I'm all for anyone and everyone going to church, no-one should be left out for any reason.

I'm just kind of confused...how can a church that claims to use the Bible as it's "Word of God" reference and then openly "criticize" or "disregard" it's teachings hold any credibility? I don't question the individual's faith... please understand that. He is probably a very spiritual person, but he is choosing to embrace a sinful lifestyle while preaching that we are to turn away from sin. That doesn't make sense to me, for the "Church" to bless something that God has determined to be a sin seems to be sacreligious.

I don't believe that everyone that opposed this election is trying to oppress anybody. This is making them question their religion... what are they supposed to do? Is it ok to run with the sinful desires that we all have, and as long as you say your prayers it is ok? Or are we really supposed to question ourselves daily, try to turn away from sin and pray for forgiveness if they slip. Because if you can just run with the desires without restraint, living as a Christian just got a whole lot easier.

I guess it depends on how you interpret Scripture. As I read it (as do other noted theologians, for one, Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong), a loving, committed, mongoamous same-gender relationship is not sin at all. YMMV. Apparently the majority of Deputies and Bishops who voted in favor of Bishop Robinson agree with my interpretation.

And speaking as a pro-gay Christian who does not believe in running with desires without restraint, and no, our lives are not any easier than yours, your characterization of us is not only offensive, but unChristian.

Peace and blessings to you.

there probably is some truth though in that last post. I mean, is Christianity supposed to be politically correct? As more and more things become exceptable in society, are we to change our theology, twist Scripture to back what society says is ok now?

Nobody who has read the book of Leviticus can deny that every single Christian on the planet picks and chooses which commandments from God he or she follows.

Christians do pick and choose every day what they want to follow and what they don't. Leviticus is however, not a prime example of this beings that the point of the book was law for old covenant Israel and not new covenant Christians. Levitical law isn't relevant to today(that is not to say that the book of Leviticus is not relevant in many ways and still a valuable part of the cannon of scripture). Just wanted to clear that up;)

Andy, this isn't about being politically correct. I am trying to live up to what I sincerely believe is God's will.

Who is to say that in the translations of Biblical passages people haven't monkeyed around with the original intent of the text over the centuries? Many respected theologians suspect exactly that. The word for "homosexual" didn't even exist in biblical times, and certainly there was nothing to describe loving, monogamous relationships between same-gender couples. Hell, the het men often had multiple wives, which was presumably OK by God. The proscriptions are against certain pagan practices, including temple prostitution (and women weren't allowed in temple, so...). Adam and Eve did not get marching orders to "be fruitful and multiply" until after the fall, so one can presume sex, before it, was entered into for the purpose of enjoyment and love. And marriage -- that most assuredly was not a Christian sacrament throughout the entirety of history, as many fundies would have us believe.

Just because people have followed a certain (mis)interpretation for eons out of some sense of "obedience" (or denominational push for control of their members) doesn't make them right. Scads of people interpreted scripture as supporting slavery and the subjugation of women. Were they right? Apparently not, because most mainline denominations by and large, have moved away from those positions. Truth is, scriptural understanding has evolved on many fronts. And for those who voted in favor of Bishop Robinson, that certainly holds true.

Brian, your point is excellent.

I suggest people crack open the books and surf to the links suggested above. There is much more to learn than what your pastors, rabbis, priests, etc., may be saying on the pulpit. I don't pretend to know everything, but at least I have spent serious time and effort attempting to understand all sides of the debate.

The one thing that bothers me about your post is your "pro-justice" v. "anti-GLBT" formulation.

There are sincere disagreements within Christendom over a whole host of issues, and ordination of gay clergy is one of them.

You might see it terms of justice, but the denominations need to work this out for themselves and decide, whether rightly or wrongly, which path to take. To argue, as you do explicitly, that if a church refuses to recognize gay clergy and/or perfom gay marriages they are committing spirtual violence is ludicrous. If you don't like a stance a church makes, to force change upon it is more grevious a harm than simply allowing things to take their course.

Excuse me, but the ECUSA did decide the issue of consecrating a gay bishop. It wasn't forced to do anything.

(I am assuming from your comment that you would be on the conservative side of the debate. If I am mistaken, please correct me.)

I do see the divide as "justice for everyone" vs. "injustice/anti-GLBT." It's my opinion, what I believe. What is written above is an opinion piece. Surely you have the right to believe that you are right and I am wrong. The converse, too, is true.

But I do believe Christians who support discrimination against GLBTs, be they sincerely misguided or simply evil (I'm betting the preponderance would qualify as the former), are committing spiritual violence. Spanking a child is violence, even if one supports capital punishment. Exclusion from full participation in the church to which one belongs is indeed violence to the souls and spirits of the excluded. I have seen it and experienced it firsthand. The pro-exclusionists may not mean for this to happen. They may not intend to hurt people and cause suffering through exclusion via application of their particular interpretation of scripture and God's will, but the fact is that they do.

And I must note that my side harbors no wish to exclude your side from full participation in the life of the church. Whatever your pain, and I do grieve for any suffering you may be experiencing through the elevation of an openly gay man into church leadership, the pro-gay side does not want to do to you what you feel you must do to us for what you suppose is our own good. (I reiterate that my assumption, based on your post, is that you are on the conservative side.)

My point is that there are more interpretations than yours, and apparently yours wasn't the majority in Minneapolis or New Hampshire when the votes were cast. Queer Episcopalians are expected to deal with it when the prevailing interpretation goes against them. If the prevailing interpretation of the majority of those voting in the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops has evolved into something that contradicts your thinking, shouldn't your side be able to deal with that?

I hope that doesn't sound flip; that is NOT my intent. I really do know how those on the losing side feel. Intimately. That's how I feel about the Houses' rulings yesterday on same-sex blessings. Trust me, I do feel the pain conservatives are experiencing, and folks on all sides of this controversial divide most assuredly are in my prayers.

This is why I believe that sometimes schism is good and necessary. When a church does not evolve, those whose scriptural interpretations that have evolved are often better off leaving. When a church's understanding of scripture has evolved, those whose interpretations haven't might be better off leaving. One hopes, however, that things don't come to that. But I did not feel full spiritual joy and close connection with the Creator until I fled the church I was forced to join at birth and remain in until adulthood. My leaving caused me great pain, great sadness. I do miss it sometimes. But it was the best move I ever made.

Peace and blessings to you.

You've hit the nail on its head, Natalie. The Third World church is where this issue is going to come to a head. During the time I spent in Nigeria, I often heard that Christianity wants converts to give up too much. Giving up the deep prejudice against gays is going to be difficult, if not impossible, for many Third Woirld Christians. (And some in the First World, too.)

Actually, Adam and Eve were told to "be fruitful...fill the earth" (Ge. 1:28) before they sinned (Ge. 3:6). Intercourse is not mentioned until after they are expelled from the Garden of Eden (Ge. 4:1) Scriptures on homosexuality are pretty clear and it's hard to believe that anyone would have a problem interpeting them (1 Tim 1:9-11, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Jude 7). But it seems nowadays, religion caters to the desires of people rather than what the bible says.

I stand corrected on your first sentence. The rest I take issue with. This isn't about catering to my desires, or anyone else's. It is about what is true. Your interpretation is yours and many people read scripture the way you do. That does not make it the correct interpretation, however.

of course, on the other hand, that doesn't make your interpertation right, either. Only God knows what the correct interpertation is. Until we die and know it, it would be nice if for once we could all live in harmony without bickering about who sinned where...

No justice, no peace.

All we have though, is Scripture. I'm not sure how someone can interprete Romans or something as the such, it's pretty clear, but somehow people do. I just have a hard time believing the arguement of "the bible has been interpreted the wrong way on this issue for hundreds of years". Honestly. What did Martin Luther have to lose when he went to origional manuscripts for Biblical clarity on the issues instead of using the jaded Roman Catholic translations of the time? He was already a dead man and concidered a herotic at that point. If he found that this issue was misinterpreted, why would he hide it? And let's not use the arguement, "Because it was not socially acceptable" or "because of his personal prejudgices". I mean, everything the man wrote about scripture was against what society said, and everything he thought was true at one point he was finding out wasn't. I just can't see how he and hundreds of others like him could "misinterpret" those scriptures. They(the reformers) had no other motive than finding the truth.

How do you know that? "Men of God" have agendas now (look at the RCC leadership, for crying out loud). They had agendas then.

But I'm done explaining myself for people happy with injustice.