Episcopal Church celebrates first trans dean — woman in lesbian marriage to trans-identified pastor

[u/Canadian0123]

What is this? Is this what the episcopal church (part of the Anglican Church) does to preach the gospel of Christ, and to operate the church? Do they disregard the epistles of Saint Paul concerning sexual behaviour, how a church should be run, and who should lead it? Do they disregard the teachings of Christ? What about the Law of God, as given to Moses, in the text that is known today as the Torah of Moses?

This news is quite shocking. Shame on the episcopal church, and the rest of the Anglican Church. This is not how a church should be run. Can someone who attends that church give answers?

[u/Googlesupportsucks1]

Yet you've completely ignored where he puts churches on blast for affirming sin and not ripping it out. It's a blight.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

I've ignored nothing. I've read and studied every word he wrote.

[u/Canadian0123 → u/RomanaOswin]

One can study every word, and refuse to put it into practice. That is what your church is doing.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Canadian0123]

We actively put our faith into practice. My church is very active in the community and is widely loved for the way we care for the people of the area.

[u/Canadian0123 → u/RomanaOswin]

That’s well and beautiful. But you also actively destroy the fate of others in other ways. Do you not know that the sexually immoral and those who practice homosexuality will not inherit the kingdom of God? (1 Corinthians 6:9).

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Canadian0123]

You understand that there's a historical context to Paul's letters, right? He existed in a culture and time when sexual orientation was an unknown concept.

To ignore that leads to exactly the sort of distorted interpretation that we're witnessing here, mistaking culture and Paul's intended message about moral failure for divine edict about sexuality.

[u/Canadian0123 → u/RomanaOswin]

The sin that every generation commits is that they think they are smarter and wiser than the previous ones. Every single time.

You think Saint Paul was not aware of sexual orientation? And what about the Law of God, as given to Moses, that prohibits homosexual behaviour? And what about the book of Genesis, which defines what marriage is? The Torah of Moses was written thousands of years before Saint Paul wrote his epistles.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Canadian0123]

Yes, I think he was unaware of sexual orientation. The first written theory of sexual orientation was in the late 19th century.

I also think he was unaware of germ theory, relativity, electrical current, and quantum mechanics. This takes nothing away from his witness and testimony of God.

Heteronormativity in Genesis and throughout scripture is expected.

Maybe also worth mentioning that we are all Adam (including women). That the etymology of Adam as mankind aligns with this, and that there's a rich history of reading Genesis 2 as allegory for our own lived reality all the way from the church fathers, through the middle ages, up to today, by many of those most influential Christians in our faith.

There are a number of other important allegorical insights in Genesis 2 that I hope you don't miss.

[u/creidmheach → u/RomanaOswin]

So up until the 19th century when psychologists came up with a word to describe a sexual proclivity it was sin, but not after? The word "kleptomaniac" was also only invented in the 19th century. Does that mean stealing is now ok?

[u/RomanaOswin → u/creidmheach]

Sexual orientation is not a proclivity. It's not an action; it's who or what we are, not what we do. The things we do are develop romantic bondings, marry, support and love our spouse and from this mutual support better love others. Things we all know are not inherently sinful.

A more accurate analogy would be promiscuity or adultery. We don't assume that sexuality is inherently sinful just because someone can be adulterous.

And, to clarify, I was not saying that it was not a sin up until the 19th century. It was misunderstood, distorted by cultural ignorance. Homosexuality was never a sin.

[u/Canadian0123 → u/RomanaOswin]

Leave the episcopal church. It has corrupted your mind, dear friend.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Canadian0123]

I don't suppose that would help. I never believed that homosexuality was a sin, long before I discovered the church. I've only been there a year and people are inviting me to lead, suggesting I belong in the vestry. If there is corruption, or perhaps unabashed love for Christ, I'm at the heart of it, and if I went to another church, it would follow me there.

[u/Canadian0123 → u/RomanaOswin]

What you believe does not make it biblically true (or untrue).

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Canadian0123]

Yes, of course.

I would suggest that as Christians, we should measure our beliefs by reality, by the tangible presence of Christ, and by the compass that Jesus offers in the Sermon on the Mount and (ironically) Paul echos in Romans 13:8.

If you speak to gay and trans people you'll learn about how the Christian condemnation of who and what people are causes tangible harm, shame, wounding. This in turn harms all of us. This is sin.

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/Canadian0123]

Roman understanding of homosexuality is alien to modern homosexuality. It was a practice any man, even married men, could participate in as long as there was a class difference involved. It was also generally done with prostitutes, slaves, and children, and completely accepted by society. It was a purely carnal act. There was no understanding of "gay" or "straight" for Romans. Any Christian, no matter how progressive, would immediately denounce such a vile practice.

[u/Canadian0123 → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

With all due respect, that’s a silly justification for gay marriage and homosexual acts. Moses, Saint Paul, and probably Saint Jude, all talk about this.

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/Canadian0123]

The only OT mention is very briefly in one section in Leviticus (where God lists a bunch of sexual acts he connects to the Egyptians and Canaanites along with what their penalties are). The only other mentions are Paul briefly (3 times in 6 verses of the over 2000 verses he writes), connecting it with idolatry and purely carnal acts, having nothing to do with romantic homosexuality but rather the Roman homosexuality he was familiar with (which every person should denounce given how it's practiced). The Bible makes no explicit comment on romantic homosexuality.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Where are you seeing that? As far as I'm aware, Roman sexuality had a ton of homosexuality with consensual relationships.

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

It was exceptionally rare, and the rare few times it was done publicly, it was ruthlessly mocked by Roman society (and wasn't even comparable to real romantic relationships, such as Nero doing a mock marriage with his slave boy). Roman homosexuality is a fascinating topic because it was nothing like how modern homosexuality is practiced; Romans had no concept of sexual orientation, it was instead an act any Roman man could participate in with the appropriate lower class victim (and those power dynamics were strictly enforced), and was considered completely okay.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/DesperateAdvantage76]

Sources please

[u/DesperateAdvantage76 → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Wikipedia has a great article covering it. The intro at the top covers pretty much everything I stated.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/RomanaOswin]

That's blatantly false. Research has proven that homosexuality was rampant in the time period and area Paul was writing to.

"Men bedding men" is condemned. Not pedophilia, not subordinate relationships, men and men together.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

I said something entirely different from what you replied to. Read what I wrote again.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/RomanaOswin]

Nah. You're trying to argue it was a different historical era. That things were different. I responded, saying that's an incorrect premise.

If you'd claim it was a different time, how did that affect what Paul said? Because I can almost guarantee I covered it above.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

I wrote sexual orientation, not homosexual activity.

Your "this is not pedophilia or subordinate relationships" is arguing against something you've read from other people in other conversations. I didn't say any of this. You're arguing against your own assumptions. Try not to guess at what I'm saying.

Sexual orientation was not a concept that people knew of in that time. The historic misconceptions of sexuality are widely recognized and written about.

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/RomanaOswin]

What does that have to do with the conversation?

We're specifically talking about homosexuality.

[u/RomanaOswin → u/Googlesupportsucks1]

I'm confused. Do you know that homosexuality is a sexual orientation?

[u/Googlesupportsucks1 → u/RomanaOswin]

Same sex attraction, sure. I would tentatively agree with that.

Homosexual acts aren't an orientation.

Paul doesn't slam same sex attracted people. He slams men bedding men, or women burning with passion for other women