A divisive debate over the Bible spotlighted Episcopalians' OK for gay bishop

As the Episcopal Church agonized over the confirmation of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop — and now as his endorsement threatens to split the denomination — some have wondered why homosexuality is such a divisive issue in Christianity.

Why don't all Episcopalians and other churches simply recognize that gay people are sexually active and move on? After all, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws this year and Canada plans to legalize same-sex marriages.

The reason, in short, is the Bible — the word of God in the eyes of Christians.

Until very recently, all Christian branches agreed that same-sex activity was immoral because of their age-old understanding of God's will taught in the Scriptures.

Most of the world's Christian bodies maintain that belief. But in the last quarter-century, liberal scholars from some so-called "mainline" Protestant denominations in Europe and North America have argued against traditional Bible interpretations, often in books from church publishing houses. They say the Bible's overwhelming overall message is loving acceptance and justice for all people.

This has gradually influenced leadership circles in the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and United Methodist Church. Yet the new biblical theories have failed to convince legions of rank-and-file American churchgoers.

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, an Old Testament law repeated with the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13).

"God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 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 their own persons the due penalty for their error" (the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27).

Conservatives say God fixed the sexual pattern in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." Jesus repeated that teaching twice in the Gospels: Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9.

At the Episcopal convention, the Rev. Kendall Harmon of South Carolina said that the Old and New Testaments send the same message that sex is limited to a woman and a man. "There is no tension, no qualification, no development and no equivocation," he said.

Another conservative point: No biblical verse hints at approval for same-sex activity.

Liberal authors commonly say Leviticus 18 was part of a Jewish purity code that barred practices associated with paganism, including many laws Christianity eliminated, for instance the kosher rules in Leviticus 17. Conservatives reply that the gay ban is embedded alongside laws against adultery, incest, bestiality and child sacrifice that Christianity kept.

Regarding Romans 1 and other New Testament passages, liberals often say these merely meant to oppose same-sex activity that was exploitative (using slaves or boys). A related argument: Paul thought men were heterosexual in nature and should shun homosexual acts, but some today believe people are born with a disposition toward being gay.

In the heftiest conservative book on the subject in recent years, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" (Abingdon), Robert A. J. Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary argues in detail that all same-sex variants were well known in the ancient world — so it's obvious the Bible opposed same-sex activity across the board, not just certain types.

But the Rev. Walter Wink of New York's Auburn Theological Seminary, a United Methodist clergyman, disagrees with Presbyterian Gagnon's reading of Scripture.

"The Bible has no sex ethic," Wink says. "It only knows a communal love ethic" exemplified by Jesus' command to love your neighbor as yourself, which requires Christians to understand gays' experiences.

Societies' changing codes of sexual conduct should be assessed against that standard and in light of modern knowledge, he says.

Wink acknowledges that "a lot of churches are not going to change" for the present, but he's convinced they will eventually shed old Bible interpretations that are "life-denying and intellectually dishonest."

"In 50 years most of us will look back and say, 'Why were we so slow? Why was this so difficult?'" he said.

Bishop-elect Robinson believes biblical conservatives will "come to know that they are wrong, in this life or the next one."

Gagnon agrees that the traditional view is not popular in universities or the media. But he insists that the Bible's entire authority is under threat. If people can deny such a clear and specific scriptural teaching, he says, it raises questions about the point of adhering to the faith in the first place.

Says Gagnon: "When we reach the point where it is no longer the word of God for us in any meaningful sense, there is no more reason to be part of organized Christianity."

ECUSA to Jesus, "We have decided that sin does not matter. You died for nothing. Now don't you feel stupid?

Jesus to the ECUSA, "Not nearly as stupid as the parishioners who think your Holy Eucharist still means something."

You are right about that, but God did not call them liberals, he called them the children of Satan.

As for homosexuality only being mentioned a couple of times in the bible they leave out the sternest warning, "no thief, liar, adulterer, man that lies with man, man that dress's in drag, no murderer, shall see the kingdom of God".

Psalms 22, written by David about Christs thoughts on the cross, wrote, "the dogs emcompass me". Dogs as translated by the Strongs are homosexuals. Homosexuals stood at the foot of the cross mocking Jesus. For Christ to refer to them as dogs should send fear sparkling through their very atoms. But part of the just recompense they receive into their own bodies is a seared conscience.

Jude 1 speaks of these apostates in the church who are preordained to this condemnation. Proverbs 7 speaks of the apostate church of the end times. It is not limited to one denomination. These events serve to point out where we are in the history of the world, we are in the "end times" and at the door step of "tribulation". Will it be twenty years or fifty? We don't know that, we can only know by the markers left along the road. Apostates in the church is certainly one of those markers.

To understand something does not require condoning it.

So9

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, an Old Testament law repeated with the death penalty in Leviticus 20:13). "God gave them up to dishonorable passions.
Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
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 their own persons the due penalty for their error" (the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:26-27).

WHAT PART OF THE TRUTH IS CAUSING UNBELIEVERS TO KICK AGAINST THE OX GOADS AND REFUSES THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE JOY OF OUR LORD?

Very Good as I, for at least one, still regard the Holy Eucharist as essential for my well being.

What concerns me is the sheer eagerness to throw out 2000 years of Christian Doctrine after so minimal debate. As Oliver Cromwell spoke to his contemporaries; "I beseech you ... consider that you may be wrong!"

WHAT PART OF THE TRUTH IS CAUSING UNBELIEVERS TO KICK AGAINST THE OX GOADS AND REFUSES THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE JOY OF OUR LORD?

They've allowed their unnatural lust to erode their souls. They belong to satan.

Regarding Romans 1 and other New Testament passages, liberals often say these merely
meant to oppose same-sex activity that was exploitative (using slaves or boys).

And to think some of these "liberals" are seminary professors being
paid good salaries to come up with this B.S.

This was bad.

Now with "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" being plastered all over prime time the obvious determination of media elites to ram the "queer lifestyle" down everyone's throat will force a pretty powerful backlash. It is not as if the media is even pretending to be neutral.

Manners and mores flow back and forth. Several months ago I saw a marvelous article linked from "Breakpoint" which used the analogy of alcohol. It pointed out that in screwball comedies of the Thirties getting drunk regularly was a sign of sophistication. A hangover then was something like the coke spoon around the disco sophisticate's neck in 1978. Attitudes towards alcohol as to cocaine have shifted quite sharply.

An error the left continually makes is that of inevitability. Assuming that they are the zeitgeist, the wave to the future, the vanguard of history.

What concerns me is the sheer eagerness to throw out 2000 years of Christian Doctrine after so minimal debate.

Satan's work is completed in short order. Commitment to God is a lifetime and an eternity.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.