|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New Hampshire gay bishop
|
Bongo
Shipmate
# 778
|
Posted
Conspiracy theory # 687: somewhere in cyberspace, the theologically conservative are being encouraged to visit Ship of Fools en masse, sign up as Apprentices and campaign for "traditional values".
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Or is it just me?
--------------------
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!" ~ Dr Strangelove
Posts: 492 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
No; its pretty obvious.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
It's the Ship home page, guys. Take a stroll through the rest of the site every once in a while.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Have done, Erin, but I have a feeling we may have been 'linked to' somewhere - mainly because all the new contributors seem to be US on a UK dominated board. Would a link on the front page give that sort of disparity ?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
Actually, MMike, 2 of the three are from Australia.
Does that make it a Perfecta instead of a Trifecta, Pres?
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Three ? There's been a few more than that....
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
A majority have not been from the US (I'll leave my refutation of this as a UK board for another time and place). They're pretty evenly distributed along our current population lines.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
It's the Ship home page, guys. Take a stroll through the rest of the site every once in a while.
I agree, that's totally it. In fact I'm surprised that there aren't many more. This is a big blow in conservative camps.
On the other hand, no one has visited the thread in Dead Horses in a week.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Calpurnia,
May I draw your attention back to the second part of my earlier post?
quote:
As you're new, it's worth bearing in mind that homosexuality is one of a special set of subjects which we categorise as Dead Horses.
Any discussion of the rights or wrongs of homosexuality really belongs on the appropriate thread in DH and it's important to read over that thread before contributing to it, and indeed a good idea to read over it before contributing to debates on these issues in Purgatory.
When we deal with issues related to homosexuality in Purgatory we try not to go over the ground covered by the Dead Horses thread, as that would be 'flogging a dead horse' (hence the name of that board)
Did you follow my instructions and look at the thread in Dead Horses? If you did, you will have noticed 17 pages of discussion of homosexuality and the various arguments, biblical verses and their interpretations etc. pertaining to it, which is why, as much as possible, we do not re-hash these arguments in Purgatory or provoke others to do so.
I referred you to this thread deliberately, so you could get some sense of how we discuss this issue and so you would stop making Dead Horse type posts on this board like this:
quote:
However the Bible makes it clear that heterosexuality is God's preferred option and homosexuality is not. Jesus in the Gospels addressed the loaded question de jour of divorce by referring back to Genesis - a man and a woman becoming one flesh.
Rather than this becoming a hetero v homosexual debate, especially in this, a Christian forum, it might be best to address the question from a Biblical point of view rather than secular.
The question of homosexuality and the Bible has been addressed at length on the thread to which I have referred you. If you wish to make such posts then read that thread and post there.
It is really important to get a feel for the difference between boards here and what sort of material goes on which.
cheers,
Louise
[ 13. August 2003, 21:08: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
heathen mama
Shipmate
# 3767
|
Posted
Oh My GAWD. Calpurnia and I are twins?!? I need a large drink (or three) and a night out at a gay bar.
Heathen Mama
"I'm straight, but not narrow"
--------------------
I shaved my armpits for *this*?
Posts: 569 | From: the first state | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
calpurnia
Apprentice
# 4816
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by heathen mama:
Oh My GAWD. Calpurnia and I are twins?!? I need a large drink (or three) and a night out at a gay bar.
Heathen Mama
"I'm straight, but not narrow"
Large drink?? Are you buying or am I ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posts: 4 | From: Australia | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
calpurnia
Apprentice
# 4816
|
Posted
Hi Louise,
Thanks for the heads up on the board structure.
Posts: 4 | From: Australia | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stannefan:
I am appalled that the EUSA is going against the grain of traditional Anglicanism - progress isn't always good! The Traditionalists need to band together and reform the church!
surely, if progress is progress it is good, by definition? Perhaps you mean not all change is progress/good?
I can't see how traditionalists can reform a church. Reformations are radical things- big changes that cut away dead wood. If you ask me, the liberal groups are themselves reforming the church into something more inclusive
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Where do you find these people, K?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Interestingly, recent polls are showing a falling-off in public support for gay unions -- some say in response to the recent Supreme Court decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy statute (seen by many as precedent that supports a right to marriage by gays), and the ECUSA appointing a gay bishop and approving the practice of blessing gay unions in the same convention. I wonder if there's anything to this. Post story here.. The sample may be too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Where do you find these people, K?
I think The Lord sends them to me to convict me of my evil Liberal Backsliding ways.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plum
Apprentice
# 4863
|
Posted
I think it's incredibly sad that the church is so divided on this issue but I can't see either side giving in and therefore can't see anyway of avoiding a split. Do we all have to voice our opinions quite so harshly on this site though? I've only just discovered it as I was wanting to know what the general view is. However, as someone who does not share the view that this news is to be celebrated, I don't think it can be the general view. This is because I wouldn't want to put my opinions here on why I believe what I believe for fear that they would be scorned. For an English student I'm not phrasing this very grammatically! I guess my point is that if we're going to try and make this unavoidable split within the church as Christian and lovingly as possible then maybe we should start by listening to each other, being patient and respecting each other's opinions.
--------------------
The older I get, the more saddened I become.
Posts: 1 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Because we all know Christianity really is about being nice to each other.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plum:
However, as someone who does not share the view that this news is to be celebrated, I don't think it can be the general view.
Erin,
Tortuous logic aside, you missed this bit, where Plum appears to be saying views s/he does not share cannot be the general view.
Just for reference sake, I'm wondering what other views Plum holds. Just to keep my finger on the pulse, and find out what the general view is.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Welcome to Purgatory, Plum,
we are having a lot of new people at the moment who are coming in from the magazine website and starting by posting on this thread.
People are welcome to do so, but should be careful to acquaint themselves with the guidelines for the different boards . It saves a lot of grief and helps avoid hostile receptions from other posters.
Firstly, here in Purgatory you must expect your opinions and arguments to be challenged robustly, and yes, even scorned, if people think you are talking rubbish. Do not post here unless you can cope with that. We have other boards which take different approaches - read all the guidelines for the separate boards and decide where you want to post.
Secondly you say
quote:
This is because I wouldn't want to put my opinions here on why I believe what I believe for fear that they would be scorned.
If what you are talking about are the reasons for what you believe concerning homosexuality, then they don't actually belong on this board (Purgatory) but on the Dead Horses board on this thread which long though it is, you should read through before posting to. If you post there, you will still be expected to back up your arguments and face challenges.
Because the matter has been 'flogged to death' in the past we try not to rehash general arguments about homosexuality on this board.
Thirdly, if you want to raise general questions about the whole tone of the site or the board, they belong on The Styx board.
I hope that helps a bit.
Louise
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I didn't find it funny. But ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) to Karl for being a voice of love and reason in the midst of hatred and chaos.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
I know we're sick to death of the subject but I was pleased and surprised to find this letter to the editor in Sunday's paper from a member of my congo. Rather good I think.
quote:
To the Editor:
Recent responses by some Episcopalians to the election of an openly gay bishop need to be put in context.
Some have expressed sorrow and pain. I sincerely understand that expression, for I have seen it in some of my gay and lesbian Episcopal friends.
Gays and lesbians who hold responsible positions in the community, pay taxes, volunteer, attend church and pray are said to have a lifestyle, as if their sexuality colored everything they did. These good people have been compared to murderers and rapists. Such statements cause great sorrow and pain.
Some say the Episcopal church has departed from the historic Christian faith. Most of the Christians I know place their faith in Christ, not in their sexual orientation. Neither Christianity, nor the Episcopal church, can depend upon an issue which Christ never addressed.
Finally, you should know that most Episcopal churches continue to welcome you.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Er... sorry! I was cleaning it and it went off! What that post from me should have said is:
Sine Nomine
quote:
Neither Christianity, nor the Episcopal church, can depend upon an issue which Christ never addressed.
I was once apprehended at a church meeting and more or less pinned to the wall by a ferocious clerical opponent of homosexuality, who wanted to know what my attitude was. I assured him that as in all things, I would let my attitude be shaped by Christ's teaching. He went on his way rejoicing, until the implications of what I'd said struck him, fifteen seconds later. I watched him as it dawned on him what I'd actually said. And what it meant. I can't recall him speaking to me after that.
Why is it that people are so afraid of drawing the consequences of the antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount? Jesus says "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." And why, when Christ is silent, do they have to fill the silence from Leviticus, of all places?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
For the last few days I've been posting on Christians Unite. I've now stopped, as I can't bear the atmosphere there any longer. However, those of you with stronger stomachs than I have might want to look at this discussion board.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, everyone. The beginnings of that last post of mine won't make any sense unless you know that I sent it off blank the first time, and it seemed to have been posted with nothing in it. Obviously the system can't cope with posts in whch nothing is said. Which rather illustrates the point I was making above...
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Posting as "tbs" on the board Wanderer referred to, it appears that my contributions are like ths words of Satan, ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I am faced with a moral dilemma - shall I engage him in rational debate, or just wind him up until he explodes.
Your suggestions, please.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
You can easily do both at the same time, Dyfrig. You're a lawyer.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Posting as "tbs" on the board Wanderer referred to, it appears that my contributions are like ths words of Satan,
I am faced with a moral dilemma - shall I engage him in rational debate, or just wind him up until he explodes.
Your suggestions, please.
I think rational debate is virtually impossible there. I've given up.
I'd wind up with apparently rational debate, like with YECs.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Hmmmm. I'm beginning to wonder whether friend SYmphony is in fact a wind-up merchant himself.
Consider this "prayer" he felt let by the Lord to put on the boards. Now, really.
Symphony's prayer:
"That the world's largest corporation who this summer extended equal employment guarantees to gays in it's million+ workforce, be similarly struck down for their bald, in-your-face total disregard for thy Saving Grace, Oh Heavenly Father; that you strike Wal-Mart stores!! That you bring this screaming monolith of discount retailing hubris, to their financial, crumbling knees, oh Father, just at their peak ripeness of financial acumen and self-satisfaction!!--a conservative, down-home corporation, now gone the way of the whole freakin' world! Show them that they are but men."
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
He's good, if he is winding up - been doing it for weeks.
Of course, the Kingdom of God is where gays are fired for their sexuality, isn't it?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
[HOST MODE]
May I remind people that it is not appropriate to use these boards as a place to plot responses to posts on other boards. By all means discuss points raised elsewhere (other boards to that extent are no different from other websites, newspapers, what your minister preached on Sunday etc). But, please keep discussion here more or less on the subject of what is said here and steer well clear of the line beyond which lies a potential board war - this is trouble we could happily do without.
Alan
Purgatory host
[/HOST MODE]
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
My apologies, Mr C.
I shall now retire to Dyfrig'ssecretboard.com/
plottingdownfallofwesterncivilisation.html
where I shall hatch my plans away from prying eyes., MWAHAHAHAHA-
Why are you all looking at me like that?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
My congratulations to those of you willing to wade into this muck and strike a few blows for your beliefs. I got really sick at my stomach looking at that board, and won't be going back.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
7 pillars (of wisdom) please
Shipmate
# 2629
|
Posted
In the Bible, it is clear that sex outside marriage is not endorsed by our Lord. References to sex clearly indicate this. The context of marriage is always between man and wife, this is the only type of marriage that is endorsed by our Lord. Our Lord rules out sex outside marriage and this applies to both heterosexual relationships as well as homosexual relationships. There are many negative references to homosexual practice and no positive ones. This is what we must base our decisions on when dealing with issues about homosexuality within our church.
The way God made our bodies also shows us that homosexual intercourse is not natural for humans. Would God not have made our bodies differently if He had thought homosexual practice was good for us?
We also know that God loves all people and that includes those with differing sexual orientations. There is no condemnation for sexual orientation, feelings and no-one is condemned because of temptation. Temptation itself is not a sin. It is the practice of sex outside marriage that is condemned and therefore included in this is homosexual practice. For this forgiveness from God and a change of heart must be the way forward.
A man elected as a Bishop within the church must uphold God’s law. He must believe in it and prevent his flock from becoming confused over certain issues. A man who expressly makes an issue of being a practicing homosexual is, therefore, pinpointing a specific issue. He is endorsing homosexual practice within the church. If, on the other hand, he states that he has homosexual leanings, but will remain celebate, then he is endorsing an entirely different set of standards within the church on this specific issue. I know nothing about where this particular Bishop stands concerning these two issues. However, because this particular Bishop is standing up as a homosexual, then this is the issue that is being discussed.
It is no good saying that this is one of many sins and we all sin and, therefore, he is as good a Bishop as any other. This is tantamount to saying, well he murdered six people, but, hey we all make mistakes and we are sinful in our own way.
If a Bishop were to be elected who had deliberately killed six people and makes a stand that this is ok. Well, would you want him to represent Jesus Christ on this earth?
If a Bishop were to be elected who had deliberately left his wife and is open and honest about his live-in relationship with another woman – would you want him to represent Jesus Christ on this earth? Would he be upholding God’s law for the Church?
Such a Bishop is making a statement. He is saying – it’s ok to do these things. He is opening the floodgates for all Christians to say that this is God’s way.
The Church must remain within certain guidelines. All Bishops, priests who make a stand for issues outside these guidelines must not be allowed to represent Christ’s church. Yes, they are sinners, we are all sinners, but we are asking God’s forgiveness for our sin and because we love God we want to live His way and will try hard to do so. We certainly don’t want to continue flouting God’s law. And a Bishop who deliberately does this openly is deliberately changing the Church’s stand as well and he cannot pretend that it has nothing to do with him.
Does this Bishop uphold the characteristics of a man who loves Jesus so much that he wants to live within God’s rules and uphold them as best he can? Or is he confusing people and dividing the people within our Lord’s church? What does the Bible say about the Pharisees who blinded people to God’s law? Is he opening the way to homosexual marriages as an endorsement for homosexual practices? Or is he maintaining a stand that homosexual practice is not biblical? These issues, whether he likes it or not, form the basis of his position as Bishop and this could well end up dividing and splitting the church, creating chaos and confusion – a huge step away for God.
Posts: 58 | From: Sussex | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
This seems to have been written without any consideration of any of the points which have been raised before.
Being gay is not a sin ; neither are gay relationships per se. That is the position from which I and other advocates of gay and lesbian equality within the Church begin ; thus we reject your opening statements and the attitudes which flow from them.
Yes, of course we wish to change the stand of the Church, because we believe it is wrong. And if that means a split, so be it.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
And if that means a split, so be it.
I think this is the one thing I am troubled by in all this is this approach, albeit mainly from the other side. I think schism in this case makes far less sense than in another situation we've had here for decades.
On the one hand, I think I have been reaching the conclusion that (with regard to women's ordination -- and even speaking as a latecomer to accepting that as valid) the ECUSA made a terrible mistake in first deciding to ordain women but then saying that anyone who doesn't accept it is free to not do so and remain in good standing. In a certain sense, while I think various doctrines and practices are far more important than this, to basically say to priests and bishops, "here is someone we've ordained as a priest or bishop, but if you don't want to consider them as such, that's OK too, even if they are the bishop of your diocese." (I think I would have waited longer to ordain women, but then made acceptance of their ordination compulsory, rather than what we've done...) So people leaving over that makes sense to me; the question of who is or is not clergy is at issue.
But on the other hand, I don't think anyone is arguing (or can validly argue) that Bishop-Elect Robinson will not actually BE a bishop because of being gay and sexually active. It's the wisdom of his being a bishop which is at issue; not the question of his being a bishop once ordained. And it's the practice of same-sex liturgies and the like which is also at issue.
So in my honest view, I still don't want to see a schism over this. These are matters which can continue to be debated for quite some time without breaking communion with one another. (And yes, I really do believe that it was a mistake to tell those who don't accept the validity of someone's orders that it's OK, they don't have to; what has resulted from that is a host of people angsty about whether or not Apostolic Succession (and validity of Sacraments) is being diluted or impaired, and I know because I was one of them. And there is a difference between saying "I think the official position of the church -- or what it permits people to believe and do -- or of my parish priest or my bishop -- is mistaken, and this should change" and saying "the person who is supposedly bishop over my diocese isn't really a bishop" or "I can't go to my church anymore because we don't have a real priest." In that case I see genuinely impaired communion, even within the ECUSA.
So I still don't want to see schism; I want people on both sides of the "gay issues" to be less shrill and nasty to each other, but I don't see why we can't all remain in the same church and keep trying to hash it out. The "anti" people surely accept that Robinson will be a real bishop once ordained, correct?
David
(my shift from "not convinced of" to "convinced of women's ordination" can be found in Dead Horses on the "Priestly Genitalia" thread, for those who care
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Not from what I have read ; CM. The line seems to be that by taking this action, ECUSA has placed itself outside the Church.
I suppose it comes down to bottom-lines. If its a choice between a 'united' , anti-gay Church, or a split where one of the options will be an affirming Church, then I go with the latter. I can't see any option of 'continue as we are and respect each others integrities permanently' being clearly expressed. There may be ways of doing this, but wouldn't they be somewhat false?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Not from what I have read ; CM. The line seems to be that by taking this action, ECUSA has placed itself outside the Church.
Yes, I know; I just disagree with their claim. And again I find it amazing that they can handle clergy not believing the Creeds (which goes back decades earlier or even a century or more) yet not handle Robinson. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
I can't see any option of 'continue as we are and respect each others integrities permanently' being clearly expressed. There may be ways of doing this, but wouldn't they be somewhat false?
I don't believe so; which was my main point in what I posted above, though I may have been a bit incoherent. (Lack of sleep, ugh ugh ugh.) I believe that since Robinson's (etc.) ordination and Apostolic Succession are not in doubt, nor are either imperilled by proposed approval of same-sex relationships, though we may have strong disagreements on them, the church as an entity can still hold together in a way I don't think it can if people's ecclesiastical validity is in question.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jair von Beck
Apprentice
# 4880
|
Posted
I find several things interesting:
1) It is interesting how when one disagrees with homosexuality as a character-trait of a bishop/clergymember/etc. that one is characterized as being a bigot or as having some evil/diabolical/fundamental mindset. One can not disagree without being written off as a racist or bigot or any number of terms.
2) Conversely, there is an attitude that one who is seriously trying to understand scripture can not support homosexuality.
I realize that apologies have been made towards both sides but it is interesting that the first reaction was to name-call or to stereo-type the other position.
I have purposely not given my view here, since you automatically end up being consigned to one camp or the other. It is entirely possible that I am a liberal Christian who opposes homosexuality or a fundamental Christian who supports it. What is also interesting is how most see these two positions as oxymorons, the liberal Christian who does not support homosexuality. Do we really want to make this the defining issue of our Christianity?
One more brief note: those who care not about a schism are showing a great lack of concern for their fellow Christian by pretending that their position does not matter or that there has not been a great deal of thought, prayer and debate on the issue. However, those who are threatening schism also are not taking the need for the unity within the body of Christ seriously. Shame on both.
Pax
--------------------
Never confuse wisdom with knowledge.
S.Lawhead
Posts: 1 | From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think a lot of people have thought long and hard about this matter ; some, like CM< believe that there is a possibility of remaining in one denominational grouping. I doubt that is the case, but to get real - given the very large number of denominations which exist already, in what way will a split in Anglicanism fatally destroy Christian unity?
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cardinal Pole Vault
Papal Bull
# 4193
|
Posted
I think that we have to put a potential split in the Anglican Communion in to context. The Anglican Communion is not a worldwide church. It is a worldwide "family" of self governing churches. Some may call it a federation- I even think that this is too strong a description. The AC is much looser than that.
So, if the Anglican Church in Nigeria did decide to "split" from the rest of the AC, what does this mean? Not an awful lot really. As the AC is not a church then is it schism? I'm not sure it is. All that it would mean is that a self governing church is no longer in communion with the rest of the AC. So what. Individual members of any separated church will still be welcome at the altars of parishes in the CofE (and I would imagine the same would go for the rest of the AC).
In the 16th Cent. the English Church broke away from Rome. The motivations for this were mixed. But an important element in the CofE's breaking away was the idea that a national church has the authority to make certain decisions for itself. Now, I'm not saying that sexuality is a minor issue. It certainly isn't.
It just seems ironic to me that the more protestant wings of the CofE, those who most applaud the CofE's independence from (in their eyes) a malign foreign power (ie Rome), are those who want us to do what best fits in with the whims of an African bishop.
As a catholic minded soul I do appreciate that the CofE is not the "be all and end all". But I also value what the Reformation brought us- freedom to make our own decisions. If we can go our own way and ordain women to the priesthood (ignoring the qualms of the largest Christian church) then I think we can safely ignore the concerns of a handful of fundamentalists.
--------------------
"Make tea, not war"
Posts: 986 | From: Insula Tiberina | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
given the very large number of denominations which exist already, in what way will a split in Anglicanism fatally destroy Christian unity?
Not very much at all, obviously. Maybe one Christian in 30 or 40 worldwide has any connection with the Anglican communion at all.
Which I still don't think will split further in any organisational sense. It doesn't need to. Plenty of Anglicans have been in practice out of communion with other Anglicans for centuries already.
It's not even as big a deal - from a split point of view - as the ordination of women, because the people objecting to this don't, on the whole, have a doctrine of taint. A F-i-F style Anglican might think that a woman bishop was no real bishop & therefore a priest ordained by them could be no real priest, and the eucharist celebrated by such a priest no real eucharist, so there would be a risk of a tainted, invalid, pseudo-church. But someone who objects to a bishops who is living with another man would just think that that was a sinful bishop, not an unreal bishops. And ther church has had plenty of sinful ministers in the past. So all they have to do if they want to be safe is to stick to ministers they don't think are sinful. Not quite the same thing.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
to Karl for putting up with various things.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
But it's funny! ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
