|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New Hampshire gay bishop
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
There's an article in the New York Times that might be of some interest.
Homosexuality issue threatens to break Anglicanism in two
Here's the opening text:
quote:
The election last month of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal diocese of New Hampshire is now threatening to crack open the long-existing fault line over homosexuality in the worldwide Anglican Communion, a global association of churches in 164 countries.
In an open letter released yesterday, 24 conservative American bishops warned that they would join conservative leaders in Africa, Asia and South America and break ties with the Episcopal Church USA if it votes to confirm New Hampshire's chosen bishop, V. Gene Robinson, or if it endorses a separate resolution to create a blessing for same-sex unions. There are about 300 active and retired American bishops.
Episcopalians in the United States are set to vote on both issues at their convention in Minneapolis, which begins on July 30. Episcopal conventions are usually as brazenly political as a presidential primary, with lobbying and last-minute alliances. But this time the American bishops, priests and laypeople who will vote say the pressure on them is exceptionally intense.
Conservatives suggested in interviews that if the Americans vote yes on either Bishop-elect Robinson or same-sex blessings, traditionalists around the world may join together, form a separate communion and try to claim the mantle of true Anglicanism.
It is unclear whether an affirmative vote in Minneapolis would actually cause a permanent schism in the the Anglican Communion, or whether the conservatives are making a last-ditch effort to influence the upcoming American convention. However, both sides acknowledge that the gay issue has opened a potentially irreconcilable divide Ñ one that also emerged recently in the church in Canada and Britain.
"Obviously, God's will for the church is unity, and the breakdown of that communion is a devastating thing," said the Most Rev. Greg Venables, one of the top church leaders, or primates, who has vowed to back a split. "But it's clear that there will be a breakdown in communion."
Bishop Venables is the presiding bishop of the Province of the Southern Cone, which includes all of South America, except Brazil.
The Anglican Communion, according to religion scholars, is the second largest international body of churches after the Roman Catholic Church, with 79 million members in 38 regional churches that trace their heritage to the Church of England.
While the conservatives on homosexuality are a minority in the church in the United States, they are a majority where the Anglican church is growing most quickly, in Africa and Asia.
At the Lambeth Conference in 1998, a once-a-decade meeting of Anglican leaders, a resounding majority endorsed a resolution declaring homosexuality to be "incompatible with scripture," but the resolution was non-binding.
Bishop-elect Robinson said in a telephone interview from New Hampshire on Thursday: "It breaks my heart if any of them choose to leave. But if they leave it's because they are choosing to leave, and they are choosing to divide this communion, not me.
"I am not willing to take responsibility for the future of the Anglican Church," he said.
Thoughts?
Kevin
[ 01. November 2003, 21:51: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I'm with Gene Robinson on this - he isn't forcing anyone to do anything.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Gene Robinson was duly elected to the bishopric by the not-noticeably radical Episcopalians of New Hampshire.
The right wingers in the Anglican Communion are trying to do to him what they did to Jeffrey John, but they will not succeed. I often abhor the American tendency to dismiss the opinions of those from other countries/cultures, but in this instance, I think we are right. I will pray that the conservative bishops don't schism, but if they do, the responsibility for that is on their own heads.
God bless Gene Robinson. By all accounts, he will be a wonderful bishop.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
My neighbor is one of those delegates headed to Minnesota to vote against the gay Bishop and the same sex union. He explained to me that “those people” were welcome in his church; they just shouldn’t lead it or celebrate their union there. His basis for his stance is his reading of Genesis.
The convention should be a barrel of fun. To bad I won’t be there. Perhaps I can substitute beating myself over the head with a bat for the experience.
It occurs to me that a certain amount of the bluster is a threat designed to influence the outcome of the convention. After all, if you think half of the worldwide population of your church will split off if you vote wrong, you will strongly consider your vote before casting it.
[Fiar Warning on] I do not consider homosexuality a sin. I therefore disagree with the stance of the upset bishops on that level. [Fair Warning off]
I also disagree with threatening division over an issue of doctrine. We have enough denominations as it is thank you. We do not need more. Moreover, I do not see such reaction to other “sins” like onanism. If they are going to split up over one sin, perhaps there ought to be a branch that prohibits clergy who have ever self gratified. Maybe there ought to be a true church devoted to those who have never engaged in being judgmental.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
<<Tangent>>
Tortuf---I'm a former Nashvillian myself. I was a communicant at St. Ann's in East Nashville. I love my church here, but I still mourn for that one---it was truly a Christ-filled place. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elizabeth Anne
Altar Girl
# 3555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by paigeb:
I will pray that the conservative bishops don't schism, but if they do, the responsibility for that is on their own heads.
They won't schism. Not as long as there's an ECUSA Pension Fund!
But to be fair, not all of the so-called "traditional, small 'o' orthodox" clerics are advocating schism. Here is an open letter by The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner to "the conservative clergy of the Diocese of Colorado." I completely and utterly disagree with his position, but even I have to admit that his letter is remarkably gracious and eloquent, as is Louie Crew's response. As unbelievably varying as our beliefs may be, we are all part of the same church family and we have to learn how to live with each other somehow.
quote:
God bless Gene Robinson. By all accounts, he will be a wonderful bishop.
Ahhh-men! ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in my eyes...
Posts: 974 | From: New York | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Kevin,
This is not exactly "new" news. The Episcopal Church has been struggling with this issue for many, many years. The fact that Gene Robinson has been elected bishop and will almost certainly be confirmed in Minneapolis is only the most recent in a long line of "events" that have polarized the church.
And guess what? Gene Robinson is not the first homosexual bishop in the church. Previous gay bishops, while not "out" to the extent that Robinson is, have been out to anybody paying attention.
So this is not a new thing.
Of course, it is unusual that a bishop-elect--let along a gay bishop elect--would find himself needing to be confirmed by the General Convention. Usually, these matters are accomplished by the affirmation of standing committees of the dioceses of ECUSA. But the Canons provide that, within a certain time period leading up to General Convention, the Convention will affirm the elections instead of the Standing Committees. It's a little bit of irony that this provision was enacted to reduce the work load of diocesan standing committees. You would think that New Hampshire could have timed this better, given the almost certain election of Robinson and the fallout therefrom.
All that notwithstanding. Gene Robinson is almost certain to be confirmed by the General Convention as the Bishop Co-adjutor of New Hampshire. And it is certain that a number of provinces of the Anglican Communion will declare themselves either in "impared" or "broken" communion with the diocese of New Hampshire--if not the entire province of the American church (ECUSA).
It is unlikely that any dioceses of ECUSA will remove themselves, though if anything like that happens, look to Quincy (Illinois); Fort Worth (Texas); and El Camino Real (California) to be the most likely. Other possibilities are South Carolina, Dallas (Texas), and perhaps Eau Claire (Wisconsin) and Coeur d'Alene (Idaho).
More of a tossup is the possibility that General Convention will approve a "rite or rites" that either directly or indirectly will allow same-sex partnerships to enjoy some sort of "blessing" from the church. This is the notorious "9th resolve" removed from resolution D-039 (s) in Denver in 2000. Watch the House of Bishops for this one. Though the majority of the Bishops would approve it given their own leanings, some of them remain (mirabile dictu) sensitive to the opinion of the rest of the Anglican Communion.
So, where does this leave ECUSA? Technically, the Anglican province of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America is in communion with His Grace, the Archbishop of Canterbury, so it doesn't really matter if other Provinces or Diocese in communion with ++Rowen declare themselves "not in communion" with ECUSA or one or more of her dioceses.
But that is silly, really. The fact is, the Anglican Communion (the Anglican Consultative Counsul notwithstanding) has no jurisdiction to enforce a standard of orthodoxy on any Province.
In effect, the Anglican Communion is a bunch of autonomous churches who really, really like the Archbishop of Canterbury--for whatever reason(s). That the Archbishop of Canterbury may, in turn, really, really like a bunch of provinces who can't stand each other is something of a dilemma for His Grace. Well, get used to paradox. We live in "interesting" times.
Short term impact: none, unless you count the breathless prose of shiploads of journalists who wouldn't know a monstrance if it fell on their heads.
Long term impact: yet another blow to denominationalism, an off-shoot of the reformation that has outlived its usefulness.
tomb
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I agree with most of what has ben said.
However, the question is - will 'Anglican Mainstream' use these decisions as the spark to schism ? Certainly, ECUSA are not going to leave the Anglican Communion ( a misnomer if there ever was one) - but some Third World provinces and some conservatives within the West may see it as an opportunity to form a Reformed/conservative denomination.
This is where I think I may disagree with some others. I think it would benefit both positions if there was some sort of split, because I am not convinced that the breadth of Anglicanism is credible any longer
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think it would benefit both positions if there was some sort of split, because I am not convinced that the breadth of Anglicanism is credible any longer
Too true, Mike, too true. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
Why on earth is the first adjective used to describe this man the word "gay"?
I'm sure he is many other things as well, how about "loving", for instance? Or "faithful"? Or "community-minded"?
When will we ever stop our preoccupation with bedroom antics? Kyrie eleison.
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally quoted from the NYT:
Bishop-elect Robinson said in a telephone interview from New Hampshire on Thursday: "It breaks my heart if any of them choose to leave.
Oh yeah - I bet he will be sobbing tears into his pillow over that one. quote:
But if they leave it's because they are choosing to leave, and they are choosing to divide this communion, not me.
Yeah - wash your hands of the responsibility, you sanctimonious arrogant fraud.
quote:
"I am not willing to take responsibility for the future of the Anglican Church," he said.
Well if you can't take responsibility for the wife you made vows to before God, I don't expect you are suited to take responsibility for the Church. If someone doesn't know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's Church?
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
His wife and he agreed to formally separate - mutually , they remain friends, and both she and their children support his position.
Those whose doctrine inspires young gay Christian men to marry may, however, be culpable. Because, sadly, not all marriages end as amicably as that of Gene Robinson.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Well if you can't take responsibility for the wife you made vows to before God, I don't expect you are suited to take responsibility for the Church. If someone doesn't know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of God's Church?
anglicanrascal
The word 'bigot' springs to mind.
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I am not convinced that the breadth of Anglicanism is credible any longer
It's only credible if we choose to make it so.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Perhaps. Or are we just trying to hold together that which cannot really co-exist any longer ? I'm just not convinced that we can carry on in what resembles something of a state of civil war - and I don't think peace is about to break out, because there may not be a compromise acceptable to both sides.
Obviously I am partial and clearly associate with one side, but thats the conclusion I have come to.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I may be being a trifle naive here, but I'd always thought that a certain J. Christ of Nazareth, NW3 had put forward certain suggestions about how the human community, to which the Church should be pointing, should live in order to bring in the Kingdom of God.
Call it trite, if you must ("It's trite!"), call it mere idealism ("It's mere idealism!"), call it the last desparate ramblings of a mad pacifist as the army breaks down the door ("Get on with it, fatso!"), but just saying "Oh, well, this is too difficult; let's not bother" isn't the direction we should be heading in.
If we can't be arsed with it, why do we claim the name of "Christian" at all? Is Jesus merely some cypher for all our own desires? Of course not - he calls us to something better and a damn sight harder than scrabbling about in the dirt, hurling turds at each other.
"This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for you and for manh, so that you can fart about doing whatever you like and ignore what I've been banging on about for the last three years, but that's alright, really, no, that's fine. Don't mind me."
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
Why on earth is the first adjective used to describe this man the word "gay"?
I'm sure he is many other things as well, how about "loving", for instance? Or "faithful"?
The word "blind" springs to mind.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Of course, you are right, Dyfrig, but then the Church is imperfect, and if the choice is between continuation of an internal war which makes us look totally ridiculous ( witness recent events) and a civilised split, I'd prefer the latter. Of course, you'll probably get a bloodbath before and during the split as well.
AR ; no, that wasn't the word I was thinking of. Wise, insightful, honest, yes.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
Why on earth is the first adjective used to describe this man the word "gay"?
I'm sure he is many other things as well, how about "loving", for instance? Or "faithful"?
The word "blind" springs to mind.
I am blind in that I fail to see your point, I give you that much, AngRasc.
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
Why on earth is the first adjective used to describe this man the word "gay"?
I'm sure he is many other things as well, how about "loving", for instance? Or "faithful"?
The word "blind" springs to mind.
I am blind in that I fail to see your point, I give you that much, AngRasc.
No problem.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
So are you going to explain yourself, or just let me have the self-satisfaction of knowing that my own prejudices are, as usual, correct? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Please indulge me, anglicanrascal - why do you think "blind" is an appropriate description of the use of the word "faithful" in relation to Gene Robinson?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Please indulge me, anglicanrascal - why do you think "blind" is an appropriate description of the use of the word "faithful" in relation to Gene Robinson?
Hi Dyfrig,
I just don't think that someone who makes solemn vows to be sexually faithful to someone else for the rest of their life and then deliberately breaks those vows is someone who you would generally think of as deserving the description "faithful". While there might be many other supportive descriptive words to describe Gene Robinson, I don't think that "faithful" is one that springs to mind, despite what MM.v2 might think.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
magnum mysterium
Shipmate
# 3418
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Please indulge me, anglicanrascal - why do you think "blind" is an appropriate description of the use of the word "faithful" in relation to Gene Robinson?
Hi Dyfrig,
I just don't think that someone who makes solemn vows to be sexually faithful to someone else for the rest of their life and then deliberately breaks those vows is someone who you would generally think of as deserving the description "faithful". While there might be many other supportive descriptive words to describe Gene Robinson, I don't think that "faithful" is one that springs to mind, despite what MM.v2 might think.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Faithful to the redemption of Christ?
Posts: 3095 | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Have you kept entirely faithful to your vows to renounce the world, the flesh and the devil, AR?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Have you kept entirely faithful to your vows to renounce the world, the flesh and the devil, AR?
I can only aspire to be known as a faithful Christian.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But of course, there are plenty of divorced bishops, and I wonder if they would have as good a reason for being divorced as Gene Robinson ( unless we are suggesting that marriage to a woman is a sensible choice for gay men). The question is more why he chose to marry in the first place, and how influential was 'traditional' teaching which led him to make that initial decision to marry.
I would have thought the fact that the separation was entirely agreed and mutual and that his ex-wife, who remains on good terms with him, fully supports his consecration, speaks volumes.
This excerpt from the Guardian explains : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1001197,00.html
--------------------------------------------------
He was married for a number of years and has two daughters now in their 20s, sharing their upbringing with his former wife, Isabella. Both daughters, Jamee and Ella, were present at the service celebrating his election in Concord last month. Canon Robinson said: "I guess I became aware of my sexual orientation from about seventh grade at junior high school in Kentucky. It was very difficult then and very different, growing up in the South.
"I met the woman who became my wife at the University of Vermont and I told her about my sexual orientation before we ever married. We had our daughters and we went through therapy together, but we separated in May 1986, were divorced in August 1987 and she remarried the following month. When we got divorced we had our parish priest as a witness and we all went to his church afterwards for a service where we asked each other's forgiveness, gave each other our wedding rings back and pledged ourselves to the joint bringing-up of our daughters."
--------------------------------------------------
[ 24. July 2003, 10:57: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
So Mr Rascal... you would deny faithfulness on the part of any divorcee?
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
[I can only aspire to be known as a faithful Christian.
A good start.
Are you prepared to give Gene Robinson the benefit of the doubt that he also aspires to the same thing?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Anglican Rascal---do you remember that little verse about "For all have sinned..."?
I am the ex-wife of a man like Gene Robinson. He swore to be faithful to me, and he was not. He did not fail at his vows because he was a bad man. He loved me, didn't want to hurt me, and he anguished over his failings.
He married me because our church told him that was the way to "cure" his homosexuality. He and I are still dear friends, but I am no longer a fundamentalist Christian because of the damage that church did to the two of us and to both of our families.
Your dissection of Gene Robinson's marriage shows a deplorable arrogance and lack of compassion. Gene Robinson's wife and I have stood on the other side, and if *WE* can forgive our exes, what right have *YOU* to stand in judgment?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
But AR, at this present moment in time we have no reason or evidence to doubt that Gene Robinson is anything other than faithful to his partner. His marriage has, indeed, ended - and I'm sure it was hard going for everybody involved. But the point is, it is past, like all the infidelities (in the most general sense - I don't think I'm actuallby capable of marital infidelity without checking it with my wife first and getting her to organise it so I don't get lost on the bus or something) that you and I have been forgiven of. If you or I have been unfaithful in any matters in the past, your argument would require that we both quit our offices this instant.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I can only aspire to be known as a faithful Christian.
A good start.
Are you prepared to give Gene Robinson the benefit of the doubt that he also aspires to the same thing?
Hi Dyfrig,
From the evidence that he shares with the world, I would have serious doubts that (whatever his aspirations) he can be held up as an example of faithful sexual fidelity. To try and hold him up as an example of "faithfulness" as MagMyst was trying to do is, in my opinion, a blinkered way of looking at things. I know that it draws flak every time a Christian says s/he feels this way, but we still want and need our church leaders to be examples of good, holy Christian living. This includes sexual fidelity.
I get the idea we feel differently about this, but I do not think that Gene Robinson's is a good example of marital fidelity.
We are probably delving into Dead Horses - sorry.
Hi Cusanus,
I do not about liberally sprinkling terms of infidelity upon divorcees (This has given me a mental picture of me standing outside lawyers offices sprinkling little signs saying "infidelity" upon newly-divorced couples, much like people do with confetti at weddings. Pardon my twisted mind.). But I wouldn't be in a rush to confer bishoprics or the title "the Faithful ..." on them en masse either.
Hi paigeb
I am truly sorry that you had to go through such an awful situation. I can't imagine the pain and heartbreak you must have felt. Please understand that I am not saying that someone like your husband is an utterly wicked person because of what they have gone through and the decisions that they made. What I was trying to say is that, because of those kinds of decisions and circumstances, such a life cannot be held up as an example of faithfulness that the Church should expect of her leaders. I was not trying to cause offence to people in your situation.
Also, I was not trying to dissect Gene Robinson's marriage, but simply stating that - in all honesty - I don't think the word "faithful" describes his life.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:
The word 'bigot' springs to mind.
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
The word "blind" springs to mind.
hosting
The words 'Commandment 3' spring to mind for both of you. Trading insults like 'bigot' and 'blind' is not on in Purgatory.
May I remind people who see red over another individual's views what we have a Hell board for. Personal arguments belong there.
Louise
hosting off
[ 24. July 2003, 12:10: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
How odd - anglicanrascal's post was actually up there before mine, which is what I'm responding to. HOw mine got inserted before it is a mystery, a bit like the Trinity and Family Tax Credits.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
A thousand apologies, gentle Louise. For the record, I would like to replace the word "blind" with "blinkered" wherever it appears above. I should have attacked the vew rather than the person. I apologise to you too, Magnum Mysterium - I should have had more respect for you.
Dyfrig - my apologies to you. I deleted and edited my post.
I don't think that "faithfulness to whoever is in your arms at the moment" is what the Christian message about. I don't think you can define fidelity by saying that someone isn't being unfaithful to their current partner (no matter what they have promised to their previous partners) and so therefore they are automatically an example of Christian fidelity. Christians, and especially Christian leaders, should be an example of a much higher order of faithfulness than that.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
[ 24. July 2003, 12:28: Message edited by: anglicanrascal ]
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
But AR why are you so obsessed with sexual faithfulness. I have been sexually faithful since I married, but my faithfulness to other aspects of Jesus' teaching, such as giving all I have to the poor, turning the other cheek, adn going the other mile is pretty grim. Does that make me unfit to be a bishop? (if my church ever decides to have them!)
My own view is that these other things are equally important, and by elevating one understaning of fidelity above all others we are in danger of unbalancing the gospel and the teaching of Jesus. Sexual faithfulness is important, but so is faithfulness to other parts of the teaching of Jesus, and on that score I would suggest we all fall short. (specks and planks and all that)
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
But AR why are you so obsessed with sexual faithfulness. I have been sexually faithful since I married, but my faithfulness to other aspects of Jesus' teaching, such as giving all I have to the poor, turning the other cheek, adn going the other mile is pretty grim. Does that make me unfit to be a bishop? (if my church ever decides to have them!)
The qualifications for a bishop are fairly clear from Holy Scripture. If your life didn't conform to the standard required, then yes, that would make you unfit to be one (if your church ever decided to become catholic and biblical enough to have them!)
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weslian
Shipmate
# 1900
|
Posted
So is anyone fit to be a bishop?
Whatever our position in the church don't we all rely on teh grace of God, because of our shortcomings.
--------------------
Sex, Shopping, Work, Christian Doctrine, Entertainment, Art, Sport.
Posts: 563 | From: somewhere too posh for my own good | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I hope this link comes through, here's a follow up article in the NYT to the one Kevin posted. NY Times Article from the conservative bishops.
This is the statement that has been issued AAC Site by them.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Hah! Try and confuse me with that cunning "edit post" trick, eh?
From 1 Timothy 3:
"the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money."
From this we learn that the following ought not to be bishops at all:
1 the unmarried
2 those who get angry
3 those who lose self-control
4 those who are not respectable
5 those who do not practice hospitality
6 those who are able to teach
7 drunks
8 those who are not gentle towards others
9 those who start quarrels
10 those who like money
Your own archbishop, in his quarrelsome and aggressive attitude to some in his diocese, fails on point 8 and 9, and possibly 6. Should he go too? After all, he's done that this year, not 17 years ago.
Then we turn to the Epistle to Titus, which tells us:
"the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless--not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined."
So, again those who are unmarried are out, and in addition to those listed in the first example, we also have to throw out those who's children do not believe (that's Hugh Dennis' dad out of a job, then),
Why have you picked on just this single issue?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Weslian:
So is anyone fit to be a bishop?
Whatever our position in the church don't we all rely on the grace of God, because of our shortcomings.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that our membership of the body of Christ is dependent solely on God's grace.
Is anyone fit to be a bishop? For a start, compare 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 with the leader of your current church. If they have those qualities, then yes, I imagine they might be fit to be a bishop.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Your own archbishop, in his quarrelsome and aggressive attitude to some in his diocese, fails on point 8 and 9, and possibly 6. Should he go too? After all, he's done that this year, not 17 years ago.
He is my rightful king? Well, Iyyy didn't vote for him. quote:
Why have you picked on just this single issue?
Cross-posted with you. I don't.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
This is why I left the episcopal church. If this ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) proposition passes, it would be an execrable way to mark my father's 81st birthday. His parents were founding parishioners of the parish across the street from UCLA (St, Alban's on Hilgard) in Westwood and not even remotely liberal; these erstwhile 'leaders' of their church are in direct violation of the Fifth Commandment: Honour thy father and thy mother (KJV): they are spitting on the graves of their parents and grandparents! My dad is currently attending a Catholic parish in Walnut Creek because that is where the Sunday church van from his old people's home takes him; if he hears about this, he may convert.
To these individuals, I may say 'live and let live' but I choose not to go to church with them. (And yes, I pray that if there is a 'Vatican Three' in this century, RC priests will again be allowed to marry - of course it is understood that 'marriage' is a sanctified union between a man and a woman.)
Let us agree to disagree.
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
His parents were founding parishioners of the parish across the street from UCLA (St, Alban's on Hilgard) in Westwood and not even remotely liberal; these erstwhile 'leaders' of their church are in direct violation of the Fifth Commandment: Honour thy father and thy mother (KJV): they are spitting on the graves of their parents and grandparents!
I am sorry, Sir Kevin. I don't understand the relevance of these comments to the subject under discussion. (Actually, I do, but this is Purgatory.)
Are you saying current church membership should be bound by the opinions and prejudices of dead people?
The founders of my parish didn't allow Negroes to attend their church. We now do. In fact we ran a summer school program for black children in our neighborhood. Are we spitting on our founder's graves?
(Of course one might make the arguement that Jesus Christ was the founder of our church, but I won't go there.)
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Are you saying current church membership should be bound by the opinions and prejudices of dead people?
How does this differ from Tradition? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
[ 24. July 2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Dyfrig ]
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
The convention should be a barrel of fun. To bad I won’t be there. Perhaps I can substitute beating myself over the head with a bat for the experience.
I snorted coffee on the screen when I read this bit, because I said almost the same thing to my husband this morning over bagels. I also, am very sad I can't be there. But I'll recreate the experience by staying home and pulling out my fingernails.
Vis-a-vis Dyfrig's point, it is entirely beyond me why we don't devote huge chunks of the conventions trying to empty the Sees of priests and bishops who are greedy or unfaithful in marriage, and threatening schism over same. There are so many things to do in the world, you know, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, succour the oppressed, that kind of thing. Why waste all this time on the bedroom habits of the clergy?
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Are you saying current church membership should be bound by the opinions and prejudices of dead people?
How does this differ from Tradition?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I also adore that, according to the Washington Post, many ultraconservatives from all over the globe, such as +Jensen, were at a local evangelical Episcopal church to "warn" of coming schism. Thanks for coming all the way from Sidney to spread your brand of sweetness and light here, Bp!
from the Post:
quote:
Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia, cited the example of the Canadian diocese of New Westminster, where nine parishes have banded together to declare independence from the diocese since it began celebrating same-sex unions in May.
By speaking of a realignment instead of a schism, the conservatives said they were emphasizing that parishes that remain faithful to traditional teachings against homosexuality are not breaking away from the church. Rather, in their view, such parishes are remaining inside the mainstream of the Anglican Communion.
You can call it what you want, guys. It's still basically a schism.
[ 24. July 2003, 14:21: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
The cold, dispassionate, analytical side of myself (which occupies most of myself) says
this will probably be a disaster for the church in the long run, at least in the U.S. no matter what happens. Assuming he is approved, it will be seen as yet another concession to the liberal wing and an exodus of people and money will likely follow which will seriously damage the church and potentially create a rival denomination. The conservatives (who oddly enough in light of Sine’s post now look to an African bishop for leadership) have vowed to make a stand on this issue where in the past they have bitten the bullet on others. I see no reason to doubt their word.
In the unlikely event that he doesn’t get approved, the issue continues to simmer until the next confrontation and you’ve just sat on the wishes of a diocese in the process. To anyone on the outside contemplating coming in, it looks like a big quagmire of bickering hotheads.
I think both sides need to take a long, hard look at where they're going.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Hi paigeb
I am truly sorry that you had to go through such an awful situation. I can't imagine the pain and heartbreak you must have felt. Please understand that I am not saying that someone like your husband is an utterly wicked person because of what they have gone through and the decisions that they made. What I was trying to say is that, because of those kinds of decisions and circumstances, such a life cannot be held up as an example of faithfulness that the Church should expect of her leaders. I was not trying to cause offence to people in your situation.
Also, I was not trying to dissect Gene Robinson's marriage, but simply stating that - in all honesty - I don't think the word "faithful" describes his life.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Anglicanrascal---My husband was not faithful to me, that is true. And I was wounded by that infidelity. But he did not break his vows out of malice toward me. He has asked for forgiveness from ME, the one who was directly wounded by his actions, and I have willingly accepted his apology. In my view, he has acted in the way a Christian ought to---he took responsibility for his actions and tried to make amends.
He has also been faithful to his partner of nearly 12 years now. I consider him a model of fidelity in that regard. You would disqualify him from church leadership because he cheated on me---yet I am the ONLY person who was hurt by his actions and I would not disqualify him on that basis.
Again, I ask you---if the person who was most directly harmed by Gene Robinson's actions (his ex-wife) has forgiven him and supports him for the bishopric, who are you---or anyone else---to deny him that post?
Bottom line for me---all have sinned. Bishops and priests are necessarily held to a higher standard, but I have yet to meet a perfect person. By all accounts, Gene Robinson treated his ex-wife with care and thoughtfulness, and has tried to live a life of integrity with BOTH of his partners. That, to me, is the kind of example I want in a bishop.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
