberg hasn’t even broken the surface apparently. Nice to see Gloria Steinem is keeping her hand in. Haven’t heard from her for a while.

[15] Posted by Doubting Thomas on 10-01-2008 at 03:17 PM • top

Yeap! That’s EDS for you.

[16] Posted by Alice Linsley on 10-01-2008 at 03:27 PM • top

I am reminded (yet again), and this time can no longer resist mentioning, the opera by P. D. Q. Bach entitled Hansel and Gretel and Ted and Alice: an Opera in One Unnatural Act. It was created quite some number of years ago, but it is apparent that its real inspiration is only now arriving on the scene.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

[17] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 10-01-2008 at 04:07 PM • top

God-forbid anyone here should be found on the trail this organization prides itself on blazing.


Wide gates and easy roads.

-gato-

[18] Posted by gatogordo on 10-01-2008 at 04:18 PM • top

And I quote: “I am the village idiot, I don’t have anything at all to do with this pathetic little opera, I was just passing through.”

[19] Posted by jamesk on 10-01-2008 at 04:18 PM • top

sorry, i’m referring to TEO.

[20] Posted by gatogordo on 10-01-2008 at 04:19 PM • top

It is interesting to read this given that on this site we have “joked” about this kind of thing happening in the future. Wow! The future is here.

I was never joking.  I was deadly serious.  I give TEC about 30 years for polyamory to reach where homosexuality is now.  This is about how long it took to go from WO and the founding of Integrity.  It will be very amusing listening to all the advocates of “Lifelong Long Monogamous Homosexual relations” when they find themselves labled the reactionary bigots and shoved out of the church, not doubt to form the “Anglican Province of Gay is Okay But Only One at a Time.”

[21] Posted by AndrewA on 10-01-2008 at 04:39 PM • top

“Lifelong Long Monogamous Homosexual relations”

This is and always has been a stalking horse.  Liberals know very well that there is no such thing, and will never be any such thing.  But they can’t very well go around trying to justify the actual sexual behavior of homosexuals.  So they invent a concept, pretend it exists, and say they support that instead.  But what they are really supporting is unbridled sexual autonomy.  That is the consistent liberal position.  They simply hope to persuade people to chose monogamy as a better choice.  They will present it as a healthier choice perhaps; a happier choice perhaps.  But they will make no moral judgments about sexual behavior that is rooted in consent.  Once liberals make such a judgment, they will have to explain why conservative objections to consensual homosexuality are any less valid than liberal objections to some consensual sexual behavior X.  This differentiation liberals are incapable of performing.

carl

[22] Posted by carl on 10-01-2008 at 04:52 PM • top

BTW, while everyone focuses on the, well, sexy topics… don’t miss…

“Her talk is titled “Baking Cakes to the Queen of Heaven: God, Goddesses, and Growing Up Black and Female in America.”

Wow, more efforts to revive exactly the types of pagan religious practices that were condemned in Scripture.  Are we suprised?  No.

[23] Posted by AndrewA on 10-01-2008 at 05:09 PM • top

OUCH!!!

Gay unions lead to legitimizing polyamory, polygamy, pedophilia, incest and even bestiality.

One minor observation that in no way makes any of this less disturbing or offensive: I do think there is one critical difference between the “polys” and pedophilia/bestiality that revolves around consent. With the “polys” it involves “consenting adults.” Children and animals cannot consent. Unless we completely do away with a basic theological/legal understanding that you have to consent to marry or be in some sort of legal union…..

[24] Posted by Gretta on 10-01-2008 at 05:14 PM • top

Gretta:  The trick is to “demystify” sex and strip away all the taboos until it just becomes another recreational activity.  After all, there is no law saying I can’t play chess with a 12 year old, or play catch with my dog.

[25] Posted by AndrewA on 10-01-2008 at 05:22 PM • top

<strike>Ellison</strike> An evangelical feminist no longer ponders the Bible passages that have been cited for centuries to forbid <strike>same-sex behavior and exalt heterosexual monogamy</strike> female Church leadership over men.  S/He simply ignores them.

One big reason why this evangelical finds evangelical feminists/egalitarians so dangerous, as it’s the same “black magic marker” method of hermeneutics as the sodomites: Simply go along with the culture and ignore in holy scripture what you don’t like.

[26] Posted by LuxRex on 10-01-2008 at 05:25 PM • top

Carl:
There may be for a few (particularly lesbians) actual commitment to “Lifelong Long Monogamous Homosexual relations.” 

However, who cares?  What is such a commitment, but a “lifelong commitment” to the sin of sodomy?  It certainly cannot include lifelong commitment to the Lord.

As Luther said, you can’t hold onto a bundle of sin in your arms and embrace the Savior at the same time….

[27] Posted by LuxRex on 10-01-2008 at 05:32 PM • top

A bit off-topic, but I would really recommend David Virtue’s new piece in the ‘Satire’ section on his website.  It is entitled “How Jefferts Schori (almost) deposed herself”.

It’s hilarious!!!!  smile

[28] Posted by Bill C on 10-01-2008 at 06:31 PM • top

As a man who has been married to one for 19 years, I can attest that women are not particularly “user friendly”.

How much easier it would be to instead find someone who liked sports, fishing, and had the exact same sexual parts and appetites as me.

[29] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 10-01-2008 at 07:07 PM • top

If you will click on the second “...says here” appearing just above the text of this article, you will see that the offending concepts do not represent Mr.Ellison’s own opinion, but are topics to be dealt with in his lecture. The writer of the news report, Richard Ostling, and Greg grifiths have carefully arranged the reporting to achieve the greatest shock effect, resulting in altered
news to create controversy.

Speculation about the sinister effects of gay marriage are widespread, but other than same-sex marriage, none of the concepts has any constituency whatever.

[30] Posted by St. James on 10-01-2008 at 07:08 PM • top

Gretta: Children and animals cannot consent.

A purely arbitray distinction.  As countries begin to liberalize their sexual morality laws, a push to lower the “age of consent” inevitably follows.

Remember those pictures of Elton John performing with male dancers dressed as cub scouts?  Remember what they were celebrating at that event?  The lowering of the age of consent to 16.

[31] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 10-01-2008 at 07:15 PM • top

And in fact the age of consent will keep being driven further down until it becomes coincident with puberty. 

carl

[32] Posted by carl on 10-01-2008 at 07:28 PM • top

“none of the concepts has any constituency whatever”

No constituency with the numbers and powers to influence the law, yet, but the same could have been said of same-sex marriage 30 years ago.  If there is anything the last 50 years have shown, it is that the values of society can not be trusted to remain constant.

[33] Posted by AndrewA on 10-01-2008 at 07:35 PM • top

And in fact the age of consent will keep being driven further down until it becomes coincident with puberty.

At which point those interested in the prepubescent start demanding their “rights”.

[34] Posted by AndrewA on 10-01-2008 at 07:37 PM • top

St. James, the second link includes:
“In his view, strong defense of gay sexuality “requires critiquing the notion that the only moral (and legal) sex is marital sex,” because old sexual categories and moral norms should be reconsidered. In particular, marriage is based on monogamy, which is “limiting and does not reflect the different ways in which couples structure their partnerships.”

[35] Posted by oscewicee on 10-01-2008 at 07:41 PM • top

St. James (#30),

Nice try, but a gay PCUSA preacher who authored a report that was rejected by his church for being too liberal, who left his wife to live with another man, and says “a lively debate is needed” on whether we should abolish marriage and bless polyamorous relationships… just a little fair warning: Around here, you’re not going to convince anybody that that’s not his opinion, his agenda, his cause, indeed his cross.

[36] Posted by Greg Griffith on 10-01-2008 at 07:45 PM • top

Possibly the trends at Fannie Mae etc. were paralleling this ‘theological progress’.  It’s instructive to read about Sen. Barney Frank’s personal arrangements and their influence on developments in the sub-prime mortgage market - starting at paragraph 10 in this article:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

(link found at a comment on a Titus 1:9 post)

[37] Posted by TACit on 10-01-2008 at 08:07 PM • top

Barney Frank is a congressman TACit, not a senator. MA’s senators being John Forbes Kerry and Teddy Kennedy. He is the one person most responsible for Fannie and Freddie’s woes IMO.

[38] Posted by via orthodoxy on 10-01-2008 at 08:23 PM • top

Mea maxima culpa!  Thanks for the correction, via orthodoxy, since I didn’t carefully check all the content of my own comment.  (In fact my mental landscape is getting over-crowded with all the elected representatives in each house who have lots of media play these days, and mixing up titles like that, but I could/should have checked.)  W/r/t the comment I made, it seems to me too that Rep. Frank has played a really large part in the FNMA etc. debacle.
One thing I would like to find out is if the original intents of FNMA and Freddie Mac were more on the level and came to be egregiously misused by clever political critters who saw loopholes to exploit, e.g. through ACORN, rather than having been originally maliciously activist in their conception.  It all reminds me so much of the trend to the debacle that is TEC today. But that is off-topic to this post.

[39] Posted by TACit on 10-01-2008 at 08:37 PM • top

I find it interesting that this polygamy/polyamory conversation comes up now.  The vocal majority in TEC, and the interest/action organizations they have built up, are going to get what they have been wanting when the General Convention meets in 2009 - “full inclusion,” gay marriage, and the disciplining of those who will not agree with the first two. 

So they have to be asking themselves, “Now what?”

I do not think that Integrity, or any of the other similar advocacy groups, will declare victory and disband.  Purpose-driven organizations often take on a life of their own outside of what they advocate, and an organizational sense of self-preservation sets in.  They become too well entrenched, and too many people come to depend on them for their influence, power, and livelihood.  They will need a new cause to survive, and since pushing the envelope of sexual morals seems to be something they do well, and TEC is receptive to it, advocating for “full inclusion” of polygamy/polyamory, etc., makes sense as one of the Next Big Things (the others being, IMHO,  Communion for the unbaptized/non-Christian, and elimination of the current Creeds as a statement of Faith).

As for “full inclusion” of pedophilia, that is more of a problem but I have no doubt that it will eventually be embraced in some form. To not do so calls into question the “full” in “full inclusion,” and contradicts their reading of the Baptismal Covenant. Of course, it will be spun as having nothing to do with sex or predation and everything to do with “love” - merely a debate about who is old enough and able to consent to that love.  So don’t be surprised to hear arguments that go something like this: “If someone is mature enough to understand and receive the Sacraments, then they are old enough to…..   It’s therefore consensual, and VOILA! it’s not immoral!  See how easy that was.  Toss in a couple of words like “bigotry,” “misunderstanding,” and “dignity,” and you have yourselves a cutting-edge TEC cause, my friend. (Instead of pedophiles, we could call them ‘Jerry Lee Lewis Episcopalians’...)

I don’t have time for another wife.

[40] Posted by cliffg on 10-01-2008 at 10:28 PM • top

Martial Artist,  Thanks so much for the link.  I have a copy of “The Abduction Of Figaro”. 
And would love to add another of PDQ’s works.  Has this masterpiece been performed?

[41] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 10-01-2008 at 11:31 PM • top

I have seen a recording, both on LP and on CD, although I don’t know if it is currently available. Probably try amazon.com and/or BestWebBuys. The latter is a shopping bot. I have bought quite a few books through that site, it has a lot of merchants, large & small. If you provide it with your zip code, it will also calculate shipping and sort in order of net price (not including sales tax, if applicable), and it shows for each merchant which states’ sales tax applies. I prefer it to Amazon because it includes so many different merchants.

Blessings,
Martial Artist

[42] Posted by H. Potter (aka Martial Artist) on 10-01-2008 at 11:52 PM • top

Of course, it will be spun as having nothing to do with sex or predation and everything to do with “love” - merely a debate about who is old enough and able to consent to that love.  So don’t be surprised to hear arguments that go something like this: “If someone is mature enough to understand and receive the Sacraments, then they are old enough to….. It’s therefore consensual, and VOILA! it’s not immoral!

Having read a lot of pedophile advocacy, I can say that this is essentially the type of argument used, though at this point most are not all too big on Christianity so they aren’t going to talk about things like sacraments. 

But yes, if sex becomes merely an expression of “love” or “affection” or “pleasure” rather than something with strictly defined boundaries and purposes, then you open up the arugment that of course children can consent to pleasure and love.  After all, they can consent to playing chess, playing football, hugging, kissing etc.  A large part of what is slowing this down is that at this point, even many secular liberals (mostly because of the residual effect of Christian morals even among secularlists) think that sex is somehow not something for children, or at least young children, and many feminists think that sex is about power instead of love. 

BTW, I agree with what was said about advocacy groups achieving a life of their own long after their original goals were accomplished.  Does anyone think the NAACP is going to declare victory and shut itself down if Obama gets elected?

[43] Posted by AndrewA on 10-02-2008 at 05:38 AM • top

Once you declare sex is just an activity vs. what it is designed for - between a married man and woman - all bets are off.

[44] Posted by B. Hunter on 10-02-2008 at 06:04 AM • top

Typical of Episocopal Demon School.  With the likes of Carter Heyward, they can expect only a precipitous freefall into perversion and irrelevancy.  Very N.I.C.E.

[45] Posted by monologistos on 10-02-2008 at 08:09 AM • top

I am waiting with baited breath for when a bishop in a committed and monogamous gay relationship is publicly outed for having had sexual relations with a man other than his partner. Will the HOB rush to depose him? Or will they push for a canon change permitting polyamory instead? Questioning minds want to know.

[46] Posted by yankeeintexas on 10-02-2008 at 10:55 AM • top

EDS=Episcopal Demon school?  I thought it had something to do with erectile disfunction.

[47] Posted by DaveG on 10-02-2008 at 11:42 AM • top

It won’t be long before Province I has a keynote speaker from NAMBLA, too. 

In case you don’t know about that, it’s, apparently(I’m not into that kind of stuff) the North American Man-Boy Love Association. 

Then, again, I really DO love my dog…

hmmm

[48] Posted by Passing By on 10-02-2008 at 06:59 PM • top

To learn about pagan religious practices and Christianity, you can visit:              http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html 

[49] Posted by St. James on 10-02-2008 at 10:09 PM • top

To Nr.41 and Martial Artist:
P.D.Q. Bach’s music is at least partially published in  printed music format, as well as being (partially) recorded and performed. For more information, go to:

  http://www.presser.com/Composers/info.cfm?Name=PDQBACH

[50] Posted by St. James on 10-02-2008 at 10:28 PM • top

No wonder they haven’t baptized the Bishop of Nevada!  She’s considered more cutting edge than I thought; how silly of me not to see it!  Someone baptized Mormon (never as a Christian) has all the acceptable marital oddities in her *Rich Spiritual Baggage* already.  It’s up to ECUSA to catch up to *her*, not her to step up to actual Christianity.  You got her, you explain her.

[52] Posted by nwlayman on 10-05-2008 at 11:00 PM • top

Sodomy laws were originally written to apply just as much (or more) to opposite-sex intercourse as to gay contact. The puritanical originators were very much opposed to anything other than the face-to face “missionary position.”
Lists of outlawed acts inclded most everything that one could think of other than that.  Later on, the term became applied more to gay people than straight some laws were written with he provision that straight people (or married people) were not covered.
These laws have been repealed or found unconstitutial in recent decades. The Suprme Court ruling on consentual gay sexual activy, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas rendered most remaining laws invalid although some remain on the books.
SEE:  http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/
AND:  http://www.sodomy.org/laws/

[53] Posted by St. James on 10-07-2008 at 12:04 PM • top

ANOTHER LINK ON HISTORY OF SODOMY FROM MEDIAEVAL TIMES:

http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/sodomy.htm

[54] Posted by St. James on 10-07-2008 at 12:18 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.