• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was A Gay Bishop A Mistake?

Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It's been a while since the Episcopal Church ordained it's first openly gay bishop. Looking back now, do you think doing so was a mistake? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you think the Episcopal Church will ordain gay bishops in the future, or will the conservative faction of the Church assert itself and put an end to ordaining openly gay bishops?

Do you believe this has been an overall good thing or an overall bad thing for the Church?

Are other churches likely to follow the example of the Episcopal Church and ordain openly gay clergy?
 
E

evearael

Well-Known Member
Let me first say I am not Episcopalian and that I affirm their right to do what is best for their denomination.

Personally, I believe it was a step in the right direction, but it is something a great deal of people have not made peace with as of yet. I think it would be a shame to see an entire denomination schism over the gender the clergy falls in love with, but it is a choice they must make.
 
Pah

Pah

Uber all member
The conservative fraction of the Episcopal Church suffered another, more recent loss when the Church elected a woman bishop as its head. That she holds homosexuals in a very favorable spiritual light will be a guide for more inclusion of the formerly disenfranchised.

If the church conservatives continue failling to see or understand the movement of the Holy Ghost within Episcoplaians, perhaps it is time for those dead to the Spirit to leave.

It is never a mistake, when one holds the belief, to follow the Spirit.

A faithless, ex-Episcopalian who still loves the tradition,
Bob
 
c0da

c0da

Active Member
I suppose it's up to the church to ordain who they want to ordain, but the fact that they have let a gay man become a bishop is a good thing. Its a positive move.
 
Mathematician

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
I think there's talk of the conservatives breaking away from the main church, actually.

To me, it's a move in the right direction. I've noticed a lot of Christian denominations have been more inclusive to open homosexuals over the years (I won't go so far as to say most, though).
 
Smoke

Smoke

Done here.
GeneCosta said:
I think there's talk of the conservatives breaking away from the main church, actually.
Click to expand...
They've been doing that since the 1970s. During the 1980s, you could hardly find an Orthodox or Catholic parish in the US that didn't have its share of disaffected Episcopalians. One thing that has changed is that some of those who have broken away now have hopes of replacing the ECUSA as the US representative of the Anglican Communion.

GeneCosta said:
To me, it's a move in the right direction.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Quiddity

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
It's a mistake if they are trying to reconcile themselves to the same Church started by Christ and continued by the early fathers. Both East and West are clear that it's an all-male clergy.
 
R

royol

Member
Sunstone said:
It's been a while since the Episcopal Church ordained it's first openly gay bishop. Looking back now, do you think doing so was a mistake? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you think the Episcopal Church will ordain gay bishops in the future, or will the conservative faction of the Church assert itself and put an end to ordaining openly gay bishops?

Do you believe this has been an overall good thing or an overall bad thing for the Church?

Are other churches likely to follow the example of the Episcopal Church and ordain openly gay clergy?
Click to expand...

I suppose the first question that needs answering is "are gays Gods creatures"? if you think they are, you should be pleased, if you think they are not, you should take a look at what you believe.
 
Pah

Pah

Uber all member
Victor said:
It's a mistake if they are trying to reconcile themselves to the same Church started by Christ and continued by the early fathers. Both East and West are clear that it's an all-male clergy.
Click to expand...
I would think so too, Victor. But I have trouble finding any of today's churches coming close to the organizational stucture and congregational interaction Christ used. Just my opinion.
 
Quiddity

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Pah said:
I would think so too, Victor. But I have trouble finding any of today's churches coming close to the organizational stucture and congregational interaction Christ used. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I would agree depending on what areas of "structure" you are speaking of. Some priests for example were (and still are in some areas) married. The title of Cardinal and archbishop another evolving factor.
 
kiwimac

kiwimac

Brother Napalm of God's Love
There is considerable discussion about how involved women were in the early Christian Church. Fact of the matter is there is strong circumstantial evidence for women apostles being part of the life of the church in the first Christian century.

Kiwimac
 
Simon Gnosis

Simon Gnosis

Active Member
kiwimac said:
There is considerable discussion about how involved women were in the early Christian Church. Fact of the matter is there is strong circumstantial evidence for women apostles being part of the life of the church in the first Christian century.

Kiwimac
Click to expand...

Yup
Mary Magdalene for a start.
She was possibly Jesus's most beloved apostle...for he and her loved each other as nature intended, it is said.

But as for gay Bishops....well it reveals the schizophrenia of the orthodoxy.
How do they reconcile homosexuality when it is clearly prohibited by certain verses of the Bible and Quraan?
Personally homosexuality is, I believe, a totally natural behavioural phenomenon for our species.
I however oppose all notions of clergy on Gnostic grounds anyway, so for me a gay bishop is as undesirable as a straight one, but the gender or sexual orientation of people is largely irrelevant in spiritual matters surely?... unless of course someones sexual orientation has detrimental effects on society and upon that persons own psyche, such as paediophilia.
 
Simon Gnosis

Simon Gnosis

Active Member
c0da2006 said:
Yeah, I liked that film too, the book wasn't wrote particularly well though.
Click to expand...

What film?

I don't do films, please enlighten me?

I refer to the gospel of Thomas, not any film.
 
c0da

c0da

Active Member
What film?

I don't do films, please enlighten me?

I refer to the gospel of Thomas, not any film.
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad. I thought you were referring to the story in the Da Vinci Code about Jesus' kidder with Mary.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Prophets and prophetic acts are rarely popular, because they call into question societal norms. The Episcopal Church, in this particular prophetic move, has called into question the societal assumption that homosexuals are sinful people, by virtue of their sexuality. It's a bold move, and I think it's the right move. Prophetic acts are good, if only for the catharsis they provide, let alone the social reform they engender.
 
Quiddity

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
sojourner said:
Prophets and prophetic acts are rarely popular, because they call into question societal norms. The Episcopal Church, in this particular prophetic move, has called into question the societal assumption that homosexuals are sinful people, by virtue of their sexuality. It's a bold move, and I think it's the right move. Prophetic acts are good, if only for the catharsis they provide, let alone the social reform they engender.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how this prophetic move will manage to show that they are not. We can't even do this with heterosexuals.
 
sojourner

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Victor said:
I have no idea how this prophetic move will manage to show that they are not. We can't even do this with heterosexuals.
Click to expand...

You missed the all-important qualifier: by virtue of their sexuality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top