Lesbian UMC bishop laments denomination’s ban on ‘queer clergy’

[FireDragon76]

... For this reason I have always been amused by the irony in St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco selecting him as their patron saint; obviously they did it based on the incorrect belief held by many that St. Gregory was a universalist, which is not actually the case; rather he expressed a belief in eschatological apokatastasis, but this view is more in line with the view once taught by the Church of the East, that Hell is temporary and people will be punished in Hell according to the magnitude of their sins (see the Book of the Bee by Mar Solomon the Bishop of Basra).

That view is actually compatible with one form of universalism. I know because I watched an interview with a Unitarian Universalist minister discussing the history of Universalism as a denomination. Early Universalists in the US had a controversy about whether souls were subject to some kind of remediation after death, or not. The issue was never resolved and people later let it remain an open question.

 

[The Liturgist]

That view is actually compatible with one form of universalism. I know because I watched an interview with a Unitarian Universalist minister discussing the history of Universalism as a denomination. Early Universalists in the US had a controversy about whether souls were subject to some kind of remediation after death, or not. The issue was never resolved and people later let it remain an open question.

I would be interested to know if some of the Universalists were Trinitarian or Nicene before the merger with the Unitarians, and if any remained in that state, because unlike the Unitarians, they did retain the cross as their denominational logo.

But at any rate I don’t think St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church would have opted for St. Gregory as their patron saint had they read his canons (which also referenced other canons which prohibit their rather open minded view towards non-Christians).

 

[Der Alte]

That is an absurd argument, frankly. Yes, it is true that there have always been hypocritical presbyters who have engaged in fornication, and it is also the case that this has always been grounds for deposing presbyters who engage in such conduct. If an Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox presbyter engages in adultery or fornication, they are gone, and I would assume the rule is the same in the LCMS/LCC (my dear friend @MarkRohfrietsch should be able to confirm that for us), and in Continuing Anglicanism (my pious friend and colleague @Shane R would know about that). And also, my learned Baptist friend @Der Alte might be able to confirm whether or not a typical SBC congregation would sack a minister who engaged in fornication. I know it has happened.

And of course also it is the case that homosexuality is clearly prohibited both by scripture and by the canons of the early church, for example, Canon LXII of St. Basil the Great. His brother St. Gregory of Nyssa also wrote a canon against it, Canon IV, which also prohibits and canonizes fornication and adultery. For this reason I have always been amused by the irony in St. Gregory of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco selecting him as their patron saint; obviously they did it based on the incorrect belief held by many that St. Gregory was a universalist, which is not actually the case; rather he expressed a belief in eschatological apokatastasis, but this view is more in line with the view once taught by the Church of the East, that Hell is temporary and people will be punished in Hell according to the magnitude of their sins (see the Book of the Bee by Mar Solomon the Bishop of Basra).

As with some other denominations there are groups who call themselves baptists who may be more accepting of homosexual clergy but the Southern Baptist Convention is not one of those. Not long ago one of the big downtown churches the senior pastor retired. The church voted to hire a female pastor as senior pastor. The SBC said they would kick the church out of the convention if they did so.

 

[The Liturgist]

As with some other denominations there are groups who call themselves baptists who may be more accepting of homosexual clergy but the Southern Baptist Convention is not one of those. Not long ago one of the big downtown churches the senior pastor retired. The church voted to hire a female pastor as senior pastor. The SBC said they would kick the church out of the convention if they did so.

And beyond that, would I be correct in assuming that a typical SBC church would fire a pastor who engaged in fornication? And if they didn’t they might risk being ejected?

Because the new UMC policy goes beyond permitting sodomy, which is a terrible sin, and actually allows fornication, in the form of unmarried sexual relationships with clergy, which is another terrible sin.

I am of course aware that the SBC has not capitulated, and is unlikely to capitulate, on the issue of sodomy or arsenokoetia; (that is to say, homosexual relations, which are intrinsically immoral, like fornication). What i am seeking to do is to determine if any other churches officially tolerate fornication among their clergy.