new church life: september/october 2017
belong there, and the equipment is overwhelming to learn. He returned us to
another of the paper’s analogies – a greenhouse – suggesting that people can
use the light of truth for growth when they are warmed by the opportunity to
choose what they want to work on in their lives, with the clergy on hand to
help and encourage.
Fourteen others responded from the floor, some pushing back (some
younger priests feel the church has moved beyond appearing perfect and
not welcoming in people who are flawed), some appreciating Göran’s way
of fostering his own congregation’s initiative in understanding the Word,
and others enlarging particular points (the angels of the highest heaven
acknowledge that they are a mess, but it doesn’t take away their sense of being
in heaven).
Process for Nominating an Executive Bishop
A brief business session followed, in which it was first agreed that those willing
to serve as nominees for the next executive bishop would be given wide
latitude in how they constructed their statements of vision for the church and
philosophy of leadership. Then, an overall “Calendar and Mode of Nomination
of Executive Bishop” was adopted which largely follows the pattern used for
the nomination of the present executive bishop.
Various elections followed. Ballots were distributed to take five names to
be on the Nomination Process Oversight Committee; two names to serve on
the council’s membership committee, and four names to recommend for the
Bishop’s Consistory.
Same-Sex Marriage Myths
The Rev. Christopher A. Barber introduced the first speaker after lunch,
the Rev. Jeremy F. Simons, whose topic was: “Four Myths: How well do we
understand the impact of same-sex marriage?”
Jeremy began by saying that many ideas related to this topic that are
commonly believed are actually contradicted by teachings in the Writings.
He therefore sees some of those beliefs as myths. The topic was not what the
Writings say specifically about homosexuality, although passages about it were
included in an appendix, but it addressed four of these myths.
First, although people commonly understand homosexuality to be the
opposite of heterosexuality, the Writings describe the relevant opposites as
conjugial love and licentious love, or chastity and unchastity. Homosexual
behavior is just one of many forms of sexual expression that are opposed to
conjugial love.
Second, most people seem to believe that sexual preference is genetically
determined, but sexual preference is not described that way in the Writings.
394