Total visitors right now: 98

Logged-in members:

Br. Michael

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Same-Sex Blessing at All Saints, Beverly Hills Yesterday (+Bruno)

Monday, September 24, 2007 • 10:37 am


Compliance:

Robert Walter Stanley and Robert Karl Marohn celebrated their union yesterday at All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Beverly Hills, Calif. The Rev. Gabriel Ferrer led the commitment ceremony. The Rev. Maryetta Anschutz, also an Episcopal priest, participated.

 


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

Sad to see what has happened at ASBH since 2003. I would not have expected this.

[1] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 09-24-2007 at 10:57 AM • top

Now there’s a complication with SSUs that I hadn’t considered…. both partners have the same first name.  Wow.  Not gonna go where my sinful sarcastic streak would take me.

[2] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-24-2007 at 10:58 AM • top

I know a married couple (as in real married, m/f) who are both named Carey.

[3] Posted by James Manley on 09-24-2007 at 11:26 AM • top

I thought KJS said that there wasn’t any blessings of SSU’s going on? Well what about Bob & Bob?

[4] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 11:28 AM • top

Wait, wait, how could this happen?  We know that 815, the HOB, and the Executive have not “authorized” SSB’s.  My goodness, if this actually happened, well then maybe all of those “yahoo’s” who oppose 815’s “new” direction have a point.


RSB

[5] Posted by R S Bunker on 09-24-2007 at 11:43 AM • top

My partner and I are both Scott.  No big deal.  And relax:  no member of the clergy blessed our union.

[6] Posted by ScottChicago on 09-24-2007 at 11:44 AM • top

Oh, yeah, “public rites” are not authorized, but they happen all the time, with the clergy who do them going undisciplined.  Not to mention, Chane has done at least one blessing, and Shaw celebrated a “nuptial” mass at a gay “wedding”, in church, in Boston. 

Quick, put all that under the rug….

[7] Posted by Passing By on 09-24-2007 at 11:47 AM • top

Women are just too much trouble, eh fellas?

[8] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 11:49 AM • top

Maryette Anschutz, who participated in this travesty, is the daughter of Mark Anschutz- the former rector of Saint Michael and All Angels in Dallas Tx. Just another tidbit for all you WO supporters out there.

[9] Posted by via orthodoxy on 09-24-2007 at 11:55 AM • top

How could we have been so quick to rush to judgment?  Of course!  This was merely a commitment ceremony!

[10] Posted by Jeff in VA on 09-24-2007 at 12:38 PM • top

If someone would file an injuction against All Saints and the priests that preformed the rites then maybe they would think twice about doing it.  They just did this yesterday to “throw it in our face.”

[11] Posted by Zoot on 09-24-2007 at 01:28 PM • top

How many of the others involved with this duo were jealous about them professing in each other and noone else?  Wait—as young and dashing as they look were we really supposed to believe they will be committed ONLY to each other?  Just ‘cause they did it in a church they won’t be among the mostly five in five couples who (according to studies) can’t help but still play the field after shacking up with just one?

[12] Posted by rustybud on 09-24-2007 at 01:28 PM • top

Rustybud—I may or may not agree with you theologically about same sex blessings but I sure as anything DO NOT AGREE with your personal attack on those two men as evidenced by your post above. 

For shame.  Shame on the name of Christ.

[13] Posted by fellowpilgrim on 09-24-2007 at 01:33 PM • top

As good looking and dashing as these young men look and probably smart as well, it is a shame and disgrace that their genes aren’t going to get passed on in children of their own. Marriage is not just about the commitment although that is a huge factor by and large, but also about the charge that God gave us to go be fruitful and multiply. I am afraid these two are unable to follow that charge in this type of relationship! So what is the point?

[14] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 01:37 PM • top

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out Bob and Rob are TEC seminary students. rolleyes

[15] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 01:48 PM • top

I’m very happy for them.  Ahh, say, look, Maryetta+, there’s a drunk staggering over to ask you to bless his pint—looks good, Jack Daniels, probably his Sunday best.  Think you could work him into your schedule?

[16] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-24-2007 at 01:49 PM • top

Gabriel Ferrer - Rosemary Clooney’s son, George’s cousin, Debby Boone’s husband.  More trivia.

[17] Posted by LBStringer on 09-24-2007 at 02:19 PM • top

Rustybud wrote: “....will be committed ONLY to each other?  Just ‘cause they did it in a church they won’t be among the mostly five in five couples who (according to studies) can’t help but still play the field after shacking up with just one? ....”

I have personally known straight guys who got married in church, were professing Christians and still PLAYED THE FIELD. What do you think the real statistics are there, Rustybud?

[18] Posted by Temple1 on 09-24-2007 at 02:44 PM • top

Yes, where is the love???
I hope the gift registry isn’t closed yet….rolleyes

[19] Posted by Rocks on 09-24-2007 at 02:53 PM • top

Let go of the fear, and the hatred will go too…

Sorry, I detect no hatred here, and the only fear I find is for the salvation of false prophets who teach—similarly to the Medieval Church—that some sins can be eliminated or bought off, either by “love” or money.  But I think we have very different ideas as to what constitutes love, so perhaps discussion is pointless.

[20] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-24-2007 at 02:58 PM • top

Hi Love—

I view the Triune God’s Love a lot like a parent’s love.  You can easily love your kids without agreeing with everything they do. 

Saying “no” to a gay “marriage” or blessing does not mean that homosexuals are not “loved”.  It just, unfortunately, gives the gay community an opportunity to force church sanction of Scripturally-prohibited behavior by crying “victim”—a “cop-out” on the theological debate, if you ask me. 

Blessings,

TS

[21] Posted by Passing By on 09-24-2007 at 03:06 PM • top

LoveIsTheOnlyThingThatMatters,
Please! True unconditional love comes from God in His Son Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for all to repent of their sin and turn to a more righteous life in Him. This does not mean that we sinners as well as these two gentlemen above get a free pass on continuing in our sin and being blessed for it. To recieve full unconditional love one must admit the wrongfullness of their sin . Just like an alcholic has to admit and repent of his sinfulness in his drinking problem, as well as a thief, a drug addict, a prostitute, a murder, and adulterer, fornicator, a cheater, a child molestor, etc….Love does not enable bad behavior or living and especially behavior and living that God has clearly in His Word admonished. When yu love someone you bring their sinfulness into question and light so that they can see clearly the error of thir ways and be repentant and brought into the fullness of God’s love.

The love you are suggesting is something akin to anything and everything goes with no consequences. Thanks but no thanks. I want eternal life in Christ in a heavenly kingdom of God and that means change. change from sin & sinfulness to a life much more full in the teachings of Christ and the Law of God.

[22] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 03:08 PM • top

Wouldn’t it be sad if when each of your children or grandchildren have their own marriage or ceremony that one side or another of the culture wars will publish their pictures and story for public ridicule. Especially if a number of “Christians” were to pile on the abuse in a really inappropriate way.

And Greg, you know full well that what you did here is below any standard of decency and taste or Christian behavior.

More proof that the so-called “reasserters” are in strong need of a call to repent and return. You preach no gospel of Jesus here. This is not the gospel here. Not with behavior like this. Our faith is demonstrated in our actions. I hesitate to say who I think is really leading people’s hearts to behave in such a manner as some have demonstrated here. It isn’t Jesus, that much I know.

You will be angry that I have said that this behavior indicates a need to return to Jesus. That can’t be helped. I doubt that you have the courage to leave this up on the board. But it is past time for this call to be made.

[23] Posted by denniswine on 09-24-2007 at 03:16 PM • top

And Greg, you know full well that what you did here is below any standard of decency and taste or Christian behavior.

Noting Windsor-compliance—or the lack thereof—is below Christian standards of decency?

Please.  Don’t be silly denniswine.

...if you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with…

[24] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 03:22 PM • top

denniswine,
Dude!!! Calm down. This is not unchristian to post a celebration of…....whatever you call it. Couples pictures get posted daily in the newspapers when they get engaged, married, and celebrate anniversarys.
I find it hypcritical of you to speak of returning to Jesus yet it seems to be okay with you that homsexual living is something that God blesses when in fact it is not. There is no glory to God in it.

[25] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 03:23 PM • top

Greg can certainly speak for himself, but I read the post to mean that in the midst of the HOB meeting, while the HOB is claiming that SSB blessing are not recognized, and therefore TEC is Windsor Compliant and DES compliant, SSB are taking place with the open support of TEC

This took place in an Episcopal Church with two Episcopal priests officiating. It is therefor disingenuous at best, and just plain dishonest at worst, to claim that TEC is complying with Windsor or DES or intends to comply with Windsor or DES.

[26] Posted by BillS on 09-24-2007 at 03:32 PM • top

RE: “And Greg, you know full well that what you did here is below any standard of decency and taste or Christian behavior.”

Greg’s doing great work finding these examples of TEC blessings in violation of what TEC publicly claims about itself. 

RE: “This is not the gospel here.”

Well—it’s not the progressive gospel, but then we have two different gospels sharing one organization.  That’s the problem and will remain so for a long long time.

RE: “I hesitate to say who I think is really leading people’s hearts to behave in such a manner as some have demonstrated here. It isn’t Jesus, that much I know.”

Heh—go ahead and say it.  Join Griswold, who has already said it—you could use this helpful link for visualization:  ; > )
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/mt/archives/000615.html

But then . . . you’d be doing the same thing that progressives shrill about when Akinola uses the word “satanic” to describe non-scriptural immoral actions . . . once again proving that we simply don’t even have the same definitions of words.  What you deem to be moral, we deem to be immoral; what you apparently deem to be immoral, we deem to be moral.

Two gospels—one organization.

RE: “You will be angry that I have said that this behavior indicates a need to return to Jesus.”

Nonsense.  Not troubling in the least.  We simply don’t share the same gospel or foundational worldview and thus it’s understandable that what you deem to be wrong we deem to be a good and clear and honest thing—and vice versa of course.  It’s no problem at all your expressing your opinions on this blog as long as the comment policy is followed, and you don’t use it for your own blog.

[27] Posted by Sarah on 09-24-2007 at 03:36 PM • top

DennisWine - two accomplished gay professionals had their commitment ceremony announcement published in the New York Times.

They pretty much went as public as they could, huh?  THEY put their picture and story in front of the country.

And, most of the snarky comments aren’t directed at them, anyway.

That said, yeah, this place sometimes is unduly mean.

[28] Posted by Paul B on 09-24-2007 at 03:40 PM • top

As good looking and dashing as these young men look and probably smart as well, it is a shame and disgrace that their genes aren’t going to get passed on in children of their own. Marriage is not just about the commitment although that is a huge factor by and large, but also about the charge that God gave us to go be fruitful and multiply. I am afraid these two are unable to follow that charge in this type of relationship! So what is the point?

What a funny thing to say!  First, the idea that these two gentlement cannot have genetic offspring is rather shortsighted.  Many gay and lesbian couples have genetic offspring.  I have two, myself.

Second, are you saying that if a couple knows in advance that they will not be able to “be fruitful and multiply” together (kind of a ludicrous comment, anyway, with overpopulation being among the greatest threats to our continued survival as a species…), there is no “point” to getting married?  Are you saying God would disapprove of a woman marrying a man who has been castrated by accident?  Or who has a known genetic defect which will render him infertile? 

What’s the point of getting married, then, right?

[29] Posted by Lorian on 09-24-2007 at 03:55 PM • top

DennisWine—Huh???? Oh yeah, I forgot, edit out all those parts the the Episcopal Church agreed to at Lambeth or Dar es Salaam and only the ‘listen’ part is important. Okay, we’ve listen, but still unsure exactly what we’re to repent of since it’s pretty clear that this action was pretty selfish in timing and against B033 at a sensitive time like this, so their affection for each-other seems to be paramount over the good of the whole .... hmmm, yeap different gospel all right.

[30] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-24-2007 at 03:58 PM • top

Yes Lorian, they can have children, but children who grow up without their mother, who has been subsituted for another man.  How incredibly selfish.

[31] Posted by Canuck on 09-24-2007 at 04:01 PM • top

First, the idea that these two gentlement cannot
have genetic offspring is rather shortsighted. Many gay and lesbian couples have genetic offspring. I have two, myself.


Not with the same gendered partner you don’t and they won’t! If you have children from another person that is considered adultery. Nowhere in the Bible does God say to have a samesex partner then go find someone to impregnant you or to impregnant to have children.
In your second paragraph your are going off on a whole different topic than this is on.
But then that is to be expected to take the real isssue and divert it.

[32] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 04:10 PM • top

I bet if they decide to have kids, they’ll be great parents, Canuck.  God bless them, strengthen them, and give them comfort and aid in times of trouble.

[33] Posted by Lorian on 09-24-2007 at 04:11 PM • top

Ah yes, children.  The new bling-bling. 

Gotta love ‘em.  smile

[34] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-24-2007 at 04:14 PM • top

The outraged posts on this thread aren’t really even about Mr. Stanley or Mr. Mahron.  They’re about the despicable deceit perpetrated by bishops and priests of the church who pander to the pewsitters, the Communion and the press, all at the same time, out of several sides of their mouths.  These posts decry the destruction of the sin that substitutes God-ordered love of “the other” for love of “the same,” or worse, “of self.”  (That was the thrust of my comment above regarding the irony of a couple with even the same names.)  We’re way beyond, “all ya need is love…”  We’re mad as hell, and many of us aren’t going to take it anymore.

You preach no gospel of Jesus here. This is not the gospel here. Not with behavior like this.

When Jesus went through the temple with a whip, only the moneychangers described him as “mean.”  The gospel writers described him as “zealous,” as in “zeal for His Father’s house consumed him.”  Granted, our zeal is always tainted with human sin, but, well, there it is.

[35] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-24-2007 at 04:16 PM • top

And since only one can be the genetic father, will they both remain dedicated to the welfare of the children if things go awry in their relationship and they get “divorced” or “uncommitted” or whatever?

Generally speaking, not always, but in most situations, the genetic parents are more concerned about the welfare of their children than a non-genetic parent. Given the high divorce rates, how is it in the best interest of the child to add another risk factor of social instability with two mothers, or two fathers, only one of whom will have the intense bond that genetic parentage normally provides?

[36] Posted by BillS on 09-24-2007 at 04:19 PM • top

That many of you can attempt to plead love and “no hatred” when the tone of comments is reviewed here, leaves me nearly…nearly at loss of words.  That Christians familiar with the Gospels seem unaware for whom Jesus reserved tones of derision, for me is a mystery.  I understood that in my youth. 

To those of you who are married, did you really get married just to have a sexual relationship?  Did you really get married just to have children?

While those are blessings of union, a relationship with the “other” to whom one has pledged one’s life is much more than that, and if you do not understand that in the context of your own relationship, then I can only pity you and your spouse. 

And Canuck, I know many children who were considered not adoptable by some who were welcomed into the homes of same-gendered couples.  Selfish?  To the contrary, I think that is love, and am blessed to know that both their birth parents and adopted parents chose life.

[37] Posted by KJthurible on 09-24-2007 at 04:21 PM • top

Virg—

I’ll be serious here about why I commented as I did.  I’m too fed up with the way TEC goes out of its way to cater to those bent on destroying God’s Church, all the while destroying themselves, too.

Two years ago (January 2006) I was a first-time delegate to my diocesan (WashDC) convention.  Less than two weeks before convention our contribution to Executive Council, John Vanderstar, proposed formalizing ties with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), and EC passed it.  The commenting on SF and other forums both in support and against was quite prolific.

Then at convention we considered a resolution affirming the full inclusion of LGBT in the life of the diocese; it passed with virtually no meaningful amendment and glowing comment and recommendation from the bishop (JB Chane) and others.  This consideration came on the heels of the total emasculation of a resolution which would have endorsed the Windsor Report.  The evisceration was so total that the proposer ended up withdrawing it.

At the time my wife was eight months pregnant with our second daughter.  What became clearer than ever to me was that TEC, into which generations of my family had been conceived, now was telling me that the baby my wife was carrying was less loved by God, even less worthy of God’s love, than those who freely and often openly pervert themselves.  I can’t think of church leadership that preaches faith like that would be in any way Godly.

Please don’t ask me to believe there was anything holy happening in that building on Saturday.  That I commented the way I did might be a little over the top for you, but with the AC being driven to the point of destruction by “prophets” preaching perversion as normal a little stick in Satan’s ribs does no disservice.

[38] Posted by rustybud on 09-24-2007 at 04:21 PM • top

KJthurible,
Yes! I married the person to whom I wanted to share the remaining of my days with to have children together and raise a family wrapped in the Love of God and family. Otherwise I would have stayed single.

[39] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 04:25 PM • top

rustybud,

Your “almost speechless” soliloquy would be potent, but for (at least) two factors:

i) Scripturally speaking, marriage does not apply to homosexual couples;

ii) It neglects the possibility that after a homosexual couple adopts, one will be convicted of the sinfulness of the relationship, repent, and leave.  The adoption itself would make this a more difficult decision for the partner who leaves the relationship, and this would also be more difficult on the adopted child.  Since the practice of adoption by homosexual couples neglects these two groups, it is essentially selfish. 

Resemblance to the institution of marriage does not marriage make.

[40] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-24-2007 at 04:48 PM • top

Many gay and lesbian couples have genetic offspring.  I have two, myself.

Father unknown.  Deliberately so.

[41] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 04:56 PM • top

(kind of a ludicrous comment, anyway, with overpopulation being among the greatest threats to our continued survival as a species…)

OMG Have you drunk the koolaid or WHAT?  I’d LOVE to ask you what evidence you have for such a ridiculous claim, but unfortunately this is neither the blog nor the thread—we’d both just be banned.

But considering that humankind is living longer, healthier, and wealthier lives across the board—from third world to first world—I cannot imagine what on earth you might be thinking.

[42] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 05:00 PM • top

Moot—

I wasn’t trying to say anything about marriage, if your comment was referring in any way to my marriage to my wife.  You were preaching to the choir.

What I was trying to drive home is that the stated position of TEC is now that those whose freely pervert themselves are more included in TEC’s life than a baby in the womb.  Permanent exclusion for those in the womb is perfectly acceptable.

[43] Posted by rustybud on 09-24-2007 at 05:01 PM • top

Are you saying God would disapprove of a woman marrying a man who has been castrated by accident?  Or who has a known genetic defect which will render him infertile? 

Well at least you appear to admit that the situation is tragic.

We’ll have to wait and see if either of these men (or you yourself?) were accidentally castrated, or born with a birth defect… 

You know, I can only think of a handful of reasons a child might have to grow up without both his mother and his father, and ALL of them are tragic.  Yours included.

[44] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 05:04 PM • top

I think Moot was really responding to KJThurible’s post, not RustyBud.

[45] Posted by CarolynP on 09-24-2007 at 05:05 PM • top

Roger that, CarolynP. 

Rustybud - sorry about that.  Somehow I got my wires crossed. 

I need a beer.

[46] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-24-2007 at 05:07 PM • top

No apology needed.  In fact, I’ll buy the first round.

[47] Posted by rustybud on 09-24-2007 at 05:09 PM • top

As for those who might question my “tone”, I will only say this (being a baptist whose comments are almost always offtopic and utterly at the mercy of my anglican friends):

I keep hearing about “spiritual violence” done to gay and lesbian people, with no real evidence.  Meanwhile children are deliberately created and raised fatherless, and we Christians aren’t allowed to notice??? Talk about spiritual violence!

And what’s up with this kind of stuff anyway: 
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22442562-2862,00.html

[48] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 05:13 PM • top

And I’ll get the second.  Just don’t let me have more than one beer.  It’s not a pretty sight. 

Thanks, Rusty.  smile

[49] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-24-2007 at 05:15 PM • top

Marty the Baptist….You are the Bomb!!!
Talk about confusing a child….this is the type of future the children of gay coupleswill face. Ain’t it jsut grand??????? NOT!!! Our society/world is looking more and more like Sodom & Gomorrah!

[50] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 05:17 PM • top

ODC, I have no idea why “one mom, one dad” isn’t good enough for the children of gay people.  They aren’t even trying to justify it—just shattering homes with abandon.

Apparently there’s something “very special” about homosexuality that the rest of us are never going to understand.  If only God had given men a womb…

[51] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 05:25 PM • top

Dawn Stefanowicz - who was brought up in a homosexual home - has started her own website to help heal those with similar backgrounds.  Just Google her name.  When this experiment with social engineering comes to a close, there will be many more websites such as this to help those who are hurting.  Much like “Silent No More” for those who have had abortions.

[52] Posted by Canuck on 09-24-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

You all are mean.  You are just plain mean.  And, frankly, some of you are stupid too.

If you don’t believe in marriage for people of the same sex then don’t marry someone that is your sex.  But if two other people, whatever sex they are, want to enter into a loving relationship with one another you should either support them or keep quiet.

The only thing I’ve read here that I agree with is that it is dishonest to say that we are giving the bullies in the GS what they want when, clearly, we are not.  We should tell them straight out that we will not be bossed around by them and that we are moving at the speed of light into the Reign on God.  Then they can do whatever kinds of ecclesiastical willy-walling they think they have to do but the rest of us will be long, long, gone.

[53] Posted by Linda McMillan on 09-24-2007 at 05:36 PM • top

If only God had given men a womb…

LOL! :0) I am quite sure that in God’s great infinite wisdom He truly knew what He was doing and why! But, just ain’t it like we humans to want to go and change God’s plans and designs….to our utter peril!
I pray for these children in these same gender homes just as much as I pray for those children in homes of divorced parents. But at least in an estended family of remarriage the children are being loved by two sets of parents in a setting of male roles and female roles and not one side only.

[54] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 05:38 PM • top

I know emotions are running high about the issues this blog is all about.  I understand why this Beverly Hills event was highlighted here because it underscores the brokenness of the Episcopal Church. 

I stand with you in what I also believe is a biblical view of human sexuality.  But I’m against much of the tone in this thread.

How can people who appear to care very much about a biblical view of sexuality AND care that this message be more wide-spread also be so short-sighted as to write words that publicly damage their own witness?

There are human souls at stake who are moving closer or further from the heart of God with the impact of what they read about this issue, even in this blog.

Why direct sneering and snide comments toward people that you believe are already far from God? Why do that? What’s the point?

Do you think sneering words will turn their hearts to God? Will snide remarks draw the hearts of your fellow church members who are wrestling with this issue? 

I believe with you that God’s intention for human sexuality is not what the church in Beverly Hills just celebrated. 

But I also believe that God cannot and will not bless words that further degrade the humanity of those already far from God.

[55] Posted by fellowpilgrim on 09-24-2007 at 05:40 PM • top

Canuck….I am saddened that these kinds of sites are even necessay! This only affirms the damage done and being done. It needs to come to a hault. But activists and social correctness won’t let it because its selfishness of its own wants and need regardless of who it hurts on the way. I’m not happy that these sites exist, it breaks my heart for those who were forced to live &gow;up in such a perverted maner.

[56] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 05:44 PM • top

You all are mean.  You are just plain mean.  And, frankly, some of you are stupid too.

*LOL* Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue too?

Now I remember why I gave up on being an ultra-liberal, it was lack of a rational argument. Let’s see here, the post begins with ad hominem attacks then moves into ad misericordiam. One way to attempt to make a point, push folks away first then appeal to sympathy ... okay ...

[57] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-24-2007 at 05:55 PM • top

I agree with fellowpilgrim - this thread does not witness to the love of Christ as it should.  I guess the frustrations of the day are coming to a point and maybe it is time to pray for ourselves and all others.  I guess when you have a “weeping heart” it is difficult to stand by as God’s Will appears to be subverted time and time again by a body of people who proport to love Him.  Lord have mercy.

[58] Posted by Canuck on 09-24-2007 at 05:55 PM • top

fellowpilgrim,
There are also fellow Christians being forced out of their churches because of stories like this one that they have to witness in the churches they themselves have been baptised, confirmed, & married in becuase theyare being forced to either accept this way of affirming or leave. The Word of God is being distorted and disregarded for the sake of social & political correctness and that is just wrong. No one has been degrading to anyone on this thread….sorry you feel that way. But the truth has ben spoken and as Sarah Hey has stated there are two gospels - one organization. Quite frankly your gospel in my humble opinion degrades my Lord & Savior and myself.
God Bless you

[59] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 05:56 PM • top

  it is difficult to stand by as God’s Will appears to be subverted time and time again by a body of people who proport to love Him. 

A statement I can full heartedly agree with but probably for very different reason ...

[60] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 09-24-2007 at 05:59 PM • top

Hosea 6:6…..I concur!

[61] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 06:01 PM • top

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, speaking to the San Diego city council:

I speak on behalf of the many supporters of traditional marriage who are arrayed in this room. We come from all the major faith traditions, and no religion at all. But we are united in two core beliefs.

1. We believe that men and women are different in socially significant ways. We believe that mothers and fathers are not perfectly interchangeable. The advocates of same sex marriage must insist that gender is irrelevant to parenting.

2. We believe that something is owed to the child. We believe that every child is entitled to be born into a family of the mother and father who brought them into being through an act of love. Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents.

Like many others here today, I am devoted to helping opposite sex couples see the importance of life-long married love. Our efforts would be greatly hampered by a judgement of the state saying adults are entitled to cut off a child’s relationship with one of his parents at birth, and that the child should be indifferent as to whether he has both parents or not.

That is why we have come here today: to speak on behalf of those children yet to be born, to affirm our commitment to the principle that every child deserves a mother and a father.

I cannot fathom why TEC or their beloved MDG’s cannot support this simple, common sense, and Biblical witness.  How is it that gender is both all-important to adults, but completely irrelevant to children?

This is why I oppose SSM.

[62] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 06:02 PM • top

You all are mean.  You are just plain mean.  And, frankly, some of you are stupid too.

ROFL !!!
Gasp.  Ahem..
Seriously, was this a lost bet, or a silly dare? 

You -do- know that calling people mean, and then stupid, is in itself, mean, don’t you?  I’m sure you also know that being this inconsistent in an ad hominym attack, is in itself (to use mild language) rather -silly- ?

If you don’t believe in marriage for people of the same sex then don’t marry someone that is your sex.

It’s impossible for anyone to marry someone, who is their own sex.  “Male and female created He, them.”  Marriage is fundamentally heterosexual because God created it that way.  Therefore, we cannot help to comply with your request, by virtue of the fact that it is impossible to not comply with it. 

But thanks for asking, all the same. 

But if two other people, whatever sex they are, want to enter into a loving relationship with one another

I don’t have a problem with a single man marrying a single woman, so long as they are either both Christians, or both non-Christians.  Similarly, I don’t have a problem with a single woman marrying a single man, so long as they are either both Christians, or both non-Christians.  What’s your problem?

you should either support them or keep quiet.

Ah.  Unsubstantiated moral statements.  You really should support such statements, or perhaps keep quiet yourself. 

We should tell them straight out that we will not be bossed around by them and that we are moving at the speed of light into the Reign on God.

I think they gather that ya’ll are going to do your own thing, and that you consider it God’s will.  They just don’t agree that it is consistent with what God has revealed to us about His will. 

Then they can do whatever kinds of ecclesiastical willy-walling they think they have to do but the rest of us will be long, long, gone.

You already are.

[63] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-24-2007 at 06:20 PM • top

One day closer, please be more careful with your words:

Quite frankly your gospel in my humble opinion degrades my Lord & Savior and myself. God Bless you

My gospel degrades my Lord and you?  Lord, have mercy on us both.

My gospel is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, truly God and truly Man, who came to show us who God is, how God speaks and acts, and to offer himself as a substitution, a payment for human sin. He died a criminal’s death. He physically came back to life in a resurrected body that ate fish and did unusual things, like enter locked rooms. : )  He ascended into heaven and is even now interceding for you and for me. He will come again to bring human history to fulfillment.  He is even now, through his Holy Spirit—the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jesus—desiring to draw people into right relationship with God.  He is not willing that any should perish.

That’s my gospel.  I surely hope it would never degrade you.

Lord have mercy on both of us.  I suspect we both are in need of it,  as is the Church universal.

[64] Posted by fellowpilgrim on 09-24-2007 at 06:25 PM • top

“But if two other people, whatever sex they are, want to enter into a loving relationship with one another you should either support them or keep quiet”.

Now this is the pot calling the kettle.  My priest is very kind, compassionate, and considerate.  He was “quiet” about gays in his congregation until they demanded the sacrament of marriage from him.  His answer was simply, “I’m sorry, but no, because that is not my interpretation of Scripture”.  And, for that, he got “well, you’re nothing but a bigot”, and now I note the GS primates/bishops being labeled as “bullies”. 

So, calling my priest a “bigot” simply because he said “no” for the above reason is NOT mean or childish? 

I said on another thread that everyone should indulge in reading the new book “Everything Conceivable”, which is all about the processes, statistics, trends, and ethical dilemmas of current assisted reproductive technology. 

I’ve said before that I can probably live with gay adoption more than I can live with abandoned, neglected, or abused children in the foster system.  Lorian may have biological children but those children are here because of sperm she purchased from a likely anonymous donor.  What she really “got” there, in terms of biology, remains to be seen. 

Yes, the men above may make good fathers, but will they do it as described in some of the case studies in “Everything Conceivable”?  By purchasing donor eggs from impoverished women in Russia who are desperate for the cash?  And then by fertilizing them over there with whosever’s sperm, and then flying back to the States and engaging what I could call “rent-a-womb”, complete with extensive hormonal manipulation for the surrogate, which may eventually not be worth all the cash she’ll get for carrying any babies? 

Money always can talk, and I don’t limit my questions on these issues to the gay community—straights should reexamine their priorities in these departments, too.  For the record, the above described rector is an EOE—he has also refused straight weddings for significant relationship issues.  The couples in that picture did not call him a “bigot” as the gays did.  They either simply went down the road to another church, or worked on themselves and re-presented the case to the rector, as responsible, self-starting adults would. 

Who is “mean” or who is “stupid”, or who is “egocentric”, or who is “insecure” is an entirely different debate altogether.  Rather than pronouncing labels, if I were gay I’d start hitting the books to see if I could find a way of getting around the Bible or the definition of porneia—if you could make that theological case(“becuz we feel like it” or the “cultural-conditioning” of Scriptures meant to be timeless doesn’t cut it) instead of degenerating into tantrums or whining or name-calling, you might find many more accomodating priests. 

Food for thought, and other than that, I’ll just leave everyone concerned to their cries of victimhood. 

Blessings,

TS

[65] Posted by Passing By on 09-24-2007 at 06:31 PM • top

fellowpilgrim,
I believe in what you said and I believe in a whole lot more. Such as God not blessing things He admonishes nor does He condone sinful living and behavior. I believe that Jesus’ death on that cross and the suffering of scourging and ridicule that He also suffered was not for nothing and should not be taken lightly but seriously. Seriously enough to turn away from sin and live a upright and godly life as best as we can with Jesus Christ as our guide and God’s Law our rule book. We are in no position to lessen it when we attempt to change His Word to fit our sinfulness and feel all cozy and comfy. The whole world is in much need of the Lord’s mercy and it is there, but one must shed the sin in order to fully partake.

[66] Posted by TLDillon on 09-24-2007 at 06:38 PM • top

As a newly confirmed Episcopalian I’ve spent some time checking out various websites that purport to be about the Church and came across this one.  “Traditional Anglicanism”, “Stand firm in the faith”, “Be loving in all that you do”—-sounds great.  But when I read the overwhelming majority of the posts the level of anger and invective is—-well—- amazing.

So, the sense I get is that most, if not all of the regular posters think that homosexuality…maybe even homosexuals…are an abomination before God, that women should not be ordained, and that the Episcopal Church has gone to hell in a handbasket and is roundly hated, and that the House of Bishops are a bunch of fools.
Sometimes an individual’s postings on some topics (today’s Same Sex Marriage article, for example where some people make the same points against homosexuality 10 times or more in a few hours) appear almost obsessive.

So, I have just one question?  If you don’t like the Episcopal Church, why not find another one that suits you and in which your “foundational worldview”, to quote Sarah Hey, would be welcome?  Just a thought.  I always question when people unnecessarily chew on divisiveness.

Like the quote says at the end of the SFIF posting board:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I tell you:  Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”

[67] Posted by Matthew 25:34-45 on 09-24-2007 at 06:44 PM • top

But if two other people, whatever sex they are, want to enter into a loving relationship with one another you should either support them or keep quiet.

Well, of course, we do.  It’s just when the relationship involves sexual activity that we here start to get a little picky.  Why, precisely, do you-all seem to feel that sex is somehow an inherent part of love?  Many of us believe the relationship is quite the other way around.

[68] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 09-24-2007 at 06:45 PM • top

Matthew 25:34-35, I will agree with you that a lot of what you’re seeing on this thread is over the top. I wonder, though, what you would post here tonight if the HOB had come out today with a repentant response to DES and an acceptable offer of provision for the orthodox?

[69] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2007 at 06:58 PM • top

Amen, Matthew. 

And enough for me of this blog.

I will ask our Lord to help me be faithful in prayer for those in the Episcopal Church who are caught up in this struggle.

[70] Posted by fellowpilgrim on 09-24-2007 at 06:59 PM • top

Welcome to Stand Firm, Matthew 25.  Seems you’ve walked into a bit of a row.  See, the thing is, if we didn’t care deeply about the Anglican Communion (my parish has left TEC), we wouldn’t walk across the street to fuss like this.  But the Church (big “c”) is precious to us and we believe, to the Lord, and is worth defending.  Way back at the top of the post, Greg gave us the reason for posting the article.  “Compliance.”  Or lack of such.  TEC is a wayward branch of the Church, and she is trying to take a bunch of precious souls with her.  We won’t sit idly by and watch it happen.  This is just a specific case in point.

[71] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 09-24-2007 at 07:00 PM • top

Oscewicee, I would have said, “See you in Church on Sunday, if not at mid-week Mass.”  Peace.

[72] Posted by Matthew 25:34-45 on 09-24-2007 at 07:01 PM • top

I’ll take your word for it, Matthew. It’s not likely that you will be put to the test.

[73] Posted by oscewicee on 09-24-2007 at 07:02 PM • top

Stick around Matt 25, you’ll likely wind up agreeing with us once you find a couple more episcopal priests moonlighting as universalists, atheists, wiccan’s, muslims, or (god forbid) nude gay wrestlers selling videotapes…

Or you can just peruse the archives.  It’s all there.  Nobody’s making stuff up about your church—nobody has to.  Sick isn’t it?

[74] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 07:11 PM • top

Matthew—You’ve walked into the middle of a pitched battle, one we’ve been fighting for years.  We’re not at our most irenic tonight—we’re tired, we’re angry, we’re frustrated, we’re fearful—maybe we’re at our sinful worst.  Hang around (or come back when the dust has settled), and see our better side—we do have one. smile

[75] Posted by In Newark on 09-24-2007 at 07:18 PM • top

Thanks for the invite Marty, but if you read the Scripture that I’ve chose for my screen name, you’ll figure out why I’m not likely to spend much time here.  While you’re at it, you might reference Luke 6:44-45 and Matthew 7:1-6.  Our Lord has a way with words.

[76] Posted by Matthew 25:34-45 on 09-24-2007 at 07:18 PM • top

Great verses Matt25—among the greatest.

I DO try not to gloat when supporters of TECs “innovations” quote that part about “bearing fruit” to a southern baptist.  I really try.  But so many of your leaders seem intent on letting your once fruitful tree wither and die…  you really should see some of the statistics that get posted here…

Oh how I wish it were otherwise!

[77] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 09-24-2007 at 07:27 PM • top

“If you don’t like the Episcopal Church, why not find another one that suits you and in which your “foundational worldview”,  to quote Sarah Hey, would be welcome?” 
Wow, Matt - for a new Episcopalian, you sure have adopted the TEC creed at lightening speed, haven’t you?  Sorry for the sarcasm, but I bet the ink isn’t even dry on your confirmation certificate.  And I speak as one who has left TEC, but am still an Anglican.  Of course, I left after 30 years of participation, a large amount of money left behind, countless hours of devotion to parish tasks, etc.  But, that’s okay, isn’t it Matt?  It’s okay that because TEC decided to “do a new thing” that preaches inclusivity, but is as exclusive, narrow minded and bigoted as it gets, that I could no longer stay.  That’s okay and real Christian, isn’t it, Matt?  And I’m sure the next word out of your mouth will be “homophobe”.  Well, you know what, Matt, my beloved nephew is gay.  I was in the delivery room the night he was born. I am sure as God made little green apples that God loves my nephew.  And I do too.  As Andy Rooney said:  “dislike of homosexuality is an opinion, not a mental illness.”  So, Matt, spend 30 years of your life in the Episcopal Church.  Make friends/relationships that you thought would last a lifetime.  Give enough money that you live a different lifestyle than you would if you weren’t giving anything.  Pray, weep, anguish for your beloved church as you watch the theological rug being pulled out from under you.  Be subjected to underhanded, dishonest tactics by the likes of the bishop of New Hampshire.  THEN and only then, come back and judge me.

[78] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 09-24-2007 at 07:35 PM • top

Matthew 25:34-45,
Welcome to Stand Firm.  This thread is not the group at its best.  But the fact of a “commitment ceremony” occuring in a Church in Beverly Hills the same day that the Bishop of Los Angeles insists that no same sex blessings occur in his diocese without his approval must mean that he approved this or that there was no “blessing” or that Bishop Bruno is “guilty of factual inexactitude.” That this occured when the HoB is debating its final response to the rest of the Anglican Communion (whom it has thrown in to terrible disarray and brought schism to) is rather laughable.

In addition to Matthew 25, you might want to read Matthew 28 as well as the Baptismal Covenant to which you just reaffirmed your participation.  Please pay particular attention to the first promise - to continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship.  ISTM that TECUSA is not following the Apostles’ teaching and is forsaking their fellowship.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[79] Posted by Philip Snyder on 09-24-2007 at 07:49 PM • top

Mt. 25, I concur with our NH brother.  I am a cradle Episcopalian who finds it insulting that a new convert would think we should leave pecusa because of the recent innovations that you obviously embrace.  However, I, like NH, have left pecusa and am now a CANA priest.  The current direction of pecusa is a death march and I am glad to have left it.

“If you don’t like the Episcopal Church, why not find another one that suits you and in which your “foundational worldview”, to quote Sarah Hey, would be welcome?”

[80] Posted by TonyinCNY on 09-24-2007 at 08:40 PM • top

So, the sense I get is that most, if not all of the regular posters think that homosexuality…maybe even homosexuals…are an abomination before God, that women should not be ordained, and that the Episcopal Church has gone to hell in a handbasket and is roundly hated, and that the House of Bishops are a bunch of fools.

Um, where to start?

1)  I think most of the conservative posters on SF would distinguish between homosexual behavior, and the homosexual him or herself.  They would point to the scriptural condemnation of homosexual sex as abomination, but would also point out that all sinners in this age (after the Cross, and before the Second Coming of Christ) have been given an opportunity to repent of our besetting sins as part of our turning to Christ. 

2)  Women’s ordination (WO):  A significant percentage of SF commenters are actually in favor of WO.  I suspect that this (i.e., pro-WO) may be the majority view at SF, while the traditional view is not as prevelant.  The topic itself has been deemed semi-verboten on this site, and is being actively discouraged by the SF moderators, as is there prerogative. 

3)  “TEC gone to hell in a handbasket.”  Well, I think all conservatives here hold out hope that God will grant repentance to TEC, so it hasn’t gone to hell quite yet.  I do think though, that there is a war between good and evil being waged within TEC, as I write this, and that the stakes are the souls of foolish Christians. 

4)  RE:  “TEC roundly hated.” 
How about, loved less than Him in Whom we live, and move, and have our being ?
5)  RE:  “HOB a bunch of fools.”  That’s a simple statement composed of complex terms.  For God’s definition of “fool,” I refer you to the Book of Proverbs. 

Sometimes an individual’s postings on some topics (today’s Same Sex Marriage article, for example where some people make the same points against homosexuality 10 times or more in a few hours) appear almost obsessive.

I’ve wondered about the effectiveness of repitition, myself.  It’s difficult to gauge whether reappraisers have grasped an argument, when they don’t respond to carefully thought-out points.  To my reckoning, if I repeat the points of my argument when they don’t respond, then I’m giving them an opportunity to vindicate their own argument.  After all, they could be having a busy day, and responding to the other 95-99% of my argument, might have slipped between the cracks somehow.  We all have days like that - I have those days, myself.  How could I not sympathize with that kind of situation?

So, I have just one question?  If you don’t like the Episcopal Church, why not find another one that suits you and in which your “foundational worldview”,  to quote Sarah Hey, would be welcome?  Just a thought.

 

Because there is significantly more at stake than our collective sense of comfort.  People’s souls are at stake. 

I always question when people unnecessarily chew on divisiveness.

Me too.  Recently, one SF commentator said this very divisive statement:  “If you don’t like the Episcopal Church, why not find another one that suits you and in which your “foundational worldview,”

Cheers !  wink

[81] Posted by J Eppinga on 09-24-2007 at 09:18 PM • top

Blessings on you, Moot!

[82] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 09-24-2007 at 09:31 PM • top

Actually, I have seen much worse threads than this one. Some posters here have made some good comments in the light of some of the more extreme ones.

As I’m halfway round the world (not quite as far as David Ould, but almost…) I always log on, start reading and realise that all the important points have usually been said before I get a chance to comment. That’s partly why I don’t say too much. Another reason is that I don’t attend an Anglican church. I am in the Vineyard, but while at Uni in the UK I attended one of the big charismatic Anglican Churches there (St Michael-le-Belfrey, York), and I have been following the debates ever since…

Matt25

Please don’t run away just yet. When I saw your comment:

So, the sense I get is that most, if not all of the regular posters think that homosexuality…maybe even homosexuals…are an abomination before God, that women should not be ordained, and that the Episcopal Church has gone to hell in a handbasket and is roundly hated, and that the House of Bishops are a bunch of fools.

I thought ‘well, he seems to have me figured out more or less’ even though I hadn’t said anything up to this point wink

At the same time… What are the bishops actually trying to do? The subject of this thread (and the J.J Bruno one) demonstrates that some of them have no intention of complying with the Primates of the AC. At the same time they clearly do not wish to face any consequences that may arise from their actions. Who are they trying to kid? No wonder people are a bit heated on this board.

Sarah Hey

Thanks for your response to denniswine. You said it so much better than I could…

[83] Posted by Derek Smith on 09-25-2007 at 02:03 AM • top

All Saints, Beverly Hills, Uncle Jed?

Wellllll, doggies.

(P.S. +Bruno lied.  Pass it on.)

[84] Posted by bigjimintx on 09-25-2007 at 06:43 AM • top

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem with this Church offering the sacrament of marriage to two people who are just as worthy of marriage as any other of God’s children.

The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer explains that “marriage is for mutual joy, comfort in adversity, and, if it is God’s will, raising children in the Church.”

Are you saying that this church should not have the religious freedom to perform marriages, using the words of Ruth, uniting two people before God? Because without this freedom, everything that we stand for is lost.

<a >Some of my musings on the topic for those who are truly intersted….</a>

[85] Posted by signab43 on 05-12-2009 at 03:23 PM • top

No.  We’re not interested.

We have heard all these arguments before, and have not found them to be persuasive.  Merely repeating them at this stage is pointless and serves no useful purpose.  Unless you want to try out some new arguments, I would respectfully suggest that you go muse elsewhere.

[86] Posted by st. anonymous on 05-12-2009 at 03:28 PM • top

I remember, some time back, seeing a passage which said that marriage and the physical union betwixt a man and a woman “is ordained by God as a holy institution, and if it be His will, for the procreation of children.”

[87] Posted by Cennydd on 05-12-2009 at 03:42 PM • top

I immediately tune out once I hear the argument about Ruth and Naomi. That was not about lesbians living together; It was about a mother-in-law and her daughter in law, and there was no suggestion that they be married to each other. If people wish to make arguments fine-but don’t twist the Bible completely out of its context with such an example.

And no, I don’t want to hear the one about Jonathan and David “obviously” being gay. Heard it before I don’t find it convincing.

[88] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 05-12-2009 at 04:04 PM • top

Furthermore, there was no suggestion in the Scripture that Ruth and Naomi SHOULD be married or that they were or wanted to have sex.

[89] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 05-12-2009 at 04:05 PM • top

For those of you who are interested in what the 1979 BCP actually says, here it is.

Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of
God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and
this woman in Holy Matrimony. The bond and covenant of
marriage was established by God in creation, and our Lord
Jesus Christ adorned this manner of life by his presence and
first miracle at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. It signifies to us
the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and
Holy Scripture commends it to be honored among all people.

The union of husband and wife in heart, body, and mind is
intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort
given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is
God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture
in the knowledge and love of the Lord. Therefore marriage is
not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently,
deliberately, and in accordance with the purposes for which it
was instituted by God.

In a sense, the blessing of same sex marriages by TEC simply completes its betrayal of the ideas expressed in its own BCP.  This church has long permitted, even encouraged, people to enter into marriage unadvisedly, lightly, and irreverently.  I suppose one could argue that it is only meet and right for TEC to complete the grand slam.

[90] Posted by Kubla on 05-12-2009 at 04:58 PM • top

It seems like when God gives us an example of two people who are married and raising children in Christ that we ought to respect and nurture that relationship and do everything that we can to support family - rather than musing about how they will wind up messing it up (Zoot, Cindy T., FellowPilgrim). Denigrating a commitment makes all commitments less valid - including our own.

It does the children no good, the parents no help, and God no honor to turn people away from the sacrament of marriage. And it does us no good to deny others their religious freedom, because that will come back to bite us.

http://signab43.blogspot.com/search/label/groups+-+Episcopal+Church

“There is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:1

[91] Posted by signab43 on 05-12-2009 at 05:08 PM • top

Just out of curiosity, signab43, do you think it was discriminatory for God to enable only one of the sexes to carry progeny in her womb?

[92] Posted by Fidela on 05-12-2009 at 05:13 PM • top

How in the world does a thread like this that ended in September 2007 all of a sudden awaken from its slumber???

[93] Posted by CarolynP on 05-12-2009 at 05:18 PM • top

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem with this Church offering the sacrament of marriage to two people who are just as worthy of marriage as any other of God’s children.


Interesting to see this old thread pop up.

Here’s a short answer:
1. There is absolutely nothing in Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition authorizing the Church to offer marriage or blessings to same-sex couples who are or are going to be in a sexual relationship.
2. Not one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church authorized SSBs or marriage.
3. Not one of the living Patriarchs of the Church has authorized SSBs or marriage.
4. The Anglican Communion has not authorized SSBs or marriage. Lambeth Resolution 1.10 has never been overturned. (Do a Google search and read it for yourself.)
5. Nothing in the Book of Common Prayer authorizes SSBs or marriages.

The issue is absolute and concrete. Period. Some folks have written all sorts of twisted explanations of why this isn’t so, but Ole Rafe hasn’t seen one that passes the test of Ockham’s Razor.

A few renegade priests and bishops of the Episcopal Church and other branches of Christianity do feel that in spite of this, they themselves somehow have the authority and power to conduct SSBs and weddings.

They say it’s a New Thing. Rafe sees it as a very old thing - simple, diabolical heresy.

Show me ANYTHING in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition that teaches that two or more self-avowed, practicing and unrepentant homosexuals are worthy of marriage. Anything will do.

By the way, the 39 Articles do not list marriage as a sacrament. The only 2 are baptism and Holy Eucharist.

Blessings, Rafe

[94] Posted by Ralph on 05-12-2009 at 05:28 PM • top

I’m sorry, but I don’t see the problem with this Church offering the sacrament of marriage to two people who are just as worthy of marriage as any other of God’s children.

signab43,

You are doing what is called in formal logic “begging the question” - offering your conclusion as proof of its own truth.

It is precisely the question of whether two people of the same sex are “just as worthy of marriage as any other of God’s children” that is at issue here. You may think that is a settled question, but only the ignorant or the insane would actually claim that is so.

The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer explains that “marriage is for mutual joy, comfort in adversity, and, if it is God’s will, raising children in the Church.”

Yes, and gay couples cannot have their own children. They can have someone else’s children, in certain places and under certain circumstances, but the BCP’s reference to “raising children” is a) mainly about having one’s own children, or adopting when you’re biologically unable to have our own (and by “unable” that means by accident, not by choice, which is what gay couples have made); and b) has nothing to do with, much less negates, the biblical prohibition of same-sex behavior.

Note also that the same BCP rubric you quote defines marriage as the union of *A* man and *A* woman.

Hey, thanks for playing, though.

[95] Posted by Greg Griffith on 05-12-2009 at 05:50 PM • top

I am more interested in what God says not what teh BCP says! The BCP is not the Holy Word of God!

[96] Posted by TLDillon on 05-12-2009 at 08:20 PM • top

I am more interested in what God says than in what some people misinterpret the Bible as saying.

[97] Posted by Lorian on 05-12-2009 at 08:47 PM • top

Greg Griffith says “...gay couples cannot have their own children…adopting when you’re biologically unable to have our own (and by “unable” that means by accident, not by choice, which is what gay couples have made)”.

I don’t know how Greg Griffith reads that into the BCP definition of marriage (maybe it’s the same way he reads it into the Bible). Not only is a qualification to heterosexual adoption not there, but my husband and I chose to have children using gestational surrogacy, which was a choice, and makes our children biologically related to us. Sure, it’s a technology that wasn’t around when the Bible was written, but so was flying in airplanes, and we do that without violating God’s will.

TLDillion points out that BCP is irrelevant, it’s the Bible that matters. But nobody has been able to point to part of the Bible that says “no same-sex relationships.” So we are relegated to interpretations like the “no fish on Fridays” rules.

But the icing is Ralph’s argument that, because it isn’t authorized by the Bible, that it is therefore prohibited by the Bible. Old Rafe better not be flying on airplanes, because that isn’t authorized by the Bible!

This old thread all quite conveniently and concretely collapses into the admonishment to treat others as you would like yourself to be treated. You wouldn’t like somebody to take away your marriage, and it is a sin of the most diabolical kind to take away somebody else’s.

[98] Posted by signab43 on 05-14-2009 at 06:33 PM • top

And I have to share with you a little thing about TLDillon’s posting. He wrote “Nowhere in the Bible does God say to have a samesex partner then go find someone to impregnant you or to impregnant to have children.” It would seem to be a hinge point.

But going back to the tired story of Ruth (but in a different way, FenelonSpoke), 4:17 “And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.”

Here is an example of Naomi having a child through somebody else, seemingly out of wedlock. And what a Son Obed was!

If TLDillon was right about surrogacy then we wouldn’t have Jesus. Just something to consider before condemning same-sex relationships as being unfruitful.

[99] Posted by signab43 on 05-14-2009 at 06:43 PM • top

Hi signab43,

I personally am all for “same-sex relationships”. In fact, I have a lot of “same sex relationships”. And you are correct to note that there are a lot of “same sex relationships” recorded and affirmed in scripture. And, yes, Naomi and Ruth were in a “same-sex relationship” that was certainly blessed and grace-filled.

It’s just that they were not having sex with each other.

[100] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 05-14-2009 at 06:59 PM • top

signab43,
You must not be paying attention on purpose:

Romans 1:26-27
  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; [27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[101] Posted by TLDillon on 05-14-2009 at 07:42 PM • top

Right you are Fr. Matt…....I have multiple “same sex relationships” with all my sisters in the Daughters of the king bu we do not go to bed with each other, but we do love each other!

[102] Posted by TLDillon on 05-14-2009 at 07:47 PM • top

Personally, I got married in the office of a judge because I was not attending a church at the time, and I think all unions should be civil unions. I think the goverment should get out of the marriage business entirely. And if it meant yhat in order for their to be civil unions for all that my marriage should become a retrocative “civil union” I would have no problem with it. Most countries in the world do not have marriages for gays. They have civil unions. Some countries-such as Israel, I believe-has civil unions for all. You go to a Rabbi or priest if you want a religious ceremony.

[103] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 05-14-2009 at 08:02 PM • top

Ah, I had thought there might be the tiniest chance that signab43 might not be trolling.

Airplanes? You can do better than that.

1. There is absolutely nothing in Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition authorizing anyone to fly in an airplane.
2. Not one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church authorized flying in airplanes.
3. However, the living Patriarchs of the Church themselves do fly in airplanes.
4. The Anglican Communion uses airplanes.
5. Nothing in the Book of Common Prayer authorizes flying in airplanes.

So, homosexual practice, “weddings” of homosexuals, and SSBs of homosexuals score 0/5. Flying in airplanes scores 2/5. They had homosexual practice in antiquity, but they didn’t have airplanes. In travel, a lot has changed. With homosexual practice, nothing has changed.

However, this thread isn’t about flying in airplanes. It’s about blessing gross sexual misconduct. What authority and power does the Church have to bless or otherwise approve of gross sexual misconduct? None at all. Period.

Where there are two (or more) people of the same sex, there is no possibility of Holy Matrimony, or true marriage. Therefore, there is nothing that can be taken away.

So I’m still waiting to hear of one little bitty example in which Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition (#1-5 above) that teaches that two or more self-avowed, practicing and unrepentant homosexuals are worthy of marriage. Anything will do.

I’m a completely open-minded, at least to the extent that a Retarded Homophobe can be open-minded.

[104] Posted by Ralph on 05-14-2009 at 08:56 PM • top

Thanks for the laugh, Ralph. Well done. We needed some lightness in this thread. :^)

[105] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 05-14-2009 at 09:04 PM • top

#105, I was trying to be mean. Durn it.

I do need to report that I have been advised that 2 Kings 2 does authorize at least some of us to fly in airplanes. However, I disagree. While, I can see how Elisha might have described the takeoff of a 777 as being like a storm (2 Kings 2:1), I cannot account for the Hebrew word “esh” (fire) in 2Kgs 2:11. A chariot of fire… No. Airplanes don’t normally have fire coming out of their engines. I can’t figure out the “horse” part, either. The Hebrew rekhev can also refer to the upper stone of a grain mill. MAYBE IT WAS A FLYING SAUCER! (Whoa, sorry. Speculative eisegesis. Ole Rafe would really like a ride on a flying saucer someday.)

I’ve also been advised that Ralph Vaughan Williams (the other Rafe) wrote a piece called “A Vision of Aeroplanes,” based on Ezekiel and the wheels (Ezek 1), and that the Rev. Burrell Cannon in 1902 built a working flying machine based on his detailed study of Ezekiel. Again, having consulted the original sources, I cannot definitely affirm that the wheels of Ezekiel were airplanes.

So, being the very, very stubborn and rigid person that I am, I am NOT going to change my opinion that Holy Scripture SIMPLY DOES NOT authorize us to fly in airplanes. However, it would appear that there’s more Scriptural evidence for that than there is to authorize same-sex sexual practice, not to mention weddings, blessings, or whatever.

Signing off, Rafe

[106] Posted by Ralph on 05-15-2009 at 10:52 AM • top

Thank you, Ralph, for all the great Biblical references to air travel. I am surprised that you can stretch air travel out of Ezekiel but still miss the implications of Naomi having a child by Ruth. I guess that’s one of the side-effects of picking and choosing your way through the Bible, which is why you shouldn’t do it.

As far as your disparagement about “unrepentant homosexuals” being unable to participate in Holy Matrimony, it has apparently not occurred to you that marriage just might be the opposite of “unrepentent homosexual behavior” just like it is the opposite of adultery? Shouldn’t everybody have the opportunity to turn away from adultery? Anyway, there is no admonishment for it in the Bible. As we have established, Bob and Rob can make and keep a mutual commitment, have kids, and raise them in the Church as well as anybody else.

God took quite a bit of time to say what we cannot do (like eating shellfish, shaving, being mean to your neighbor, etc.) and could have certainly said “love God with all your heart, soul, body and mind, love your neighbor as yourself and don’t get gay-married.” But He did not.

It makes me sad to see so many smart people using the great minds that God gave them to break apart couples like Bob and Rob, accuse them of adultery (this means you, Rustybud and TLDillon) and take away their relationship, instead of using those smarts to stop abortions, feed the poor or heal the sick. You can disagree with Bob and Rob and the Church and State that married them, but that does not give you the authority to break the Golden Rule.

[107] Posted by signab43 on 05-15-2009 at 04:21 PM • top

Naomi wa the nurse for the child, much like a nanny! Ruth was very old! Singab43 you are the one stretching something from nothing! You are twisting and re-interpreting the story.

Ruth 4:21
  Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed,...

Ruth 4:11-17
  Then all the people who were at the gate and the elders said, “We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you act worthily in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem, [12] and may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the Lord will give you by this young woman.”
  [13] So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son. [14] Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! [15] He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” [16] Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse. [17] And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.


  4:14 This child replaced the family Naomi had lost when her own two sons died in Moab. The women of the town recognized that this child completed the circle of redemption for Naomi.


  4:15 care for you in your old age (literally cause your old age to be full): With the birth of Obed, Naomi’s life was full again (cp. 1:21).

[108] Posted by TLDillon on 05-15-2009 at 04:34 PM • top

Hi signab43,

by your definition of “love” we have to passout heroin to addicts, money to habitual gamblers, and free booze to alchoholics.

[109] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 05-15-2009 at 04:34 PM • top

By the eay Naomi was not a lesbian! But the lesbians seem to love to make her into one of them because they cannot find anything else to try and put past those who are not so versed in biblical accounts that they can stretch and twist to their agendized benefits.

[110] Posted by TLDillon on 05-15-2009 at 04:39 PM • top

change that word agendized to propagandized

[111] Posted by TLDillon on 05-15-2009 at 04:40 PM • top

While I am opposed to same sex marriage within the church, according to Prof. John Boswell of Yale University’s history department there is a much longer history of this issue within the church than many would like to believe.

  “Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together” according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

http://www.colfaxrecord.com/detail/91429.html

[112] Posted by Questio Verum on 05-15-2009 at 05:47 PM • top

Boswell’s work is both dated and discredited:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/hays.html

[113] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 05-15-2009 at 06:09 PM • top

Rafe signing back on again. Resurrecting Boswell is a good effort. Kudos.

Adelphopoiesis = spiritual union, not sexual union.

Boswell died of (ahem) HIV at age 47. His books are masterpieces of wishful thinking.

Signing off, Rafe

[114] Posted by Ralph on 05-15-2009 at 06:31 PM • top

In her review of Boswell’s “Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe,” Robin Darling Young shares about her experience of being joined to another woman in a “same sex union” performed in an Orthodox Church.

This union had absolutely nothing to do with sexual relations between the two partners.  It was, rather, “the rite of adoption (adelphopoiesis) for friends.”  This is the type of union that Boswell unsuccessfully tries to pass of as an early form of “gay marriage” recognized by the Church.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=4511

The entire review is well worth reading.  This is Young’s take on Boswell’s mishandling of the legend of Sergius and Bacchus:

In the story, Bacchus dies first, and appears in a vision to exhort Sergius to preserve his Christian faith in the face of certain martyrdom the next day. Boswell asserts that “Bacchus’ promise that if Serge followed the Lord he would get as his reward not the beatific vision, not the joy of paradise, not even the crown of martyrdom, but Bacchus himself, was remarkable by the standards of the early church, privileging human affection in a way unparalleled during the first thousand years of Christianity.”

To arrive at this conclusion requires that Boswell read Sun soi gar apokeitai moi ho tes dikaiosynes stephanos as “For the crown of justice for me is to be with you.” But that is not how it reads; the Latin version more correctly translates the Greek as Tecum enim mihi reposita est justitia et corona: “For with you is laid up for me the crown of righteousness” (in the Latin, “righteousness and crown”) [cf. 2 Timothy 4:8]. In other words, the two will together gain the crown-not primarily one another’s person, as Boswell wishes.

Boswell has been thoroughly discredited and does not deserve to be taken seriously.

[115] Posted by episcopalienated on 05-15-2009 at 06:56 PM • top

Thank you Epicopalienated and Matt for providing links and excerpts showing Boswell’s fallacies.

[116] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 05-15-2009 at 07:36 PM • top

I went to ASBH this Sunday as I do every Sunday. Our kids love their child care program, and it helps us take a break and attend the service in spiritual comfort. This Sunday we confirmed & received a total of fifteen people into the Church, at least three of them were, in your words, Ralph/Rafe, “unrepentent homosexuals.”

The Mexican Bishop blessed them and received each into the Church, with our female Rector at his side. Then we had communion, half of the Church from Carol and the other half from Bishop Carranza. My husband and I received communion from Bishop Carranza.

I’m sure that the picture will be on the Web site this week, for you to post and mock, just like BettyLee did for the blessing of Bob and Rob.

You will no doubt be mortified to learn that The Rev. Gabriel Ferrer, who led the commitment ceremony of this thread, was put in charge of all of the services at the upcoming Episcopal General Convention in Anaheim this summer.

Things sure have changed at ASBH!

How do you spot a false prophet? By the fruits of their work. Rafe argues that God somehow hates gay people and wants them to be turned away from the mutual comfort, joy in adversity and ability to raise their kids in the Church that He made marriage for. The blessings of belonging to All Saints’ Beverly Hills disprove Rafe’s arguments. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, there is everything wrong with denying it.

[117] Posted by signab43 on 05-19-2009 at 06:20 PM • top

Rafe did not say anything anything about God hating gays. It might be helpful for dialogue to focus on what people actually SAY rather than projecting what you THINK they said.

Thank you.

[118] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 05-19-2009 at 06:27 PM • top

Oh phuleze folks, it’s Beverly Hills and TEC for bruno’s sake! Like you didn’t see this coming, yet still act shocked?

[119] Posted by Festivus on 05-19-2009 at 06:33 PM • top

Who’s shocked?; I’m not shocked or surprised at all.

[120] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 05-19-2009 at 06:35 PM • top

Wow, old thread bump.

[121] Posted by James Manley on 05-19-2009 at 06:47 PM • top

God does not hate gays and no one said that! However, God like all of us who vow to help each other in our baptismal vows to repent of our sins and turn back to God would love more for them to stop committing sexual acts (adultery) of the same gender and for heterosexuals that commit sex acts (adultery) and repent and turn back to God and sin that sin no more. It’s a sin for heavens sake. God does not bless that which He condemns….it doesn’t get much more plain than that.

[122] Posted by TLDillon on 05-19-2009 at 07:35 PM • top

God loves all of His creation, and wants to offer salvation to all. We must pray for all self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners who, by their sinful words and actions, reject God’s love and the opportunity to spend eternity with Him.

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any Scriptural references to God’s hating anyone, but there are several places (e.g., Ps 68) that speak of a person’s hate for God. I’ll do a word search when I have some time for that.

There’s no such thing as “gay marriage” (assuming that means Holy Matrimony between two or more homosexuals) in Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition, so I cannot comment on that. However, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition teach with clarity that there is plenty wrong with homosexual practice, furthermore giving no positive examples of same.

For Anglicans, Lambeth 1.10 sums this up with a great deal of clarity.

As for the clergy named in #117, they will all answer to God for what they have done, and what they have not done. As will we all.

[123] Posted by Ralph on 05-19-2009 at 08:23 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.