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 ]
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
I'm with Gene Robinson on this - he isn't forcing anyone to do anything.
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 
<<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.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

God bless Gene Robinson. By all accounts, he will be a wonderful bishop.

---

Ahhh-men!
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Smart Alex (# 1916) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

But if they leave it's because they are choosing to leave, and they are choosing to divide this communion, not me.

---

quote:

---

"I am not willing to take responsibility for the future of the Anglican Church," he said.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I am not convinced that the breadth of Anglicanism is credible any longer

---

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"?

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Magnum Mysterium (# 3418) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

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?

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Have you kept entirely faithful to your vows to renounce the world, the flesh and the devil, AR?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
[I can only aspire to be known as a faithful Christian.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magnum Mysterium:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

---

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!)

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Why have you picked on just this single issue?

---

Cross-posted with you. I don't.

Pax,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
This is why I left the episcopal church. If this 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.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

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!

---

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?

[ 24. July 2003, 14:08: Message edited by: Dyfrig ]
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

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.

---

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?

---

 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
Regarding an earlier post, I will say this about that: when it comes to clergy, black people good, homosexuals bad! I am all for diversity but not that sort of diversity. 411 - to the best of my knowledge, the rector is still a fine Japanese-American priest whom I saw there a few years ago and were he Black or Native American or a woman, he would still have my father's approval and that of his parents. My late paternal grandmother was buried by a woman priest of St. Alban's in 1985, atlhough by the time she was in her nineties she had since ceased to be an active parishioner due to residing 400 miles away in Walnut Creek, CA.
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Regarding an earlier post, I will say this about that: when it comes to clergy, black people good, homosexuals bad! I am all for diversity but not that sort of diversity.

---

You know, I absolutely LOATHE this little smiley thing, and I've never used it before, but if ever a statement deserved it....
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Regarding an earlier post, I will say this about that: when it comes to clergy, black people good, homosexuals bad!

---

Why?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Indeed it is not Sine Nomine.
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
because that what I was taught as a child, Erin and that is my particular interpretation of the bible. We can honour parents by giving them grandchilren if we wish or at least by not doing something that is against every fibre of their being. I am liberal about things such as legalization of cannabis in all states and all countries and a universal ban on capital punishment; I believe a woman can and should be ordained in protestant or anglo-catholic churches, but on this issue I will not budge. Consider me the arch-conservative here.
 

---

Posted by Jimi Kendricks (# 3274) on :
 
The mind boggles.

...anyway, getting back to the thread.
Sir Kevin sir, I have a question. Do straight white clergy or gay black clergy have any place in the church?

You seem to imply they don't.

[ 24. July 2003, 16:53: Message edited by: Jimi Kendricks ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Consider me the arch-conservative here.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Regarding an earlier post, I will say this about that: when it comes to clergy, black people good, homosexuals bad! I am all for diversity but not that sort of diversity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
A Catholic friend of mine quoted a Catholic theologian (I forget who) who calls "Tradition" the "Democracy of the Dead".

---

Chesterton.

Ha! I beat Jesuitical Lad to it! I can recognise not only Lewis quotes but Chesterton ones too! I RULE!!

David
oh dear, that was the sin of pride, wasn't it? Oops
 

---

Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
This just in:
"Group Prepared to Respond if General Convention approves. . ." Episcopal News Service 07/24/03

I particularly like the bit of coyness around "including an element of surprise." God help us.

[ 24. July 2003, 22:55: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I sincerely hope it means a split. I have a feeling that is what a lot of these people actually want ; though they may not take that much of the CofE itself with them - probably a quarter ?

I'll hold a virtual party if it does.

Maybe then we can get back to being Anglicans.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
The whole tradition thing is interesting. I do not want to abandon tradition, which I hold to be the fruits of the Holy Spirit enabling Christians to reflect on God's revelation in Christ. But I think there is a need to disentangle Tradition (with a capital 'T') from the accidental debris of prejudice and domination. I hold that opposition to gays belongs in the latter category.

Merseymike, I too think that some of the threatened departures would be no sad loss. Let me have details of that party.
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Lest anyone think otherwise, Sir Kevin and I are most emphatically not in agreement on this issue.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
I figured as much...

Kevin,when you crossed the Tiber didn't anybody tell you that the seminary was where they sent nice Catholic boys who weren't interested in girls?

Just wondering,

m
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
This just in:
"Group Prepared to Respond if General Convention approves. . ." Episcopal News Service 07/24/03

I particularly like the bit of coyness around "including an element of surprise." God help us.

---

"Element of surprise"? Oh, boy. This should be fun.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
OK, Anglican Rascal. I have had one partner for 10 years (and nothing previous). We see ourselves together for the rest of our lives and we have made a public ceremony of saying so. Neither of us has so much as fantasised about anyone else.

May I be a bishop, please. We're both over 30.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Arabella, you have my vote.
 

---

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Arabella, you have my vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mamacita:
This just in:
"Group Prepared to Respond if General Convention approves. . ." Episcopal News Service 07/24/03

---

People who hold secret meetings have no business complaining that what other people are doing will impair unity. Words cannot express the contempt I feel for secret meetings and rather less than veiled threats. And, my word, over something that is NOT A SALVATION ISSUE.
 

---

Posted by Troy (# 2516) on :
 
This may or may not be of interest to anyone, but on Thursday Gene Robinson gave an very eloquent interview on NPR's Fresh Air. Whether or not you feel he should be confirmed as bishop, the man's abiding love for and through Christ shone like the sun in the interview. It may be enlightening to hear, first hand, how he feels about this dispute. Real Audio and 50 minutes are needed to hear the whole interview.

-Troy
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
These people are behaving like the high school student council.
 

---

Posted by TheMightyTonewheel (# 4730) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
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:

---

Originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
"Element of surprise"? Oh, boy. This should be fun.

---

It's things like this which make me want to stick with the mainline Episcopal/Anglican church even when I don't agree with it. People who act like that ("element of suprise") make me want to disassociate myself from them even when I may be in partial or full agreement with them.

"[P]rimates and bishops of the Anglican Communion" should not, in my very strongly-held view, be "gather[ing] in secret" and "refus[ing]to divulge any specific plans" about their "element of surprise." Whatever the **** happened to the anti-Gnostic "we do things openly" attitude of the early Church? If they want to schism, let them, but they should make it clear that they plan to do it. I expect they'll just walk out en masse or something.

I don't believe in blessing sexual intercourse (however that is understood -- I know there was some controversy surrounding my position on this and I don't want to start it up again here) outside of male-female marriage, but even at its most extreme, I **** well don't agree with the approach the opposing side is taking here, and has been taking for some time.

And, again, they're not doing this over the church allowing bishops to hold heretical views on basic tenets like the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth -- they're doing it over sex. Where the **** are their priorities???

David
naughty words deleted because this is Purgatory, not Hell
 

---

Posted by Glimmer (# 4540) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
And, again, they're not doing this over the church allowing bishops to hold heretical views on basic tenets like the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth -- they're doing it over sex. Where the **** are their priorities???

---

Their priority is POWER. Power is sustained by populist support. The average Joe knows diddly about theological issues, but he sure knows he ain't a pansy. Throughout history, groups reaching for power will always base their appeal on lowest common denominator issues, not their real agenda. These people are an anathema to me, to paraphrase another thread that's running.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I don't know, maybe they just think it's the highest priority the Church faces today.

I think they're really, really wrong, if they believe that. But I don't think it need be all about power. If it was, and not about doctrine, and they thought things were turning the other way, wouldn't they just jump to the other side?
 

---

Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

By Chast: I don't know, maybe they just think it's the highest priority the Church faces today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If it was, and not about doctrine, and they thought things were turning the other way, wouldn't they just jump to the other side?

---

At the moment, they think they're in the ascendant. See what happens when the tide runs out....
 

---

Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on :
 
I HUMBLY APOLOGIZE TO ALL THOSE WHOM I HAVE OFFENDED on this thread.

I am not a racist - those who know me know this. I did not mean to say my ancestors were racists or bigots. They were not (they fought for the Union in the US civil war and emigrated from England, France and Germany a century or more before). I learned the importance of diversity in high school in LA County many years ago. Classmates I remembered best at a recent reunion were mostly Black and Mexican-American. I am a minority in the school district where I substitute teach and get along with everybody.

This has been a difficult summer for my wife and I as we have both lost close relatives (although that is no excuse for bad manners). I do have views differing from other Shipmates (including my wife), and I expressed them badly as I know now. I have posted on controversial topics before, but more intelligently. I am not stupid, but sometimes impulsive. I only got a 'C' in speech at university and I guess it shows! Sorry what I said or meant was misconstrued. Please forgive me:brickwall:

 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:


And, again, they're not doing this over the church allowing bishops to hold heretical views on basic tenets like the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth -- they're doing it over sex. Where the **** are their priorities???

David
naughty words deleted because this is Purgatory, not Hell

---

quote:

---

And, again, they're not doing this over the church allowing bishops to hold heretical views on basic tenets like the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth -- they're doing it over sex. Where the **** are their priorities???

---

I'm rather curious about this apparent idea that human sexuality is somehow a side issue for Christians. But I agree that it is very disquieting when it seems to be the only issue for some Christians.

The counterargument to that would be that, in the case of same-sex blessings in ECUSA, the views are in the form of a national church resolution, and are therefore about to become the official view of the church. This is a much more significant step than an individual Bishop holding a personal opinion that is differs from the church's teaching.
 

---

Posted by MaryO (# 161) on :
 
Re: tradition and secret meetings.

The Fathers of the Church who met in Chalcedon in 451 were _explicit_ about such meetings. Canon XVIII:

The crime of conspiracy or banding together is utterly prohibited even by the secular law, and much more ought it to be forbidden in the Church of God. Therefore, if any, whether clergymen or monks, should be detected in conspiring or banding together, or hatching plots against their bishops or fellow-clergy, they shall by all means be deposed from their own rank.

_Who's_ claiming to honor Tradition?

MaryO
 

---

Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 
Never had occasion to use this smiley before.

MaryO

thanks
basso
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Does anybody know what is going on? Did they vote? Or is it not this weekend, as I thought?
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
It begins on Wednesday.
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Ah, I did have the wrong dates. Thanks, I can think about more normal things for a few days.
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
Wally,

There was an interview with Bishop-elect Robinson on NPR last week. There was not a great deal of theology covered during the discussion, but my impression is that if he and his theology must be labeled, it should probably be "orthodox". He seems quite comfortable using several key words and phrases that many theological liberals avoid at all costs.

You can listen to the interview via the NPR website if you have an audio player.

Greta
 

---

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Wally,

There was an interview with Bishop-elect Robinson on NPR last week. There was not a great deal of theology covered during the discussion, but my impression is that if he and his theology must be labeled, it should probably be "orthodox". He seems quite comfortable using several key words and phrases that many theological liberals avoid at all costs.

You can listen to the interview via the NPR website if you have an audio player.

Greta

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
And, again, they're not doing this over the church allowing bishops to hold heretical views on basic tenets like the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth -- they're doing it over sex. Where the **** are their priorities???

---

quote:

---

By anglicanrascal:If a split occurs, I imagine that those who are willing to take the new line on sexuality will also be the ones taking the "radical" interpretations on the virgin birth and the resurrection. On the other side of the chasm will probably be those who take both the orthodox line on sexuality and on issues like the resurrection and virgin birth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
If a split occurs, I imagine that those who are willing to take the new line on sexuality will also be the ones taking the "radical" interpretations on the virgin birth and the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by paigeb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
If a split occurs, I imagine that those who are willing to take the new line on sexuality will also be the ones taking the "radical" interpretations on the virgin birth and the resurrection.

---

Well, in my case, at least, you imagine wrongly.

---

quote:

---

And I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed to you several days ago---the one where I asked you why you felt qualified to judge Rev. Robinson's "faithfulness."

---

quote:

---

-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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I was not trying to force the point that it will be exactly as I imagined in every single case, but I wouldn't be surprised if the fault lines fell fairly well as I pencilled out in my earlier post.

---

quote:

---

Dear paigeb,

I had no idea that you sat perched on the edge of your seat waiting for my every post. I apologise that, on this occasion, I have been unable to extend to you the efficient response to your question that our service contract specifies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I had no idea that you sat perched on the edge of your seat waiting for my every post. I apologise that, on this occasion, I have been unable to extend to you the efficient response to your question that our service contract specifies.

---

And I had no idea that a honest question would be met with such sarcasm in Purgatory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Our views are obviously so far apart that I thought there was little point trying to talk to you about how I think things work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I can't imagine why you would think that Gene Robinson's wife was the main person and the only person (based on your reasoning about your own situation from your previous paragraph "yet I am the ONLY person who was hurt by his actions and I would not disqualify him on that basis.") to be hurt by his actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I think that God and the Church are also deeply hurt by marital infidelities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
It's inconceivable to me how you could think that only the partners to a marriage can be hurt by unfaithfulness which occurs within it. I see from your profile that you are in the USA. Do you think that ONLY Hilary Clinton was hurt by Bill's affair with Monica? Of course not - the act of betrayal was felt by many people across the country. Do you think that a victim of sexual abuse in the Church is the ONLY person hurt by the abuser's actions? You can see from the crises in the Roman Church that that is not the case. When Jimmy Bakker was exposed, was it ONLY the people whose money he had taken who felt betrayed by his actions? Of course not!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
It's the same with the blatant, unrepentant infidelity that we are discussing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
If the person that Jimmy Bakker stole most of the money from freely forgave him and said that actually, it was OK to steal the money - would the Bakkers' church have to discount the theft when considering whether he was suitable to serve as a church leader? If someone had been sexually abused by a bishop and then later forgave that bishop and said that they supported the bishop's other sexual relationships - would the church community be bound not to judge whether that bishop was worthy of his post?

---

Although I disagree with the analogies of stealing and sexual abuse, I think THIS is a fair question. And my answer is that the church community would have to weigh what it knows about the individual in question. Even bishops and priests are only human---if we start denying the bishopric and the priesthood to people who never make a mistake, I daresay we will be down to lay presidency very quickly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Do you really believe that if the person most directly harmed by a Church leader's unrepentant infidelity has forgiven him and supports him, that it is not right for anyone else to deny him that post?

I really can't see how you could believe that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
You said you believed that you believe that "Bishops and priests are necessarily held to a higher standard" but you don't specify what that standard should be. It sounds like it is: "Ignoring the standard that Holy Scripture sets for a bishop, do those previously affected by their actions forgive them?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I have a feeling that you will continue to disagree with me, but I hope you can understand my arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

Do you really believe that if the person most directly harmed by a Church leader's unrepentant infidelity has forgiven him and supports him, that it is not right for anyone else to deny him that post?

---

quote:

---

You said you believed that you believe that "Bishops and priests are necessarily held to a higher standard" but you don't specify what that standard should be. It sounds like it is: "Ignoring the standard that Holy Scripture sets for a bishop, do those previously affected by their actions forgive them?"

---

quote:

---

I have a feeling that you will continue to disagree with me, but I hope you can understand my arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MaryO:
Talk _to_ us--not _about_ us.

---

quote:

---

Therefore faithfulness to the gospel is less important than faithfulness to one wife.

That this list rules out all celibate bishops, like the AB of York, and all RC bishops shows how out unscriptural most of the church is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IanB:
The passages you cite are certainly able to be interpreted that way, but I do not think historically they have been. Rather the meaning has been understood to be "married once only".

---

quote:

---

if we start denying the bishopric and the priesthood to people who never make a mistake, I daresay we will be down to lay presidency very quickly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear paigeb

quote:

---

if we start denying the bishopric and the priesthood to people who never make a mistake, I daresay we will be down to lay presidency very quickly.

---

Good joke of course ... but hey ... why stop there? Let's have nobody doing anything coz they're not Jesus!

---

It would have been an even better joke if I had written it correctly.

It should have said "if we start limiting the bishopric and the priesthood to people who never make a mistake..."

And I take your point, Fr. Gregory---but I also think that if all those involved looked to Jesus as their example a bit more, we wouldn't be in this pickle.

Here in ECUSA, we elect our bishops. This means that we have to trust the people in a diocese to choose the person they feel will guide them best. The people of New Hampshire have done this, and---like it or not---Gene Robinson is the person they have chosen.

I would say the same for the bishop in South Carolina, much as I disagree with his theology---and his tactics. He was chosen, and he should be allowed to serve in peace. Until, of course, he starts threatening to schism.

This is the rub for me. Those who advocate full inclusion of gay/lesbian clergy in committed relationships (another of my unstated standards, for the benefit of anglicanrascal) have not threatened to schism over this issue. We have worked quietly for years to explain our position and slowly build support for that inclusion. We did not leave the church in a huff when, over the last several General Conventions, we got shot down. We just kept praying and talking to people.

Now that our view has gained some sympathy, those with whom we disagree cannot grant that we are principled people who have prayed, studied, and sought the guidance of the Holy Spirit on this issue. To them, we are simply "cafeteria Christians" who toss out anything in the Bible that doesn't suit our "agenda."

This is, in my view, the most damaging aspect of the whole debate. I think the conservatives are wrong in their theology, but I would not break communion with them over this issue. They, however, are not willing to grant me the same benefit of the doubt.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear paigeb

I have a sneaky feeling that you may have thought my extension of the joke was making a round-about point .. it wasn't. If I were to make a point it would be that there are cannot be two standards for Christians ... one for clergy, one for the rest of the laos, (as is the case in the Church of England it appears). It would be right, however, to expect a high degree of conformity to gospel precepts (within universally applicable parameters, however defined) from prospective and serving clergy.
 

---

Posted by Eftsoon (# 3154) on :
 
The latest salvo from that 'mainstream' position (but should I even admit to having visited their website )
Archbishop Drexel Gomez issues response to Frank Griswold's Letter to Primates


 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eftsoon:
The latest salvo from that 'mainstream' position (but should I even admit to having visited their website )
Archbishop Drexel Gomez issues response to Frank Griswold's Letter to Primates

---

What could inspire you to call that a salvo!!??

I read it as a sincere and honest letter which clearly states what that particular Primate sincerely believes. It would have been a gross neglect of his duties as a bishop of the catholic church if he had replied with a letter that didn't represent his true beliefs in an effort to keep ECUSA happy.

Pax,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by Eftsoon (# 3154) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
What could inspire you to call that a salvo!!??

---

quote:

---

"Nothing is more clear to foreigners like myself than the wanton sexual disorder that characterizes so much of life in the United States, and that churches must respond to with both pastoral sensitivity and clarity."

---

quote:

---

"I hope you can appreciate that American actions, including those of ECUSA, are, in our day, intrinsically imperial in their effect (not only in their perception), much like your country's foreign policy."

---

Were more 'salvo'-like. But there is always room to differ.
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
Mmm - I see what you mean in those cases. Though maybe he is just walking boldly in times of trouble?

Pax,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Sincere he may be, but I think he's completely wrong.

Roll on the split. We'll all be happier.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
No, we won't all be happier. I for one would be very sad about it.
 

---

Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Looks like the first hurdle has been cleared.

ENS
 

---

Posted by basso (# 4228) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
No, we won't all be happier. I for one would be very sad about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Not me, I'll cheer from the rafters.

Unity based on nothing but a shared name of Anglican isn't worth a great deal

---

quote:

---

....St. Paul himself describes this communion as one that is founded on "one faith", that stands firm against the instabilities of being "tossed to and fro and [being] carried about with every wind of doctrine",....

---

I admit I didn't read the Griswold epistle (which may have contained similar language), and I'm not picking on the Anglican Church in particular, but...

Isn't there something a bit odd about throwing up the "You are forcing us to split the One True Faith" when talking about a Church which is, at the minimum, the third schism? Obviously it all looks different to an outsider, but I personally see it as Yet Another Splinter. And there are so many already (don't we see it here on the Ship?); I would hope that the leaders of the Churches would be desperate to find ways to continue working together, even while loathing one another's beliefs, rather than add to the extremely splintered state of current Christianity.

Then again, perhaps continued splintering is God's Plan for getting everyone's attention ("Hey, there's nobody left in my Church but Me!" )

[spelling error this time]

[ 01. August 2003, 23:42: Message edited by: jlg ]
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
But I think sexuality is really just the issue to hang the deeper differences on. We all say the creeds, yes, but what do we actually mean by them? I do think that the divisions within Anglicanism can only be sustained under one roof if both sides can allow the other to co-exist, and I think its that which is no longer the case.

I used to regret it, but I think there may also be some opportunities ; once sexuality ISN'T an issue any longer...
 

---

Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on :
 
What issues, precisely do you mean? How do those who favor gay clergy and those who do not differ on how they understand the creeds that is more fundamental than sexuality?

Kevin
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think it comes down to interpretation and authority of the Bible and how much we literally believe in the words as they are spoken, or whether they are largely metaphor or myth.

Sometimes you have to go on outputs. if those who believe certain things appall you, then it seems reasonable to question the basis of their claim to belief and correctness - conservative readings of Scripture. Gay clergy is just a symbol, something to fight over.

I'm sincerely hoping that something worth having will emerge out of the current arguments.

[ 02. August 2003, 17:14: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 

---

Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on :
 
Okay, but I do wish you would be more specific. I'll try to take a stab at it and you tell me if this is what you have in mind.

I think on another thread related to homosexuality, the issue was raised about what to do if you feel scripture is saying something that is counter to what you think is obvious. For instance, if you feel that whatever sexual encounters between consenting adults is fine, but your reading of the Bible is that there are particular restrictions.

You could try to examine your intuition for possible holes, or examine your reading of the Bible to see if it's sound, or both. But suppose after this process you're absolutely sure both of your intuition and of your reading of the Bible and you're sure there's a conflict. What then?

The divide you're talking about would be between those who reject that part of the Bible as flawed or at least irrelevant to our time, and those who reject our intuition as flawed and in need of subjugation to the Bible.
Another option, of course, is to assume that there is no conflict, and that somewhere in your quest you've gone wrong, though you can't find where at the moment. But that's not helpful in deciding what to do.
How's that for a specific underlying difference? I'm not convinced it's really what's dividing the CofE on homosexuality; there are lots of people who don't see a conflict at all between the Bible and homosexual acts, based on their interpretation. But I throw this out as an example to see if this is the sort of thing you're talking about.


Kevin
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
If we simply accepted that the Bible is nothing more than a 2000+ year old book, containing some useful and inspirational material, and some that we understand as eternal truth, but also much , indeed, most, which is culturally contained, given that it was a human production, then many of the arguments would be less acute.

Thats what I think the Bible is. Others have different views. I have no problem is discounting parts of the Bible, because I don't believe it is 'the word of God' in anything other than a very general sense.
 

---

Posted by Kevin Iga (# 4396) on :
 
OK. Thank you. That's the kind of specific claim I was hoping you'd make.

I'm not sure that splitting the church along those lines would exactly cut it along the lines of the homosexuality issue. There are many who do not take your view of the Bible at all, who think the Bible's witness on sexuality is consistent with allowing non-celibate gay priests. There are also people who take your view on the Bible, but who feel homosexuality is repugnant, immoral, and ought to be outlawed (I have a friend who is an atheist from a conservative part of the country who feels this way, for instance).

It would be interesting to do a poll of the ECUSA and other churches to see how neatly the two lines match.

I do recall on one of these threads someone made a similar claim to yours: that those who favor including gay clergy tend to also be those who, for instance, don't accept a literal resurrection of Jesus. He was immediately contradicted by several on this ship who are gay and believe in the literal resurrection. Which doesn't quite answer what is typical, since the ship is hardly a representative sample of Christianity, or even of the Anglican church.

Kevin
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I didn't say I don't accept a literal resurrection of Jesus! I'm much more likely to accept the Gospels as central to Christian teaching than any other part of the Bible ; its the literal application of Paul's letters I have most problem with.

I think, within the Anglican church, the divides had widened in recent years.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
If we simply accepted that the Bible is nothing more than a 2000+ year old book, containing some useful and inspirational material, and some that we understand as eternal truth, but also much , indeed, most, which is culturally contained, given that it was a human production, then many of the arguments would be less acute.

Thats what I think the Bible is. Others have different views. I have no problem is discounting parts of the Bible, because I don't believe it is 'the word of God' in anything other than a very general sense.

---

quote:

---

In addition to all of that I believe that the Bible is the word of God, that every last syllable is God breathed, and that we ignore it at our peril.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not:
Ender's Shadow.

Paul was talking to Christians about Christians.

Are we?

---

That's the only debate that's relevant here.... so 'Yes'..... unless you're suggesting ECUSA doesn't count of as Christians - which would be a rather different argument
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
Nah (not meaning Cockney for 'No', just curmugeon for 'Here we go - the crux.')

Anglicanism's double-standard (better than none I suppose) is that it allows its congregation to have communion regardless of their unrepented, unacknowledged, sexual pecadilloes but not the clergy - officially.

NT Christianity is twice watered down therefore in our communions.

The shepherds reject the gate and the sheep are lost.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Nothing to repent of., Martin, and plenty to celebrate.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
Wow! Stone away then Mike!
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Don't get that.

[ 03. August 2003, 16:34: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
Let he who is without sin and all that
 

---

Posted by TheMightyTonewheel (# 4730) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

In addition to all of that I believe that the Bible is the word of God, that every last syllable is God breathed, and that we ignore it at our peril.

---

So how do react to 1 Cor 7 v 11:

"But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."

One can debate the validity of gay relationships on the grounds that the bible is not that clear, but the remarriage issues doesn't allow that cop out. On this issue most of the Anglican communion has long since given up any pretence of holding onto the 'biblical' viewpoint, as indeed has Orthodoxy!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I didn't say I don't accept a literal resurrection of Jesus! I'm much more likely to accept the Gospels as central to Christian teaching than any other part of the Bible ; its the literal application of Paul's letters I have most problem with.

I think, within the Anglican church, the divides had widened in recent years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

In addition to all of that I believe that the Bible is the word of God, that every last syllable is God breathed, and that we ignore it at our peril.

---

So how do react to 1 Cor 7 v 11:

"But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."

One can debate the validity of gay relationships on the grounds that the bible is not that clear, but the remarriage issues doesn't allow that cop out. On this issue most of the Anglican communion has long since given up any pretence of holding onto the 'biblical' viewpoint, as indeed has Orthodoxy!!

---

Sorry for delay in getting back to you ES - it's been a hectic day. Also apologies for not making myself clear. While I don't beleive we are free to disregard bits of the Bible we don't like (every word has the breath of God somewhere) equally I don't see the Bible as a rule book to which we are bound legalistically.

ISTM that there are great themes runing through the Bible, and that these guide us in our interpretation of particular verses. Themes such as love and forgiveness. So I interpret the stuff on divorce as upholding the value of marriage, and the desirability of its permanence. In a perfect world, where problems did not develop beyond problems understanind another human being, marriage would be permanent, folk would work through issues etc. But that's not where we are, and the demands of love and forgiveness require us to be more flexible.

The situation with the meagre references to homosexuality is more complicated again, but there's a whole thread in Dead Horses arguing about that!

[ 03. August 2003, 21:36: Message edited by: The Wanderer ]
 

---

Posted by St. Cuervo (# 4725) on :
 
If anyone is interested, I ran across the "pro" and "con" statements the the ECUSA committee considering currently considering the resolution on the blessing of same sex relationships at their general convention.

While not directly related to Canon Robinson's elevation to the bishopheric, that debate certainly undergirds this one (as one of the speakers mentions):

Con (Rev. Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian, Diocese of South Carolina):

http://www.orthodoxanglican.org/Virtuosity/gc2003/kendall_c005.txt


Pro (Very Rev. Samuel Candler Dean of St Philip's Cathedral, Atlanta):

http://www.orthodoxanglican.org/Virtuosity/gc2003/candler.txt


Watching from the sidelines,

St. C.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Well, the first hurdle has been climbed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/03/gay.bishop.vote.ap/


 

---

Posted by St. Cuervo (# 4725) on :
 
I think this is one for the 'too little, too late' file.

In a last ditch attempt to scuttle the approval in the House of Bishops, an ECUSA conservative activist, David Virtue, is alleging this morning that Canon Robinson's GLBT youth organization's website is only "one click away from hardcore porn."

www.orthodoxanglican.org/Virtuosity/gc2003/outright.txt

I clicked around and didn't find any hardcore porn. (Although, that may be for the better since I am at work...)

I did find a like to a polyamory organization which is problematic for a Christian. My understanding was that Canon Robinson supported faithful monogomous relationships. That is not, however, the same thing as "hard core porn."

Still watching from the side-lines,

St. C.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I think David Virtue is the one that you don't ever want to mention around tomb.

On to worse things... +Jecko sent this out last night...

quote:

---

The House of Deputies today approved, by approximately 60/40, a motion approving the consecration and ordination of V. Gene Robinson as the next Bishop of New Hampshire. Our Lay Deputies and clergy unanimously voted "no." The measure now moves to the House of Bishops for its consideration. If the House of Bishops consents to the action, the way is cleared for the consecration to take place. This action clearly ignores the requests of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the Bishops of the Anglican Communion meeting in Lambeth in 1998, and recent stated positions of leaders of The Episcopal Church in the USA, not to do this. The action is contrary to the constitutional foundation of The Episcopal Church as stated in its Preamble. The action is clearly contrary to the positions of a majority of the congregations in the Diocese of Florida. Those who have voted in favor of this action have forced our Episcopal Church to "put one foot outside" the fellowship of the worldwide Anglican Communion. If the House of Bishops votes in favor of consent on Monday, those Bishops voting in favor will have made the action complete.

I urge the members of the Diocese of Florida to remain calm and in prayer. In concert with Bishops of other Dioceses committed to resisting this political onslaught---in defiance of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of Reason informed by the Holy Spirit, and the cumulative Tradition of the Christian Church (not to mention our own Constitution)---I will work to ensure that the Diocese of Florida continues a constituent member of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the Anglican Communion. Please, be in prayer for our Church; make no thoughtless or faithless reactions. God is still in charge. When we know the final results of the House of Bishop's actions tomorrow, I will have other suggestions for a rational and faithful way forward. God bless you all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I think David Virtue is the one that you don't ever want to mention around tomb.

---

I think it's David Anderson, actually, of the American Anglican Council, formerly rector at St. James, Newport Beach, California.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Well, at least he didn't say, "Right, everyone, the moment they vote the way we don't agree with, we're seceding from the ECUSA..."
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No, its wait till October , when we get together with our fellow ********** (fill in dependent on theology) and then declare schism, but try and pretend that we are still Anglican!

I look forward to the day.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Isn't it interesting that these conservative types in ECUSA were content to remain members of the church whilst John Shelby Spong was a diocesan, and systematically calling into question essential components of orthodox belief, but threaten a walk out when (shock, horror) a bishop who has the honesty to say he is gay is appointed?

*And let's have none of this 'first gay bishop' nonsense. Anyone who believes that is too naive for words.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Divine Outlaw-Dwarf
 

---

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
"Porn", "touching" allegations delay US bishop vote
 

---

Posted by St. Cuervo (# 4725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Isn't it interesting that these conservative types in ECUSA were content to remain members of the church whilst John Shelby Spong was a diocesan, and systematically calling into question essential components of orthodox belief, but threaten a walk out when (shock, horror) a bishop who has the honesty to say he is gay is appointed?

---

quote:

---

(AP) - Episcopalian leaders delayed a vote Monday on whether to confirm the church's first openly gay elected bishop after allegations involving "touching" and "pornography" emerged against the clergyman, a church spokesman said. Jim Solheim, the spokesman, would not elaborate on the allegations against the Rev. V. Gene Robinson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eanswyth:
Interesting timing that this would come out right now, hours before the final vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eanswyth:
Interesting timing that this would come out right now, hours before the final vote.

---

So was THIS the little thing the cabal cooked up in Fairfax last week?
 

---

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
I'm ambivalent about the issue of gay people in orders. It seems like so much of a storm in a teacup to me, I just cannot get worked up about it one way or the other.

So, when the great conflagration comes and the Church falls into the sin of schim that MerseyMike will greet with such joy and utter delight, I wonder which "side" I will be on? Since MerseyMike seems to think that one's entire political, theological and philosophical being is informed and dictated by one's attitude toward homosexuals, where does he think I will find my church home if the Anglican communion should split into "pro-gay/saved/all-around-good-egg and reasonable people Anglicans" and "homophobic/Republican/evil/Bible-believing/monarchist/nazi/baby-eating Anglicans?"

Since it is not an issue of any importance to me, maybe he thinks I should just stay home and read my collection of faery stories we know as the Bible.

HT
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Well, we all know that them homos can't keep their hands off our kids.

However, Jecko is my bishop, and I just found out that my rector was one of the unanimous NO votes in the House of Deputies, so I don't know what I'm going to do.


 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
More details of the accusation from Reuters


L.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I can't get the Episcopal New Service site or the General Convention site to come up - their servers must be flooded.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I imagine they are -- hell, this whole episode made the top headline of my local paper, here in Southern Baptist Mecca.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
Here's the ENS report.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I wonder if there was a pubic hair in his Coke, too.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
If this is the best they can come up with, it says a lot about Gene Robinson.

I don't think Anglican evangelicals could have fallen much further in my estimation, but here we find them scrabbling around in their sewer again. And you wonder why I want a split ? I would have thought it was obvious.
 

---

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I don't think Anglican evangelicals could have fallen much further in my estimation, but here we find them scrabbling around in their sewer again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:

I don't think Anglican evangelicals could have fallen much further in my estimation, but here we find them scrabbling around in their sewer again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Because I'm getting regular emails from a number of people at the convention, thats how.

Its a set up. Are they hoping he will decide to step down, or be sat on by spineless hierarchies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Because I'm getting regular emails from a number of people at the convention, thats how.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
No, I didn't say a conspiracy !

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I don't think Anglican evangelicals could have fallen much further in my estimation, but here we find them scrabbling around in their sewer again.

---

How do you know it was evangelicals?

---

There are two charges at play here. The "evangelicals" seem to have some involvement with the pornography charge. David Virtue (a self-avowed evangelical) posted the allegation on his website at about 4:00 AM (I posted it on SoF around 11:00 AM) and, surprise, surprise, guess what comes up for discussion today?

We'll have to see whether the pornography charge gets legs. I don't think it will. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I couldn't find anything that remotely looks like "hard core porn" on that site (although I did find the polyamory link troubling). There also seems to be a question at play of how Cannon Robinson is affiliated with the web-site. Virtue makes it sound like he runs the group (ah, inquiring minds want to know, but does he do the web-site?) but I have seen other reports stressing that he was only "affiliated" with the group.

My prediction: the porno charge will go nowhere.

Now the "touching" charge is a little different. Obviously the traditionalists are pleased that something has come up to slow down this process but, as of yet, I haven't seen any evidence that they are promoting the charge or, ultimately behind it. (Although maybe Mike can report on what his spies are telling him...) Whether the charge is, ultimately, upheld or not, I am sure, as others have observed, that it was timed to have maximal publicity. One report I saw stated that the accusor had e-mailed his bishop on August 1 with the allegations and so this has been brweing for a couple of days at least.

No predictions on the "touching" accusation. There's no politics like church politics, let me tell you...

Still watching from the sidelines,
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
On the positive side, the anchor on ABC led into the story by calling ECUSA "one of the largest denominations in the United States".
 

---

Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :
 
That's cause cool counts triple.
 

---

Posted by Christine (# 330) on :
 
I'm afraid my nasty suspicious mind had much the same reaction as some other posters - this looks like a set-up. But then I've seen during the UCA's debates last week that church politics can get remarkably dirty.
I still remember the shock - a good many years ago now - at the first quite deliberate lie I encountered used in church politics. It hasn't been the last. We're all fallen humans - and we want our own way, dress it up with 'holy words' as we will.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
"Cool counts triple?"

{snark}

It's been a long time since ECUSA was "cool"--if ever. In the past, the church has been influential beyond its numbers because of its inroads into the Eastern Establishment. One presumes that was because Eastern Episcopalians knew how to find the Fish Fork at a formal dinner. That alone counts for Inspiration of the Holy Ghost in some circles. This probably is the reason ABC got the numbers wrong.

Regardless of where one stands on the issues swirling around this election, this situation is a tragedy of Greek proportions. Would that the standing committee of New Hampshire had counted up the days before General Convention and held the election either 3 months and one day before (or the day after). That way, Standing Committees of individual dioceses would have had to assent to the election instead of the friggin' General Convention itself.

So sad.
 

---

Posted by St. Cuervo (# 4725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Regardless of where one stands on the issues swirling around this election, this situation is a tragedy of Greek proportions. Would that the standing committee of New Hampshire had counted up the days before General Convention and held the election either 3 months and one day before (or the day after). That way, Standing Committees of individual dioceses would have had to assent to the election instead of the friggin' General Convention itself.

So sad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
It is sad because people will be hurt no matter what. Faithful people on both sides of the issues. It is sad because people will decide to leave regardless of what happens. It is sad because we have become so polarized....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
my orthodoxy and detestation of attempts to modernise the BCP make me unsuited to the Unitarian branch of the ECUSA; general protestantism make me unsuited to the more Romish/conservative side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I firmly believe that anyone, no matter what "side" they're on, who WANTS a schism should have the integrity to leave themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
I just think that Jesus was probably about more than sexuality.

---

quote:

---

And he taught them saying:

There once was a landowner who went on a journey and he left his estate under the care of his two most trusted servants.

Shortly after he left, it came time to bring in the harvest and the two fell to bickering. The first servant noticed some problems and suggested changes be made in the way the grain was gathered. The second servant loudly protested that, as servants, they had no right to do things any differently than their master had done.

And so the two fell to fighting and the Master's slaves, who the servants where supposed to be overseeing, neglected their duties and began to argue amongst themselves as well.

Whilst the household was so distracted, some wild beasts came in amongst the grain that had been gathered and ate their fill. A while later, some thieves broke into the master's house and, because the servants and slaves were fighting, plundered with impunity. Even later still, a bolt of lightning struck the field and caused it to catch flame. Upon seeing the fire, the servants put aside their quarrel and managed to contain the damage.

At this time the master returned and, finding his grain eaten by animals, his home looted by robbers, and his field half-burned by fire; went to search for his servants to inquire of them what had happened.

When he found them, they were standing in the charred field and had returned to bickering. Upon finding them so, the Master challenged the two servants regarding their poor stewardship of his estate.

The first servant blamed the second. The second servant blamed the first.

The Master, knowing what had happened, said unto them, "I gave you everything you would need to manage my household. But rather than gather the harvest, you tried to rule over each other. Now the grain is eaten, the house is robbed and the fields are burned. Depart from me you wicked ones, you shall have no part in my inheritance."

The Master then threw both servants out of his estate where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.

He then set about gathering what was left of the harvest with his own hands.

The kingdom of heaven is like this: a piece of grain having survived arguments, beasts, robbers and fire finds itself held in the Master's hand.

He who has ears, let him hear.

3 Thom. 18:1-22

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
If I thought there was any possibility that we could co-exist amicably, agreeing to differ, but respecting each others position, and , if needs be, even making provision for it in the structures - then I would be opposed to a split.

---

quote:

---

Sources say that the alleged inappropriate conduct by the Rev. Cn. Gene Robinson occurred when Robinson touched a married man in his 40’s on his bicep, shoulder and upper back in the process of a public conversation at a province meeting around two years ago.

David Lewis, layman from Manchester, Vt., made the allegations in a series of emails Sunday night with Vermont Bishop Tom Ely. Ely then had a 45-minute conversation with Lewis, who is a member of the conservative Zion Episcopal Church in Manchester Center, Vt., in which Lewis said the contact from Robinson was to his bicep, shoulder and upper back.

---

quote:

---

From everyvoice.net
...conversation with Lewis, who is a member of the conservative Zion Episcopal Church in Manchester Center, Vt., ...

---

Oh so he is from the conservative Zion Episcopal Church in Manchester Center, is he?

Since when has the liberal/conservative leaning of a congregation that someone attends been important in a case of sexual harassment? Only when you are trying to cast doubts on the complainant?

,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think its more than relevant if its a political attempt to derail an apopointment you don't want. A very convenient way of doing it.....

And touching someone's arm isn't sexual harassment, by the way.

My initial suspicions have been more than confirmed.
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
my orthodoxy and detestation of attempts to modernise the BCP make me unsuited to the Unitarian branch of the ECUSA; general protestantism make me unsuited to the more Romish/conservative side.

---

But it doesn't cut up this neatly. I can think of a lot of "Romish" folks who aren't conservative.

---

That would be me.

Elizabeth Anne---if that is the sum and substance of the allegations, I am even more sickened by this whole mess.

I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist. I have tried and tried to avoid going down that road, but the stench from this last-minute "surprise" is just overwhelming. I now believe this WAS orchestrated, and that they waited until the House of Deputies had voted to be sure which way the wind was blowing.

St. Cuervo---much food for thought in your post. I will try to take it into consideration in my prayers this morning. Lord knows that I need some perspective on this issue.
 

---

Posted by Joanna Porter (# 4493) on :
 
Elizabeth Anne,

Thanks for that link. I agree with you totally.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
"The bicep, you say? And the shoulder? During a public conversation? Well, I guess this still counts as an invasion of personal space..."

Elizabeth Anne, while I have much sympathy with your astonishment over this, I should note that our management training module makes it painfully clear that any touch, no matter how minor, or how innocuous in intent, constitutes harassment and possibly assault, if unwelcome and uninvited. We are told never to touch any of our colleagues in an professional setting, aside from a handshake. Indeed, the anti-harassment training we are required to undergo at all levels (legitimate question: do you do any work or do you go to workshops?) informs us that we may make a justifiable harassment complaint on the same basis that has been done in this case.

I am not indicating my agreement with this, but there are greatly varying perceptions out there of what is problematic and what is permissible.

The entire situation becomes more and more surreal by the hour; and this statement comes from a bureaucrat!
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I should note that our management training module makes it painfully clear that any touch, no matter how minor, or how innocuous in intent, constitutes harassment and possibly assault, if unwelcome and uninvited. We are told never to touch any of our colleagues in an professional setting, aside from a handshake. Indeed, the anti-harassment training we are required to undergo at all levels...informs us that we may make a justifiable harassment complaint on the same basis that has been done in this case.

---

Augustine---I can see this. I have often been subjected to what I call "power touching," where the man in question is using it to demonstrate his dominance.

But I am also Southern, and in our culture, we touch a lot. Hugging is very common, and we also tend to touch you on the arm when we are talking to you. It's a way of connecting.

I don't know where Rev. Robinson is from, but I can imagine that he is from a place like the one in which I grew up, and that this sort of touching would seem completely innocuous to him.

My problem (among many) is the use of the term "inappropriate touching." When people hear that term, they automatically assume it means genital touching---and I can't help believing that this was deliberate on the part of those who helped spread the allegation.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Gene Robinson is from Kentucky.

I agree wholly with paige. It was quite clear that the implications of the wording and the surrounding publicity were that botties, willies, and private places were involved.

As they clearly weren't, can we get real.

Your company sounds like it belongs on Erin's Hell thread here , Augustine
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
You know, I can't help thinking that every time a man touches a woman in that way and she claims sexual harassment, she's told to lighten the hell up, for Christ's sake. But let a man be touched that way and it's the worst thing ever.


 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I think, Merseymike, that I would disagree with you in part. In many ways, the Government of Canada is its own circle of hell and great discussion could issue forth in many threads. But power touching, to which the preceding shipmate refers, is a problem and I have seen it lead to some very unhealthy and bizarre office karma. While I personally think that the module's approach (which, by the by, is replicated in some way by almost every major employer here) goes a bit far in some ways, it gives us a few good tools to address real cultural differences and diferent approaches to body language. The prospective complainant has a duty to first try to resolve the situation informally i.e., "Please don't touch me on the shoulder; it makes me uncomfortable.") and then there are a number of intermediate steps which are intended to make the workplace more professional, less touchy-feely (in every sense), less open to abuse. As I elliptically suggested in my previous post, there is no longer a common ground of understanding here, nor is there a universally-accepted common sense of what is appropriate-- which is why we have long threads on the Peace.

All that having been said, I have no idea what, precisely, is going on in the Robinson case -- for that, I join the other shipmates in waiting on the investigation -- nor why this particular complaint arose at this late stage in the proceeding. It all seems very odd and sometimes one longs for the episcopal selection procedure used in the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria- a small child chooses the Patriarch by lot.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eanswyth:
That's cause cool counts triple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
...sometimes one longs for the episcopal selection procedure used in the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria- a small child chooses the Patriarch by lot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sacristan:
If there are no protesters General Convention gives the go-ahead. Poof.

---

 

---

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
I'm puzzled about the quote from David Lewis. In some reports it says Robinson "does not maintain appropriate boundaries with me." In the first report I read yesterday and this one from the NY Post today (who we know always double check their facts) "me" becomes "men":

quote:

---

when a male parishioner from Vermont emailed his bishop to charge that New Hampshire Bishop-elect Gene Robinson is a "grab-assing skirt chaser" who "does not maintain appropriate boundaries with men."

---

Certainly a wide difference with that added "n". And skirt chaser???
 

---

Posted by Ultraspike (# 268) on :
 
Sorry to DP but this is turning into a game of telephone. The NY Daily News (who may check their facts only slightly better than the Post) has this quote:

quote:

---

Robinson's accuser, David Lewis, said the clergyman called him a "grab-assing skirt chaser."

"My personal experience with him is he does not maintain appropriate boundaries with men," Lewis wrote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultraspike:
And skirt chaser???

---

Maybe he only dates Scotsmen
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultraspike:
I have never taken a sexual misconduct workshop so I don't know the exact rules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
The first is that on two separate occasions in the lab where I work, this summer, I apparently sexually harrassed two men during a celebration over successfully culturing a new species of organism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
To me, the reality is that the broad church of Anglicanism is starting to make less sense and be less effective than we might be if we operated seperately.

---

quote:

---

For it has become an incomprehensible laughing-stock to those outside.

---

quote:

---

At the moment I think its inevitable,

---

quote:

---

I'm just not convinced that Anglicanism can survive containing people who have diametrically opposite views on so many things.

---

quote:

---

custom-made niche churches catering to each identity group or political persuasion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I'm just not convinced that Anglicanism can survive containing people who have diametrically opposite views on so many things.

---

How has it survived diametrically opposite views on the nature of the Sacraments, the operation of Grace, the morality of slavery, the role of Imperialism, predestination, the efficacy of Episcopacy, the ordination of women...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Do you seriously think the Church can continue this sort of wrangling forever?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
One more denomination will do no harm.

---

What would you like to call it?

Who will be your first bishops?

Will you let evangelicals in if they want in or just boot them out?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Oh, we'll be the Anglican Church. I don't know what the fundamentalist breakaway will be called !
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
One more denomination will do no harm.

---

What would you like to call it?

Who will be your first bishops?

Will you let evangelicals in if they want in or just boot them out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
The final vote begins in an hour. The wait will be agonizing....

---

quote:

---

they [the bishops]will be going into session at about 2:30 Central time, praying and debating until about 4:30 and then voting. It will probably take about 45 minutes to count the ballots, and they may not announce the vote totals until close of sesson at 6 pm Central.

---

quote:

---

1. The New Hampshire Synod of the Worldwide Anglican communion.

2. Spong, Borg, MerseyMike, and Gene Robinson. I will be Archbishop.

3. Evangelicals will be allowed, but each church bulletin will make clear that primacy of scripture, penal substitutionary atonement, and eternal punishment are minority opinions that are not sanctioned by the Church. Don't fight me on this MM; I'd hate to pull rank.

---

quote:

---

Meanwhile, Episcopal Church leaders opposing Robinson's ratification said Tuesday that they will walk out of the church's convention in Minneapolis if he wins the final vote.

They will go across the street to a Lutheran church for a prayer service and will speak with reporters there, they said.

---

Oh dear. Doesn't look good, in my opinion. Maybe this is the surprise they were talking about after all. *sigh*

David
praying we don't actually have a schism over this
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Come now; they're not going to become Lutherans. Think of all the molded jell-o puddings with suspended carrots and pineapples. *shiver*.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
They've been threatening and/or predicting that for days.
 

---

Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
They've been threatening and/or predicting that for days.

---

quote:

---

by HT: That they would become Lutherans and eat jello

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
praying we don't actually have a schism over this

---

quote:

---

Come now; they're not going to become Lutherans. Think of all the molded jell-o puddings with suspended carrots and pineapples. *shiver*.

---

Too true!!!!


 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
even if there is a schism, its not the end of the world or even the church. the methodist church schismed over slavery, you know, but eventually the southern part came to their senses, and we got back together.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Oh, come on, David. These are Episcopalians we're talking about here. They worship their buildings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
They've been threatening and/or predicting that for days.

---

That they would become Lutherans and eat jello or go outside to a Lutheran chapel and pray?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
Come now; they're not going to become Lutherans. Think of all the molded jell-o puddings with suspended carrots and pineapples. *shiver*.

---

You might be a Lutheran if...

...you only serve Jell-O in the proper liturgical color for the season.
...peas in your tuna noodle hotdish add too much color.
...you have more than five flavors of Jell-O in your pantry.
...you think anyone who says "casserole" instead of "hotdish" is trying to be uppity (or maybe even Episcopalian!)
...you think the term "Jell-O salad" is redundant.
...your church library has three Jell-O cookbooks.
...you think the four food groups are coffee, lefse, lutefisk, and Jell-O.
...you sign a petition to have Campbell Soup Co. rename its "Cream of Mushroom soup" "Lutheran Binder!"
...you think lime Jell-O with cottage cheese and pineapple is a gourmet salad.
...you make your hotdishes with cream of mushroom soup and your salads with Jell-O.
...you serve Jell-O as a vegetable.

This is what they all have to look forward to. HoosierNan will confirm that each one of these items on this list is most certainly true.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
They've been threatening and/or predicting that for days.

---

That they would become Lutherans and eat jello or go outside to a Lutheran chapel and pray?

---

Sorry bout that. Laura inserted that comment between Chast's comment & my reply.

---

But thanks, Tomb, for giving me my best laugh today. The mental picture of +Jensen et al threatening to stomp off and eat Jello... lovely.
 

---

Posted by Iakovos (# 623) on :
 
The BBC is reporting on a banner on their web site that Robinson has been elected the first non-celibate gay bishop. They say more info to follow.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 


and


 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:
The BBC is reporting on a banner on their web site that Robinson has been elected the first non-celibate gay bishop. They say more info to follow.

---

quote:

---

Episcopalian leaders are set to ratify the controversial election of the US Anglican Church's first openly gay, non-celibate bishop, after clearing him of misconduct.

---

which could have caused some confusion. It reports that the vote is still not due for a few hours.

L.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Louise, I saw it on the ticker. But now it's gone.
 

---

Posted by Iakovos (# 623) on :
 
It does seem to have dissappeared now....I *DID* see it on the scrolling banner at the top followed by "More Soon". I do not see it elsewhere either.....I hope it was not a mistake....
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
The results are due by the top of the hour. They were supposed to be ready at 6p EDT, but the debate delayed the start of the vote.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I thought it was going to be 6 pm Minneapolis (Central) time, based in someone's calculations earlier on this thread. Though if they only end up an hour behind, they're probably doing well.

I wonder what's going on over at the BBC.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
He has been confirmed!


Any links yet?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
NPR just reported that they voted yes: 62-45.

[get the number right!]

[ 06. August 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Fantastic news!

Were that the Church of England as courageous. But this is a great day!
 

---

Posted by Iakovos (# 623) on :
 
Links:
CNN

BBC

+ Doxa tou Theou

[ 06. August 2003, 00:14: Message edited by: Iakovos ]
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
LINK

God, in whom we live and move and have our being, be praised!
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Hallelujah.

Now I just have to figure out what I'm going to do when the Diocese of Florida withdraws from the ECUSA.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Have they said for sure that they will do that? Can they do that?
 

---

Posted by Ben26 (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:


and

---

Seconded.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Yahoo! I think.

Surely an entire diocese can't withdraw. Does anybody know?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
As soon as +Jecko got into St Johns he began a systematic elimination of all the homos in the diocese. He was a signatory to the "pastoral letter" that came from the other primates on the eve of the GC. Has he said it? No, but I've heard the buzz that he's not going to tolerate this.

At any rate, the dissenting bishops will be meeting in Dallas (I think) in October to decide where they go from here. I would not be surprised if they sought to be joined to the provinces who expressed their opposition to BISHOP ( ) Robinson.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I think that probably will happen, but they don't have any way of taking all their churches with them, unless they all choose to do so. And that is unlikely.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
If my memory serves me well (and I am correctible), most ECUSA dioceses are legally chartered under the laws of local states, and a decision taken by a diocesan convention to leave ECUSA might well hold, depending on the wording of their registration/ charter/ private law.
With very very few exceptions, ECUSA parishes are not independent legal entities in their own right, but are part of the diocese, and their title deeds are normally held by the diocese. It is not impossible that a state court might hold uphold General Conventionophile parishes' claims to property in departing dioceses... I fear that many lawyers will do very well out of this.

Many ECUSA dioceses were formed by congregations gathering and establishing themselves as dioceses at founding conventions; others were formed by resolution of General Convention. I understand that Hawai'i, originally created by King Kamehameha V and Queen Emma as a Missionary Diocese, is an exception, but that may not be germane to this discussion.
 

---

Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 

quote:

---

By Erin Now I just have to figure out what I'm going to do when the Diocese of Florida withdraws from the ECUSA.

---

quote:

---

by ATA: It is not impossible that a state court might hold uphold General Conventionophile parishes' claims to property in departing dioceses... I fear that many lawyers will do very well out of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

quote:

---

By Erin Now I just have to figure out what I'm going to do when the Diocese of Florida withdraws from the ECUSA.

---

Head North.

---

If I leave Florida it's for a militia-style bunker in Montana, where there are no day time speed limits.
 

---

Posted by Razorbacker (# 4814) on :
 
Parish property is held in trust for BOTH the ECUSA AND the diocese -- a "departing diocese" not only couldn't take a liberal church's property away, it can' take its own cathedral. See Canon 7.4.
 

---

Posted by DitzySpike (# 1540) on :
 
Te Deum lauda a a mur
Te Dominum confite e e mur.

:-)
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Razorbacker:
Parish property is held in trust for BOTH the ECUSA AND the diocese -- a "departing diocese" not only couldn't take a liberal church's property away, it can' take its own cathedral. See Canon 7.4.

---

quote:

---

The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constitutent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Hallelujah.

---

Amen and thank you Jesus.

quote:

---

Now I just have to figure out what I'm going to do when the Diocese of Florida withdraws from the ECUSA.

---

I don't have that problem here in the Diocese of California (which has shrunk from the whole state to SF and its immediately adjoining counties) but El Camino Real just south of here is one of the ones talked about as possibly leaving.

And the super-activists in this diocese thought +Swing (who looks a lot like +Robinson - I thought the picture was him at first, actually) was bad once upon a time because he didn't approve of gay marriage ceremonies ...

Lord, have mercy on us, and fill us with Your love during this time of transition and strife.

Charlotte (aka Amazing Grace)
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Razorbacker, I quite agree, but a very pertinent part of my post is "depending on the wording of their registration/ charter/ private law" in each particular state for, as the US Constitution provides, they are sovereign in areas of trusts, property etc.
In some states, dioceses are constituted by private acts of the legislature; others are regulated by general public law governing religious bodies and/ or charitable trusts. In other words, there may be cases where the specifics may matter more than the general principles you described. Anyone who goes to law needs to be prepared for results which may not be agreeable to them.
I suspect that there will only be serious attempts for dioceses to opt out in a few instances (if any), so this will lessen our analyses to three or four or five states. Much will depend on how things are handled in the next few weeks.
O... and to complicate things, ECUSA has a number of dioceses outside the United States.... and there are a substantial number of independent trusts and foundations connected with ECUSA throughout the US.
I'm beginning to have a headache.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Razorbacker:
Sorry -- Title 1, Canon 7.4, a/k/a Dennis Canon:

All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.

"This Church" being, of course, the ECUSA. Don't understand the relevance of state charters -- what counts is state trust law. My understanding is that prior case law has generally found 7.4 to create a valid trust. Granted, it's been the diocese attempting to enforce against a departing parish, but that really doesn't matter -- if the trust created by 7.4 is good in favor of one beneficiary (diocese), should be good in favor of the other, shouldn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Razorbacker:
Sorry -- Title 1, Canon 7.4, a/k/a Dennis Canon:

All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof ... "This Church" being, of course, the ECUSA. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:

[...] but El Camino Real just south of here is one of the ones talked about as possibly leaving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If I leave Florida it's for a militia-style bunker in Montana, where there are no day time speed limits.

---

And the lack of speed limits would be important in a bunker, would it? You're afraid of being ticketed for sliding your boxes of rations too quickly from one end of the bunker to the other?

Come to California, Erin. You could run for governor. Everyone else is.
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:
Here is a link to Bishop Scruton's report
on the investigation:

Investigation Report

---

quote:

---

Question - Is Robinson a suitable representative for this role when he:
a. Breaks his vow to his (now ex-)wife and to God (Oh, yeah God, I didn't really mean forever, Amen)

---

quote:

---

b. Unable to understand or identify with the complex and most powerful relationship between a man and a woman and how it relates to God's relationship with the church.

---

quote:

---

c. Is part of a culture which encourages promiscuity, lack of commitment and whose political agenda is to mock the values of others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by calpurnia:
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"

---

Err...no, it doesn't. Please take your cheap shots somewhere else.

Today is truly a day for rejoicing.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 
"This is the Lord's doing and it is marvellous in our eyes".
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 


A couple of interesting quotes
"In countries like ours, it is not only contrary to Scripture teaching, but also not conducive in our environment," Bishop Dr Lim Cheng Ean, West Malaysia.

"The election of a gay bishop is a blatant aggravation of societal norms, and in India it certainly will not be acceptable." John Dayal, All India Catholics Union

Both of those refer to the homophobic culture of their countries - and it is this which is the underlying reason for opposition.

Whatever happened to being 'counter-cultural' - or does that only apply to Western progress, not bigotry in the developing world ?
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:

Its through the experiences I have had and the many conversations with those of varying opinion which has convinced me that a split may be beneficial. I have only come to this conclusion relatively recently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:


Both of those refer to the homophobic culture of their countries - and it is this which is the underlying reason for opposition.

Whatever happened to being 'counter-cultural' - or does that only apply to Western progress, not bigotry in the developing world ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by calpurnia:
I'm a little late to the party as a newbie on the boards, but I've got to say that I'm more than a little dismayed by the appointment of Robinson as Bishop.

I believe that rather than check the Anglican/Episcopal rule book, perhaps a check of the Bible might be more appropriate.

The Bible makes it very clear its views on homosexuality, more obviously in the Old Testament.

So, what about the New? The role of the priest/minister/pastor/'insert the name of your prefered title here' is to lead the church (body of believers) closer to God by teaching and encouraging to understand His role for our lives and His desire to forge a reconciliation between imperfect man and perfect Diety.

So important is this role that Paul describes Christ's love for the church as that of a husband for his wife.

Question - Is Robinson a suitable representative for this role when he:
a. Breaks his vow to his (now ex-)wife and to God (Oh, yeah God, I didn't really mean forever, Amen)
b. Unable to understand or identify with the complex and most powerful relationship between a man and a woman and how it relates to God's relationship with the church.
c. Is part of a culture which encourages promiscuity, lack of commitment and whose political agenda is to mock the values of others.

PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by calpurnia:
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"

---

Wow, that was a rude and tasteless debut.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
well congratulations guys, and heres hoping that your example gets us united methodists miving in the tight direction.
 

---

Posted by paigeb (# 2261) on :
 
Since this is not Hell, I won't comment on Calpurnia's disgusting remark.

Erin---move on up here! Bishop Chane is a lovely man (even if he did "steal" our parish priest as one of his first new staff hires ), and I think he has the gifts needed to lead us through any crisis.

Has anyone seen a list of who voted which way? Or is the ballot secret?
 

---

Posted by Ian S (# 3098) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think , if agreement to live and let live isn't possible, that there should be a civilised and agreed split if at all possible. I just don't have the problem with it which many seem to ; the church started as the result of a split, and there have been other splits since.

I don't think a split in itself is necessarily wrong. I'm quite sure that both bodies will lay claim to something of Anglicanism. I don't have the right to stop them doing that. My question is ; can we co-exist ? In other words, can those who disagree with gay priests or same sex blessings accept their existence, even though they do not agree with them and would not partake in them. I just don't see any evidence for that, long-term.

I have stayed in the Church despite its attitude and policies ; if those are beginning to change, why should I leave? A split does not necessarily mean that any one group shopuld 'leave' ; a split suggests two different bodies emerging from the fractured and warring whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:

Its because I recognise that both sides feel so strongly that I think it may make more sense to move forward separately.

---

quote:

---

However - and this is the core of what I am trying to say - the arguments based purely on incompatibility with developing world cultures, or those based purely on personal disgust and loathing, which we have heard on a regular basis, should be challenged and condemned. I think that there is a reluctance to do this simply because they come from the developing world.

---

quote:

---

Seriously - given that neither side will ultimately compromise ( and I don't think they should) then what would be your solution ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HoosierNan:

quote:

---

Come now; they're not going to become Lutherans. Think of all the molded jell-o puddings with suspended carrots and pineapples. *shiver*.

---

Too true!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:

Its because I recognise that both sides feel so strongly that I think it may make more sense to move forward separately.

---

So why don't you? Why don't you leave the Anglican Church? See, we understand and respect your point - what we want to know is why you don't follow it to its logical conclusion. You've suggested many times that certain people should leave the Anglican communion - it still seems to me that, if you believe in your position that much, that the first move must come from you.

---

quote:

---

If this issue is so fundamental to you that you can't stand being in a church where there are people with different views then you are the one who should leave.

---

But I can stand it ; I'm not proposing to leave. The only threats I have heard are from the evangelical wing .
Its the fact that I , as a gay man in a relationship - unrepentant, self-affirming, practising, as Gary Comstock once put it - remain within the Church , and that many of those who don't agree with me want to change this fact - as they made absolutely clear on the lunchtime news today.

Perhaps there could be ways of organising the Church to allow us all to stay under the same roof, but it doesn't change the fact that its the conservative wing which have declared this a 'first-order salvation issue'. Not me, not those who want to see an affirming Church.

I agree with Degs.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
May I draw the attention of all to the Jumping for Gene! thread in Heaven!

 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
The only threats I have heard are from the evangelical wing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crb11:
One thing that surprises me is that the ECUSA only require a simple majority for a vote like this: a 58-42% split in favour is hardly a clear confirmation of God's will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The only actual retaliation there has been over any of this has been theologically liberal Anglo-Catholic bishops in ECUSA taking legal action against theologically traditional Anglo-Catholic parishes in their own diocese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winnisquam Diamond:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HoosierNan:

quote:

---

Come now; they're not going to become Lutherans. Think of all the molded jell-o puddings with suspended carrots and pineapples. *shiver*.

---

Too true!!!!

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crb11:
(My first real post!)

One thing that surprises me is that the ECUSA only require a simple majority for a vote like this: a 58-42% split in favour is hardly a clear confirmation of God's will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Oh, come off it, Ken. Reform and the Church Society here, and the delightful denizens of Anglican Mainstream have been making plenty of noises about what they intend to do should any of these terrible things happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by basso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amazing Grace:

[...] but El Camino Real just south of here is one of the ones talked about as possibly leaving.

---

ECR? I don't think they're likely to leave. +Dick Schimpfky is quite liberal and my sense is that the diocese is as well.

I think you're thinking of San Joaquin. +John-David Schofield is one of the three bishops in ECUSA who still doesn't ordain women, and my understanding is that that diocese is overall very conservative.

(For those from other countries or areas, El Camino Real runs down the California coast from San Jose to about San Luis Obispo(?); San Joaquin is the southern portion of the Central Valley from about Tracy to Bakersfield. The biggest political and social divide in this state is between the coast regions on the one hand and the much more conservative Valley and Sierras on the other. This IMO.)

[I don't mean to make this sound like a quibble, AG. I think it's important in times like this to be as accurate as we can be.]

basso

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by crb11:
One thing that surprises me is that the ECUSA only require a simple majority for a vote like this: a 58-42% split in favour is hardly a clear confirmation of God's will.

The Baptist church I attend requires a 75% vote in favour to send a call to a prospective new minister, and in general the minister won't come unless the figure is some way over that. Why? Because it's hard to be an effective leader with a sizeable minority who were against you coming in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
This ia a full summary of the voting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
I don't see the logic of your argument.

---

Well, what do you expect from someone who likes "Be still for the presence of the Lord"

Logic goes like this:

MM believes that there are irreconcilable differences between members of the Anglican communion.

He has on several occasions suggested that those who don't agree with him on the issue of sexuality should leave (despite his protestations on this thread, he has actually said this too many times to count.)

He fails to see that, perhaps, it's not his call to require people who are, rightly or wrongly, holding to the traditionally held position of hte church (as traditional and established as the chasuble, I might add) to leave the church - in fact, if he believes the Anglican church ought not to be one, then he is perfectly free to leave it and set up his own Church of England if he can't stand to be in the same body as the others whom Christ has called to be there too.
 

---

Posted by CorgiGreta (# 443) on :
 
ken,

I do not have any statistics at hand to prove this, but I think the racial demographics of a diocese were not a causative factor in way. I don't think a single Afreican-American bishop voted against GR.

There are some more interesting common threads. Many of the dioceses listed were or continue to be opponents of women's ordination. Most are in areas that are conservative politcially as well as theologically, and would vote fairly solidly Republican. Outside of the South, many of the naysayers are relatively rural, e.g., Springfield (in Illinois and fragrant with the smell of cow manure) and El Camino Real.

I tink the divide we see is primarliy cultural, and it is being played out on this stage as it is repeatedly played out on others.

Greta
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
To be honest I don't think the Church has a 'traditional' position on homosexuality, since the Church never seriously discussed the issue before the end of the 20th century. 'Tradition', in the theological sense, is not 'what we've always done', raffling victoria sandwiches does nopt constitute part of Holy Tradition. Tradition is what the consensus of the People of God, after discernment, holds to be implicit in revelation. I think the Church is in a period of discernment, and I think that the ultimata (?) issued by some conservatives are singularly unhelpful in this respect.

[aside] It's interesting that in a number of instances, notably the Arian controversy, those who have clung to a position ultimately declared unorthodox have been the scriptural conservatives. (Some Arians objected to the 'unbiblical' word homoousios .) [/aside]
 

---

Posted by Iakovos (# 623) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by calpurnia:
Question - Is Robinson a suitable representative for this role when he:
a. Breaks his vow to his (now ex-)wife and to God (Oh, yeah God, I didn't really mean forever, Amen)

c. Is part of a culture which encourages promiscuity, lack of commitment and whose political agenda is to mock the values of others.

PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
raffling victoria sandwiches does nopt constitute part of Holy Tradition.

---

Call yourself an Anglican! You'll be denying the liturgical neccesity of the Boy Scouts Church Parade next!

quote:

---

Tradition is what the consensus of the People of God, after discernment, holds to be implicit in revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Tradition is what the consensus of the People of God, after discernment, holds to be implicit in revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Cor. A new kind of tradition that we can make up as we go along!

And, what's more, that as it is "implicit in revelation" has to be the same as Scripture because those who say it isn't are reading Scripture wrong!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Northern Indiana, Pittsburgh stand out a little though. I don't know where Quincy is, I assume the Albany is the one in NY, and as for Springfield, isn't there one in every state?.

---

quote:

---

by Sieg Maybe I will hold off a bit on exploring becoming an Anglican...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
....
The Episcopal Church has fairly elected, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a man who seems to have a lot going for him. I have to believe that, otherwise I can have no faith in the movement of the Holy Spirit. The position taken by the people who voted and spoke against Bishop Robinson suggests that they can only believe in the movement of the Holy Spirit if it agrees with them.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whyberightwhenwrongiseasier:
If the Church was leading the way in the cultural sphere we’d have appointed a poof bishop a long time ago, say about 1950.
Why do always have to lag behind.
I suggest we get past this issue and really go for it and appoint a practising paedophile bishop.
I know that by the time I retire paedophilia will be legal so lets get ahead of the game. In the UK the intolerance displayed to paedophiles is like that displayed to poofs 50 years ago. It will change but we need to demonstrate tolerance and acceptance of our fellow men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
Ooh look everyone, a troll! Suddenly the world seems a much brighter place.

---

Now Spike be nice. I'm delighted to see Raspberry Rabbit back!

(Seriously - welcome back. Where have you been?)
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
I've been in transition. I'm about to emerge from my coccoon into a new phase of life....

Nice to be back, though.....

Missed you all....

RR
 

---

Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on :
 
This American Methodist is moved by the events of the Episcopal Church this week, and thankful for the civility and grace I've seen in many people's debate and pronouncements on various sides.

As there is some talk of separations and schisms, I'm wondering: did the Episcopal Church in the U.S. divide over slavery? U.S. Methodists did. The Methodist Episcopal Church divided along the lines of slave and free states in 1844. Legal abolition of slavery came with the U.S. civil war, and the matter was taken out of the church's hands. Although plans looking forward to reunion began as early as 1872, the separation lasted until 1938. 96 years is not a long time in the history of the church.

Coincidentally, our precipitating event had to do with a Bishop. Bishop Andrew came into possession of slaves through his marriage. The northern church wanted to suspend him. The southern church would have none of it: too many other southern Methodists also owned slaves (an estimated 26,000+ laypersons and pastors held title to somewhere near 220,000 other human beings).

The divide was more geographically neat than it can possibly be with regard to matters like sexual orientation or theological latitude. Still, perhaps that history (and the churches' other stories of separations and reunifications) can inform our present course.

Wm Duncan
 

---

Posted by St. Cuervo (# 4725) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
...I am also interested that a bishop who was elected in his own diocese with a solid majority vote, affirmed in a 2 to 1 vote in the House of Deputies and a reasonable majority vote in the House of Bishops should even be questioned.

... The position taken by the people who voted and spoke against Bishop Robinson suggests that they can only believe in the movement of the Holy Spirit if it agrees with them.

---

quote:

---

Triclavianistic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:

quote:

---

Triclavianistic

---

Referring to people who own three pianos? Those graced with an extra collar bone?

*looks for dictionary*


RR
MTL

---

quote:

---

There's no little box painted red which says 'in case of Schism break glass'...I for one wouldn't have a home in case of Schism...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by coffee jim:
Erin, kick this asshole out. There's nothing entertaining about his misogyny.

---

quote:

---

by Wm. Duncan I'm wondering: did the Episcopal Church in the U.S. divide over slavery?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:

The Episcopal Church has fairly elected, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a man who seems to have a lot going for him. I have to believe that, otherwise I can have no faith in the movement of the Holy Spirit. The position taken by the people who voted and spoke against Bishop Robinson suggests that they can only believe in the movement of the Holy Spirit if it agrees with them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ben26:

is it just me or are there a lot of people signing up and attacking gay/lesbain people almost straight away?

---

I've noticed this on a couple of other discussion boards as well (yes, I have committed discussion board adultery, despite what I said on the "Find Out Who You Are..." thread, but it means nothing, I tell ya, SoF is still my first love )

sabine
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Ken, Corgi is right. Quincy is on the western side of Illinois, almost due west from Chicago and a little south. It is a profoundly Anglo-catholic diocese, and one of only three in ECUSA that refuse to ordain women (the other two are San Joaquin and Fort Worth).

Interestingly, its bishop-elect of eleven years ago, Keith Ackerman, came within a couple of votes of being rejected as bishop by the Standing Committees of the dioceses of ECUSA--closer than Robinson's. (Since Ackerman's election wasn't w/in 3 months prior to the beginning of the General Convention, GC didn't have to vote on it.) Presumably, Ackerman's election was almost rejected because of his conservative "orientation." And [sour observation] he didn't lay claim to God doing a new thing when he scraped by [/sour observation].

And Razorbacker, the next time you wish to engage in conversation/debate with me, do me the favor of speaking English, summarizing your argument instead of citing a bunch of weird-ass legal opinions as if some SoF newbie lawyer is gonna impress me with the length of his library. There are a bunch of lawyers/ soliciters/ barristers on this Ship, and not once in all my time here has one of them pulled this sort of nonsense. Learn the climate of the community before you attempt this sort of thing, please.

Wally is wrong about the Episcopal Church dividing during the War Between the States, however. The Baptists did, and so did the Presbyterians, but the Episcopalians didn't. I seem to recall that there was a General Convention in the midst of the conflict which the southern Bishops did not attend, but after the war, they were welcomed graciously.
 

---

Posted by Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Yes, I believe I was off a bit. The church did not officially divide, but met in separate bodies (a general convention and a general council) for the duration of the war.

Sort of like a split, only different.
 

---

Posted by Razorbacker (# 4814) on :
 
Tomb:

So sorry to have offended. You said: "...no trust accrues for any diocese of ECUSA to its corporate body. indeed, there ISN'T a corporate body of ECUSA recognized in law. Check your facts here." I checked my facts. The cases I saw indicated that the ECUSA is recognized as an entity that could enforce the trust created by the ECUSA canons. I merely asked you if you could direct us to comparable cases showing the contrary. Thus far, you've provided opinion and rebuked me for my manners -- and, again, I do apologize to you and the other board members if I've violated any board etiquette here -- but you haven't shown me a case where any court has said that a diocese could yank its or its parishes' properties away from the national church -- which was the concern voiced by an earlier poster to which my first post responded.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
....Sort of like a split, only different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Razorbacker:
Tomb:

So sorry to have offended. You said: "...no trust accrues for any diocese of ECUSA to its corporate body. indeed, there ISN'T a corporate body of ECUSA recognized in law. Check your facts here." I checked my facts. The cases I saw indicated that the ECUSA is recognized as an entity that could enforce the trust created by the ECUSA canons. I merely asked you if you could direct us to comparable cases showing the contrary. Thus far, you've provided opinion and rebuked me for my manners -- and, again, I do apologize to you and the other board members if I've violated any board etiquette here -- but you haven't shown me a case where any court has said that a diocese could yank its or its parishes' properties away from the national church -- which was the concern voiced by an earlier poster to which my first post responded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
He fails to see that, perhaps, it's not his call to require people who are, rightly or wrongly, holding to the traditionally held position of hte church (as traditional and established as the chasuble, I might add) to leave the church - in fact, if he believes the Anglican church ought not to be one, then he is perfectly free to leave it and set up his own Church of England if he can't stand to be in the same body as the others whom Christ has called to be there too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
But in this instance we are talking about those who refuse to accept the proper, legal and canonical election of Gene Robinson to the Episcopate. If they aren't happy with that, in this case, perhaps it is up to them to go elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by whybeafuckwitwhenbeingmeusesfarfewerbraincells:
PS I am aware of name problems but hey a field designed on a webpage to be certain size is there to be filled unless the design is flawed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
but the tradtional view (and I use that word deliberately - the view which was handed down and was believed to have been handed down from the very beginning) was that homsexual acts were wrong, period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Degs:
Ah well that's a Dead Horse discussion about Greek words! Suffice to say I don't agree with you there.

---

You can disagree with me all you like - you're still wrong

The question of what the scriptural Greek may or may not say (and its background) is indeed a Dead Horse. But i fail to see how the Traditional approach of the Church from the first century onwards can be regarded as being anything other than negative to homosexual acts. It wasn't, admittedly, decided by Council, but that's probably because no-one seriously challenged the accepted view. To think of the Church Fathers as being nice, pro-gay western liberals is stretching the imagination a bit.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
You can disagree with me all you like - you're still wrong

---

quote:

---

I fail to see how the Traditional approach of the Church from the first century onwards can be regarded as being anything other than negative to homosexual acts. It wasn't, admittedly, decided by Council, but that's probably because no-one seriously challenged the accepted view. To think of the Church Fathers as being nice, pro-gay western liberals is stretching the imagination a bit.

---

I don't see them like that at all!

But they also put women in their place, and it certainly wasn't at the altar. They forbade usury, but even the Church Commissioners charge interest. And I'm sure they were very kind to their slaves.

Tradition is not unchanging - except when it suits!
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
That gives me an idea for a thread.....
 

---

Posted by Irish & Proud (# 4825) on :
 
Apologies if I deviate from the 10 commandments but as this is my first time I am understandibly a bit nervous

To give those reading this a bit of backgorund, I grew up surrounded by bigotry, hatred and fear. I also grew up listening to people who would abuse Christianity and the Church by using it to polarise one section of society.

Thankfully I escaped and discovered someone who loved me not because of what I was like but in spite of it. I thank God daily that my salvation does not depend on my ability to be holy.

The whole issue of homosexuality, whether we are talking society at large or within the church, is highly emotive. To see it you need only look at the backlash afforded to Cameron Stout on Big Brother for giving his opinion. All he said was that in his opinion the bible says that marriage should be between an man and a woman and not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman... (I'm paraphrasing slightly). As a result of standing up and saying this he was branded a homophobe on TV. At no point did he say that he was right and everyone else is wrong. At no point did he say that Jesus doesn't love and didn't die for homosexual men and women. All I could see was a person who loved those around him and I don't believe that would be any different regardless of sexual preference. Is this a homophobe?

With regard to Bishops and the like, one thing that I do expect from both political leaders and church leaders is integrity, ie that what they say and what they do are one and the same thing. If we have this then we have a society where reasoned debate is possible.

The Anglican church, of which I am a member, puzzles me at times as it does allow for it's senior leaders to assume positions of authority within the church whilst declaring that they don't believe in God, or that Jesus was a myth. I would to be honest much rather that the church got these issues sorted out first before getting itself wound up about other issues.

WRT to homosexuality, or any other issue in life, if someone is willing to let the Holy Spirit into ALL of the areas of his being then we cannot ask any more of them. To do so would be hypocritical and judgemental. After all when Jesus was asked what the important commandments were did he not say to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and then to love your nieghbour as yourself. I read this as 'start sort your own life out and love God with everything you have got. Once you do that then you will be equipped to go out and love other people.'

Why can we not pray for Gene Robinson instead of taking pot shots or arriving at decisions about his moral integrity from half way around the globe? After all do we not all believe and trust in an omnipotent God, therefore we should be able to assume that he is aware of the situation and in control (sorry that is the Calvinist in me coming out).

 

---

Posted by PeterY (# 3962) on :
 
I must admit, for what it's worth (which is probably not a lot), that my concern over the election stems not from his being homosexual (I am changing my views about that), but that for the first time there is a bishop living in an openly sexual relationship with someone he is not married to. To me, this is the major difference between the selection of Gene Robinson and that of John Jeffries.

Would a heterosexual bishop be allowed the same relationship?

Of course, I realise the obvious argument: that homosexuals are not able to get married, so in the case of Robinson there is no choice. Should not the issue of marriage be sorted out first?

It just seems a little odd that the same House of Bishops which confirmed Robinson's election should then avoid taking on the issue of same-sex blessings.

ECN Item

If being openly homosexual is right, then why not allow marriage? If it is wrong then why elect a homosexual bishop? If a homosexual relationship is good and God-given, why not not acknowledge that sacramentally?

I suspect that somewhere our theology of marriage has got screwed.
 

---

Posted by PeterY (# 3962) on :
 
Sorry, I meant Jeffrey John. Shows how out of touch I am!
 

---

Posted by Wulfstan (# 558) on :
 
Dyfrig said:

quote:

---

What I'm saying is this: mike is perfectly entitled to stay in the CofE because of his views. On the quesiton of +Gene and (ought to be +) Jeffrey he and I are in agreement. What he cannot say is that the people who don't agree with him ought to leave, because it's their church too and, like the poeple pushing for the acceptance of gay clergy, have the right to puah for their viewpoints as well.

---

quote:

---

living in an openly sexual relationship with someone he is not married to.

---

Forgive me: I was led to believe that JJ is celibate.
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Ah. Sorry, I missed that.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Yes, I believe I was off a bit. The church did not officially divide, but met in separate bodies (a general convention and a general council) for the duration of the war.

Sort of like a split, only different.

---

quote:

---

Canon Gene Robinson

In response to press reports making reference to the forthcoming conference in Manchester of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and their conference service at Manchester Cathedral, The Archdeacon and Canon of Manchester, The Venerable Alan Wolstencroft issued this statement on August 7th.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Guys, let's be kind. We *are* Christians after all and if Mr Whybe.... has taken the time to clean up all the wadded kleenexes on the floor of his college residence room to actually type something to us we should ;alksjdfja;l ;alskdjf a ;lsdjf a;lsdjf aflds Ah darn, I fell asleep on my keyboard too. Is diss a system?

---

It's the Sleep Card! Sakura must have been dealing with another crisis! Look, there's Tomoyo and Yukito-san now!

David
and the 2003 winner of the most surreal reaction to a troll's behaviour is...
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:
Wouldn't the conservative position have been far more advantaged had we not had this ugly talk and calumny about gay and lesbian people ?
Couldn't they have stuck to their theological arguments ?

---

Yes and yes. Wish they had.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:
What is astonishing to me is that many of the African "conservatives*" who say that the ECUSA is capitulating to "modern Western culture", have, at the same time, gotten an exception for polygamy in their own churches due to "cultural reasons." Isn't this an inconsistent argument ?


The press releases saying that homosexuality is
illegal in their countries are particularly amusing as polygamy is quite illegal in the US.
Yet no US conservatives complain about this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Dyfrig said: [QUOTE]If someone is using the threat of a split in this way, I don't think it unreasonable to say "well bugger off then".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:
What is astonishing to me is that many of the African "conservatives*" who say that the ECUSA is capitulating to "modern Western culture", have, at the same time, gotten an exception for polygamy in their own churches due to "cultural reasons." Isn't this an inconsistent argument ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Are the bells, the incense, the robes, the stained glass, the direct connection to a tradition that has oppressed as well as liberated, and the curious notion that the deniable real presence of someone who is no longer flesh and blood is more important than the undeniable real presence of the flesh and blood among us?

---

Well, actually, many of us do indeed think that (apart from Communion) Jesus is indeed still flesh and blood, albeit Resurrected; He's just not physically present, but shall return, etc. And yes, for those of us who believe that the mystical real presence of Christ in Communion is there, it certainly does make a huge, huge difference.

As so often seems to be the case, Ken .
 

---

Posted by Wm Duncan (# 3021) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Not inconsistent because the Bible doesn't forbid polygamy (except for bishops!)
[snip]

---

Isn't the prohibition of episcopal polygamy the same text that prohibits episcopal celibacy?

Wm Duncan
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Interesting you should bring up that point, PeterY. It's something of a Catch-22, isn't it? The House of Bishops yesterday refused to call for the crafting of a rite or rites to bless same-sex unions to be reviewed at the next GC for possible inclusing in Enriching our Worship. They did amend the resolution to provide for something like "local option," however.

And yesterday at a news conference, the Presiding Bishop was nailed to the wall by a member of the secular press asking him if, since he believed a man living with another man without the benefit of marriage would make a fit bishop of the Church, would a man living with a woman outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony make an equally fit candidate? Jim Solheim, the director of Episcopal News Service, interrupted before the PB could do much more that stammer, but the question is telling.

There's not a little bit of hypocrisy on both sides of the issue, with opponents using virtually anything at their disposal to leverage their own way. It's about winners and losers and not about discerning the mind of Christ, and that is sickening regardless of the way the wind blows.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
But a significant proportion of my own denomination - the Church of England - is exactly where I do belong, Jim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
There's not a little bit of hypocrisy on both sides of the issue, with opponents using virtually anything at their disposal to leverage their own way. It's about winners and losers and not about discerning the mind of Christ, and that is sickening regardless of the way the wind blows.

---

 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
I can't believe that a gay bishop is a hotter story than this.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
That's... just... horrible.

Okay, expecting a huge explosion of threads in Hell over this one... wow.

David
knew it was bad, but didn't know it was THIS bad
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Tomb makes an excellent point. Many of the arguments are very self-serving, on both sides of the debate.

One thought I had is, aren't we putting the cart before the horse? The ECUSA doesn't actually have a position on whether homosexual conduct is sinful or not, based on Scripture/Tradition/Reason (I say it isn't, but I'm not the whole church). Why are we electing a non-celibate gay bishop before there's been some sort of determination on that? Otherwise, we're effectively in a position of having no position about whether gay behavior is sinful/blessed/neutral, but the approval of +Gene means we've basically decided as a denomination that it is a-ok. Right?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I don't really think any one 'faction' has a majority in the CofE, Jim ; to an extent there has been a lot of live and let live, don't ask, don't tell.

Any other church I went to would be the same, though, and my own congregation and many others within the denomination are sympathetic. I certainly wouldn't consider being in a gay ghetto church , so there isn't really any alternative, given that I want a sacramental church with catholic worship.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Partly posted elsewhere, with extraneous stuff people here already know about me deleted:

Well, here's my own two cents. ... I have a rather odd combination of thoughts here. If the Episcopal Church was acting differently, I think I'd oppose his being made bishop more. But the fact is it's been ordaining people like Spong for decades -- people who don't even believe in the Resurrection as a literal, historical event. And this kind of hue and cry has not been raised about them. I find that truly disturbing. The sheer nastiness of the opposing side hasn't helped matters, though I don't think it invalidates their doctrinal position. But why weren't they railing more vocally in times past [about people with theology such as Spong's]?

My own position about who I think ought, or ought not, to be made priest or bishop is pretty stringent, and many clergy would not make it if the guidelines I believe in were followed. So it seems to me that I'd probably say that if I were the one making the choice, +Gene would not be made into the (valid, Apostolic Succession, able to dispense Sacraments at a single bound, etc.) bishop he will be soon -- but then neither would many, many clergy, including many I've personally liked. I'm used to believing in more Christian dogma than most clergy in most churches I've attended. I'd probably be considered quite superstitious about various things. If I were the one choosing, most clergy I've known would not be ordained under me.

And, therefore, how can I say -- in a church which has ordained (and will continue to ordain) clergy like ++Spong -- that I would single out +Gene? That doesn't seem appropriate to me.

And also -- I really do believe that he is a valid priest, and will be a valid bishop, once ordained. That's important.

And again -- even though I do think his beliefs about sex are incorrect -- even that his behaviour re sex is, at least partly, sinful -- he seems to be a Christian serving Christ as best he knows how. And you know what? We've had far worse bishops in the past -- decadent, powerful people who live in luxury and treat their ecclesiastical post as a political position. (The church didn't fall apart under them, either, which is one reason that even with the problems we have now, I haven't left; it's been worse before and we recovered.) Even with the theological differences I am sure we have, and even if I am correct about my beliefs about sexual sin, he should do far, far better than they.

David in DC
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
I know it's a bit of a tangent by now, but regarding the African bishops and polygamy.

I have had it confirmed on another line to which I contribute by a senior lawyer in South Africa, who is also a parish organist, that the situation is rather different than most posters seem to think.

Anglicans are NOT allowed to be polygamous in Africa except that new converts who had more than one wife before conversion are not required to divorce the "extras" after as a condition for being baptised. This has been happening for decades. It recognises the financial and social cost to the divorced wife, who in many cases would be without a home, a family or any resources, and might well die as a result.

John Holding
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
There have been various reports in the press today about Gene coming to England and from the

Manchester diocese web site

quote:

---

Canon Gene Robinson

In response to press reports making reference to the forthcoming conference in Manchester of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and their conference service at Manchester Cathedral, The Archdeacon and Canon of Manchester, The Venerable Alan Wolstencroft issued this statement on August 7th.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laura:
One thought I had is, aren't we putting the cart before the horse? The ECUSA doesn't actually have a position on whether homosexual conduct is sinful or not, based on Scripture/Tradition/Reason (I say it isn't, but I'm not the whole church). Why are we electing a non-celibate gay bishop before there's been some sort of determination on that? Otherwise, we're effectively in a position of having no position about whether gay behavior is sinful/blessed/neutral, but the approval of +Gene means we've basically decided as a denomination that it is a-ok. Right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
I know it's a bit of a tangent by now, but regarding the African bishops and polygamy.

I have had it confirmed on another line to which I contribute by a senior lawyer in South Africa, who is also a parish organist, that the situation is rather different than most posters seem to think.

Anglicans are NOT allowed to be polygamous in Africa except that new converts who had more than one wife before conversion are not required to divorce the "extras" after as a condition for being baptised. This has been happening for decades. It recognises the financial and social cost to the divorced wife, who in many cases would be without a home, a family or any resources, and might well die as a result.

John Holding

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iakovos:

As for the discussion regarding polygamy not being prohibited by Scripture, I am not sure all would agree. Some view Mark 10:6 (the two shall
become one flesh) as a prohibition.

---

quote:

---

No doubt there are many conservatives who believe in no ordination of women, no divorce, no birth control, etc. But there are many screaming loudly about the ordination of gay bishop who practice one or more of these things. All Anglican dioceses have not universally agreed on these items either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Partly posted elsewhere, with extraneous stuff people here already know about me deleted:

Well, here's my own two cents. ... I have a rather odd combination of thoughts here. If the Episcopal Church was acting differently, I think I'd oppose his being made bishop more. But the fact is it's been ordaining people like Spong for decades -- people who don't even believe in the Resurrection as a literal, historical event. And this kind of hue and cry has not been raised about them. I find that truly disturbing. The sheer nastiness of the opposing side hasn't helped matters, though I don't think it invalidates their doctrinal position. But why weren't they railing more vocally in times past [about people with theology such as Spong's]?

My own position about who I think ought, or ought not, to be made priest or bishop is pretty stringent, and many clergy would not make it if the guidelines I believe in were followed. So it seems to me that I'd probably say that if I were the one making the choice, +Gene would not be made into the (valid, Apostolic Succession, able to dispense Sacraments at a single bound, etc.) bishop he will be soon -- but then neither would many, many clergy, including many I've personally liked. I'm used to believing in more Christian dogma than most clergy in most churches I've attended. I'd probably be considered quite superstitious about various things. If I were the one choosing, most clergy I've known would not be ordained under me.
.....
David in DC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Cuervo
And, finally, I think we all (liberal, conservative, traditional, revisionist, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Triclavianistic, etc.) are too quick to think call something a movement of the Holy Spirit when 'the movement' agrees with our previously held personal preferences. I know I am far more likely to say "praise God" when something happens that I like...

... the temptation I try to resist is to do theology backward from my personal convictions. How am I to grow in Christ if, at the end of the day, Christ only wants what I want?

Peace,

St. C.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
But its never been countered effectively, and Gagnon is yet another example of 'the same old same old'

---

quote:

---

we are hearing some statements from the conservative threateners which mnake no sense in terms of the Anglican Communion.
They talk about ECUSA having 'left' the communion. Wrong. Being in communion means being in communion with Canterbury. Not each other. Thats why the declarations against the Canadian diocese are also meaningless. That diocese is still in communion with Canterbury, and thats the only criteria for membership of the Anglican Communion.

---

I have yet to read a single conservative Bishop state they are leaving ECUSA or the Communion. Both the American Anglican Council and the most high-profile conservative Bishop (Duncan) have explicity said they intend to stay. I suspect you're being drawn in by media speculation and hyperbole. I agree that accusations that ECUSA has left the Anglican Communion is overstatement (although, I would encourage you not to interpret this literally ), but surely there can be no debate that ECUSA has departed from the mind of the Communion on this matter.

I would also object to this idea that membership in the Anglican Communion consists of nothing more than communion with Canterbury. The Anglican Communion is built on sacramental relationships between Provinces, Dioceses, and parishes, as well as Canterbury. "Communion" does not merely exist on between Canterbury and Provinces. On a practical level, if jurisdictions sever communion with one another, it could lead to chaos on a communion-wide level. On a spiritual level, it's a fragmenting of the Body and the message of Christ -- a sad event indeed.
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
The points that it would be hypocritical to vigorously oppose GR as bishop if one didn't oppose Spong as bishop are well taken.

A question in that regard: was Spong clearly a heretic before being elected bishop?

The reason I ask that is electing a clear heretic as bishop is indeed an outrage. But to take a bishopric away from someone once seated is a harder matter than not electing him in the first place. So if Spong devolved into an open heretic once he was bishop, then that quite a different matter than the question of electing GR. (Although I still think it outrageous that Spong was not defrocked.)
 

---

Posted by TheMightyTonewheel (# 4730) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
The points that it would be hypocritical to vigorously oppose GR as bishop if one didn't oppose Spong as bishop are well taken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMightyTonewheel:
What is mysterious to me is why the conservatives went after Walter Righter for heresy and not Spong in 1995.

---

No mystery. They knew they had little chance against Spong on any doctrinal issue, because he always retained belief in God and primary access to God through Jesus. His brand of liberal Protestantism has been taught in seminaries since the 1950's. Spong is simply out of the closet so to speak. Dozens and dozens of priests and bishops would have to be declared heretics if they tried to nail him on the Virgin Birth, his concept of the divinity of Christ, his picture of a "spiritual" resurrection, or God as Tillich's "Ground of Being."

They also knew that Spong was capably handling his ordination of gays as a perogative in his diocese against the wishes and recommendations of the House of Bishops and General Convention resolutions without committing heresy. They didn't want to lose huge to Spong, so they tried to win against a weaker assistant in order to get a precedent for going after Spong. They named Spong in the charges and said in the press that they would go after him if they were successful with Walker. They lost 8-1 with one judge recusing himself because he ordained a gay person during the proceedings!



They were smart. Very smart. A failed heresy charge against Spong would have been world headlines. Their failure against Walker is barely a footnote.
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
I wonder how long it will take before the full fury of Archbishop Jensen is released on this guy?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Tonewheel, please read what was said. You responded

quote:

---

I have yet to read a single conservative Bishop state they are leaving ECUSA or the Communion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jugular:
I wonder how long it will take before the full fury of Archbishop Jensen is released on this guy?

---

I don't think Jensen will need to bother. Brisbane diocese is about to fold or have to do something drastic like lay-presidency. Something like 50% of their priests are due to retire in the next five years and 80% within ten years. The only place with a clergy glut will be Sydney so +Ariuspinal will soon have to start importing some clergy from Sydney if he wants to have anyone left to govern! Marrrvellous the way things work out, hey?

Christians 1 : Liberals 0

Pax,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Ah well, I am sure there are plenty of gay men and women who would come forward to be ordained in a more open and liberal Church.

Incidentally, it may have been said in jest, but you appear to be suggesting that liberals are not Christians. I wasn't aware that this was allowed.
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Christians 1 : Liberals 0

---

Oh I think the confirmation of Gene Robinson has changed that scoreline somewhat.

Christians won : Conservatives lost
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wulfstan:
Dyfrig said: If someone is using the threat of a split in this way, I don't think it unreasonable to say "well bugger off then".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:


That diocese is still in communion with Canterbury, and thats the only criteria for membership of the Anglican Communion.

---

quote:

---

It's about winners and losers and not about discerning the mind of Christ, and that is sickening regardless of the way the wind blows.

---

quote:

---

The reason I ask that is electing a clear heretic as bishop is indeed an outrage.

---

quote:

---

My own view is that the Anglican Communion is no longer beneficial or helpful, in any case. There is no central authority, and if it were not there, the subsequent rows would be far more muted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Christians 1 : Liberals 0

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Christians 1 : Liberals 0

---

I beg your pardon?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

Christians 1 : Liberals 0

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:

Christians 1 : Liberals 0

---

Were you just joking, or are you seriously arguing that liberals aren't Christians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
No matter how "unrest"-ful it might be, I understand that it is against the board rules to suggest that anyone who thinks that they are a Christian, isn't a Christian.
[/QB]

---

I get the impression that you think we're being a bit touchy, anglicanrascal!

Nevertheless. What you said was not cool. And if it had been the other way round you would have been down on us like a ton of bricks.

[ 08. August 2003, 11:36: Message edited by: Bongo ]
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bongo:
Nevertheless. What you said was not cool. And if it had been the other way round you would have been down on us like a ton of bricks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
Well, when I was an evangelical, I didn't believe that liberals or catholics were real Christians!

---

So you advanced from being an illiberal evangelical to being an illiberal liberal?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No, no, I think evangelicals are Christians, just misguided

But I've never been a sit-on-the-fence, well-maybe-sort-of-what-if-lets-not-really-believe-anything- liberal.
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
Breaking news: there's to be a summit to discuss gay bishops!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3135237.stm

Good to see +Rowan asserting his authority. Well, sort of.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
There's a separate thread on this one....

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003283
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
[Spong's] brand of liberal Protestantism has been taught in seminaries since the 1950's. Spong is simply out of the closet so to speak. Dozens and dozens of priests and bishops would have to be declared heretics if they tried to nail him on the Virgin Birth, his concept of the divinity of Christ, his picture of a "spiritual" resurrection, or God as Tillich's "Ground of Being."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
For the sake of clarity, David is citing Wulfstan's words here, not mine.

---

Sorry.

David
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'd even go further back than that; Lewis talks about clergy with such beliefs, even bishops, as far back as the 1940s.

---

And even farther back, Swedenborg described these things as secretly common in the 1700s.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
I think perhaps you are a bit touchy about this!

---

quote:

---

Dr Aspinall said the church needed to use reason and experience to interpret the Bible and tradition.

---

quote:

---

The church needs to use reason and growing experience to reinterpret the Bible and tradition.

---

quote:

---

Dr Aspinall said although some sections of the Bible seemed to condemn gay sex, the church needed to recognise that "we do know now more than the biblical authors knew in their age about homosexuality".

"That must be taken into account as must the experience of homosexual people who are committed to Christ and the church and who do not believe they are called to celibacy," Dr Aspinall said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
And even farther back, Swedenborg described these things as secretly common in the 1700s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
It may well be, Nightlamp, but that is actually how it is ; the Archbishop of Canterbury may be first among equals, and no Pope, but he is still First.

---

quote:

---

We believe that the unity of the Communion as a whole still rests on the Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Holy Scriptures as the rule and standard of faith; the creeds of the undivided Church; the two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate. Only a formal and public repudiation of this would place a diocese or Province outside the Anglican Communion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
I was waiting for him to take on the Bible verses and see that he did devote a few sentences to dismissing the individual verses as not condemning homosexuality that paralleled heterosexuality. ... They need to hear verse by verse exactly what those verses condemn and exactly what they allow, from the mind of God who originated them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
My own tuppence ha'penny's worth is that the Anglican Communion is all a bit of a mess, as befits a communion which, in significant part, results from the religio-imperial endeavours of a nation whose own 'national church' became a discrete entity by historical accident. Attempts to formalise, codify or otherwise fit the Anglican Communion into an ecclesiological straightjacket are in danger of running into major problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The definition that is most recent ie 2000 and and adopted by all primates is

quote:

---

We believe that the unity of the Communion as a whole still rests on the Lambeth Quadrilateral: the Holy Scriptures as the rule and standard of faith; the creeds of the undivided Church; the two Sacraments ordained by Christ himself and the historic episcopate. Only a formal and public repudiation of this would place a diocese or Province outside the Anglican Communion

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
See what you think of this document from Soulforce. Mel White started life as a fundamentalist and is now an advocate for gay rights in the church. He knows exactly how to do the verse by verse exegesis you seem to be talking about.

---

What an excellent document. It would be good if the ECUSA put out something like it to explain their action. By the way, what is their explanation? I think there should be one. The sermon to which jugular referred and this soulforce pamphlet would be excellent. Right now it seems like they are just saying, "We took a couple votes and the liberals had enough to carry the day, even though the conservatives threatened to walk out." The story comes across as raw political power not a decision based on principle.
 

---

Posted by dorothea (# 4398) on :
 
Being away and not reading any newspapers or watching T.V., I've only just found out about the bishop's appointment via this link and just wanted to say thanks to Jugular for his excellent sermon link.


J
 

---

Posted by jugular (# 4174) on :
 
Those people who enjoyed the sermon might like to send an encouraging email to the preacher, the address is here.

May I encourage y'all to pass it on to your friends also, as this is, I think, one of the few honest and unambiguous sermons being delivered at the moment.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
the relationship to Canterbury has to have something pretty fundamental to do with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
See what you think of this document from Soulforce.

---

What an excellent document. It would be good if the ECUSA put out something like it to explain their action. By the way, what is their explanation? I think there should be one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The ecclesiolgy of the anglican communion has been evolving over the years and indeed it has evolved quite a bit since I studied it.
I look forward to the time when the principle archbishop of Anglicanism is not white, middle class and British.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by calpurnia:
I'm a little late to the party as a newbie on the boards, but I've got to say that I'm more than a little dismayed by the appointment of Robinson as Bishop.

Question - Is Robinson a suitable representative for this role when he:
a. Breaks his vow to his (now ex-)wife and to God (Oh, yeah God, I didn't really mean forever, Amen)
b. Unable to understand or identify with the complex and most powerful relationship between a man and a woman and how it relates to God's relationship with the church.
c. Is part of a culture which encourages promiscuity, lack of commitment and whose political agenda is to mock the values of others.

(a) He didn't break his vow: he and his wife went to church to release each other and promise to continue raising their children together. She and one of their daughters testified for him at GC. And ECUSA does accept divorce and remarriage, remember?
(b) Let's skip that one -- for some people that isn't the most powerful relationship.
(c) The whole point is not to encourage promiscuity and lack of commitment, but to be honest about those who are pursuing stable and faithful relationships and give them encouragement.
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crux:


I believe the Bible is the word of God, and that that is what defines a protestant church (basically) otherwise it's just like catholics or cults or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crux:
anyway, sorry, bit of a ramble, but can you see my point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crux:
some will laugh and say they are stupid and extreme examples, but 20 years ago, the same reactions that are made today to pedaphiles are the reactions that were for homosexuals.

---

In 1983?
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Welcome to the Ship, Crux.

That was a fascinating and eye-opening first post.

I had never thought about those things in quite that way before.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
But then as a homosexual man, living with another man without the benefit of marriage, who thinks he's sort of a Christain, it's not likely I would, now is it?
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crux:
some will laugh and say they are stupid and extreme examples, but 20 years ago, the same reactions that are made today to pedaphiles are the reactions that were for homosexuals.

---

In 1983?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by calpurnia:
Rather than this becoming a hetero v homosexual debate, especially in this, a Christian forum, it might be best to address the question from a Biblical point of view rather than secular.

---

This forum ain't your father's Christianity.
 

---

Posted by stannefan (# 4860) on :
 
I am appalled that the EUSA is going against the grain of traditional Anglicanism - progress isn't always good! The Traditionalists need to band together and reform the church!
 

---

Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
Conspiracy theory # 687: somewhere in cyberspace, the theologically conservative are being encouraged to visit Ship of Fools en masse, sign up as Apprentices and campaign for "traditional values".


Or is it just me?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No; its pretty obvious.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
It's the Ship home page, guys. Take a stroll through the rest of the site every once in a while.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Have done, Erin, but I have a feeling we may have been 'linked to' somewhere - mainly because all the new contributors seem to be US on a UK dominated board. Would a link on the front page give that sort of disparity ?
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Actually, MMike, 2 of the three are from Australia.

Does that make it a Perfecta instead of a Trifecta, Pres?
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Three ? There's been a few more than that....
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
A majority have not been from the US (I'll leave my refutation of this as a UK board for another time and place). They're pretty evenly distributed along our current population lines.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
It's the Ship home page, guys. Take a stroll through the rest of the site every once in a while.

---

quote:

---

As you're new, it's worth bearing in mind that homosexuality is one of a special set of subjects which we categorise as Dead Horses.

Any discussion of the rights or wrongs of homosexuality really belongs on the appropriate thread in DH and it's important to read over that thread before contributing to it, and indeed a good idea to read over it before contributing to debates on these issues in Purgatory.

When we deal with issues related to homosexuality in Purgatory we try not to go over the ground covered by the Dead Horses thread, as that would be 'flogging a dead horse' (hence the name of that board)

---

quote:

---

However the Bible makes it clear that heterosexuality is God's preferred option and homosexuality is not. Jesus in the Gospels addressed the loaded question de jour of divorce by referring back to Genesis - a man and a woman becoming one flesh.

Rather than this becoming a hetero v homosexual debate, especially in this, a Christian forum, it might be best to address the question from a Biblical point of view rather than secular.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by heathen mama:
Oh My GAWD. Calpurnia and I are twins?!? I need a large drink (or three) and a night out at a gay bar.

Heathen Mama
"I'm straight, but not narrow"

---

Large drink?? Are you buying or am I
 

---

Posted by calpurnia (# 4816) on :
 
Hi Louise,
Thanks for the heads up on the board structure.
 

---

Posted by Cardinal Pole Vault (# 4193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by stannefan:
I am appalled that the EUSA is going against the grain of traditional Anglicanism - progress isn't always good! The Traditionalists need to band together and reform the church!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
The Paranoia boys are busy, anyway - http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=1014

---

I've just read that... what on earth are they on about??!
 

---

Posted by Degs (# 2824) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Looks like he won't be preaching at Manchester Cathedral after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
The Paranoia boys are busy, anyway - http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=1014

---

I've just read that... what on earth are they on about??!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Where do you find these people, K?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
The Paranoia boys are busy, anyway - http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=1014

---

I've just read that... what on earth are they on about??!

---

Failure to take the anti-psychotic medication, I think.

---

Or perhaps something they are taking!
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
Looked over the rest of the site. Words fail me.

to Karl for putting up with various things.
 

---

Posted by Plum (# 4863) on :
 
I think it's incredibly sad that the church is so divided on this issue but I can't see either side giving in and therefore can't see anyway of avoiding a split. Do we all have to voice our opinions quite so harshly on this site though? I've only just discovered it as I was wanting to know what the general view is. However, as someone who does not share the view that this news is to be celebrated, I don't think it can be the general view. This is because I wouldn't want to put my opinions here on why I believe what I believe for fear that they would be scorned. For an English student I'm not phrasing this very grammatically! I guess my point is that if we're going to try and make this unavoidable split within the church as Christian and lovingly as possible then maybe we should start by listening to each other, being patient and respecting each other's opinions.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Because we all know Christianity really is about being nice to each other.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plum:
However, as someone who does not share the view that this news is to be celebrated, I don't think it can be the general view.

---

Erin,

Tortuous logic aside, you missed this bit, where Plum appears to be saying views s/he does not share cannot be the general view.

Just for reference sake, I'm wondering what other views Plum holds. Just to keep my finger on the pulse, and find out what the general view is.


 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting

Welcome to Purgatory, Plum,
we are having a lot of new people at the moment who are coming in from the magazine website and starting by posting on this thread.

People are welcome to do so, but should be careful to acquaint themselves with the guidelines for the different boards . It saves a lot of grief and helps avoid hostile receptions from other posters.

Firstly, here in Purgatory you must expect your opinions and arguments to be challenged robustly, and yes, even scorned, if people think you are talking rubbish. Do not post here unless you can cope with that. We have other boards which take different approaches - read all the guidelines for the separate boards and decide where you want to post.


Secondly you say

quote:

---

This is because I wouldn't want to put my opinions here on why I believe what I believe for fear that they would be scorned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
The Paranoia boys are busy, anyway - http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=1014

---

I think I just ruptured my diaphragm! But it's funny!
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
I didn't find it funny. But to Karl for being a voice of love and reason in the midst of hatred and chaos.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I know we're sick to death of the subject but I was pleased and surprised to find this letter to the editor in Sunday's paper from a member of my congo. Rather good I think.

quote:

---

To the Editor:

Recent responses by some Episcopalians to the election of an openly gay bishop need to be put in context.

Some have expressed sorrow and pain. I sincerely understand that expression, for I have seen it in some of my gay and lesbian Episcopal friends.

Gays and lesbians who hold responsible positions in the community, pay taxes, volunteer, attend church and pray are said to have a lifestyle, as if their sexuality colored everything they did. These good people have been compared to murderers and rapists. Such statements cause great sorrow and pain.

Some say the Episcopal church has departed from the historic Christian faith. Most of the Christians I know place their faith in Christ, not in their sexual orientation. Neither Christianity, nor the Episcopal church, can depend upon an issue which Christ never addressed.

Finally, you should know that most Episcopal churches continue to welcome you.

---

quote:

---

Neither Christianity, nor the Episcopal church, can depend upon an issue which Christ never addressed.

---

I was once apprehended at a church meeting and more or less pinned to the wall by a ferocious clerical opponent of homosexuality, who wanted to know what my attitude was. I assured him that as in all things, I would let my attitude be shaped by Christ's teaching. He went on his way rejoicing, until the implications of what I'd said struck him, fifteen seconds later. I watched him as it dawned on him what I'd actually said. And what it meant. I can't recall him speaking to me after that.

Why is it that people are so afraid of drawing the consequences of the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus says "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." And why, when Christ is silent, do they have to fill the silence from Leviticus, of all places?
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
For the last few days I've been posting on Christians Unite. I've now stopped, as I can't bear the atmosphere there any longer. However, those of you with stronger stomachs than I have might want to look at this discussion board.
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Sorry to double-post, everyone. The beginnings of that last post of mine won't make any sense unless you know that I sent it off blank the first time, and it seemed to have been posted with nothing in it. Obviously the system can't cope with posts in whch nothing is said. Which rather illustrates the point I was making above...
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Posting as "tbs" on the board Wanderer referred to, it appears that my contributions are like ths words of Satan,

I am faced with a moral dilemma - shall I engage him in rational debate, or just wind him up until he explodes.

Your suggestions, please.
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
You can easily do both at the same time, Dyfrig. You're a lawyer.
 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Posting as "tbs" on the board Wanderer referred to, it appears that my contributions are like ths words of Satan,

I am faced with a moral dilemma - shall I engage him in rational debate, or just wind him up until he explodes.

Your suggestions, please.

---

I think rational debate is virtually impossible there. I've given up.

I'd wind up with apparently rational debate, like with YECs.
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Hmmmm. I'm beginning to wonder whether friend SYmphony is in fact a wind-up merchant himself.

Consider this "prayer" he felt let by the Lord to put on the boards. Now, really.


Symphony's prayer:

"That the world's largest corporation who this summer extended equal employment guarantees to gays in it's million+ workforce, be similarly struck down for their bald, in-your-face total disregard for thy Saving Grace, Oh Heavenly Father; that you strike Wal-Mart stores!! That you bring this screaming monolith of discount retailing hubris, to their financial, crumbling knees, oh Father, just at their peak ripeness of financial acumen and self-satisfaction!!--a conservative, down-home corporation, now gone the way of the whole freakin' world! Show them that they are but men."


 

---

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
He's good, if he is winding up - been doing it for weeks.

Of course, the Kingdom of God is where gays are fired for their sexuality, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
[HOST MODE]
May I remind people that it is not appropriate to use these boards as a place to plot responses to posts on other boards. By all means discuss points raised elsewhere (other boards to that extent are no different from other websites, newspapers, what your minister preached on Sunday etc). But, please keep discussion here more or less on the subject of what is said here and steer well clear of the line beyond which lies a potential board war - this is trouble we could happily do without.

Alan
Purgatory host

[/HOST MODE]
 

---

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
My apologies, Mr C.

I shall now retire to Dyfrig'ssecretboard.com/
plottingdownfallofwesterncivilisation.html

where I shall hatch my plans away from prying eyes., MWAHAHAHAHA-

Why are you all looking at me like that?
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
My congratulations to those of you willing to wade into this muck and strike a few blows for your beliefs. I got really sick at my stomach looking at that board, and won't be going back.
 

---

Posted by 7 pillars (of wisdom) please (# 2629) on :
 
In the Bible, it is clear that sex outside marriage is not endorsed by our Lord. References to sex clearly indicate this. The context of marriage is always between man and wife, this is the only type of marriage that is endorsed by our Lord. Our Lord rules out sex outside marriage and this applies to both heterosexual relationships as well as homosexual relationships. There are many negative references to homosexual practice and no positive ones. This is what we must base our decisions on when dealing with issues about homosexuality within our church.

The way God made our bodies also shows us that homosexual intercourse is not natural for humans. Would God not have made our bodies differently if He had thought homosexual practice was good for us?

We also know that God loves all people and that includes those with differing sexual orientations. There is no condemnation for sexual orientation, feelings and no-one is condemned because of temptation. Temptation itself is not a sin. It is the practice of sex outside marriage that is condemned and therefore included in this is homosexual practice. For this forgiveness from God and a change of heart must be the way forward.

A man elected as a Bishop within the church must uphold God’s law. He must believe in it and prevent his flock from becoming confused over certain issues. A man who expressly makes an issue of being a practicing homosexual is, therefore, pinpointing a specific issue. He is endorsing homosexual practice within the church. If, on the other hand, he states that he has homosexual leanings, but will remain celebate, then he is endorsing an entirely different set of standards within the church on this specific issue. I know nothing about where this particular Bishop stands concerning these two issues. However, because this particular Bishop is standing up as a homosexual, then this is the issue that is being discussed.

It is no good saying that this is one of many sins and we all sin and, therefore, he is as good a Bishop as any other. This is tantamount to saying, well he murdered six people, but, hey we all make mistakes and we are sinful in our own way.

If a Bishop were to be elected who had deliberately killed six people and makes a stand that this is ok. Well, would you want him to represent Jesus Christ on this earth?

If a Bishop were to be elected who had deliberately left his wife and is open and honest about his live-in relationship with another woman – would you want him to represent Jesus Christ on this earth? Would he be upholding God’s law for the Church?

Such a Bishop is making a statement. He is saying – it’s ok to do these things. He is opening the floodgates for all Christians to say that this is God’s way.

The Church must remain within certain guidelines. All Bishops, priests who make a stand for issues outside these guidelines must not be allowed to represent Christ’s church. Yes, they are sinners, we are all sinners, but we are asking God’s forgiveness for our sin and because we love God we want to live His way and will try hard to do so. We certainly don’t want to continue flouting God’s law. And a Bishop who deliberately does this openly is deliberately changing the Church’s stand as well and he cannot pretend that it has nothing to do with him.

Does this Bishop uphold the characteristics of a man who loves Jesus so much that he wants to live within God’s rules and uphold them as best he can? Or is he confusing people and dividing the people within our Lord’s church? What does the Bible say about the Pharisees who blinded people to God’s law? Is he opening the way to homosexual marriages as an endorsement for homosexual practices? Or is he maintaining a stand that homosexual practice is not biblical? These issues, whether he likes it or not, form the basis of his position as Bishop and this could well end up dividing and splitting the church, creating chaos and confusion – a huge step away for God.
 

---

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
This seems to have been written without any consideration of any of the points which have been raised before.

Being gay is not a sin ; neither are gay relationships per se. That is the position from which I and other advocates of gay and lesbian equality within the Church begin ; thus we reject your opening statements and the attitudes which flow from them.

Yes, of course we wish to change the stand of the Church, because we believe it is wrong. And if that means a split, so be it.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merseymike:
And if that means a split, so be it.

---