|
I also grew up Episcopalian. I don't really want to digress into doctrinal debates here. Despite one's personal belief, however, there is no possible way to construe Paul's words or the doctrines of our faith to allow homosexuals who maintain sexual relations to hold leadership in our church.
The scripture is extremely clear that homosexuality is a sin and, furthermore, that one must not continue to do that which he (or she) understands to be a sin.
I wasn't opposed to the nomination on the grounds that he claimed he and his friend did not engage in sexual activity. Obviously, while I can't be opposed to same-sex agape love if these two men harbor sexual thoughts about one another then he shouldn't be the bishop.
Of course, that isn't for me to determine and if he claims that they aren't, then we should accept that statement.
My point isn't based upon "vitriolic" reponses to a deviant lifestyle, however. I would say the same in regards to a man who desired to have sexual relations with a woman (lusting).
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann
"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman
|