As a UM who has heard everside of this topic and then some, it still boils down to this issue: is homosexual sex sinful or not whether in marriage(?) or out? The options are also clear: depart from the clear sexual ethics of the Holy Scriptures and 5000+ years of tradition and go on a culture ride with a group of people who espouse other unorthodox ideas and run dying churches or humbly accept the word of God and use the conversations and debates about homosexuality to better minister to those struggling with it.

I’m going with the latter.

Ragamuffin: I understand your pov, but ask a little charity. I have heard both sides of the debate presented, sometimes well and often poorly. Both base arguments on the bible, tradition and reason. You may well diagree with how the other side is interpreting and balancing all three, but please recognize that they are making their case based the text and context (and esp. the injunction to ‘Do justice’). They, rightly or wrongly, see themselves in the same tradition as those who ‘re-interepreted’ the bible to oppose slavery, racism and sexism. The biggest problem imo is the tendency of both sides to demonize and dismiss the other.

I don’t mean to sound uncharitable, but having also heard both sides of the debate presented numerous times, I can’t help but believe that the other side has missed the point about loving people and treating them with respect and human dignity while not reclassifying their behavior from sinful to something else. We wouldn’t knowingly ordain a man who is promiscuous or is actively cheating on his wife. We wouldn’t knowlingly marry a man to two different wives. The Bible is clear on such thing as it is also clear about those who engage in homosexual sex. So when those of us longing for tradition and history see the ECUSA and other denominations doing exegetical contortionist routines to make Scripture say something it doesn’t about the subject, it’s only logical to think that they probably do that with a lot of other Scriptures and that it’s simply not the place for us.

There is no such thing as an “ex-Bishop.” He is no longer a Diocesan Bishop, but a Bishop he still is, i.e. he can still function as a Bishop and confer Holy Orders etc if requested by the Diocesan, and even if not requested he can do so in a manner that is “irregular” but not “invalid.”

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2531

You’re right that Spong is an embarassment, but I wish people would quit talking about him as though he were still an acting bishop. He is retired, in fact long retired. An ex-bishop…(que riff on Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch). While a bishop he had not yet moved to the virtually post-Christian position he now seems to espouse. I know he has his fans in the church, but my experience is that the pastors who sound most like him are themselves close to retirement. The younger ones, even the liberals, tend to take the Creed far more seriously and the Incarnation and Resurrection very literally.

I’ve read a bout the woman in Oregon, and I pray for her. But 2 points: She was ordained before her ever started studying Islam and she is not pastoring a church (in fact, she is currently teaching at Jesuit college). The ECUSA has no office of the Inquisition, and lacking a pastorate there is little reason for anyone to complain about her until the news story, so why would anyone expect the church to start any investigation or proceedings against her?

Michael Adams: {{hugs}} I’m much where you are. We are in the midst of a search for a new priest and our interim, while a very nice guy, tends to preach sermons that are often pretty uninspiring. But I hang in because this too shall pass and because I see every Sunday this little fellowship of family communing together – and that, not the sermon, is the point where I see God.

Ragamuffin: I understand your pov, but ask a little charity. I have heard both sides of the debate presented, sometimes well and often poorly. Both base arguments on the bible, tradition and reason. You may well diagree with how the other side is interpreting and balancing all three, but please recognize that they are making their case based the text and context (and esp. the injunction to ‘Do justice’). They, rightly or wrongly, see themselves in the same tradition as those who ‘re-interepreted’ the bible to oppose slavery, racism and sexism. The biggest problem imo is the tendency of both sides to demonize and dismiss the other.

K-Love? Isn’t that the CCM radio chain who’s slogan is “Safe for the Whole Family” and whose target demographic is a Christian version of Harlequin’s “Bored Housewife”?

“Which is better, smallpox or cholera?”

Both leads to people getting sick in different ways, which is kind of my point.

Which is better? Fundamentalist legalism or liberalism?

“Which is better, smallpox or cholera?”

Why is taking the Bible as seriously as Richard Hooker did (”in the first place, what Scripture doth plainly deliver”) taken to be exclusive of social justice? Why can we not feed the hungry and clothe the naked unless we violate the principles of 5000 years of Jewish and Christian moral theology?

We see that exclusivism on both the right and the left.

And incidentally, as a former Episcopalian myself, for me the issue was twofold: in first place, the valorization of rank heresies in ECUSA; in the second place, the use of such heresies to declare that what has long been understood to be sin, is no sin.

Oh wait, did you think I was talking about homosexual practices? I meant serial divorce.

I know the “homosexual” debate has not and is not popular. I hear your call to take it off the headlines of the church. It certainly is not the fight I fight on a daily basis. Yet, if we had dropped racism and ordination of women when those topics were not pleasant where would we be? This remains our struggle.

I know you weren’t addressing me, but if I may comment, please allow me.

The debate over homosexuality, if it were merely confined to the deplorable fashion in which most churches have treated those struggling with such feelings in their midst and how we can help them honor God with chaste lives and affirm their courage for doing so, you would be a beacon of light to all evangelicals. However, this isn’t what’s happened, and thus, isn’t why those of us longing for the great aspects of your tradition and liturgy continue to stay away.

The debate you’re having is over things that have been settled among those who believe Scripture is true for centuries. It matters not that terms like “sexual orientation” weren’t known in Jesus’ day. The Bible is clear on the sinfulness of homosexual acts…yet it is this very thing you’re debating, even to the point of considering ordination and marrying of homosexuals. And this tells us that your churches aren’t the place for us. Not until you take those non-PC parts of the Bible as seriously as you do the calls to social justice.