Originally posted by Angloid:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
++Rowan. quote:Or, possibly, for the earth to open so that they could go the other way...
Details of Foca were finalised yesterday morning and the reading of the statement was greeted with standing ovations, spontaneous singing, hugging and tears of joy. One of those present said he thought the skies were about to open so the delegates could ascend to heaven.
quote:- the cure seems a great deal worse than the disease - at least, if you aim to be part of the one, holy, Catholic church with an episcopal structure in the apostolic tradition (which Jensen obviously doesn't).
"If you receive an SOS from anywhere in the world we will move in"
quote:It's Sydney - you certainly can't have a Mother FOCA.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Is Archbishop Jensen the Head FOCA?
quote:
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, do hereby acknowledge the participating Primates of GAFCON who have called us together, and encourage them to form the initial Council of the GAFCON movement. We look forward to the enlargement of the Council and entreat the Primates to organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans. Source: Gafcon Statement
quote:Sorry!
Note that the GAFCON Statement does not capitalize “Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans” or “Confessing Anglican Fellowship (CAF).” This was intentional. At this point it is best to speak of the “GAFCON movement” as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans. Perhaps at some later point the Primates’ Council may choose an official designation for the entity that emerges.
quote:Amen to that!
Originally posted by rabcpresbyterian:
This surely must be the best thread title ever.
quote:An interpretation which surfaced only this morning, and well after hilarity had ensued!
Posted by Stephen Noll on 06-30-2008 at 07:02 AM
quote:they just didn't think their cunning plan all the way through, did they?
A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
quote:The subheads follow the capitalise the big words style. So unless you believe, for example, "The Road Ahead" is the title of something, its just capitalisation in subheads.
A Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
We, the participants in the Global Anglican Future Conference, are a fellowship of confessing Anglicans for the benefit of the Church and the furtherance of its mission. We are a fellowship of people united in the communion (koinonia) of the one Spirit and committed to work and pray together in the common mission of Christ. It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future.
quote:And
A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion.
quote:and
We have seen instances of intervention in dioceses whose leadership is unquestionably orthodox simply because of local difficulties of a personal and administrative nature. We have also seen instances of clergy disciplined for scandalous behaviour in one jurisdiction accepted in another, apparently without due process.
quote:If they aren't willing, I suppose they aren't welcome.
emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.
quote:Also linked from the Lambeth v Jerusalem thread.
Originally posted by badman:
[The ABC's] full response is here
++Rowan.
quote:Yes, I have to say his response is just what I wanted to see - politely and calmly pointing out the FOCAs' complete lack of legitimacy.
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:And let's not forget that the quotation was "The resurrection is much more than a mere conjouring trick with bones." It seems to this evangelical that he had more faith in the resurrection than his evangelical critics!
Originally posted by Angloid:
Most of us are as puzzled as you, Tubifex.
But I must defend the former (last but one) bishop of Durham. He's been repeatedly attacked for not believing the resurrection. In fact it is very clear that his faith is founded on the risen Christ. It's just that he doesn't understand it in a crudely literalist way. There is no way, even taking scripture at face value, that the risen body of Jesus was simply the flesh and blood of his earthly life. He could walk through walls!
quote:From where I sit, intervention in dioceses has been motivated primarily by issues of power, publicity, and hoping to grab real estate.
No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces;
quote:That's because ++Rowan
Originally posted by Geneviève:
I agree, that is an impressive statement from ++Rowan.
However, I have to disagree with one phrase:
quote:From where I sit, intervention in dioceses has been motivated primarily by issues of power, publicity, and hoping to grab real estate.
No-one should for a moment impute selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces;
ETA: to blab on and on about the Windsor Report, and how TEC is not in compliance, and then to repeatedly violate it is completely hypocritical.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
is a nicer guy than you or me, Genevieve.quote:Martin most likely being stubborn, but trying to look at the situation from all possible sides (so please don't judge him harshly if he is visiting a dead horse issue or missing the obvious
Originally posted by badman:
If they're still in it, why won't they come to Lambeth, recognise the authority of the Instruments of Unity, etc etc?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
):quote:Indeed, and I agree with him, and you for that matter but still my suspicions remain. +David Jenkins' critics didn't see it the way you, I, or Jolly Jape do way and it stil wasn't worth splitting over. Nor was +David Jenkins the first; existential and 'non-realist' theology has been a major strand in Anglican Christianity over the last fifty years "Honest to God" anyone? Self describing traditionalists may have voted individually with their feet or sought parishes that welcomed them, but it took the issue of Christian Homosexuality to make a group of them stand up and be counted.
Originally posted by Angloid:
Most of us are as puzzled as you, Tubifex.
But I must defend the former (last but one) bishop of Durham. He's been repeatedly attacked for not believing the resurrection. In fact it is very clear that his faith is founded on the risen Christ. It's just that he doesn't understand it in a crudely literalist way. There is no way, even taking scripture at face value, that the risen body of Jesus was simply the flesh and blood of his earthly life. He could walk through walls!
quote:For the time being, yes, I think so. Except in the USA (not sure about Canada).
As I understand it the FOCAs are inside the tent p***ing out not outside the ten p***ing in?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:I think this is a very good question, and one that many of the conservative bishops and primates would struggle to answer precisely.
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
I'm sorry that it has come to schism, as it appears to have done. I think the thing that I find hard to understand as a non-anglican and, these days, as a Died Again Christian, is why this issue has been identified as the one straw that is breaking the camel's back. I know that traditionalists have always said that the real issue isn't homosexuality as such, but the authority of scripture. I can remember when no less a person than the Bishop of Durham cast doubt on a real and historical resurrection. There was a bit of a stink, but no schism.
Surely this was far more pressing touchstone issue to Christians than the sexual orientation of a bishop? The resurrection is cited in the creed, after all.
quote:Given what went on at mine, that could well have been appropriate.
Originally posted by Gill H:
(ETA: still doesn't beat UCCF, which apparently was almost called the Fellowship of University and College Christian Unions.)
quote:I would actually diagree with that statement. Homosexual practice is still generally not accepted in most of British society, despite a film/mediachattering classes push to get it so.
Also, never underestimate how quickly society and the church has changed on sexuality, with homosexuality seeing perhaps the most rapid and complete change in attitudes. In about 40 years, male homosexual practice has gone from being criminalised in society at large, to being grudgingly allowed in wider society but condemned by the Church, to being mostly accepted in society, to being tolerated in the church among lay members, to being allowed among priests and bishops. It's difficult to think of any other belief or practice where all branches of the church and most people in society have condemned something, only for society to embrace it and parts of the church to accept it, in such a short period.
quote:I won't go into it again on this thread, as it is somewhat off topic, and I explained a bit further in the recent Dead Horses thread, but the conservative view, or at least the Reformed view, has always been that homosexual sin, like all sin, is the result of original sin, with which we are born, and that our choices are then an inevitable consequence of that. We sin because we are born sinners, rather than we are sinners because we sin. So any new findings demonstrating that homosexuals are so predisposed from birth makes no difference.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
Some people do make perverse choices about how they use their sexuality, and, guess what? That doesn't seem to correlate with orientation at all.
quote:That's a red herring (and probably a dead horse).
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
quote:So, GAFCONites and other evangelicals see the homosexual orientation as akin to a 'disease'. Because of the Fall, some human beings suffer from a warping of their sexual orientation. It's not their fault- they didn't choose it- but they're still 'sick'.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That's a red herring (and probably a dead horse).
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
If you believe in the Fall, as most GAFCONites presumably do (and as I do) then it makes no difference whether or not someone was born with an orientation towards a particular sin. We are all born with an orientation towards sin, in some measure, and we all have a moral duty to resist those sins we are most liable to. Knowing we will fail without the grace of God to strengthen us.
That has nothing at all to do with the question of whether some action is a sin or not - we answer that from the Bible or from church tradition.
quote:I'm still baffled. Even if we accept that argument, and we agree with the FOCAs that homosexual activity is sinful, then how does it lead to sexually active gay people being excluded from the priesthood? After all, gluttony is a sin, but we aren't schisming over the issue of fat bishops.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That's a red herring (and probably a dead horse).
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
If you believe in the Fall, as most GAFCONites presumably do (and as I do) then it makes no difference whether or not someone was born with an orientation towards a particular sin. We are all born with an orientation towards sin, in some measure, and we all have a moral duty to resist those sins we are most liable to. Knowing we will fail without the grace of God to strengthen us.
That has nothing at all to do with the question of whether some action is a sin or not - we answer that from the Bible or from church tradition.
quote:Indeed, and it seems equally perverse to argue that the gay people we can all see around us these days, now gay people are visible, are anything but harmless and ordinary. Insisting that the evidence of people's eyes and the repeated findings of research are wrong and must be dismissed in the face of a few difficult to interpret Greek words in an ancient text is what seems really perverse to most people.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
quote:I agree with Barnabas here. The logical corollary to the fact that we are born sinners would be that both homosexual sinners and heterosexual sinners are born with a predisposition to sin, some of whom may sin in the matter of sexual activity. Thus some homosexuals may be promiscuoius, sexually abusive, and so on, and thus engage in porneia , sexual immorality. As may some heterosexuals. It doesn't follow from this , mediaeval distortions notwithstanding, that all homosexual activity is inherently sinful, any more than it follows from it that all heterosexual activity is inherently sinful. Because Paul condemns homosexual (and heterosexual) porneia does not mean he condemns homosexual sex per se, only the misuse of homosexual sex, by exact analogy with the way in which he condemns straight porneia.
Originally posted by Zwingli:
quote:I won't go into it again on this thread, as it is somewhat off topic, and I explained a bit further in the recent Dead Horses thread, but the conservative view, or at least the Reformed view, has always been that homosexual sin, like all sin, is the result of original sin, with which we are born, and that our choices are then an inevitable consequence of that. We sin because we are born sinners, rather than we are sinners because we sin. So any new findings demonstrating that homosexuals are so predisposed from birth makes no difference.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure it's all that complicated. There's an increased appreciation that in general, homosexuals are born with that orientation and therefore it is perverse to argue that they make perverse choices.
Some people do make perverse choices about how they use their sexuality, and, guess what? That doesn't seem to correlate with orientation at all.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
if you are...)
quote:It has a straightforward appeal if you want to ignore all sin. I was born with the desire to sleep with lots of women, and with a very bad temper.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is a DH in one sense; on the other hand it was simply a personal observation on why folks are more inclined to "shrug their shoulders" these days (Zwingli and Saul discussion). It was a social observation, rather than a theological one. Its the way a fair number of folks think. "Why criticise people for the way they are born" has a certain straightforward appeal.
quote:But it's not a club, is it. It's an expression of the body of Christ. And Paul has some pretty hard words about not discerning that body in communion. And, in any case, to suggest that entry into the "club" by adherence to a certain predefined code of rules is somewhat to stand scripture on its head, as Peter discovered.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another. A better analogy is thinking of the Anglican Church as a type of club, which like all clubs has rules detailing what sort of behaviour is tolerated and what isn't. If you don't like the rules, then you're free to go and join another club that doesn't have the rules you dislike, or you can start a club of your own. What you're not free to do is loudly flout the rules of the club you're in. That's not persecution, that's just enforcing the club rules.
quote:What?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
It is precisely about the persecution of one group (a minority) by another (the majority). That's exactly what it is. Persecution which, for some of the Garcon archbishops, appears to legitimately include imprisonment, rape and torture. quote:I'm certainly saying that the mediaeval attitude to sex (ie, that it is inherently sinful) is a distortion of what we read in the scriptures, and I'd be surprised if you disagreed, so I'll assume you were being ironic.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I hope you're not dismissing Sacred Tradition as 'medieval distortions' (
quote:If a national body which is claiming to set the highest and best standards for our morality allows itself to become a mouthpiece for denouncing a harmless group in our society as inferior and to be denied full rights and then makes links with people in other countries who go much further - supporting imprisonment, winking at rapes and murders, advocating 'cures', denouncing people from that harmless group as dangerous and evil, then they may call themselves a 'private club' but to put it mildly, they're bringing themselves and the game into national disrepute.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another. A better analogy is thinking of the Anglican Church as a type of club, which like all clubs has rules detailing what sort of behaviour is tolerated and what isn't. If you don't like the rules, then you're free to go and join another club that doesn't have the rules you dislike, or you can start a club of your own. What you're not free to do is loudly flout the rules of the club you're in. That's not persecution, that's just enforcing the club rules.
quote:Sorry, the logic is asymmetric. You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage. The truely analogous position would be that, if you were gay, presumably you would have a passion to sleep with as many men as possible, and the path to holiness would be to keep that within the context of a relationship analagous to marriage.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:It has a straightforward appeal if you want to ignore all sin. I was born with the desire to sleep with lots of women, and with a very bad temper.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It is a DH in one sense; on the other hand it was simply a personal observation on why folks are more inclined to "shrug their shoulders" these days (Zwingli and Saul discussion). It was a social observation, rather than a theological one. Its the way a fair number of folks think. "Why criticise people for the way they are born" has a certain straightforward appeal.
"I was born that way" isn't an excuse because people can moderate their behaviour. And it hasn't even been proven that homosexuality is entirely genetic.
quote:So is the Establishment of the Church of England the context in which you object to the stance?
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:If a national body which is claiming to set the highest and best standards for our morality allows itself to become a mouthpiece for denouncing a harmless group in our society as inferior and to be denied full rights and then makes links with people in other countries who go much further - supporting imprisonment, winking at rapes and murders, advocating 'cures', denouncing people from that harmless group as dangerous and evil, then they may call themselves a 'private club' but to put it mildly, they're bringing themselves and the game into national disrepute.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not really an accurate analogy, is it? This is not about persecution of one group by another. A better analogy is thinking of the Anglican Church as a type of club, which like all clubs has rules detailing what sort of behaviour is tolerated and what isn't. If you don't like the rules, then you're free to go and join another club that doesn't have the rules you dislike, or you can start a club of your own. What you're not free to do is loudly flout the rules of the club you're in. That's not persecution, that's just enforcing the club rules.
* But, to indulge you, yes, those who disagree with the rules can stay in the club and try and change them, but if the club says 'no', you're not then free to flout the rules and stay in the club. or something ghastly about me I'm not telling ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
quote:Or, if not married, to remain celibate.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage.
quote:No, as Zwingli said, they will see ALL human beings as suffering to a greater or lesser extent from a tendency to sin, which takes different forms in different people.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
So, GAFCONites and other evangelicals see the homosexual orientation as akin to a 'disease'. Because of the Fall, some human beings suffer from a warping of their sexual orientation. It's not their fault- they didn't choose it- but they're still 'sick'.
quote:Its not (just) an evengelical explanation. Its the mainstream Christian one for at least the last 1500 years. Anselm, Aquinas and whoever wrote the new Catholic Catechism would have agreed with it - as would at least some of the Orthodox before they partly jettisoned it as a defensive measure against Rome.
I actually find this explanation bordering on the offensive (and just one reason why I had to jettison much of my former evangelicalism)
quote:Well, if this business of 1300 CofE clergy writing to the Archbishops is in fact true, the current liberal Establishment is being bracketed from both sides.
Originally posted by Louise:
The very 'Papist' and 'Puritan' extremes the 39 articles were written to define the C of E against are now signing up to them as their shibboleth and declaring themselves to be 'Traditional Anglicans'.
quote:This is overblown rhetoric with no other purpose than to tar as blackly as possible those you simply disagree with. How is the Church of England doing what you claim it is doing?
Originally posted by Louise:
If a national body which is claiming to set the highest and best standards for our morality allows itself to become a mouthpiece for denouncing a harmless group in our society as inferior and to be denied full rights and then makes links with people in other countries who go much further - supporting imprisonment, winking at rapes and murders, advocating 'cures', denouncing people from that harmless group as dangerous and evil, then they may call themselves a 'private club' but to put it mildly, they're bringing themselves and the game into national disrepute.
The Churches used to witch-hunt using scripture as their warrant but they 'got better'. I think they also need to 'get better' from a doctrine which is now turning out to be as superstitious and badly-based as believing that the old lady down the road has been having sex with Satan and therefore can afflict you with a plague of boils.
L.
quote:Even so, but this presumes a state for same sax couples analagous to marriage within which sexual expression is licit.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Or, if not married, to remain celibate.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage.
quote:I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.
quote:A presumption with which I would disagree.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Even so, but this presumes a state for same sax couples analagous to marriage within which sexual expression is licit.
quote:How is the desire to sleep with many women satisfied by marriage? You may as well claim it is satisfied by masturbation. It is not a lack of orgasms that is making me desire those women.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage.
quote:Which is why I added "and a bad temper". There are aspects of me which I don't believe have any acceptable expression. I was "born" with them, that doesn't mean I get a free pass because I didn't choose to be that way.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The truely analogous position would be that, if you were gay, presumably you would have a passion to sleep with as many men as possible, and the path to holiness would be to keep that within the context of a relationship analagous to marriage.
quote:I recognise that. Think you're wrong, though.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The joys of cross-posting; my last reply was picking up on Spawn's first sentence.quote:A presumption with which I would disagree.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Even so, but this presumes a state for same sax couples analagous to marriage within which sexual expression is licit.
quote:You are missing the (fairly straight forward) point. We are all born with a propensity to sin. But we are all born with different propensities, and different strengths of propensities, towards different sins. All of these are a result of our fallen nature, which manifests itself even before birth. Yes, homosexuals and heterosexuals are both born with a propensity towards sexual sin. That does not mean that there is exact symmetry in what is sinful and what is not; as in any other area of life, some may have a greater propensity to sin, others a lesser propensity. Honestly, it was all explained on the DH thread.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I agree with Barnabas here. The logical corollary to the fact that we are born sinners would be that both homosexual sinners and heterosexual sinners are born with a predisposition to sin, some of whom may sin in the matter of sexual activity. Thus some homosexuals may be promiscuoius, sexually abusive, and so on, and thus engage in porneia , sexual immorality. As may some heterosexuals. It doesn't follow from this , mediaeval distortions notwithstanding, that all homosexual activity is inherently sinful, any more than it follows from it that all heterosexual activity is inherently sinful. Because Paul condemns homosexual (and heterosexual) porneia does not mean he condemns homosexual sex per se, only the misuse of homosexual sex, by exact analogy with the way in which he condemns straight porneia.
quote:The argument that I was making was that being born with a desire, is not sufficient reason to classify that desire as good.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point that I was making was that, without such provision, Raptor's argument is asymmetric.
quote:Which British society are you living in?
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Homosexual practice is still generally not accepted in most of British society, despite a film/mediachattering classes push to get it so.
quote:At any rate it wasn't a racist "comparison" - it was using a(n admittedly emotionally-laden) example to show why someone might disagree with club rules, yet still stay in and seek to change them. That wasn't an option that Matt gave earlier -- his view as explicated in his post was of the "my way or the highway" variety. I was saying there is a third option, and using an example to show how it is sometimes the morally right thing to do. Suggesting that I am comparing homophobes with racists is going far beyond the point of my argument. But it is something that nearly always comes up when somebody tries to argue by analogy on the ship. It's maddening.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.
quote:No, it's desire for intimacy that makes people desire lots of different women. That desire is a good thing.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:How is the desire to sleep with many women satisfied by marriage? You may as well claim it is satisfied by masturbation. It is not a lack of orgasms that is making me desire those women.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
You have demonstrated here that you are a sinner (as I am) and that, for you, the way of obedience to Christ is not to indulge your passion to sleep with lots of women, but (assuming you are married - I don't know) to express what is a healthy and God given "drive" within the context of your marriage.
quote:Which is why I added "and a bad temper". There are aspects of me which I don't believe have any acceptable expression. I was "born" with them, that doesn't mean I get a free pass because I didn't choose to be that way.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The truely analogous position would be that, if you were gay, presumably you would have a passion to sleep with as many men as possible, and the path to holiness would be to keep that within the context of a relationship analagous to marriage.
If I actually gave in to my natural desires, it wouldn't be for heterosexual monogamy.
quote:Isn't that what happened to Jeffrey John?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
dj_ordinaire, if there is persecution, then I would deplore it - if there are clergy who are abiding by The Rules™ and yet being denied positions on the sole ground of sexual orientation, then I think that that is monstrous.
quote:Says who? I don't remember anyone making that comparison back in the 1970s and early 1980s, when there seemed to be more discussion on these issues in church than there is now.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.
quote:Thank you for telling me the basis of my desires, but you are wrong. Desire for intimacy causes some people to seek it through promiscuous sexual encounters, that isn't what I am talking about.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
No, it's desire for intimacy that makes people desire lots of different women. That desire is a good thing.
quote:I was responding to the argument "they are born that way, so it is okay".
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I can presume that, for many homosexual people, their desire would not be for homosexual monogamy. I'm not sure why you think that I'm offering a "free pass" for anyone.
quote:This argument isn't specifically about sexuality, or the acceptableness of certain sexualities. That is a dead horse.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
And, of course, anger is a characteristic of some people whatever their sexuality. Since that isn't under debate, it seemed superfluous to respond to it.
quote:Yes and no. IIRC correctly (and do correct me if I'm wrong), whilst he was celibate at the time of the purported appointment, he wasn't prepared to say that same-sex relationships were wrong, which I think was the sticking point.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:Isn't that what happened to Jeffrey John?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
dj_ordinaire, if there is persecution, then I would deplore it - if there are clergy who are abiding by The Rules™ and yet being denied positions on the sole ground of sexual orientation, then I think that that is monstrous.
quote:
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Now, the evangelicals are saying
and the Catholics and the Orthodox
quote:And the difference between being gay and being a polyamourist is?
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Being gay is not like wanting to commit adultry or whatever. It's not the orientation to do 'naughty things'. It's an orientation to love and to want to be loved in a particular way.
quote:But nor, IIRC, was the man who was appointed Bishop of Reading instead of him. At least, he was on record as holding the same views on this issue as Jeffrey John, and I very much doubt he would have recanted them. Probably he wasn't even asked. Because, of course, he is a married heterosexual.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Yes and no. IIRC correctly (and do correct me if I'm wrong), whilst he was celibate at the time of the purported appointment, he wasn't prepared to say that same-sex relationships were wrong, which I think was the sticking point.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:Isn't that what happened to Jeffrey John?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
dj_ordinaire, if there is persecution, then I would deplore it - if there are clergy who are abiding by The Rules™ and yet being denied positions on the sole ground of sexual orientation, then I think that that is monstrous.
quote:What is illustrated here is the irrational inability of liberals to listen to any viewpoint but their own, and indeed the intolerance they have for other views. Throwing out canards like this, and ad hominem attacks rather than actually engaging in discussion.
Originally posted by Angloid:
But nor, IIRC, was the man who was appointed Bishop of Reading instead of him. At least, he was on record as holding the same views on this issue as Jeffrey John, and I very much doubt he would have recanted them. Probably he wasn't even asked. Because, of course, he is a married heterosexual.
Which illustrates the irrational hypocrisy of some conservatives.
quote:The fact that you even pose that question speaks volumes. Why not go the whole hog and ask how homosexuality differs from paedophilia?
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:And the difference between being gay and being a polyamourist is?
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Being gay is not like wanting to commit adultry or whatever. It's not the orientation to do 'naughty things'. It's an orientation to love and to want to be loved in a particular way.
quote:Perhaps its simply that everyone knows what Anglican Mainstream and the likes of Chris Sugden stand for.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.
quote:Well, with prats like the One New Now/American Family News Network queering the pitch its no wonder that everybody thinks evangelicals are brain-dead bigots
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
quote:Perhaps its simply that everyone knows what Anglican Mainstream and the likes of Chris Sugden stand for.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Any excuse not to tackle the issues themselves. Is this perhaps because you don't have a strong argument?
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
quote:Perhaps its simply that everyone knows what Anglican Mainstream and the likes of Chris Sugden stand for.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.
quote:Not wishing to enter DH territory, even if I could present the most scholarly theological argument from a more liberal perspective it wouldn't make any difference. Your mind is as made up and your ears as closed to listening as you claim liberal ears are. The difference is that the likes of Anglican Mainstream who you refer to aren't prepared to share the big tent with anyone else.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:Any excuse not to tackle the issues themselves. Is this perhaps because you don't have a strong argument?
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
quote:Perhaps its simply that everyone knows what Anglican Mainstream and the likes of Chris Sugden stand for.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.
Or do you want every liberal to be judged by the likes of Spong and Cupitt?
quote:I think what I was saying was that there are a set of guidelines and if we don't choose to follow them, well we live with the consequences. Generally, in the circles I mix in, and I don't live in a monastic retreat, homosexuality is tolerated with a shrug of the shoulders; but it is not as widespread as the media would like us to believe - in my humble view.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:At any rate it wasn't a racist "comparison" - it was using a(n admittedly emotionally-laden) example to show why someone might disagree with club rules, yet still stay in and seek to change them. That wasn't an option that Matt gave earlier -- his view as explicated in his post was of the "my way or the highway" variety. I was saying there is a third option, and using an example to show how it is sometimes the morally right thing to do. Suggesting that I am comparing homophobes with racists is going far beyond the point of my argument. But it is something that nearly always comes up when somebody tries to argue by analogy on the ship. It's maddening.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.
quote:I think what I was saying was that there are a set of guidelines and if we don't choose to follow them, well we live with the consequences. Generally, in the circles I mix in, and I don't live in a monastic retreat, homosexuality is tolerated with a shrug of the shoulders; but it is not as widespread as the media would like us to believe - in my humble view.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:At any rate it wasn't a racist "comparison" - it was using a(n admittedly emotionally-laden) example to show why someone might disagree with club rules, yet still stay in and seek to change them. That wasn't an option that Matt gave earlier -- his view as explicated in his post was of the "my way or the highway" variety. I was saying there is a third option, and using an example to show how it is sometimes the morally right thing to do. Suggesting that I am comparing homophobes with racists is going far beyond the point of my argument. But it is something that nearly always comes up when somebody tries to argue by analogy on the ship. It's maddening.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.
quote:I don't think there's any essential difference. Those who propose an inclusive church would sooner or later exclude the exclusive and intolerant. Some of your colleagues in Inclusive Church would do it sooner rather than later.
Originally posted by Mystery of Faith:
Not wishing to enter DH territory, even if I could present the most scholarly theological argument from a more liberal perspective it wouldn't make any difference. Your mind is as made up and your ears as closed to listening as you claim liberal ears are. The difference is that the likes of Anglican Mainstream who you refer to aren't prepared to share the big tent with anyone else.
quote:I've seen this play out in a small, family parish. The inclusive folks said, "Let's worship together! Let's not ignore our differences, but let us try to keep them from seperating us!"
Originally posted by Spawn:
I don't think there's any essential difference. Those who propose an inclusive church would sooner or later exclude the exclusive and intolerant. Some of your colleagues in Inclusive Church would do it sooner rather than later.
quote:Did you just want to express anger and frustration or do you really believe that?
Originally posted by Zwingli:
... the whole "the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexual practice, it's just that everyone in every denomination misinterpreted the Bible for two millennia, until sometime in about 1970 we worked out what Saint Paul really meant" crap is total, unmitigated bullshit, and everyone on both sides of the debate knows it. You're only lying to yourselves, and I doubt you even manage to honestly convince yourselves, which is why intelligent discussion of the topic is impossible.
quote:This is exactly why this subject is a Dead Horse. I mean, we've had dozens of threads, rather heated ones, on the subject of Mary, but I've yet to see a category of believers called liars because they assert Mary was Ever Virgin.
Oh, and I'm well aware that it's a dead horse, so I know we will never have a meaningful discussion on the topic, but the whole "the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexual practice, it's just that everyone in every denomination misinterpreted the Bible for two millennia, until sometime in about 1970 we worked out what Saint Paul really meant" crap is total, unmitigated bullshit, and everyone on both sides of the debate knows it. You're only lying to yourselves, and I doubt you even manage to honestly convince yourselves, which is why intelligent discussion of the topic is impossible.
Sorry for misspelling your name, Zwingli.
quote:Not where you live, I guess. But certainly where I live it's a regular topic of discussion -- more so at church than outside church, in fact, since outside church homosexuality is generally accepted.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Says who? I don't remember anyone making that comparison back in the 1970s and early 1980s, when there seemed to be more discussion on these issues in church than there is now.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.
I thought it was the result of gay men and women coming out and wanting to be treated equally - not any reflection on anyone else's part at all.
Yes, I meant "more discussion" then than now. There is a weird disconnection between real chruches and their media representation. Nowadays almost no-one ever mentions this whole business in church or in church meetings. What we see is a lot of journalists telling us that we are obsessed with homosexuality, or with sex in general, when in fact it is almost never talked about at all.
quote:Whereas it is mentioned regularly in the pulpit of both the church I work for and the church I attend.
Certainly not in the pulpit. From the last few years I think I've heard two mentions of it as an issue in an actual chruch service - one rather egregious and unneccessary comment on the side from Sandy Millar in an otherwise rather good sermon that had nothign to do with the topic at all, and one comment from one of our clergy saying that he was proud to be a member of "inclusive church".
quote:At its last meeting, after much discussion, the vestry at my church voted to re-affirm our parish's commitment to treating equally all couples presenting themselves for marriage. The topic has come up again and again at annual diocesan meetings, and we have had a number of diocese-sponsored discussions outside of regular business meetings.
In our church business meetings one member of our congregation wanted to start some sort of discussion about homosexual partnerships but no-one else was keen at all so it never really happened.
There was a deanery synod when the issue was raised - I was there but I can't even remember what was said. All very bland and inoffensive I think.
quote:We discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality on a regular basis. I lead a newcomer's class four times a year at my church, and someone asks about the church's interpretation of those six or seven verses dealing with same-gender sexual relations every single time.
But that's about it. In the 1970s and 1980s we used to have long, earnest, and sometimes painful debates on these things. And even Bible Studies. Now, if anyone is thinking about it at all, its not being done in church.
quote:Louise:
Originally posted by Louise:
...It's a mad world indeed, my masters, where the believers in lay presidency and the users of the English missal can say with a straight face that they're 'Traditional Anglicans' adhering to all the Early Modern documents of that church, but people who in the light of reason and charity have come to different conclusion on one small piece of teaching about sexuality, which was never part of the historical core of Anglicanism must be unchurched. ...
quote:Bad analogy, because of the "too much" part. Gay people have to cut out gayness entirely; there's no question of being gay in moderation.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The issue is one of attitude towards sin. I'm a bit of a fat bastard myself, but I accept that eating too much is wrong, on a number of levels and for a number of reasons, and it's something with which I struggle on a daily basis (alright, weekly, maybe). What I don't do - and what I'm not free to do - is to pronounce that which is sinful as 'good'. That's the difference.
quote:All those long sermons, which you are so proud of having listened to, seem to have equipped you well for the task of engaging in theological debate. Or possibly not.
Oh, and I'm well aware that it's a dead horse, so I know we will never have a meaningful discussion on the topic, but the whole "the Bible doesn't really condemn homosexual practice, it's just that everyone in every denomination misinterpreted the Bible for two millennia, until sometime in about 1970 we worked out what Saint Paul really meant" crap is total, unmitigated bullshit, and everyone on both sides of the debate knows it. You're only lying to yourselves, and I doubt you even manage to honestly convince yourselves, which is why intelligent discussion of the topic is impossible.
quote:No, not the gayness but the same-sex activity.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Bad analogy, because of the "too much" part. Gay people have to cut out gayness entirely.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The issue is one of attitude towards sin. I'm a bit of a fat bastard myself, but I accept that eating too much is wrong, on a number of levels and for a number of reasons, and it's something with which I struggle on a daily basis (alright, weekly, maybe). What I don't do - and what I'm not free to do - is to pronounce that which is sinful as 'good'. That's the difference.
quote:I think that this may, indeed, be a pond difference. I can certainly relate to ken's point that it is pretty well absent from the pulpit. Funnily enough, the one occasion that I can rember this happening was with the self-same Sandy Millar, usually a gracioius and avuncular speaker, and again it was a sort of "snide-aside" thing, very out of character for him, I would have thought.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Not where you live, I guess. But certainly where I live it's a regular topic of discussion -- more so at church than outside church, in fact, since outside church homosexuality is generally accepted.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Says who? I don't remember anyone making that comparison back in the 1970s and early 1980s, when there seemed to be more discussion on these issues in church than there is now.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I'm not sure it is, Matt. The movement for recognition and full inclusion of gays within the church was the result of reflection upon the way in which the church had excluded other groups, including other races.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
As is the racist comparison.
I thought it was the result of gay men and women coming out and wanting to be treated equally - not any reflection on anyone else's part at all.
Yes, I meant "more discussion" then than now. There is a weird disconnection between real chruches and their media representation. Nowadays almost no-one ever mentions this whole business in church or in church meetings. What we see is a lot of journalists telling us that we are obsessed with homosexuality, or with sex in general, when in fact it is almost never talked about at all.
quote:Well, the best analogy of all would be heterosexual relationships. Some are given the charism by God of celibacy, but for others there is a legitimate place where sexual intimacy is not only allowed, but celebrated. I don't think that the validity of that analogy is challenged by a half dozen or so references of uncertain meaning in Paul's letters.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
(Missed edit window) a better analogy then would be one of my uncles: he drank too much in his youth owing to an over-fondness to alcohol which has resulted in his liver being damaged so much that he's been told by the medics never to have a drink again. He still has that over-fondness for alcohol and indeed it may be hard-wired into his genes but he hasn't touched a drop for over 5 years. Thus 'too much' has, for him, become 'nothing at all'.
quote:This would, maybe, be the same Tradition that allowed the transporters of slaves in the 18 century to claim that they were doing nothing sinful?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not so uncertain given the weight of Church Tradition in interpreting them.
quote:It's not that we're not listening - but that the letter confirms what we're saying. Jeffrey John was considered unacceptable as a bishop because he was an openly gay man. The bit about him 'disrupting the common mind of the House of Bishops' is too stupid to require further comment, as our bishops differ over this issue and most others, including some which are actually important. A straight man whose attitudes were the same as his would have been acceptable - and, as has been pointed out, actually was acceptable in the event.
Originally posted by Spawn:
This is a link to a letter written by some Oxford clergy setting out the reasons for their opposition to +John's appointment. I've explained time and again this point of view over the years on SOF - it seems that no-one is listening.
quote:I wasn't claiming that the issue of slavery, per se, was analogous to the issue of gay relationships per se (though I think they are closer than I guess that you would), but merely the way in which Tradition can change over time whilst remaining true to the Gospel, and the role of prophetic action in bringing that about. It's not as if "It's the natural order of things, it has always been thus, St Paul sanctioned it" were arguments unheard by Wilberforce et al. The point is that we can be blind to certain implications of the Gospel, and the Holy Spirit has, from time to time, to draw attention to that blindness, and to bring about a change in Tradition to rectify it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, even accepting that your analogy of slavery is close to the present issue - which I don't - any prophetic action revising Church Tradition in the way described needs to be taken by the Church as a whole, not just a faction doing their own thing in clear defiance of...er...the whole Church.
quote:Another bad analogy. His "over-fondness to alcohol" has damaged him, and will kill him.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
(Missed edit window) a better analogy then would be one of my uncles: he drank too much in his youth owing to an over-fondness to alcohol which has resulted in his liver being damaged so much that he's been told by the medics never to have a drink again. He still has that over-fondness for alcohol and indeed it may be hard-wired into his genes but he hasn't touched a drop for over 5 years. Thus 'too much' has, for him, become 'nothing at all'.
quote:I don't think that anyone is asking you even to be a customer. You must sort out what you believe on this matter before God, as must I. I am not asking you to change your view, (though, clearly, I would be delighted if you did).
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The examples are good ones, albeit ones outside of the immediate contemporary context of the Anglican Communion. Of the three, Luther is the one who causes me the most problems, I guess, at first blush since both St Paul (Council of Jerusalem) and St Francis (+++Innocent III) had their actions subsequently commended by the Church pretty quickly. So that leaves Luther, who creates something of a problem for me in that his actions were not endorsed by the (Western) Church; however, unlike the present case, he did have a fair weight of Tradition on his side - as well as Scripture - as well as his beloved St Augustine and other ECFs, he also had more recent luminaries such as St Anselm on his side, and his break with Rome was about his insistence that the western Church revert to teaching as it had in the past and drop what (he at least perceived to be) recent innovative practices; he did not demand that it teach something which it had never taught before. The stance of the 'provisional NH wing' of TEC, on the other hand, seems to me to be, "Tradition is either wrong or needs to be reinterpreted (as does Scripture) on this subject, and the Church has consistently got it wrong for the last 2000 years. Sorry, but this customer ain't buying.
quote:We are asked to remain in Communion with people whose actions and attitudes we regard as sinful.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The use of 'customer' was unfortunate and smacks of consumerism, I guess; what I meant by it is that I'm being asked to remain in communion with those whose practices I regard as sinful. That gives me a problem.
quote:Thanks for not understanding the difference between consensual and non-consensual relationships. Oh, and also marking yourself out as a bigot by comparing polyamoury with paedophilia.
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
quote:The fact that you even pose that question speaks volumes. Why not go the whole hog and ask how homosexuality differs from paedophilia?
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:And the difference between being gay and being a polyamourist is?
Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
Being gay is not like wanting to commit adultry or whatever. It's not the orientation to do 'naughty things'. It's an orientation to love and to want to be loved in a particular way.
quote:As it is here, more or less.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Not where you live, I guess. But certainly where I live it's a regular topic of discussion -- more so at church than outside church, in fact, since outside church homosexuality is generally accepted.
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE] There is a weird disconnection between real chuches and their media representation. Nowadays almost no-one ever mentions this whole business in church or in church meetings. What we see is a lot of journalists telling us that we are obsessed with homosexuality, or with sex in general, when in fact it is almost never talked about at all.
quote:As far as I can remember I have genuinely have not been part of such a discussion in church for about twenty years. We used to talk about it, then we stopped.
We discuss what the Bible says about homosexuality on a regular basis. I lead a newcomer's class four times a year at my church, and someone asks about the church's interpretation of those six or seven verses dealing with same-gender sexual relations every single time.
quote:Because polyamourists are not being utterly deprived of marriage and companionship, and gays are? Seems simple enough, to me. It is not good for the man to be alone.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Now, answer the question. Why are you accepting of monogamous relationships and not non-monogamous ones? Why are the FOCA's being called exclusivist hate mongers for not accepting gays, but it is okay to exclude polyamourists?
quote:I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly here, Matt, but it seems that you are saying that what I interpreted your primary beef with ssm to be (ie unilateral action in the face of a lack of communion wide consensus) is, in a sense, secondary to your willingness to share communion with those who view these matters differently. Is this last statement of yours the your definative position? As I have said, I can appreciate a difference in view about the appropriateness or otherwise of a specific action by a specific group of people, such as the bishop and people of New Hampshire. I have certain reservations about that myself, though I think it hardly a communion breaking issue. But to refuse to share communion with others because you have an honestly held theological difference with them (ie the licitness of homosexual acts within a marriage-like committed and covenanted relationship) seems to me quite another thing. How do you reconcile that with Paul's warnings in Corinthians about failing to discern the body of Christ in communion? Isn't the logical upshot of this that you are actually saying that those who hold the contrary view are not Christians at all.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The use of 'customer' was unfortunate and smacks of consumerism, I guess; what I meant by it is that I'm being asked to remain in communion with those whose practices I regard as sinful. That gives me a problem.
quote:You do realize that's your opinion (and the Western Protestant church's) for Luther. Ask a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox about the changes that Luthur brought about in Christianity and they will surely say that Luthur changed Tradition.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The examples are good ones, albeit ones outside of the immediate contemporary context of the Anglican Communion. Of the three, Luther is the one who causes me the most problems, I guess, at first blush since both St Paul (Council of Jerusalem) and St Francis (+++Innocent III) had their actions subsequently commended by the Church pretty quickly. So that leaves Luther, who creates something of a problem for me in that his actions were not endorsed by the (Western) Church; however, unlike the present case, he did have a fair weight of Tradition on his side - as well as Scripture - as well as his beloved St Augustine and other ECFs, he also had more recent luminaries such as St Anselm on his side, and his break with Rome was about his insistence that the western Church revert to teaching as it had in the past and drop what (he at least perceived to be) recent innovative practices; he did not demand that it teach something which it had never taught before. The stance of the 'provisional NH wing' of TEC, on the other hand, seems to me to be, "Tradition is either wrong or needs to be reinterpreted (as does Scripture) on this subject, and the Church has consistently got it wrong for the last 2000 years. Sorry, but this customer ain't buying.
quote:How is this supposed to cash out in practice? If I've understood your post correctly (correct me if I have filled out the square brackets incorrectly), you're suggesting that UK Christians are generally accepting of homosexuality. This implies (to me, at least) that there should be some way for gay and lesbian Christians to regularize their relationships in the eyes of the Church, whether or not this is actually identified with Christian marriage. But there are uncontradicted statements on this Board that Anglican clergy in the UK are allowed to bless (e.g.) nuclear submarines but not gay couples. What gives?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:As it is here, more or less.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Not where you live, I guess. But certainly where I live it's a regular topic of discussion -- more so at church than outside church, in fact, since outside church homosexuality is generally accepted.
In practice Christians, even Evangelicals, do [accept homosexuality?] as well. Even those who do not think a homosexual partnership is the same thing as a marriage and do not think they should be marked in the same way in church.
quote:And the FOCA's would add "between a man and a woman" to "faithful and monogamous", and they would have extensive biblical support for that definition. Even if you argue away any biblical condemnation of homosexuality, you are left with the fact that every mention of marriage is in the context of heterosexuality.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Gay partnerships are exactly the same thing in every way as heterosexual ones are, with one exception that has no effect on what marriage is: the union two people who dedicate their lives to one another and to whatever children (or others) may become part of the family. Not at all the same thing as polyamoury, which explicitly breaks the "faithful, monogamous" definition (and essence, I believe) of Christian marriage.
quote:Heterosexual monogamy is the clear Biblical standard. If homosexual monogamy is permissible it certainly isn't clear in the Bible. The reasoning for accepting gays, is that it is okay as long as it is monogamous ("people like us"). Bigotry.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Monogamy is the clear Biblical standard; polygamy
quote:So you would argue that gay people should never go on a date, or hold hands with a beloved, or kiss someone they love, or dedicate themselves to caring for another human being.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
And the FOCA's would add "between a man and a woman" to "faithful and monogamous", and they would have extensive biblical support for that definition. Even if you argue away any biblical condemnation of homosexuality, you are left with the fact that every mention of marriage is in the context of heterosexuality.
And who says polyamourists can't be faithful inside their larger definition of "marriage" or "committed relationship"?
Pure bigotry. Gays are "people like us", and polyamourists are outsiders and scapegoats.
quote:No, I would argue that gay Christians should live celibate lives. Just as some heterosexual Christians do (eg if they can't find a Christian spouse).
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So you would argue that gay people should never go on a date, or hold hands with a beloved, or kiss someone they love, or dedicate themselves to caring for another human being.
quote:And so God created Woman, and Marriage. Why didn't he just make another Man? Not exactly compelling argument.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
How do you defend this? Particularly given the fact that God Himself says, upon watching Adam among the creatures, that "It is not good for the man to be alone"?
quote:There is a clear Biblical standard that everyone needs to be in a sexual relationship?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Why are you advocating exactly the opposite thing? You are violating a clear Biblical standard; how come?
quote:The polyamourists I know wouldn't be satisfied by monogamy. Just like other people aren't satisfied by celibacy.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(BTW, polyamourists are permitted all those things. Oh, unless they're gay, of course....)
quote:I can only agree with you, Adrian1, I'm still mystified as to why this is even after Zwingli's reply to my earlier post.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
I just think it's terribly sad that there are some in the Anglican Communion, most notably in what's sometimes referred to as the 'Global South' who are prepared to sacrifice the church's unity over an issue which is barely mentioned in the Bible and over which there's unlikely to ever be a consensus. Although I'm no Biblical scholar by any means, I'm very certain that Our Lord said nothing whatsoever in the Gospels about what grown up people who love each other choose to do in private. He did say a great deal about His followers loving one another and he prayed at some considerable length that they 'might be one' - united so that the world might believe. As a non-Biblical scholar, the only reference to homosexual practice that I'm aware of is in Romans Chapter 1 and it's by no means clear exactly what the writer's saying because he doesn't offer any elaboration on what is the briefest of brief statements. Even people who claim to have a scholarly knowledge of the Bible and, trust me, I'm not one of them, are by no means agreed as to what's referred to - hence the current situation. It is all very sad.
quote:I'm still more mystified by this. I'm not aware that the church sanctions polyamoury, apart from the fundementalist LDS. It's true that polygamy is to be found in the early part of the bible. In any case this is a difference of catagory, isn't it? A gay man or a straight man may choose to be polyamourous or Monogamous while remaining gay or straight. You seem to be confusing nature with choice.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
And who says polyamourists can't be faithful inside their larger definition of "marriage" or "committed relationship"?
Pure bigotry. Gays are "people like us", and polyamourists are outsiders and scapegoats.
quote:With respect, there seem to be a couple of conceptual conflations going on above:-
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly here, Matt, but it seems that you are saying that what I interpreted your primary beef with ssm to be (ie unilateral action in the face of a lack of communion wide consensus) is, in a sense, secondary to your willingness to share communion with those who view these matters differently. Is this last statement of yours the your definative position? As I have said, I can appreciate a difference in view about the appropriateness or otherwise of a specific action by a specific group of people, such as the bishop and people of New Hampshire. I have certain reservations about that myself, though I think it hardly a communion breaking issue. But to refuse to share communion with others because you have an honestly held theological difference with them (ie the licitness of homosexual acts within a marriage-like committed and covenanted relationship) seems to me quite another thing. How do you reconcile that with Paul's warnings in Corinthians about failing to discern the body of Christ in communion? Isn't the logical upshot of this that you are actually saying that those who hold the contrary view are not Christians at all.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The use of 'customer' was unfortunate and smacks of consumerism, I guess; what I meant by it is that I'm being asked to remain in communion with those whose practices I regard as sinful. That gives me a problem.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Yes and no; the Augsburg JDDJ certainly makes for interesting reading, at least from the Catholic POV
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
quote:You do realize that's your opinion (and the Western Protestant church's) for Luther. Ask a Roman Catholic or an Orthodox about the changes that Luthur brought about in Christianity and they will surely say that Luthur changed Tradition.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The examples are good ones, albeit ones outside of the immediate contemporary context of the Anglican Communion. Of the three, Luther is the one who causes me the most problems, I guess, at first blush since both St Paul (Council of Jerusalem) and St Francis (+++Innocent III) had their actions subsequently commended by the Church pretty quickly. So that leaves Luther, who creates something of a problem for me in that his actions were not endorsed by the (Western) Church; however, unlike the present case, he did have a fair weight of Tradition on his side - as well as Scripture - as well as his beloved St Augustine and other ECFs, he also had more recent luminaries such as St Anselm on his side, and his break with Rome was about his insistence that the western Church revert to teaching as it had in the past and drop what (he at least perceived to be) recent innovative practices; he did not demand that it teach something which it had never taught before. The stance of the 'provisional NH wing' of TEC, on the other hand, seems to me to be, "Tradition is either wrong or needs to be reinterpreted (as does Scripture) on this subject, and the Church has consistently got it wrong for the last 2000 years. Sorry, but this customer ain't buying.
quote:Really?? I wasn't aware that St Francis had started a new church. What's it called?
St. Francis certainly didn't go ask the church anything when he started. He simply did what he felt he had to do (and then got brought up to the church authorities after he ticked the local ones off). He started a new church without asking. He just decided that it had to be done (as he felt that the church was excluding people), so he did it.
quote:But no separate ecclesial body emerged - it was thrashed out through consensus.
And read much of Paul's writings and you see that the Jew/Gentile problem wasn't easily or quickly solved and Paul had to continue to push and pull against Tradition in order to get it changed. We see it as pretty clear cut. They didn't.
quote:I'm not sure that the two situations are equivalent. It's one thing to say, "It's not permitted for me to take communion in your church because I am a Catholic, and canon law forbids it" and quite a different thing to say "It is, in theory, possible for me to kneel next to you at he communion rail, but I am choosing not to, because in my view you are living a lifestyle of which I do not approve." The second of these scenarios seems, to me, to run perilously close to violating 1 Cor: 11:29. We are all one body because we all share one bread. Refusal to do this sort of implies that you don't think that they are part of the same "one body" as you are.
2. Conflation of 'not being in communion with' with 'not regarding others as Christians'. Most of my mother's family are Catholic. As such, thanks to their Magisterium, they are not allowed to regard themselves as being in communion with me, yet none of them regards me as anything less than a Christian (as far as I know!). I guess that that is what I am possibly saying about the NH crowd and their supporters - they're Christians (as far as I know anyone to be Christian) but I'm not sure that we're still in full communion with each other as part of the same Church. Dunno.
quote:Well, not him personally. Exclusive communions are the product of history, and the result of the Church missing the mark in past times, and, to be frank, neither side in either the Great Schism nor the Reformation can claim to be without responsibility. I do think that exclusive worship should be a source of sorrow rather than of pride, and look forward to the day when we can all share communion together. So I don't think that we should use the fact that the body of Chist is already and tragically divided as a way of defending futher fractures in it.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think the two situations are more equivalent than you'd like in that behind the Catholic canonical prohibition lies the same sort of reasoning. So, is +++Benedict guilty of not discerning the body of Christ?
quote:Does that give you the right to refuse to share communion with him. I'm not sure how whether the person with whom you are refusing to share communion is a Bishop or not is at all germane to the question. It's your attitude towards him/her that will surely be the deciding factor for you?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But here we have a bishop of the AC saying and doing that which the AC has said 'no' to.
quote:Would not the Catholic response be that the efficacy of the sacrament is not affected by the worthiness of the minister. Of course, I think the Knights of St Columba would no doubt pay him a pretty swift visit! (joke!!). I thought (you probably know better than me) that refusing to receive from a duly appointed priest was regarded as sinful in Catholic teaching? But, as I say, the situation wouldn't arise, because the said priest would be suspended.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Returning to the Catholic parallel, the analogy there would be if say, +Crispian Hollis (the nearest Catholic bishop to where I'm typing) were to announce that he was living with his male partner and that he saw nothing wrong in that. What advice would you give a Catholic as to whether +Crispian was in full communion with him or her?
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:Really?? I wasn't aware that St Francis had started a new church. What's it called?
St. Francis certainly didn't go ask the church anything when he started. He simply did what he felt he had to do (and then got brought up to the church authorities after he ticked the local ones off). He started a new church without asking. He just decided that it had to be done (as he felt that the church was excluding people), so he did it.
quote:Which took time. Time that neither side in this seems to want to have. All decisions must be made NOW not in a year or two after people have had time to calm down and to look at things with clear and level heads (and have the time to study scripture and pray for the promptings of the Holy Spirit - Who seems to have been lost in all of this...).
quote:But no separate ecclesial body emerged - it was thrashed out through consensus.
And read much of Paul's writings and you see that the Jew/Gentile problem wasn't easily or quickly solved and Paul had to continue to push and pull against Tradition in order to get it changed. We see it as pretty clear cut. They didn't.
quote:You seem to believe that people choose to be polyamourous.
Originally posted by Tubifex Maximus:
quote:I'm still more mystified by this. I'm not aware that the church sanctions polyamoury, apart from the fundementalist LDS. It's true that polygamy is to be found in the early part of the bible. In any case this is a difference of catagory, isn't it? A gay man or a straight man may choose to be polyamourous or Monogamous while remaining gay or straight. You seem to be confusing nature with choice.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
And who says polyamourists can't be faithful inside their larger definition of "marriage" or "committed relationship"?
Pure bigotry. Gays are "people like us", and polyamourists are outsiders and scapegoats.
quote:Surely there has been that time - we've had two (?) years since ++Rowan's call for a 'time of reflection', five since +Robinson's consecration and 10 since the last Lambeth Conference. How much more time do you want?
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Which took time. Time that neither side in this seems to want to have. All decisions must be made NOW not in a year or two after people have had time to calm down and to look at things with clear and level heads (and have the time to study scripture and pray for the promptings of the Holy Spirit - Who seems to have been lost in all of this...).
quote:OK, let's try again. Gay people are commanded never to date, to kiss somebody they love, to hold another person in intimacy - for an entire lifetime.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
No, I would argue that gay Christians should live celibate lives. Just as some heterosexual Christians do (eg if they can't find a Christian spouse).
Oh, and you can dedicate yourself to caring for another human being without needing to fuck them.
quote:Yes, but you didn't in the meantime have bishops going round and uniltarally ordaining women. And even 2-5 years is considerably longer than your 'NOW'.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And how many years of discernment did it take before the ordination of women was agreed in the Church of England? The Act of Synod was passed in 1992, but there was a resolution at the 1968 Lambeth Conference to involve women as much as possible in worship pending a decision on the ordination of women.
And you don't even have the same avatar!
quote:I actually agree with you about how the process should ideally have been approached - that is, about "hoping and praying and talking."
Originally posted by Matt Black:
To give you a Catholic example, I know quite a few Catholics on the progressive wing of that Church who disagree with the Magisterium over issue such as the DH under discussion here, plus ordination of women and celibacy of the clergy; however none of these individuals would dream of eg: ordaining an practising homosexual, or a woman, or a married individual, in defiance of that Magisterium (or at least if they did they realise that they would be putting themselves beyond the pale). Rather they hope and pray (and talk) that the Magisterium will change tack on these issues. It's the hearty "f*** you" that certain parts of TEC and AC-Can have said to the rest of the AC that is, as I see it, the primary and potentially communion-breaking issue
quote:It is, though, isn't it? So why shouldn't TEC and others act on their own? No response seems to be forthcoming from anybody else anyway.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely it shouldn't have to be an either/or?
quote:But that is precisely the point - maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. If the conservative lobby had treated gay people like human beings throughout, whilst making clear their belief that we are called to celibacy, perhaps this would have been possible. Consider the pledges made in Lambeth 98 - listening to gay people, no discrimination based upon orientation alone, no homophobia. If these pledges had been honoured, then I have little doubt that it would have been possible to meet the election of +Robinson with a coalition of conservatives and liberals who accepted the need to apply the breaks for the sake of unity. Just look at the endless compromises the liberals have offered even despite the ill-treatment they've suffered!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Surely it shouldn't have to be an either/or?
quote:I don't think that is the correct Christian attitude. The highlight of my life was getting saved, and I intend to not have a physical relationship with a women until we are at least engaged.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
OK, let's try again. Gay people are commanded never to date, to kiss somebody they love, to hold another person in intimacy - for an entire lifetime.
Heterosexuals are, contrariwise, heartily encouraged to do all these things. The first date is a big, exciting moment; a first kiss is something one always remembers; marriage is considered the highlight of people's lives. It's the time when they swear to "love, honor, and cherish" their spouse, and to care for them for life.
quote:You mean apart from some denoms priests right?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
quote:Christians aren't called to live ordinary human lives.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
It's not, IOW, all about "fucking" someone; it's about living an ordinary human life in the world.
quote:Why don't you kill yourself, check with God about the permissibility of homosexual unions, and get back to us?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But listen, I have an idea: why don't you yourself vow to live a celibate life and show us all how it's done? If you're married, you will simply have to leave your wife and family; after all, that's what you'd demand of a gay Christian. How about being a good sport and a role model? If you're not willing to do this, I don't really know why anybody should listen to you.
quote:*buzzzzzz*
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You don't seem to have any good reasons for what you're arguing, other than that it comes from your own particular worldview.
quote:"No you don't. Your argument wouldn't convince a child."
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
And we have by far the better arguments based in reason and reality and faith, I'm afraid.
quote:But people should still be punished for all the other unchosen desires that lead to sin? The same studies that show homosexuality is from birth, also show a lot of other things are from birth.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Most people recognize that human beings do better when they have love in their lives. More people each day are starting to recognize that gay people shouldn't be punished for an unchosen orientation towards members of their own sex
quote:No, they are directly comparable. You are ignoring part of scripture to fit your world view, so why shouldn't we ignore a slightly different part of scripture?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Most people aren't falling for the "polyamoury" argument anymore; the two things are not comparable and everybody can see it.
quote:Why read the scripture at all if you aren't going to attempt to take it seriously? You may as well go with your "feelings about God" and do whatever you want, despite how the Apostles warned about that repeatedly. But of course modern people know so much more than the people that actually had direct experience with the risen Christ.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Fewer people will read Scripture literally going forward, but will work to try to understand its intent.
quote:And neither can you. If you actually read some of the Gospel you might become convinced as I have that homosexuality isn't permissible.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In any case: gay people will continue to be and become Christian. You can't control where the Gospel will go and what it will do.
quote:That's a voluntary choice for priests. You can always choose not to be ordained, or leave the church once you are.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:You mean apart from some denoms priests right?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
quote:As I said: you are not forbidden a physical relationship for the rest of your life.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I don't think that is the correct Christian attitude. The highlight of my life was getting saved, and I intend to not have a physical relationship with a women until we are at least engaged.
quote:And yet you don't seem to be doing anything particularly out of the ordinary; put your money where your mouth is and become a celibate yourself. If this is so important to you, surely you'll help us out? We need to see that it's possible, and you're just the guy to provide the example for us. (BTW, the fact that you find my example so outlandish - you suggest that I "kill myself"! - sort of makes the point, doesn't it?)
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Christians aren't called to live ordinary human lives.
quote:Uh-huh. And how, again, is homosexuality "sin"? You haven't convinced me. I'm convinced with most other things, but not this one. It's up to you to offer an argument that works - and again, remember that I don't share your views on what the Bible has to say on this topic. (Let me remind you again that I agree with and follow precisely what Leviticus says about "lying with a man."
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But people should still be punished for all the other unchosen desires that lead to sin? The same studies that show homosexuality is from birth, also show a lot of other things are from birth.
quote:They are still told "they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever".
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That's a voluntary choice for priests. You can always choose not to be ordained, or leave the church once you are.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:You mean apart from some denoms priests right?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
quote:No, they're not. They are only forbidden them if they choose to remain priests.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:They are still told "they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever".
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That's a voluntary choice for priests. You can always choose not to be ordained, or leave the church once you are.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:You mean apart from some denoms priests right?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
No heterosexual is ever told they are forbidden these things for the rest of their lives. Ever.
quote:Yes, I shall ride through the country side with my legions of doom. And capture the naughty nympho homos in Euphemism camps.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Your idea, on the contrary, is to force it on other people so that your understanding of faith is upheld.
quote:No, you do not understand how to conduct an argument. "My arguments are the best in the world and you can't deny it."
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You really do need to convince us all - and the rest of the world - or else it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that my arguments are better.
quote:If popularity is the ultimate decider of truth we should become Muslims or atheists.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
They do seem to be changing more peoples' minds than yours do.
quote:How would you know what I am doing? You don't know me, and you don't know how I am living.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:And yet you don't seem to be doing anything particularly out of the ordinary; put your money where your mouth is and become a celibate yourself.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Christians aren't called to live ordinary human lives.
quote:You already know it is possibly, you even mentioned celibate priests. You are just using cheap rhetorical tricks.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
If this is so important to you, surely you'll help us out? We need to see that it's possible, and you're just the guy to provide the example for us.
quote:I don't find it outlandish, I find it a pathetic trick. Used by someone who apparently would rather play the man instead of the ball. Yet you keep telling me that you really have an excellent argument, it would be interesting to hear it.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(BTW, the fact that you find my example so outlandish - you suggest that I "kill myself"! - sort of makes the point, doesn't it?)
quote:It was your argument that homosexuality wasn't sin because it was "unchosen".
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:Uh-huh. And how, again, is homosexuality "sin"?
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But people should still be punished for all the other unchosen desires that lead to sin? The same studies that show homosexuality is from birth, also show a lot of other things are from birth.
quote:I do. If you wish me to believe otherwise, you may make a case.
Originally posted by The_Raptor
You seem to believe that people choose to be polyamourous.
quote:He may
"a gay man or a straight man may choose to be celibate or not celibate while remaining gay or straight. "
quote:
If you can choose between monogamy and promiscuity, why can't you choose between celibacy and being sexually active?
quote:
You can understand why gay people would struggle to remain celibate, but you can't understand why some people can't stay monogamous.
quote:Bullshit.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
...Bigotry.
quote:I was mulling this over further last night (yes, alright, I'm a sad, obsessive muppet!): surely there comes a point in the relationship between Party A and Party B when, if you have A saying constantly to B, "What you're doing is wrong and it annoys the heck out of me and please stop doing it" and B saying "No it's not wrong, I want to do it and I will keep on doing it regardless of what you say and it annoys the heck out of me that you keep telling not to do it", one would have to question the degree to which any kind of meaningful close relationship could continue to exist between the the parties.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Does that give you the right to refuse to share communion with him. I'm not sure how whether the person with whom you are refusing to share communion is a Bishop or not is at all germane to the question. It's your attitude towards him/her that will surely be the deciding factor for you?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But here we have a bishop of the AC saying and doing that which the AC has said 'no' to.
quote:Oh, absolutely, I'm not saying that you would necessarily choose to associate with them. But that isn't quite the same thing. It's more like, say, one of your partners behaving in this way. You might not choose to go to lunch with them, but you have certain mutual responsibilities to fulfil towards each other, regardless of how irritating they might be. Especially if the Senior Partner tells you just to get on with it!
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:I was mulling this over further last night (yes, alright, I'm a sad, obsessive muppet!): surely there comes a point in the relationship between Party A and Party B when, if you have A saying constantly to B, "What you're doing is wrong and it annoys the heck out of me and please stop doing it" and B saying "No it's not wrong, I want to do it and I will keep on doing it regardless of what you say and it annoys the heck out of me that you keep telling not to do it", one would have to question the degree to which any kind of meaningful close relationship could continue to exist between the the parties.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:Does that give you the right to refuse to share communion with him. I'm not sure how whether the person with whom you are refusing to share communion is a Bishop or not is at all germane to the question. It's your attitude towards him/her that will surely be the deciding factor for you?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But here we have a bishop of the AC saying and doing that which the AC has said 'no' to.
quote:This is starting to get heated - can people veer away from getting personal, please?
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:Bullshit.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
...Bigotry.
You keep yammering about "bigotry" in an attempt to shut other people up. Based on what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, how do you think he would react to your claims?
Oh, I'll bet he was a bigot too.
Ross
quote:And this, for me, is the real big issue. The notion that people who believe that the divine can become incarnate in Human flesh should demean the humanity of a group of people. I have no other horse in this race. It seems clear to me that all the efforts to compare homosexuality with sins of doing such as promiscuity and pederasty are attempts to cover up the fact that the belief that to be homosexual is wrong is to criticise not someones doing but their being. I feel I must lay my cards on the table here and say that I believe this is heinous. Criticise someones actions by all means, but to say to someone, anyone what you are is wrong appalls me. This in the light of a scriptural witness that is, to put it mildly, thin and ambiguous.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
everybody's too busy playing the ball. All the anti-gay-partnership arguments depend entirely on not recognizing the humanity of gay people, and I was trying to get you to notice this by putting you in the position yourself.
quote:Hence the reason for my challenge and for describing clearly why I think it is necessary to make it. If nobody meets it, or promises to tread more lightly on their fellow human beings, then I will feel free to draw my own conclusions about what all this has to do with the way of Christ, or the Word of God.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
But TM, there's a seventy-page thread in which many, many attempts have been made to do establish how wrong homosexuality is. Not one of them has stood up, but has anybody's mind changed?
quote:I just realized, dj_ordinaire, that the argument from Scripture against homosexuality is entirely circular! I didn't know it before, but the other thread going right now has made it very clear.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
But TM, there's a seventy-page thread in which many, many attempts have been made to do establish how wrong homosexuality is. Not one of them has stood up, but has anybody's mind changed?
quote:You've never heard a Sermon on 1 Cor 13?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I can't remember ever hearing a sermon on 1 Corinthians 13 and the "Christian virtues," and what this means for all of us. And believe me: it shows in the Anglican dust-up about this. I'm not surprised, either, that so many people have such a negative view of Christianity, given the way we all behave - as if 1 Cor 13 had never been written.
Do you really mean that? I'd be hard pressed to think of a chapter of Scripture I've heard more frequently preached upon (the ones describing the Annunciation, Nativity, Crucifixion and Resurrection aside).
quote:Yes, I do mean it. Of course, I was completely out of the church for three decades until about 7 years ago, so it's not that surprising, really.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:You've never heard a Sermon on 1 Cor 13?
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I can't remember ever hearing a sermon on 1 Corinthians 13 and the "Christian virtues," and what this means for all of us. And believe me: it shows in the Anglican dust-up about this. I'm not surprised, either, that so many people have such a negative view of Christianity, given the way we all behave - as if 1 Cor 13 had never been written.
quote:That may be the case. But that is not, in my view, grounds for choosing to snub Christ and to refuse to share communion.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
surely there comes a point in the relationship between Party A and Party B when, if you have A saying constantly to B, "What you're doing is wrong and it annoys the heck out of me and please stop doing it" and B saying "No it's not wrong, I want to do it and I will keep on doing it regardless of what you say and it annoys the heck out of me that you keep telling not to do it", one would have to question the degree to which any kind of meaningful close relationship could continue to exist between the the parties.
quote:I have never heard of the term 'Christian virtues' and I have been churchgoing in the UK for the past 50 years.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In fact, when a friend referred to "the Christian virtues," I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what this meant; I had, literally, no clue. (It could be partly due to our fairly dismal educational system in the States, I suppose!)
quote:Nope. It's something to keep in mind -- and something the FOCAs should put higher up on their lists.
Originally posted by Comper's Child:
Quite right about sharing communion with those with whom we disagree. Can any of us (or them perhaps in this case) really say that at every Eucharist they are in complete harmony with each and every other communicant? ! I think not...
quote:These are also called "the theological virtues" - but I always thought they were better described as "the Christian virtues" because they occur in the Epistles.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I have never heard of the term 'Christian virtues' and I have been churchgoing in the UK for the past 50 years.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
In fact, when a friend referred to "the Christian virtues," I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what this meant; I had, literally, no clue. (It could be partly due to our fairly dismal educational system in the States, I suppose!)
quote:Could I ask where you got your Bible? Cos I've never heard of one that only contains one chapter of one book. Must be quite a collector's item.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Shouldn't this be taught all the time?
quote:I didn't say it should read all the time.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:Could I ask where you got your Bible? Cos I've never heard of one that only contains one chapter of one book. Must be quite a collector's item.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Shouldn't this be taught all the time?
quote:It's probably a tangent to this thread but I don't think they are unique to Christianity. In particular, The Golden Rule is shared by most major religions.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But if these virtues are unique to Christianity,
quote:Well, we're talking about the three particular "theological virtues" of "faith, hope, and love" as articulated in 1 Cor 13 and developed and discussed by others afterwards.
Originally posted by Paul M:
quote:It's probably a tangent to this thread but I don't think they are unique to Christianity. In particular, The Golden Rule is shared by most major religions.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But if these virtues are unique to Christianity,
quote:I don't understand. We know God is good because the Bible says it is so, and the Bible says it is so because in fact God IS good. Some of us believe that the Bible says that homosexual activity (i.e. physical sexual activity) is wrong, and it follows that the reason the Bible says that is because it is wrong, against the will of God. We may in fact be wrong, but I can't see how that is circular reasoning.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I just realized, dj_ordinaire, that the argument from Scripture against homosexuality is entirely circular! I didn't know it before, but the other thread going right now has made it very clear.
The argument is this: Homosexuality is bad because the Bible says it's wrong - and the Bible says it's wrong because homosexuality is bad. Amazing!!!
quote:Some people have all the luck.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Hey, I practice what I preach -- I received the host from the hands of +John Shelby Spong not long ago!
quote:Indeed. You "only" said that it should be taught all the time, which makes it all so much better.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I didn't say it should read all the time.
quote:That this one passage is unique and uniquely vital to Christianity is your interpretation, but I'm confused about what you want. I'm assuming that despite your initial complaint, you don't really think every sermon should begin "The text for today's sermon, as ever, will be 1Cor 13..." [cue groans from the congregation], but I don't see what you do want. A good sermon will naturally give a balanced account of Christianity and the Bible's message, but do you really think that can only be done with explicit reference to this one particular passage?
But if these virtues are unique to Christianity, and as key as they seem to be - what else is anywhere near as important? - then surely everything else is related to them?
quote:I think you're taking one statement way too literally; it wasn't meant that way. Here's my point: If "faith, hope, and love" are central to Christianity - and surely "love" is, since it is the Summary of the Law, and since we're even supposed to love our enemies! - then surely it should show up in our lives and actions towards others? I just don't see it much, particularly in the case of the current Anglican drama.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
That this one passage is unique and uniquely vital to Christianity is your interpretation, but I'm confused about what you want. I'm assuming that despite your initial complaint, you don't really think every sermon should begin "The text for today's sermon, as ever, will be 1Cor 13..." [cue groans from the congregation], but I don't see what you do want.
quote:All arguments that comes solely from Scripture are circular, though: God wills it because the Bible says so, and the Bible says so because God wills it.
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
I don't understand. We know God is good because the Bible says it is so, and the Bible says it is so because in fact God IS good. Some of us believe that the Bible says that homosexual activity (i.e. physical sexual activity) is wrong, and it follows that the reason the Bible says that is because it is wrong, against the will of God. We may in fact be wrong, but I can't see how that is circular reasoning.
quote:I'm not entirely sure how you can say this when our lectionaries appoint the passage to be read at Sunday Eucharists, Evensongs, and midweek Feasts and devotions at least annually - as well as recommending it for use at weddings and funerals - the expectation being that it will often be mentioned in sermons on those occasions.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
(There doesn't seem to be even any pretense at teaching these in Anglicanism, though - or in most of the Protestant world, as far as I know.
quote:That is only half-true. It is equally true that on the keryg threads some have tried to demonstrate that (e.g.) Paul didn't really condemn homosexuality. None of them have stood up there either. No one has changed their mind there. You really mean that they haven't convinced you.
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
But TM, there's a seventy-page thread in which many, many attempts have been made to do establish how wrong homosexuality is. Not one of them has stood up, but has anybody's mind changed?
quote:Depends what you are talking about. If you are referring to a societal ethic then sure.
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
But people who don't accept the Bible as "inerrant" or "infallible" (depending on what you meant by that) won't accept such arguments; you need something else to argue from: reason.
quote:As I've posted (much to Spawn's annoyance) on one of the other GAFCON threads - this claim would only hold up if they treated women priests and divorce/remarriage in the same scriptural way. That they haven't - deciding that these are secondary matters over which they can disagree - tends to make me, and a lot of other people, think "No, it's really about the gays."
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hence, FOCA's claim that it is really about scripture is only fair, from their POV.
quote:Well, you're right about hymns. But I don't agree that a mere reading from the lectionary once a year constitutes a "teaching." (It's not appointed for funerals in the BCP 1979, although it is for weddings; unfortunately we have a lot more of the former than the latter at my parish, since we have many elderly members and hardly anybody in their 20s.)
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I'm not entirely sure how you can say this when our lectionaries appoint the passage to be read at Sunday Eucharists, Evensongs, and midweek Feasts and devotions at least annually - as well as recommending it for use at weddings and funerals - the expectation being that it will often be mentioned in sermons on those occasions.
That's before we get on to the many hymns which have been inspired by it, representations of the virtues in glass or paintings, &c &c.
We may not be very good at expressing these virtues, but I don't think that this is due to any lack of familiarity!
quote:And some of us have studied the Hebrew Law and noticed that any form of sexual behavior that wasn't likely to result in offspring was condemned. Some of us look at context, and come to the conclusion that a small embattled minority needed to keep the birthrate high -- and that the Law on these matters reflects that.
Originally posted by Davy Wavy Morrison:
...Some of us believe that the Bible says that homosexual activity (i.e. physical sexual activity) is wrong, and it follows that the reason the Bible says that is because it is wrong, against the will of God. ...
quote:Who vilifies straight people? I'm missing something here.
We are quite rightly told these days not to vilify gay people. It is nice when we are accorded the same courtesy (that's a general comment, not referring to anyone here).
quote:Good or bad?
Some people have all the luck.
quote:I read about the GAFCON meeting in Friday's Church Times including the 'Jerusalem Statement' which was printed as well. It wouldn't surprise me if a good number of shipmates have also done the same. What I find dangerous and alarming is the insistence by the GAFCON leaders that the Anglican tradition is a 'sola scriptura' one and that it can be justified by appeal to the Thirty Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Neither of these cornerstones of Anglicanism insist on Scripture being the last word or the sole source of authority. No, the true Anglican tradition which Cranmer, Latimer, Hooker, Andrewes and the other Caroline Divines would have understood is one of joint appeal to Scripture, Tradition and Reason. Secondly, GAFCON appear to propagate the idea that the churches of thev west are preaching a 'false Gospel' of relative values. This is dangerous nonsense and it needs to be exposed as such. The Church of England, ECUSA and the Canasdian Anglican Church have taught nothing but the traditional Gospel and done their best to interpret it in ways that meet th contemporary needs of modern people.
Originally posted by Albertus:
From today's Guardian report of the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans at GAFCON
quote:Or, possibly, for the earth to open so that they could go the other way...
Details of Foca were finalised yesterday morning and the reading of the statement was greeted with standing ovations, spontaneous singing, hugging and tears of joy. One of those present said he thought the skies were about to open so the delegates could ascend to heaven.
quote:This idea of 'sola scriptura' is just a red herring. I've got my own criticisms of the Jerusalem Declaration (and I think they're a little better and more accurate than this one), but 'sola scriptura' has no application here. If you'd actually read the declaration you'd have noticed that the Bible is mentioned as containing all things necessary to salvation (to paraphrase) - I really didn't think that was in dispute. Furthermore, it recognises historic and consensual teaching of the Church, the Fathers, and the Councils, as well as other recent sources of authority - the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer. Hardly a 'sola scriptura' approach.
Originally posted by Adrian1:
What I find dangerous and alarming is the insistence by the GAFCON leaders that the Anglican tradition is a 'sola scriptura' one and that it can be justified by appeal to the Thirty Nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer. Neither of these cornerstones of Anglicanism insist on Scripture being the last word or the sole source of authority.
quote:Oh, it's the 'true Anglican tradition' is it? Who gave you the right to define it? Furthermore it's not a joint and equal appeal to scripture, tradition and reason. Scripture is always considered primary by the Caroline Divines.
No, the true Anglican tradition which Cranmer, Latimer, Hooker, Andrewes and the other Caroline Divines would have understood is one of joint appeal to Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
quote:I love this line. Do you really think they've taught nothing but the traditional Gospel? That's a pretty major claim, and of course it is nonsense. I'd be laughing less if you had qualified it even a little.
The Church of England, ECUSA and the Canasdian Anglican Church have taught nothing but the traditional Gospel and done their best to interpret it in ways that meet th contemporary needs of modern people.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:I can probably agree with that to some extent, under the proviso that to talk of 'inclusion' as an absolute value is certainly not traditional nor an extension thereof. The Archbishop of Canterbury distinguishes between 'inclusion' and 'welcome'. I'm with him on that.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
No, a lot that's not "the traditional Gospel" has been taught (and pushed) by the liberal churches. Some of it, I believe, is a logical extension of the traditional Gospel as taught by Anglicanism (inclusion, in particular; using historical criticism, for another), and some of it is not.
quote:It's interesting that it's those who claim they are are prioritising 'inclusion' who actually come up with rigid definitions of Anglicanism to exclude. It's a real danger for all of us to over-define Anglicanism in such a way that others are 'unchurched'. I can understand people taking offence at terms like 'false gospel' applied over-generally to the western churches, but would like you to note that both sides are playing the same game.
On the other hand, a lot of the Jerusalem gang is doing things that are not remotely "traditional" in an Anglican sense.
And as for the whole thing about being "confessional Anglicans" -- I'd still like to know whence that particular neologism springs.
Ross
quote:Again, this is a conflation of 'sharing Holy Communion/the Eucharist together' with 'being in communion as one Church/one ecclesial body'. You can do the former (in Anglicanism at least) without being the latter: at our CofE place at Holy Communion, for example, the direction is given that anyone who is a non-Anglican but in good standing with their own church is welcome to receive, and thus we have from time to time Methodists, Baptists etc receiving communion with us; that doesn't make them Anglicans though. For them to become Anglicans, there would need to be some kind of consent to, for want of a better term, 'Anglican core values'. Now we can argue to the cow's come home as to what those 'core values' are, but suffice it to say that I remain to be convinced that the actions of TEC and AC-Can are in accordance with those (doubtless there are posters here who would say the same about GAFCON) but this does raise an interesting further point:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:That may be the case. But that is not, in my view, grounds for choosing to snub Christ and to refuse to share communion.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
surely there comes a point in the relationship between Party A and Party B when, if you have A saying constantly to B, "What you're doing is wrong and it annoys the heck out of me and please stop doing it" and B saying "No it's not wrong, I want to do it and I will keep on doing it regardless of what you say and it annoys the heck out of me that you keep telling not to do it", one would have to question the degree to which any kind of meaningful close relationship could continue to exist between the the parties.
We share communion not because we have a "meaningful close relationship", but because we share faith in the same saving Christ.
We share communion not because we agree about everything - or even about all the really important things, but because we agree that in Christ is our salvation (however we may understand that).
Sharing communion is not the same thing as saying "I agree with you" or even "it doesn't matter that we disagree". Sharing communion IS saying "we may not agree about a lot of things, but we agree about seeking to follow Christ and be obedient to him".
Refusing to share communion is - to me - equivalent to claiming that the other person is not really a Christian. Or - to put it another way - if you can't share communion then don't pretend to be part of the same Church. Those who refuse to share communion are making sweeping judgements about the faith and integrity of those they are ignoring and rejecting.
quote:Being in communion *is* most concretely expressed by sharing communion at the altar.
Again, this is a conflation of 'sharing Holy Communion/the Eucharist together' with 'being in communion as one Church/one ecclesial body'. You can do the former (in Anglicanism at least) without being the latter:
quote:I think a little clarification is called for here. What I meant was that that the churches in question haven't taught any other 'Gospel' than the traditional one. However they have to interpret it afresh for every generation and apply it in a way which is relevant to people living in the complex and challenging world of today. That necessarily involves a critical, scholarly and robust engagement with Scripture. What is palpable nonsense is the idea put forward by GAFCON that the western churches have propagated some sort of 'false Gospel' of which they need to repent. If anyone needs to repent it's the leaders and Primates of GAFCON who are doing a great deal of harm to the unity of the Anglican Communion by sowing the seeds of division.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Church of England, ECUSA and the Canasdian Anglican Church have taught nothing but the traditional Gospel and done their best to interpret it in ways that meet th contemporary needs of modern people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love this line. Do you really think they've taught nothing but the traditional Gospel? That's a pretty major claim, and of course it is nonsense. I'd be laughing less if you had qualified it even a little.
quote:"There is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, male or free, in Christ Jesus." I was brought up to believe that with all my heart -- and by a very conservative, Anglican-to-the-core great-great-etc. niece of +John Cosin, yet. Inclusion and welcome have always been essentially the same in my experience -- and, again, I'm from a conservative background. It's what distinguishes us from the illiberal and exclusionary, on both sides.
Originally posted by Spawn:
I can probably agree with that to some extent, under the proviso that to talk of 'inclusion' as an absolute value is certainly not traditional nor an extension thereof. The Archbishop of Canterbury distinguishes between 'inclusion' and 'welcome'. I'm with him on that.
quote:I'm sorry, Spawn; I realize that these folks are your buddies, but I repeat: The notion of "confessional Anglicans" is a complete neologism, and simply too bizarre to be entertained.
It's interesting that it's those who claim they are are prioritising 'inclusion' who actually come up with rigid definitions of Anglicanism to exclude....
quote:Hey, now, don't get mean. We Presbyterians may be confessional, but we're working our way towards the ordination of gays as well. (We got one approved by the Presbytery! Go Lisa!)
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
The Jensenistas should have the courage of their convictions, walk away from the precious property, and just join the Presbyterians.
quote:A distinction without a difference. Especially considering that it's not unusual for a priest to invite people to say one of the creeds by saying, "Let us confess our faith in the words of the Nicene/Apostles Creed."
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Lutherans are confessional; we base our faith on the Creeds.
quote:Welcome is unqualified, inclusion is qualified. As Anglicans we don't have completely open communion, we don't ordain everyone who comes through the church door. Welcome makes no expectations, inclusion does.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
"There is no male or female, Jew or Gentile, male or free, in Christ Jesus." I was brought up to believe that with all my heart -- and by a very conservative, Anglican-to-the-core great-great-etc. niece of +John Cosin, yet. Inclusion and welcome have always been essentially the same in my experience -- and, again, I'm from a conservative background. It's what distinguishes us from the illiberal and exclusionary, on both sides.
quote:What Ruthw said, and what I said before. I've pointed to historic documents in Anglicanism which were confessions. You haven't addressed these points.
I'm sorry, Spawn; I realize that these folks are your buddies, but I repeat: The notion of "confessional Anglicans" is a complete neologism, and simply too bizarre to be entertained.
quote:I don't think this particular paragraph distinguishes you from the 'illiberal and exclusionary' you referred to above. In fact, your sense of irony is badly askew. Why single out Sydney and the Jensens in this context? Is that because it's too politically incorrect to tell the Nigerians, Ugandans and other Africans to get knotted? Why this obsession with Sydney? I don't think you've ever been there.
The Jensenistas should have the courage of their convictions, walk away from the precious property, and just join the Presbyterians. They'd be happier there, and the actual Anglicans in Sydney would be happier with them there, too.
Ross
quote:But we do (more or less) baptise 'anyone who comes through the church doors'. That *is*inclusion. It's more than that- it's incorporation into the very Body of Christ.
Spawn said: Welcome is unqualified, inclusion is qualified. As Anglicans we don't have completely open communion, we don't ordain everyone who comes through the church door. Welcome makes no expectations, inclusion does
quote:"Inclusion" as in "inclusion of all Christians." We do offer communion to all baptized persons.
Originally posted by Spawn:
Welcome is unqualified, inclusion is qualified. As Anglicans we don't have completely open communion, we don't ordain everyone who comes through the church door. Welcome makes no expectations, inclusion does.
quote:We have never had "confessions" in the way that the Protestant churches did.
I've pointed to historic documents in Anglicanism which were confessions. You haven't addressed these points.
quote:I don't like ++Akinola & Co. any more than I like the Jensenistas, and I'm sorry if I somehow gave the impression that I do.
I don't think this particular paragraph distinguishes you from the 'illiberal and exclusionary' you referred to above. In fact, your sense of irony is badly askew. Why single out Sydney and the Jensens in this context? Is that because it's too politically incorrect to tell the Nigerians, Ugandans and other Africans to get knotted? Why this obsession with Sydney? I don't think you've ever been there.
'True Anglicans', 'actual Anglicans'... I'd like to know who made you the arbiter of what an Anglican is?
quote:Just like most of the other Protestant churches.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
We do offer communion to all baptized persons.
quote:"the Protestant churches"? But there is huge variation amongst both Anglicans as well as the other Protestant denominations.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
We have never had "confessions" in the way that the Protestant churches did.
quote:Well, in your experience that might be true. But as you know, surely, the "form of Church governance" varies widely between different provinces. And a great many Anglicans - millions of us, in Britain and Ireland as well as in Africa and Australia - do not hold very strongly to the "primacy of the sacraments". And many others regard three orders of clergy as a valuable tradition rather than the essence of the church (if they ever think about them at all which they probably mostly don't) and assign very little value to the 19th century idea of the Apostolic Succession at all. Many of them might never have even heard of it.
Actual Anglicans, in my experience, believe in maintaining the Apostolic Succession (as it is popularly known) and three orders of clergy; in the primacy of the sacraments; in particular forms of liturgy (the words of which may vary, but the essential contents of which do not) and in a particular form of Church governance.
quote:"Just?" What's "just" about it? Us "Calvinist Protestants" are perfectly good members of Christ's Church thank you very much,and proud of it too. And the hierarchy of Sydney would be perfectly mainstream amongst conservative evangelical Anglicans in Britain - who are as much a part of the Church of England as the post-Oxford-Movement Anglo Catholics are, and have been around for a lot longer. It would be just as easy to accuse the anti-women Anglo-Catholics of Forward in Faith of being "just a bunch" of closet-Catholic tat queens who "who lack the moral courage to walk away from the property and the prestige of their positions". And just as unfair.
I don't like the Jensenistas because they're just a bunch of Calvinist Protestants who lack the moral courage to walk away from the property and the prestige of their positions.
quote:Gosh, does it? Maybe that's why they aren't doing it then!
"Lay presidency," in particular, goes against everything in the Anglican tradition.
quote:I'm sure Spawn can defend himself against petty personal attacks without help from me. But I have to say that I agree with nearly everything he has written on this thread. It has not been stirring the pot, it has been pretty much the plain truth.
I think that you perhaps enjoy stirring the pot and casting aspersions just a little too much for someone who seems to be on the Ship primarily trawling for material to use in your professional work.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:"the Protestant churches"? But there is huge variation amongst both Anglicans as well as the other Protestant denominations.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
We have never had "confessions" in the way that the Protestant churches did.
[...]
The norm in Anglicanism until very recently was to require confirmation - and that does require assent to a statement of faith. In many places knowledge of the cathechism was requred as well.
quote:
quote:Well, in your experience that might be true. But as you know, surely, the "form of Church governance" varies widely between different provinces. And a great many Anglicans - millions of us, in Britain and Ireland as well as in Africa and Australia - do not hold very strongly to the "primacy of the sacraments". And many others regard three orders of clergy as a valuable tradition rather than the essence of the church (if they ever think about them at all which they probably mostly don't) and assign very little value to the 19th century idea of the Apostolic Succession at all. Many of them might never have even heard of it.
Actual Anglicans, in my experience, believe in maintaining the Apostolic Succession (as it is popularly known) and three orders of clergy; in the primacy of the sacraments; in particular forms of liturgy (the words of which may vary, but the essential contents of which do not) and in a particular form of Church governance.
quote:Distinctive and innovative?
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sorry to double-post, but it's just struck me that TEC has its own kind of confessionalism based in the baptismal liturgy. The baptismal covenant, so often cited by Episcopalians, as a statement of identity and belief, is distinctive and innovative within modern-day Anglicanism. Is it not a form of confessionalism?
quote:From the 1662 BCP Confirmation service (link opens PDF file).
TO the end that Confirmation may be ministered to the more edifying of such as shall receive it, the Church hath thought good to order, That none hereafter shall be Confirmed, but such as can say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Commandments; and can also answer to such other Questions, as in the short Catechism are contained: which order is very convenient to be observed; to the end that children being now come to the years of discretion, and having learned what their Godfathers and Godmothers promised for them in Baptism, they may themselves, with their own mouth and consent, openly before the Church, ratify and confirm the same; and also promise, that by the grace of God they will evermore endeavour themselves faithfully to observe such things, as they, by their own confession, have assented unto.
¶ Then shall the Bishop say,
O ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your name at your Baptism; ratifying and confirming the same in your own persons, and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe and to do all those things, which your Godfathers and Godmothers then undertook for you?
¶ And every one shall audibly answer, I do.
quote:From the 1662 BCP Confirmation service (link opens PDF file).
I demand therefore,
DOST thou, in the name of this Child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?
Answer. I renounce them all.
Minister.
DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?
And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead?
And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting Life after death?
Answer. All this I stedfastly believe.
Minister.
WILT thou be baptized in this faith?
Answer. That is my desire.
Minister.
WILT thou then obediently keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life?
Answer. I will.
quote:What it seems to me is that the Baptismal Covenant only echoes the promises made, summarizes the Catechism, and has everyone participating.
Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
Answer I do.
Question Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
Answer I do.
Question Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
Answer I do.
After all have been presented, the Celebrant addresses the congregation, saying
Will you who witness these vows do all in your power to support these persons in their life in Christ?
People We will.
The Celebrant then says these or similar words
Let us join with those who are committing themselves to Christ and renew our own baptismal covenant.
The Baptismal Covenant
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Father?
People I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
Celebrant Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
People I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Celebrant Do you believe in God the Holy Spirit?
People I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
Celebrant Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People I will, with God’s help.
quote:So in future, don't.
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I think that you perhaps enjoy stirring the pot and casting aspersions just a little too much for someone who seems to be on the Ship primarily trawling for material to use in your professional work.
Ross
quote:Some Episcopal churches welcome to communion pretty much anyone who wants to come.
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
The C of E churches around here that I am familiar with admit anyone to communion who wants to come pretty much.
I've been in the C of E 4 years now and have no desire to be confirmed. I had an adult baptism and am happy with that, my faith has already been confirmed. None of the churches I have been in have ever asked me if I've been confirmed but accepted me as a full part of the church as a confessing christian.
quote:She's obsessed with us. I personally think it's because we're so good looking.
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:I don't think this particular paragraph distinguishes you from the 'illiberal and exclusionary' you referred to above. In fact, your sense of irony is badly askew. Why single out Sydney and the Jensens in this context? Is that because it's too politically incorrect to tell the Nigerians, Ugandans and other Africans to get knotted? Why this obsession with Sydney? I don't think you've ever been there.
The Jensenistas should have the courage of their convictions, walk away from the precious property, and just join the Presbyterians. They'd be happier there, and the actual Anglicans in Sydney would be happier with them there, too.
Ross
quote:If you're going to steal Spawn's lines from other threads, you really should credit him. And it's rude to speak of other people on the thread as if they weren't here.
Originally posted by CJS:
She's obsessed with us.
quote:No, I just can't turn away -- it's like a particularly gruesome traffic accident.
I personally think it's because we're so good looking.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
