+Ingham: Bishops Who Disagree with Me are Homophobes

How delightful to know that for the last 5,000 years Jews, Christians, Muslims and, heck, even the Dalai Lama have gotten this all wrong.  We are so very fortunate to have Mr. Ingham to let us all know that we’re all, at the core, bigots with nothing to justify our raging, irrational fear(??) of homosexuals.  Sodom?  Gomorrah?  Don’t be silly - they were destroyed because they didn’t extend their pinky fingers whilst having tea!

Let us all now be reasonable and agree with Mike.

My, what an inclusive statement.  Don’t you all feel part of the body of this man’s church?  We don’t often see such warm, pastoral outreach.  I am sure all the orthodox in his diocese can see how the bishop is reaching out to them in friendship and Christian love. I can tell how much he thinks of me just reading this, and I am a couple thousand miles away.

Can dripping sarcasm cause the keyboard to short out?

If you are interested in asking Bp Ingham a question online visit…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070626.wanglicanQA/CommentStory/specialComment/home

Enjoy

Bishop Ingham, please read Dr. Leander Harding’s article on Godly Bishops and the attending comments section.  It would be difficult to describe you as a Godly Bishop.  In fact, by your statements it is completely arguable that you are not worthy of your office, nor qualified.

And I thought this was a no-whining, no-freakout zone.  And Ingham gets to violate the rule.  But then again, he’s used to that.

The headline isn’t actually what he said. He is absolutely right - traditional Christianity is rooted in a profound homophobia. That is why it is not something I wish to believe in.

Another supposedly educated man committing the fallacy of the circular argument. The debate is over whether homosexual behavior should be blessed by the church, because Scripture contains several clear prohibitions against it. But here, Ingham leapfrogs that question entirely and assumes as a given that the church must bless it, because to do otherwise constitutes “homophobia.”

What an ass.

Then ‘Scripture’ too may also be homophobic, Greg, in terms of what it has to say about this issue. All depends on your view of the authority of the Bible. If it is an inspirational book which is a human creation, fallible and reflective of its time and the people who wrote it, then it is quite acceptable to place the importance of equality for gay people and their relationships above its opinion.
The central difference in this whole argument is approach to the Bible. Just because something appears in the Bible does not make it right, nor does it suggest other considerations should not have a higher priority - there cannot be a meeting of minds of liberals and conservatives on this issue.

He is absolutely right - traditional Christianity is rooted in a profound homophobia.

Quite an odd statement there, Mike, since I don’t ever recall the subject being brought up in any church I ever attended until TEC thought it was a good idea to begin not just accepting, but blessing and promoting this particular sin.  You’d think that something as central to Christian doctrine to be called a “root” would be at least mentioned occasionally, no?

Judge not, lest ye be judged.  I’m not sure but Michael seems to come awfully close to passing judgment on others.  I thought that kind of thing was strictly verboten for good Inclusive Gospel Progressives.  Mike, you’re confusing me!

Once again: when is Ingham retiring?  Or was he elected to a Perpetual Bishopric?

Anyone who has caused this much discord within the Communion should have been defrocked and shown the door years ago.  He can always start his own religion: British Columbia is full of wacko cults.

traditional Christianity is rooted in a profound homophobia.

Hmmm ... let me think about this ... it’s a compound word ...

[Look up in American Heritage Dictionary]

ho·mo 1 (hō‘mō) n. A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of human beings. [Latin homō, man. See dhghem- below.]
ho·mo 2 (hō‘mō) n., pl. ho·mos. Offensive. Used as a disparaging term for a gay or homosexual person.

pho·bi·a (fō‘bē-ə) n. 1. A persistent, abnormal, or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus. 2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion. [From Late Latin -phobia, -phobia.]

Nah, I do not see anything that would constitute such a strong claim as MM claims, other than it being declared a sin, just like lying and witchcraft, or other forms of sexual perversion, shoot in Lev 18, it takes up a one line mention followed by a prohibition of bestiality, if anything incest should be declared a ‘phobia’ since it gets many verses defining exactly.

Rooted in salvation from sin and the wages of sin, I can see that, but honestly MM, your and this bishop should take off the political agenda glasses when and look at the actual source document ...

A fear of heights,  I actually suffer, boy climbing a pole on hooks was a terrifying experience, but a fear of you or other practicing homosexuals I don’t think I have, but I will place you in the same category as adulterers or fornicator (whom I work with many of those, often as my boss), it’s sin because the Scripture have declared it so.

You’re using the old definition of the word which has a psychological foundation. The contemporary use of the word, whether you happen to like that or not, is simply to indicate ‘anti-gay’. That is how Bp. Ingham was using it from my reading of what he had to say

Incidentally, I’m not a ‘practising homosexual’, I’m very good at it!.

I guess he put ‘em in their place.  In ‘far side’ cartoon parlance, the whole rest of the herd is crazy.

Funny,it seems to me that all the folks crying homophobia are a bit more than a little heterophobic.

Oh, not at all, Paddy. Some of my best friends are heterosexuals…..

[*LOL*]—Oh yeah, I forgot words, can be changed on the fly, so green is blue and blue now yellow.

It’s a political use of trying to manipulate the swing vote by a use of a charged word (“phobia”). I know that, but in a day of relativism, I can play that game too ...

So why not it mean one thing for you and another to me? I’ll read as I want and talk as I want and you do what ever you want and we can try to have a conversation ...

(remember “Stop” signs with white borders around them are optional {pardon the US specific reference, or don’t pardon } )

<blockquote>”...hiding behind interpretations of scripture, remains an acceptable prejudice in Canadian Anglicanism.”</blockquote>

Ingham has trouble figuring out that there is no modifier before the word “christianity.”  It is what it is.  If you change it, it becomes something else.

Sadly, he clings to “Ingham’s religion” within a fragment of a decaying western church.

Thanks for being honest, merseymike: the contemporary use of the word is to mean “anti-gay.”  So, let’s stop using “homophobia” to imply those that disagree with you have some kind of mental problem and just say what you mean.  Here’s what Mr. Ingham should have said:

“Bishop Michael Ingham of the Vancouver-area diocese of New Westminster said disagreement with homosexual behavior remains an acceptable prejudice in Canadian Anglicanism.”

Bishop Ingham and all the politically motivated sodomy-apologists have it wrong: we do not fear those who choose to practice the sin of homosexuality, as we recognize fellow sinners when we see them.  We just ask that they check their sins at the church door, genuinely repent and seek Scriptural amendment of life and renewal of the mind.  Rather, we are sick and tired of the constant “victim” harping and the perverse attempt to shove deviant beliefs down our throats or perhaps elsewhere.  We are not homophobic, but I daresay many of us orthodox traditionalist Christians are HOMONAUSEOUS (please excuse the etymologically incorrect structure of this word, akin to “homophobic”).

The headline isn’t actually what he said. He is absolutely right - traditional Christianity is rooted in a profound homophobia. That is why it is not something I wish to believe in.

Top O’ the Mornin Mikey - Traditional Christianity also says to love your enemy - do I suffer from lovetheyneighborphobia?  Since we can now pick and choose(I mean, scripture is just a suggestion right? I mean we could have a Dianetics class at church too right?)what we believe can I begin to abandon this an just starting hating people.  Don’t I feel like an idiot, all this time I’ve been praying for healing and to forgive and love people. I have to admit, hating people would be easier - and isn’t that really what God wants?  For me to just be what I am, Love the world and hate people?

I think people like Mikey here and a number of Bishops, ought to walk a mile or two in the shoes of the working people they slander before they shoot off on a blog.  Until I wake up one morning to find Mikey or KJS actually able to read my thoughts and know my heart, I’ll continue to be amazed and count their indignation against people trying their best to be Christ-like the same way Paul did, singing hymns of praise that he had been counted worthy to be beaten for his believe in the Risen Lord.

If I teach my children not to have sex outside of marriage what is that called - antifornicationphobia?

MerseyMike:

Mike, reality is this guy is totally off base.  Yes, we know you are homosexual - and amazingly, with this ‘deeply rooted homophobia’ we still like you!  As a matter of fact I even pray for you!  Wow - just amazing.

So, quit being silly. 

I would comment on this bishop’s anti-Christian, hypocritical, and demeaning attitude, but since even a mere glance at his words demonstrate this, why comment on the obvious?

Anglican Cats of the Internet internationally give him a ‘thumbs down’.

I was actually quite impressed listening to the Canadian General Synod debating these and other issues.  It was courteous, thoughtful and deeply prayerful and reflected really well on their church and on Canadians and perhaps there was something we can learn from them, whatever you think of the theological depth or results.  Its a shame to see Bishop Ingham descending to Yah Boo statements completely at odds with what we saw from Synod including the majority of his fellow bishops who he castigates.

Click your heels together three times and say, I’m not homophobic, I’m not homophobic, I’m not homophobic.  You’ll find yourself over the rainbow where all is sweetness and light, pastels, and everyone just luvs everyone else.  So nice to escape the reality of existence by imagining the peace and blessedness which must of necessity occur when one wheds one’s “homophobia”.  I wuwpect that the effects will be even greater than that of the MDGs.  So we should see peace and luv and pleanty break out as soon as Canada sees the light.

Of course, democracy is now BAD, BAD, BAD.  When it furthers the homophilic agenda, it is GOOD, GOOD, GOOD.  But not in Canada and not in the Anglican Communion.

Gotta love the irony and stupidity.  Almost as good as the Three Stooges, but not quite up to the intellectual level of those films, I fear.

Phil said:
Thanks for being honest, merseymike: the contemporary use of the word is to mean “anti-gay.” So, let’s stop using “homophobia” to imply those that disagree with you have some kind of mental problem and just say what you mean.

You know, words mean what the listener/reader says they mean, not the speaker.  The speaker/writer isn’t allowed to appropriate different uses of words to suit their fancy.

Homophobic is a pejorative word that implies an irrational fear of all things gay.  People who don’t accept the gay lifestyle are no more homophobic than gay people are heterophobic.

Apparently, Ingham has never spent any time at Fire Island in New York.  (Trust me, in the words of the New Age guru, Carlos Castaneda, “It’s a separate reality.”) Possibly then and only then would he find himself questioning the apparent direct connection between the gay lifestyle and the hedonism that exists within a very large section of the gay community.

Yes, admittedly, hedonism exists amongst heterosexuals as well, but not as a foundational pillar for a whole social structure.  It certainly hasn’t been (or at least wasn’t previously) the goal of the Church to embrace hedonistic values as a part of some grand inclusive gesture. Or is that what we’re actually seeing here within “the new progressive Church?”

Incidentally, it was the overall hedonistic ways of Sodom and Gamorrah, and not exclusively homosexual activity, which spelled their demise.

This begs the question, “Which came first? Hedonism as a sub-set of homosexuality or homosexuality as a sub-set of hedonism?”  It would seem rather important to understand the distinction between the two.  After all, behavioral outcomes actually tell us more about reality than some abstract quasi-intellectual babble aimed at normalizing and integrating the abnormal.

Bp Ingram is close to saying that any sexual conduct should not be condemned and in fact should be included and blessed by our church. In the end what we are debating in the private (except in the Key West area) conduct of members of the church and Ingram is one step from saying that sexual conduct in and of itself is not the basis for church condemnation.

Apparently, Ingham has never spent any time at Fire Island in New York.

Fire Island was Ground Zero for the AIDS epidemic in the US.  Some of the first cases of AIDS in the country were traced to Fire Island.  The disease was not yet identified and after finding that most of the victims were gay, it was first referred to as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) and later as AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome).

Mama Jeff-Thyatira
Great post and I am in total agreement!
I personally do not fear any homosexual. What can they do to me? I do fear that their political agenda wheeled on a “vistims” platform plays on the naive heart-strings of the less informed and thus gains momentum to further their cause to EXCLUDE anyone who disagrees or does not affirm their sin!

I like Eclipse, pray for MM and all sinners and myself as well!

Bp Ingram is close to saying that any sexual conduct should not be condemned and in fact should be included and blessed by our church.

Heck - I’ll go one better.  He and his ilk are close to saying that believing that Jesus is Savior and the Bible the word of God is the ONLY sin.

The contemporary use of the word, whether you happen to like that or not, is simply to indicate ‘anti-gay’.

Okay so,

The old definition:  Profound, almost apoplexic, fear of homosexuals. 
The new definition:  Anything anti-gay. 

In other words (no pun intended), the new definition is so broad, that it means nothing. 

I have a proposal.  In order to not hurt the feelings of short people, I will define the word ‘tall’ such that anyone in the same room as I, is tall. 

See?  A word that seeks to make a distinction, defined too broadly, means nothing.

The headline isn’t actually what he said. He is absolutely right - traditional Christianity is rooted in a profound homophobia. That is why it is not something I wish to believe in.

Ah - MM, the Chistophobic or is it Ethosphobic.  What MM and his companions do want to admit is that you can disagree with them or believe that they are wrong except that it be out of blind stupidity.  So when confronted with facts, arguements or even questions they duck into the fortress built on the word HOMOPHOBIA (which by the way means fear of monotony).

What a sad way to go through life.

RSB

“To say that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with doctrine is a hugely significant thing,” Bishop Ingham said. “But to say at the same time there’s no doctrinal conflict but we’re not going to [do] anything about it is inertia - it’s institutional inertia rooted in homophobia.”

Did you notice how he let the word core drop from in front of dotrine.  How intellectually dishonest this one is.

RSB

It certainly hasn’t been (or at least wasn’t previously) the goal of the Church to embrace hedonistic values as a part of some grand inclusive gesture.

Ah, so that’s the reason Trinity (NYC) allowed Elton John to rent the church for his birthday party…..

RSB

Anti gay? I’m quite sure that there are some Fred Phelps whackos out here in BlogLand that truly are “anti gay” and homophobic to boot. I am also quite sure that 99+ % of the true reasserters in TECusaCORP/Anglicanism are NOT “anti gay”. Call me “anti sin” or “pro Bible” or “anti revisionism” if you must but not “anti gay”.

And Mersey Mike, if you practice anything long enough, you’ll eventually become very good at it.

the snarkster

I have a proposal.  Let’s rename Stand Firm into something more progressive.  People that use a cane to steady themselves are made to feel unwelcome as are folks in wheelchairs.  Instead of “Stand Firm” why not “Feel Warm and Fuzzy”?

Ah, so you believe that gay relationships are the moral equivalent of straight ones, and believe in full social and legal equality for gay people, such as the legislation we have in the UK, then?

I always use the term to mean anti-gay, but it isn’t just about ‘behaviour’. I don’t do gay, I am gay.

Words do change over the years. Language is a dynamic thing. You just make yourself silly by refusing to admit that the meaning of the word has changed

Whatever we call anti-gay beliefs,  it doesn’t change the substantive disagreement which I have with your beliefs and you have with mine.

“Homophobia” is a meaningless term invented by pansexualists to project their own self-loathing fears upon those who do not share their “enlightened” views of human sexuality. Homo = “same.” Phobia = “fear.” Homophobia = “fear of the same.” It is a term more aptly applied to the pansexualists themselves, who seem to have an ignorant and irrational fear of the church holding the same position on their aberrant behavior that it has always held for 2,000 years (and 3,000 years of prior Jewish tradition).

Whatever we call [fill in blank], it doesn’t change the substantive disagreement which I have with your beliefs and you have with mine.

Hey, we agree!  ... Maybe ... I think ... 

No, it was invented by Weinberg, a psychologist. The contemporary use of the word was essentially a media creation - I suppose they needed something short and sharp to use, so took an existing word and the meaning has been broadened by its frequent use.

But as i say, you can get as annoyed as you want about the word and its application - but language is something dynamic which reflects everyday use, so words do change their precise meaning over time.

This thread is being hijacked by MM to debate the word homophobia instead of conversing on the heresy of the Vancouver-area diocese of New Westminster and their heretic Bishop Michael Ingham!

Steer the wheel of the topic back on track please!!!!!!!

It wasn’t me who brought up the definition of the word. Hosea did.

I am glad that Michael Ingham is continuing to speak out for what he believes and I fully agree with him. Earlier on I posted my opinion which stated that there is no meeting point because there is a basic divide not only about interpretation but also authority of the Bible.

<blockquote>The two bishops who voted for the no-conflict resolution but against the blessings were David Torraville of the diocese of Central Newfoundland and James Cowan of the Vancouver Island diocese.</blockquote.

Can someone please tell me what the “no-conflict resolution” is?

One Day Closer - A186 - same-sex blessings are not in conflict with the core doctrine of the Anglican Church.  i.e. not against scripture.
I am amazed that Cowan voted against SSBs (A187) - he is one of Ingham’s protegees and has dealt ruthlessly with any orthodox priests who have opposed him.

Thank you Canuck! That helps me to understand the votes and somewhat understand who voted on these issues and their stance.

FHS
ODC

You’re welcome!

So, MM says that “traditional Christianity is rooted in a profound homophobia. That is why it is not something I wish to believe in.”

So, MM doesn’t want to be a part of Traditional Chrisitianity.  The faith has had many blows through the years.  I hope it will be able to stand this one.  Whatever will we do without him?

I’m not an anglican, I am a pastor in another denomination, but I love you guys and appreciate the stand for truth that you are taking.  That’s really what it’s about, isn’t it?  MM is right when he says it all comes down to your view of scriptures.  The real question is; Do we have a word from God?  The Canadian Biship does not believe we do.  He certainly has a right to that opinion.  But from the outside looking in, if that’s what he believes, why doesn’t he resign and find honest work?

Oh, don’t let’s all get our panties in a wad.  I’m sure that when TEC and ACC try to put forth their polyamorous agenda(according to the Clergy Convocation ‘05 in DioMass—it does promote a more egalitarian society), I’m sure we’ll all then be known as “polyphobic” and the teachings of Scripture, for “Christians”, will continue as optional.

Who needs a hippie commune when you can just be a “Christian”? 

Give me a break…Dr. Harding’s article notwithstanding, too many, and so many, of these bishops have long ceased to be anything close to “godly”, unless you’re talking about one of the druid pagan gods.  For shame…

What I find interesting about this article is this:

The two bishops who voted for the no-conflict resolution but against the blessings

And again, thank you to Canuck for helping understand the A186, but it seems to me that when one votes for something like the A186 “No-Conflict” is seems to be contradicting oneself to vote the opposite on blessing what you just voted for! These people are their own contradiction in term!

How delightful to know that for the last 5,000 years Jews, Christians, Muslims and, heck, even the Dalai Lama have gotten this all wrong.

Indeed.  This curious phenomenon does cry out for explanation.  How is it that, if the truth is that homosexuality is both God’s intent for some people, and is blessed by God, that no one figured it out until now?  TEC claims that the Holy Spirit has revealed this to us here in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.  Is it that the Holy Spirit tried and tried for so long but just couldn’t get it across?  Or is it that the Holy Spirit waited until now to reveal this to us?

Michael Ingham says that it’s a wrong reading of Scripture to condemn homosexual acts.  How can it be that Scripture was incorrectly read for so long?  Wasn’t there anyone who read it right, according to Ingham, in the past?  Where is the written record of a correct reading of Scripture, as Ingham sees it, prior to recent or contemporary times?

How do revisionists explain this?

I think I remember that the Province of BC - Cowan’s Province - was having to do some very serious closing of churches and had much opposition.  If he had voted for SSBs then he probably would have a much reduced Province.  Only guessing.  Yes it is contradictory.  But then a Spirit of Confusion was there at Synod.  Remember the Tower of Babel?

I have a proposal.  In order to not hurt the feelings of short people, I will define the word ‘tall’ such that anyone in the same room as I, is tall. 

See?  A word that seeks to make a distinction, defined too broadly, means nothing.

Haven’t we seen this before?  Lewis Carroll, perhaps?

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

Dear Bishop Michael Ingham,
Ever hear of love the sinner but hate the sin? Millions of faithful Anglicans do just that daily with the same sex inclined whose “rights” you champion. You do have the right to sin. I would hope you would know the price.
We also champanion for every single one who is in sin for we understand eternal life or death revolves upon repentance of all sins. How about you? Do you actually ask for repentance before you take communion? Instead of your hate speech why not pray for those whom with you do not agree with. That’s what a Godly person does.
I pray for you too.
Intercessor

But what makes me really angry is the ignoring of the Zacchaeus Fellowship comprising of former homosexuals who are now married or celibate.  Their stories are so incredible it gives you goose bumps to listen to them.  God’s power of transformation is being denied by the Church to help those who do not want their desires blessed.  Note - they always say they want their “unions” blessed by the Church and not by God.

Wwell said Intercessor!
And that brings up a very good point!!!! Why aren’t these bishops, priests, clergy persons…..preaching on repentance of sin as hard as they are in embracing sin? WOW! What a concept!

How do revisionists explain this?

HOMOPHOBE!!!!!

That’s how.

Thanks ODC…I know that your wisdom is only exceeded by your passion for Christ.

Intercessor

Revisionists

Reappraisers

Homophobes

Reassertors

pansexualists

Fire Island hedonists

gay lifestyle

Assumptions that if one supports SG blessing, they reject all of Scripture

I’m increasingly convinced that the reason no one is really listening in many of our ecclesiastical discussions is because everyone is talking to or about convenient stereotypes, which means we are talking to no one at all.  Subsequently, there is no one there to hear what is being said. 

P.S.  Though unrelated, I believe that the comment that Trinity NYC was rented to celebrate Elton John’s birthday is in error.  That event was held at St. John the Divine, so that’s where, depending on one’s point of view, blame or credit should be placed.

It’s scary the way it’s changed, even within my lifetime.  Before the Lord changed my heart, I lived in a lesbian lifestyle for 15 years—roughly from 1979 to 1994.  In the early years when I was gay, if we were confronted and could not lie our way out of it (which we always tried to do), my reaction and that of most of my friends was, “Yes, I know it’s a sin, and God hates it, but I can’t help myself, I’m too weak…” or some such.

Now, it’s gone one sin further…the typical gay/lesbian/whatever reaction in 2007 is full-blown self-righteous indignation and red-faced fury when confronted.  And they will throw a tantrum worthy of a 2-year old and go on a huge emotional tirade about how it is good to commit homosexual sin, and how it should be “celebrated” with PRIDE!

Now they call evil good.  Now they are defying God and blaspheming the Holy Spirit.  Now the sins are compounding…

It’s scary!

DaveW.  They can’t.  Not because there isn’t an answer to your question, but because any intellectually honest and consistent explanation must include the possibility that people in older times might have actually had good reasons for their exclusion of male homosexuality from what was considered acceptable social behavior. 

The actual answer is just one word; “antibiotics”.  The modern promiscuous gay male lifestyle is only sustainable thanks to modern western medicine.  This is just simply a statement of biological fact and applies equally to promiscuous heterosexual behavior as well.

It varies from difficult to impossible to have a meaningful discussion on this issue with most people, for the simple reason that they have become so accustomed to their access to modern western medicine, that they, quite literally, can’t imagine what a world would be like without it.  Just about all of the medical advances that we take so for granted were only invented in the last century.  One only has to go back a few generations to find a world where there were no immunizations, no antibiotics or anti-viral drugs.  If you got sick, your body either dealt with the infection on its own or you died.  The only way to stay well was to avoid getting sick in the first place, and the only way to do that was to avoid as much as possible, those situations where one might be exposed to an infection. 

For generations past, being able to live a healthy, disease-and pain-free life was the exception, not the rule.  And since it’s hard to lead a spiritually focused life when you’re sick or in pain, past generations, across all the major religions, did not make the artificial separation between spiritual health and physical health that we, thanks to modern medicine, are able to indulge ourselves in today.  And I would propose that it is also this modern decoupling of spiritual values from physical health concerns that makes many of the aspects of the traditional morality of past generations so incomprehensible to younger generations today.

Dear WhiteH2OWoman, thanks for sharing what the Lord has done in your life.  It’s a beautiful testimony.  And your analysis of how things have changed (“They call evil good”) is spot-on.

Blessings.

- but language is something dynamic which reflects everyday use, so words do change their precise meaning over time.

Which is why I care less now about the negative connotation of the word, than I did when I got up this morning.  Frankly, the negative connotation is conspicuously .. absent. 

I’m new to Ohio.  I was happy to learn that people convicted of sex crimes are required to register with the local police department;  and further that the police were required to maintain a website that showed where they live.

Then I did a little bit of research.  Apparently, there are three designations of sexual-offender:
- Sexually oriented;
- Sexual predator;
- (Another infrequently used designation)

What I found from my research, was disconcerting.  I found instances where the victim of a sexually-oriented offender (S-O-O) was a young girl.  I found other instances where the S-O-O was charged with importuning (asking for a date, and being rejected, one too many times).  And, I know of instances where the S-O-O had been in a situation where they were slightly above the age of consent, and their girlfriend slightly below, all leading up to a conviction of statutory rape. 

Honestly?  I could care less if my next-door neighbor had been involved in importuning or falling prey to their own teenage hormones.  As long as they’ve been punished and learned from their mistakes, there should be no problem.  What does bother me is that it seems to me that it is that more egregious sex crimes, can be plead down to “sexually-oriented offender.”  No, I would not want to be the neighbor of a sexually oriented offender, whose victim was a child. 

Sorry, wouldn’t go for it. 

As it stands, the phrase “sexually oriented offender,” represents a lifetime of villification for folks who had a couple of stupid moments in their youth.  And on the other side of the coin, it’s a slap on the wrist for those who have done serious harm. 

All because of our irresponsible use of language. 

Or more generally, bearing false witness against our neighbor.

Hey!! Where are you guys!!  The HOB of Rwanda have just declined ABC’s invitation to Lambeth.  It’s over on the AAC blog…

susan ives

Moot! You are my hero for the day!!!!  You are spot on!!!!

I could elaborate more but it would go off topic!

Hey!! Where are you guys!!  The HOB of Rwanda have just declined ABC’s invitation to Lambeth.  It’s over on the AAC blog…

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3971/

News travels fast in these tubes.

WhiteWaterWoman,
May you continue to ride the adventure of the flowing fountain of Jesus and his Spirit.  And may your courage for sharing (even in this “safe” place) be the undercurrent for others to hear the message of new life in Christ.

RGEaton+

DaveW,

This curious phenomenon does cry out for explanation.  How is it that, if the truth is that homosexuality is both God’s intent for some people, and is blessed by God, that no one figured it out until now?

Well, I guess it’s for the same reason that it took them 1500 years to figure out the world wasn’t flat, 1600 years to figure out that usury actually worked to the benefit of society, 1800 years or so (depending on where you were) to determine that slavery wasn’t a good thing, and 1900 years to realize that the left-handed weren’t the spawn of Satan. Sometimes, it just takes a long time.

Denbeau,
It’s been 3000+ years and it still hasn’t been figured out! That pretty much tells me all I need to know right along with Scripture!

Well, judging by the foaming at the mouth, I say Ingham is “hydrophobic.”

Denbeau,

Michael Ingham claims the problem “is a total misreading of scripture and a misuse of the Bible to oppress people”.  All through history the very same Scripture has been available to all.  There was no document for people to read or misread in the cases you mention.  Ingham’s point seems to be that although the Church possessed, read and studied the Scriptures from the beginning, no one was reading it correctly until now.  For instance, Romans 1:26-27 reads, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  their women exahgned natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gaup natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

That’s been in the New Testament canon for a good 1700 years or so.  And up until now, people thought it meant that homosexual acts were wrong and condemned by God.  Now, all of a sudden, we’re told it means that God thinks homosexuality is good and blessed. 

And by the way, if Rom 1:26-27 does not condemn homosexuality, why was it removed from the Lectionary?

DaveW,

There was no document for people to read or misread in the cases you mention.

Really? How about:

Exodus 22:25 “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest”

or, say

Leviticus 25:35-36 If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest of any kind

Ezekiel 18 has a graphic description of fate of the son who lends money at interest (as well as other unpleasant things): “Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.”

And of course, there are always items such as:

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

also from Leviticus 25

“44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

Now what I’ve done here is cherry-picking; but that’s exactly what you’ve done as well. There’s a lot of scripture that clearly shows that the authors’ writings (or the subsequent editors’ manipulations) do not reflect our current understanding of God. The difference between us (unless you’re more of a literalist than I assume, and can sign on to the verses above), is that we disagree as to which prohibitions are cultural artifacts, and which express the will of God.

can I cherry pick too? ...how about…

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

1 Timothy 2:12 “...I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent…it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner…”

Titus 2:9 “...Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them…”

Leviticus 21:17-19 “For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God…. no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand…”
There is enough here to reject quite a few people we now accept and fully welcome at church and in ministry…yet these can be read to mean many awful things and to exclude ...

In that context I can read…
Romans 1: 26   “...God let them follow their own evil desires. Women no longer wanted to have sex in a natural way, and they did things with each other that were not natural. 27Men behaved in the same way. They stopped wanting to have sex with women and had strong desires for sex with other men. They did shameful things with each other, and what has happened to them is punishment for their foolish deeds…..”

Its quite clear isn’t it? What is not for me is the context, the particular scenario Paul had in mind and the prejudices and limited knowledge about sexual orientation of his century. I can see this applying quite well to mainstream gay culture bar/bathhouse/200+partners but definitely not to the same sex oriented seeking God, holiness and faithfulness in a monogamous relationship according to nature for them.

blessings
seraph

This begs the question, “Which came first? Hedonism as a sub-set of homosexuality or homosexuality as a sub-set of hedonism?” It would seem rather important to understand the distinction between the two.  After all, behavioral outcomes actually tell us more about reality than some abstract quasi-intellectual babble aimed at normalizing and integrating the abnormal.

This is a good question but improperly asked! Homosexual orientation comes first and in itself it is morally neutral. We are still asking the genesis of the orientation, but most christians agree it is not a chosen.
Homosexual behaviour as expressed in the whole Fire Island image can be very hedonistic. Why that is would be a good question to ask and look for serious answers? 

As I see it that there is any homosexuals at all wanting a life of fidelity or marriage is a miracle in itself. Just look at heterosexual promiscuity and divorce despite the fact that marriage is encouraged by religion and to an extent by society . 

Historically gays have not had said incentives for stable relationships, their desires labeled disordered by society and religion “disordered” their relationships condemned….Do you take your boyfriend to a church social??? There has been no religious or societal imperative for permanence .... more of a do it and run, secretive, furtive encounters.

That certainly is not a seedbed for chastity and fidelity. Not that gays are exempt of moral conduct because of their orientation, but certainly there has been lack of a stucture to support such.

This could be a factor in the question asked and makes one wonder what would happen if our attitudes towards homosexuals and their relationships were to change…

Would there not be a greater push towards less of the hedonism we so easily point to?

imho

seraph

Denbeau,

I would agree that the divide exists because of what the two sides take to be the Spirit of Scripture on the one hand and the letter on the other.  I believe we can characterize the situation as one in which both sides say to the other: “ours is a correct reading of Scripture; yours is a misreading.”

Suppose, however, that it is a misreading of Rom. 1:26-27 to conclude that God condemns homosexual acts.  Suppose it’s true that those who read Rom. 1:26-27 and come to that conclusion are mistaken and reading that passage incorrectly, or worse, they are deliberately misreading it in order to oppress a class of people they hate.  When in reality, Rom.1:26-27 actually means something entirely different.  If it condemns anything at all, it may be condmening a promiscuous lifestyle and the rebellion against or rejection of living according to one’s own God-given sexual orientation.

If that’s the case, then why was Rom. 1:26-27 removed from the Episcopal Church’s lectionary?  Presumably, it was removed by people who believe in the contemporary, Ingham-approved reading of Scripture.  Why?

DaveW,

That’s a fair question, and I have no idea, not being part of the process. It could be because the decision makers felt that there were alternative texts with greater value, or that this particular text was more confusing than others ... I can only speculate.

Re:  Not reading the Bible

OH PLEASE.

This is reality - reality is that the Scriptures need to be read as a totality in order to understand them.  So, enjoy taking little pieces for your own agenda but when those who read and understand Scripture realize that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are different things.  So, spare me the Lev. code - and read the account of Eucharist - please.

In addition:

So, you are trying to tell me that getting into debt now is a great idea that the church promotes?

That stealing someone’s else’s engagement is promoted and encouraged by the church?

That slavery is acceptable at church today and encouraged as an ‘aternate lifestyle’?

That divorces are encouraged and promoted and considered healthy?

The woman’s ordination issue is on debate on another thread so I’m not going there.

All of which is to say, NO - none ARE encouraged or promoted. 

So, spare me.

Homosexual orientation comes first and in itself it is morally neutral.

Tell a lie long enough and it eventually becomes the truth. Waaallll, I guess it has in TEC.

Been There ... :

There is no sin in being tempted, it is action on the temptation that is the sin. The Zacchaeus Fellowship folks maybe tempted in different ways than I am but both have the same calling to maintain our purity.

There is no sin in being tempted, it is action on the temptation that is the sin.

H6:6—

I keep hearing this premise over and over. Then I think about the Prayer of Humble Access in which I ask forgiveness for the sins of “thought, word and deed.”

This would imply to me that the mere thought of sin is, in itself, sin. This would also imply that Jimmy Carter’s famous concession that he had lusted “in his heart,” was, in fact, a sin for which he should have and probably did, ask forgiveness.

I see no distinction as to the level of sin of “thought” when compared to the sins of “word” and “deed.”

Am I misguided in my reading of this?

Been There,

You may indeed be misreading the issue.  Hosea 6:6 remarked that there is no sin in being tempted but in yielding to temptation. 

If it is not a sin to be tempted, then we can understand Jesus being tempted in the wilderness for 40 days and yet not sinning.  As Hebrews 4:15 says, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.”

If Jesus can be tempted and come away without having sinned, then I think Hosea 6:6 is correct.

<blockquote>there is no sin in being tempted but in yielding to temptation.</blockqiote>

DaveW—

I totally agree with and understood that part.  However, it has been my personal experience that in fighting off temptation, I am actually thinking about the sinful pleasures which makes it a temptation in the first place.  Sometimes, it takes great effort to resist.

The later, when the temptation has passed, I find myself thinking about what might have been and sometimes have to force myslef to stop thinking about it.

Thus the question: What constitutes a sin of thought?

I would submit that if you “lust in your heart,” the sin is just as significant as it would have been had you actually partaken in an adultrous affair.

I also suggest that most of us are guilty of sins of “thought” even though we actually would never succumb to the temptation of the deed.

Ooopss Sory. I swear I closed that block quote after the quote. Obviously, it didn’t take.