If anything, at this juncture, I hope at least the idea of God interfering with perfectly wonderful people by virtue of their normative behaviors in any given place in history has been shown to be faulty logically. The Bible teaches that people are not perfect because we are not perfect and it offers a way for us to reconcile ourselves with right and God in spite of normative behaviors. God is deemed righteous and is the measure of right. The rationalists and humanists hold man to be the measure of all things as did the Episcopal Church of late. Mankind has gotten things right from time to time on certain things, no doubt but I think only because of God. The lights of our time excoriate and vilify those who might agree with me, but that seems to be expected if history is a fair teacher. It is taught in the Bible that people tend to dissembling in the absence of God. In fact, the Bible teaches dissembling is not the half of it. In the last century we saw that mankind can be cruel and evil on a pretty grand scale and it seems to continue. Here again the progressives apologize for evil and think nothing of the excesses of man's cruelty when left in an environment that does not recognize God or His Word as valid. The case of the Bishop is but a small thing we seem to hear and in fact some have said that normalizing homosexuality in society is long overdue. That is a radical departure for holding out forgiveness, healing, and reconciliation with God for all who have fallen short of God's Word and God. The difference is missed.
The example of unbridled lust as being the result of homosexuality is presented early on in the Bible. Sodom and Gomorrah are bywords and yet there are those who reject this example for lots of reasons. Time is a great teacher and time will tell, but it is grievous that soon time will tell and that nothing has been learned by history simply because the witness of God is rejected. Some dismiss Sodom as an example for a number of reasons. Sodom didn't exist is one reason cited. Another reason to dismiss the Biblical example is that the great sin was really the lack of hospitality on the part of the Sodomites. Rejecting the Bible as valid is a favorite reason offered. Another reason is that it happened long ago and besides we only need the New Testament and the Old Testament is not valid anymore. Of course there is the reason that is offered saying that homosexuality is just fine and the story in the Old Testament is just a story made up by ignoramuses. "Besides this is now and that was then..."
The decision of the Episcopal Church went against the Bible and God. They left no middle ground. The next pages have to do with discussions mainly from the Bible and commentators through the centuries who have voiced their opinions with God being recognized as sovereign. If you disagree with the Bible and side with the Episcopal Church that is your decision obviously. However the Bible does not teach that homosexuality is okay. Possibly some or many voted for the Bishop and same sex unions being blessed because they are unaware of what the Bible says.
Although it is my intention to present the case for moral truth as being superior as it is presented in the Bible, it may seem as though I am judging the Bishop personally or ascribing motivation to his actions as good or bad. I learned long ago that our motivations are usually coming from good intentions on our part. It may be that the Bishop is a great guy and a very nice man. That is likely true in view of his popularity. None of us know the outcome of a person's life, much less the outcome for a particular denomination of Christianity. I am of the conviction that I can however state my opinion as to the efficacy of something based on the witness of the Bible with certainty without the issue being the personal life of an individual or the corporate life of the Episcopal Church. I would simply like to point out that the Episcopal Church has chosen apostasy and this in defiance of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. You do not have to labor under misapprehensions and can research things for yourself. Do not take my word for it. The following sections draw on plain scripture first and then the commentary of many workers. I am sure the witness of the Bible is sufficient for most anyone who has plowed through this discourse so far, but if not or if so read on anyway. None of us can pick up the first stone and that is not the intention here.
"Is sin harmful?" seems to be the question begged by rebellion against God as the Episcopal Church has adopted as a permanent position. The thought comes that it would be nice to know before we come undone. The Bible says yes. Some commentators have pointed out that rebellion against God distorts our spiritual sensitivities. A friend of mine some years back was addicted to drugs and was an alcoholic. She pointed out that when she had recovered only to lapse back into addictive behaviors that her sense of sensitivity to spiritual things was wasted by beer and drugs and it was singular to her. Judgment of things natural and spiritual are arrested by powerful influences such as alcohol and drugs with maturation as a person being arrested as well. Trauma to a person can be severe enough to alter the memory of a person, their body memories, and their personality. Abuse that is severe can alter how one approaches reality as well as everything else about us. It seems to be a subtle thing that rebellion against God accomplishes and for a season it may mask the effects of our need for healing. Still, at the end we can still discern a nagging uneasiness until God gives us over to our own reason and we choose against Him on a regular basis. The conscience can still be pricked and we may be able to recognize that we are in enmity with God by rebellion at times, however vague the recognition seems among different things drawing our attention.