Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Blog powered by Typepad
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Header image by Mieszko Gorski

« Greetings at Christmas and Bridge of Light | Main | Biological Parents Living Together? What about all the concubines? »

December 23, 2006


John G.

I actually go back and forth on how I feel about out, queer clergy people who take vows of celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage (or some variant of that), but then violate said vows in acts of civil (spiritual?) disobedience. On the one hand, I recognize the call to leadership positions in any faith is a sacred one, and I don't want to get between people and the divine. But at the same time, I wonder if a "strike" of sorts, where queers refuse to serve as clergy in traditions that don't accept them, might also move things forward more effectively, and not require people to break vows that they have made.

Fred Conwell

Jesus boiled down the definition of sin as lack of love for self and others. Homosexuality is not sinful. Name me a sin that is loving.
(Ignoring the obvious vanity, please visit my bi-lingual website.)


The issue of the vows is that they keep on changing. For instance the "authoritative" interpretation against same sex unions in the Presbyterians was just passed a few years ago. And now with the last convention some room for individual conscience was included..and so getting some definitive rule on either side is not easily done. It's not clear in these cases whether they were following or violating their vows in other words.

John G.

While this changes the subject to some extent, blogger Father Jake has been posting some interesting and thought provoking stuff on the differing roles clergy and laity play as a denomination debates acceptance of LGBT folk. While much of it is Episcopalian specific, with some Lutheran, I find it very useful as I try to think about activism within the church.

My biggest criticism of it that I want to throw there now is that it doesn't seem to look at the issue from a very financial perspective. Two trite truisms that I strongly believe in are 1) Money makes the world go 'round, and 2) Money is the root of all evils. Clergy and laity are not just thinking theologically when they talk about splits in denominations, they're thinking about money: property assets, salaries, weekly collections, parsonages, etc.


I think the financial and ecclesiastical politics involved, especially in the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches are disturbing and that includes all the players involved. I admit it's why I've become a staunch congregationalist in the last number of years as who gets what becomes one of the primary issues and the second is how can we coerce our wills in the given situation.

The comments to this entry are closed.