Goodbye and good riddance to them. Since when does the teachings of Jesus say that we should persecute and attack those who are different than ourselves? If they can't follow their leaderships teachings on tolerance and grace then they should not be episcopals. Maybe the catholic church will take them back.

“Bill” obviously doesn't know Scripture, which unambiguously condemns homosexual practice as gravely sinful (e.g. 1 Cor 6:10:11), although Christians should also oppose unjust persecution of homosexual persons. And the Episcopal Church has set itself up against the vast majority of the Anglican communion and the Christian community as a whole. As a Catholic who converted from that church more than 40 years ago, I support that which is best in Anglicanism and hope that this courageous act by the Diocese of San Joaquin will help to right the Anglican ship and that Ecumenical dialogue will be reinvigorated by its action. Bravo San Joaquin!

I think that it is great, we must not have homosexual Christian leaders and no matter how this world says we should accept and allow remember we are not of this world. Love with all your heart all people but we must tell the truth I would love nothing more than as many homosexuals as God calls changes there ways get involved in church, the point is we CAN NOT HAVE PRACTICING HOMOSEXUAL LEADERS!

And remember, "Episcopal" is an adjective, "Episcopalian" is a noun.

As a faithful member of the breakaway diocese who has taken the study of the Bible very seriously for the last 15 years, I am proud to stand with my church! We tolerate everyone who attends our church. We do not need to be led by those who view the Bible a compilation of antiquated suggestions regarding how to live and how to get to Heaven.

Please remember that the gay/lesbian issue is only the presenting symptom. Various bishops in the Episcopal Church deny the Virgin Birth, Deny the resurrection, equate Christianity and Islam, say we can rewrite scripture, etc.. These are leaders, bishops, and nothing is done. There are truly deep theological differences here and they are not sexual.

Sadly I have to agree with Jim - the destruction of the Episcopal Church is not about homosexuality. That is only the current presenting issue.
Liturgy and Scripture are being radically changed - changes that are happening outside of the Anglican Church, and at a local and political level.
Frankly it is all terribly sad - and there seems no fix in sight.

+bill can be the new TEC appointed pointy-hat-guy in their new diocese called Saint Wacky's

could not resist ;)

Scripture doesn't, I think, "unambiguously condemn homosexual practice."

You just want scripture to "unambiguously condemn homosexual practice." Why is that?

God, after all, did seem to condone Lot's daughters unambiguous incest. If God condoned that, what makes you think the rest of the Bible is unambiguous on "homosexuality, when taken as a whole?

Clobber verse justifications reminds me of the anecdote that I once read in a Peter Gomes book, where an enslaved woman, when she was finally freed, promptly tore Paul out of her Bible. (Gomex doesn't recommend that.)

Scripture unambiguously, as much as it consistently condemns anything, condemns idolatrous practice. That is what is being condemned in your clobber verse, as Paul thought that same-sex sexual attraction was caused by idolatry and unbelief. Cultic prostitution was common, I think, so one can understand.

All that animal sacrificing and regulating going on seems wildly idolatrous looking to me, however. Like today's dubious custom of prayer rings around school flagpoles. Can anything look more pagan, at least while clothed?

But, that hasn't much to do with being gay today. The clobber vese isn't a message just for gay people, it's a message for everyone. Don't worship your lifestyle. Don't encourage others to do that. Don't allow your lifestyle, whatever it is, to cause you to be sexually exploited, or exploitative.

Of course, there is this verse....

"...all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable" (1 Cor. 6:12) It's not unlawful, then, to be gay, to live a "gay lifestyle," as if there is A gay lifestyle, or if that is even possible. Being gay just isn't "profitable" for everyone. Whatever your lifestyle, don't worship it. It's not inevitable, it's not a gift or a curse from God, it just is as it is. That you are living is the gift. It's practicing the Golden Rule that makes a lifestyle "profitable," I think.

It's not good or bad to be gay. One just is as one is. Why are some people gay and most others aren't, we don't really know, but you can bet it's genetic. After all, all behavior is genetic. It's not only what we have in common with each other, it's what we have in common with other animals. They, however, probably haven't been given the gift of the Golden Rule. Of course, that's probably because they don't need it as much as humans do.

In a social species such as ours, everyone contributes to the raising of the next generation. You don't have to have children to raise children.

Scriptural authority was the main reason given for breakaway pro-slavery churches, and the main weapon against the radical abolitionists, and while we know that the Bible is full of slavery condoning verses...it wasn't really scriptural authority that was behind the sectarian splits.

I don't know the reputation of the author of this piece, and I have some points that I disagree with, starting with using the word "homosexual." That was wrong. However, I think he, however, that he is much too cautious in his conclusions, not giving enough weight to sociology and the Golden Rule. "Homosexuality" isn't a sin, condemning homosexuality, however, would be a sin, if I did that..

Of course, I was raised Methodist, so Stone's process rings familiar to me. Lots of fun.

WESLEYAN THEOLOGY, SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY, AND HOMOSEXUALITY
by
Bryan P. Stone

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/26-30/30-2-06.htm

"...the destruction of the Episcopal Church is not about homosexuality."

I would disagree. It's about many things, true, but at it's core, it's about "homosexuality." The Civil War, as an analogy, was about many things, but at it's core, it was about slavery.

Here's an interesting, anonymous lecture on scriptural authority supporting slavery, from 1853. Sound familiar? Substitute "homosexuality" for "slavery" and you pretty have the modern anti-gay argument. Oh, to be so virtuous, righteous, Bible believing and ever so humble.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9407E5D7133AE334BC4D51DFB2668388649FDE

I was off doing some mindless task, and thought about the Golden Rule and slavery.

Slave masters interpreted the Golden Rule in a paternalistic way, something like this: "If I were a slave, I would want a good master." In other words..."If I were a slave, I would want a master like me, or at least as I imagine my idealized self to be."

Radical abolitionists, however, thought: "If I were a slave, I would want to be free."

History shows that this was condescending and self serving on the part of the abolitionists. Slavery ended, reconstruction collapsed, injustice became the American way of life. Wanting enslaved people to be free is one thing, but thinking that because of slavery was ended, one is therefore excluded from the judgments of justice and can go about one's business with a good conscience. No, they had a higher obligation, justice, and they and America failed.

So...perhaps the better thought would have been: "If I were a slave, I would want justice." Manumission would be just the very beginning of justice.

Today on "homosexuality," the religious conservatives, in general, seems to be thinking: "If I were gay, I would want to be free of "homosexuality." In other words, "If I were gay, I would want to be like me...or at least as I imagine my idealized self to be."

Perhaps the better answer to that Golden Rule question would be "If I were gay, I would want justice."

So, where is justice for gay people in this split from the Episcopal church?

Without going into detail, I would like to say that whatever you may think of the decision of this diocese, it was not a snap decision, but one which involved many attempts at reconciliation and an extreme sadness on the part of Bp Schofield and his people.. Finding the way for them was a huge commitment which took many years. I wonder if we Christians, whatever our "labels," always think things through to the extent that this bishop and his diocese have tried to do.Can we not at least agree to respect one another as we make decisions based upon our desire to follow the teachings of Jesus?

I see very respect for the integrity and equality of gay people among so called Christian conservatives, and the split is quite indicative of that. I see little reason to condone it.

But, as I'm not Episcopalian/Anglican, I guess it doesn't really matter what I think, right?

Sects aren't democracies. However, they usually can do with a little good will towards them by outsiders. Beyond a grudging tolerance for their existence, that probably has to be earned.

You don't have to be Christian to benefit from Jesus's teachings, but you do have to be Christian to live a Christian life. I don't see much in the way of Jesus' teachings in the split, but what do I know? I do see just the usual fear of the "other," and greed for the power to dominate him, and take what he has away from him.