spiritman51
Active Member
Dear Quahom, I accept your apology. These are hard times and hard questions. We all have beliefs which are being tried. That's the reason this forum is so important.
I beg to differ. The Supreme Court sat on two different cases, one a few years ago and the other last February [at least, they agreed to sit in decision] I think.) I'll be more than happy to find out if anybody wishes.Originally posted by Quahom1
The Supreme Court of Texas did away with Sodomy sir, not the Supreme Court of the United States (which I believe never had issue with that act).
"Recommendations arising from the consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire (134)
ECUSA is "invited to express its regret" for the pain its actions caused other members of the Communion and its desire to remain part of the Communion, and to effect a moratorium on any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union "until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges."
Robinson's consecrating bishops are "invited to consider... whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion."
Recommendation on Rites of Blessing of Same Sex Unions (143-145)
The report asks bishops not to authorize public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions, and recommend that those who have already done so "express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached" by doing so-and until they apologize, "withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion."
The report calls for "continuing study of biblical and theological rationale for and against" same-sex unions-a call that "does not imply approval of such proposals."
Given the emphasis of the Report on difficulties presented by our differing understandings of homosexuality, as Presiding Bishop I am obliged to affirm the presence and positive contribution of gay and lesbian persons to every aspect of the life of our church and in all orders of ministry. Other Provinces are also blessed by the lives and ministry of homosexual persons. I regret that there are places within our Communion where it is unsafe for them to speak out of the truth of who they are.
The Report will be received and interpreted within the Provinces of the Communion in different ways, depending on our understanding of the nature and appropriate expression of sexuality. It is important to note here that in the Episcopal Church we are seeking to live the gospel in a society where homosexuality is openly discussed and increasingly acknowledged in all areas of our public life.
For at least the last 30 years our church has been listening to the experience and reflecting upon the witness of homosexual persons in our congregations. There are those among us who perceive the fruit of the Spirit deeply present in the lives of gay and lesbian Christians, both within the church and in their relationships. However, other equally faithful persons among us regard same gender relationships as contrary to scripture. Consequently, we continue to struggle with questions regarding sexuality.
Here I note the Report recommends that practical ways be found for the listening process commended by the Lambeth Conference in 1998 to be taken forward with a view to greater understanding about homosexuality and same gender relationships. It also requests the Episcopal Church to contribute to the ongoing discussion. I welcome this invitation and know that we stand ready to make a contribution to the continuing conversation and discernment of the place and ministry of homosexual persons in the life of the church.
The Report calls our Communion to reconciliation, which does not mean the reduction of differences to a single point of view. In fact, it is my experience that the fundamental reality of the Episcopal Church is the diverse center, in which a common commitment to Jesus Christ and a sense of mission in his name to a broken and hurting world override varying opinions on any number of issues, including homosexuality. The diverse center is characterized by a spirit of mutual respect and affection rather than hostility and suspicion. I would therefore hope that some of the ways in which we have learned to recognize Christ in one another, in spite of strongly held divergent opinions, can be of use in other parts of our Communion.
I said:Indeed, lunamoth - the trouble is, organised Christianity is founded on the letter of the Bible - or the interpretation of. So to reject specific proscriptions within the Bible begs the question of how much can be acceptably discarded.
Of course, that's a general discussion within Liberalism anyway - but what this case has done is turn the issue from one of individual choosing, to one of institutional proscription. That's what makes this case all the more important.
Anyway, I'm simply trying to push the discussion here.