|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New Hampshire gay bishop
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
I firmly believe that anyone, no matter what "side" they're on, who WANTS a schism should have the integrity to leave themselves.
Amen.
And good point, Ruth. I'm sure there'll always be a place for orthodox liberals (even though there are those who say we don't exist). I sahouldn't have said "Romish" when I meant "conservative". God knows, I know plenty of AC queens. I just think that Jesus was probably about more than sexuality.
[ 05. August 2003, 02:24: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I just think that Jesus was probably about more than sexuality.
Heretic!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Cuervo
Son of a Son of a Sailor
# 4725
|
Posted
I was doing some extra-canonical readings and came across this parable from the Third Gospel of Thomas (forgive my poor transcription):
quote:
And he taught them saying:
There once was a landowner who went on a journey and he left his estate under the care of his two most trusted servants.
Shortly after he left, it came time to bring in the harvest and the two fell to bickering. The first servant noticed some problems and suggested changes be made in the way the grain was gathered. The second servant loudly protested that, as servants, they had no right to do things any differently than their master had done.
And so the two fell to fighting and the Master's slaves, who the servants where supposed to be overseeing, neglected their duties and began to argue amongst themselves as well.
Whilst the household was so distracted, some wild beasts came in amongst the grain that had been gathered and ate their fill. A while later, some thieves broke into the master's house and, because the servants and slaves were fighting, plundered with impunity. Even later still, a bolt of lightning struck the field and caused it to catch flame. Upon seeing the fire, the servants put aside their quarrel and managed to contain the damage.
At this time the master returned and, finding his grain eaten by animals, his home looted by robbers, and his field half-burned by fire; went to search for his servants to inquire of them what had happened.
When he found them, they were standing in the charred field and had returned to bickering. Upon finding them so, the Master challenged the two servants regarding their poor stewardship of his estate.
The first servant blamed the second. The second servant blamed the first.
The Master, knowing what had happened, said unto them, "I gave you everything you would need to manage my household. But rather than gather the harvest, you tried to rule over each other. Now the grain is eaten, the house is robbed and the fields are burned. Depart from me you wicked ones, you shall have no part in my inheritance."
The Master then threw both servants out of his estate where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth.
He then set about gathering what was left of the harvest with his own hands.
The kingdom of heaven is like this: a piece of grain having survived arguments, beasts, robbers and fire finds itself held in the Master's hand.
He who has ears, let him hear.
3 Thom. 18:1-22
Peace,
St. C.
[ 05. August 2003, 03:04: Message edited by: St. Cuervo ]
--------------------
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked... angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night...
Posts: 295 | From: Falls Church, VA | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
If I thought there was any possibility that we could co-exist amicably, agreeing to differ, but respecting each others position, and , if needs be, even making provision for it in the structures - then I would be opposed to a split.
However, if what we are going to get is a continuation of what we have had over the past few months, then I think a split is the only way of preventing an internal collapse. I can only speak from the UK perspective, but there are a bloc of people who actually do want gay and lesbian people out of the Church altogether. They may not be in their abundance on the Ship, and they are not a huge number in the CofE either, but they don't intend to give up their aims, and those who think like me - who want full acceptance for gay and lesbian people - don't feel able to give up ours either.
To me, the reality is that the broad church of Anglicanism is starting to make less sense and be less effective than we might be if we operated seperately. There have been countless splits and new denominations in the past ( the logic of 'no split at any cost' is that we should be actively trying to rejoin Rome) and I think we would positively benefit from the possibilities that one would bring now.
If there is to be no split, then the way the Church operates is going to have to change. For it has become an incomprehensible laughing-stock to those outside. Although I have always been opposed to 'churches within churches', that may be the only option if the aim of holding something called the Anglican Communion together is uppermost. Its not my priority, though.
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
If I thought there was any possibility that we could co-exist amicably, agreeing to differ, but respecting each others position, and , if needs be, even making provision for it in the structures - then I would be opposed to a split.
Has it ever crossed your mind that, just perhaps, part of the responsibility for creating amicable co-existence and respect may lie with you?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Yes. If I wasn't aware of that, I wouldn't have sat on a diocesan working group looking at these matters for two years, I wouldn't liaise regularly with my Evangelical and far from sympathetic Bishop, I wouldn't have accepted offers from known hostile churches to go and talk ..... I've been involved with this sort of thing for quite some time.
Its through the experiences I have had and the many conversations with those of varying opinion which has convinced me that a split may be beneficial. I have only come to this conclusion relatively recently.
At the moment I think its inevitable, but unless we can see its benefits, it will occur after a bloodbath and in a spirit of mutual loathing, and that won't benefit anyone.
I'm just not convinced that Anglicanism can survive containing people who have diametrically opposite views on so many things. This is a catalyst, but I think its approach to the Bible which is the undercurrent which runs through these debates
[ 05. August 2003, 09:37: Message edited by: Merseymike ]
--------------------
Christianity is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be experienced
Posts: 3360 | From: Walked the plank | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Elizabeth Anne
Altar Girl
# 3555
|
Posted
From everyvoice.net
quote:
Sources say that the alleged inappropriate conduct by the Rev. Cn. Gene Robinson occurred when Robinson touched a married man in his 40’s on his bicep, shoulder and upper back in the process of a public conversation at a province meeting around two years ago.
David Lewis, layman from Manchester, Vt., made the allegations in a series of emails Sunday night with Vermont Bishop Tom Ely. Ely then had a 45-minute conversation with Lewis, who is a member of the conservative Zion Episcopal Church in Manchester Center, Vt., in which Lewis said the contact from Robinson was to his bicep, shoulder and upper back.
The bicep, you say? And the shoulder? During a public conversation? Well, I guess this still counts as an invasion of personal space...
But does it really matter now? Robinson's character has been effectively assassinated.
--------------------
Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in my eyes...
Posts: 974 | From: New York | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Which was the aim ; wasn't it.
If this is actually what we are talking about, then I sincerely hope we can clear Gene Robinson forthwith . Indeed, if this is the substance of the allegation, why is it being investigated at all ?
--------------------
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
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
From everyvoice.net
...conversation with Lewis, who is a member of the conservative Zion Episcopal Church in Manchester Center, Vt., ...
Oh so he is from the conservative Zion Episcopal Church in Manchester Center, is he?
Since when has the liberal/conservative leaning of a congregation that someone attends been important in a case of sexual harassment? Only when you are trying to cast doubts on the complainant?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I think its more than relevant if its a political attempt to derail an apopointment you don't want. A very convenient way of doing it.....
And touching someone's arm isn't sexual harassment, by the way.
My initial suspicions have been more than confirmed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
my orthodoxy and detestation of attempts to modernise the BCP make me unsuited to the Unitarian branch of the ECUSA; general protestantism make me unsuited to the more Romish/conservative side.
But it doesn't cut up this neatly. I can think of a lot of "Romish" folks who aren't conservative.
That would be me.
Elizabeth Anne---if that is the sum and substance of the allegations, I am even more sickened by this whole mess.
I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist. I have tried and tried to avoid going down that road, but the stench from this last-minute "surprise" is just overwhelming. I now believe this WAS orchestrated, and that they waited until the House of Deputies had voted to be sure which way the wind was blowing.
St. Cuervo---much food for thought in your post. I will try to take it into consideration in my prayers this morning. Lord knows that I need some perspective on this issue. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
Elizabeth Anne,
Thanks for that link. I agree with you totally. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
"The bicep, you say? And the shoulder? During a public conversation? Well, I guess this still counts as an invasion of personal space..."
Elizabeth Anne, while I have much sympathy with your astonishment over this, I should note that our management training module makes it painfully clear that any touch, no matter how minor, or how innocuous in intent, constitutes harassment and possibly assault, if unwelcome and uninvited. We are told never to touch any of our colleagues in an professional setting, aside from a handshake. Indeed, the anti-harassment training we are required to undergo at all levels (legitimate question: do you do any work or do you go to workshops?) informs us that we may make a justifiable harassment complaint on the same basis that has been done in this case.
I am not indicating my agreement with this, but there are greatly varying perceptions out there of what is problematic and what is permissible.
The entire situation becomes more and more surreal by the hour; and this statement comes from a bureaucrat!
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I should note that our management training module makes it painfully clear that any touch, no matter how minor, or how innocuous in intent, constitutes harassment and possibly assault, if unwelcome and uninvited. We are told never to touch any of our colleagues in an professional setting, aside from a handshake. Indeed, the anti-harassment training we are required to undergo at all levels...informs us that we may make a justifiable harassment complaint on the same basis that has been done in this case.
Augustine---I can see this. I have often been subjected to what I call "power touching," where the man in question is using it to demonstrate his dominance.
But I am also Southern, and in our culture, we touch a lot. Hugging is very common, and we also tend to touch you on the arm when we are talking to you. It's a way of connecting.
I don't know where Rev. Robinson is from, but I can imagine that he is from a place like the one in which I grew up, and that this sort of touching would seem completely innocuous to him.
My problem (among many) is the use of the term "inappropriate touching." When people hear that term, they automatically assume it means genital touching---and I can't help believing that this was deliberate on the part of those who helped spread the allegation.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Gene Robinson is from Kentucky.
I agree wholly with paige. It was quite clear that the implications of the wording and the surrounding publicity were that botties, willies, and private places were involved.
As they clearly weren't, can we get real.
Your company sounds like it belongs on Erin's Hell thread here , Augustine
--------------------
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
You know, I can't help thinking that every time a man touches a woman in that way and she claims sexual harassment, she's told to lighten the hell up, for Christ's sake. But let a man be touched that way and it's the worst thing ever.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I think, Merseymike, that I would disagree with you in part. In many ways, the Government of Canada is its own circle of hell and great discussion could issue forth in many threads. But power touching, to which the preceding shipmate refers, is a problem and I have seen it lead to some very unhealthy and bizarre office karma. While I personally think that the module's approach (which, by the by, is replicated in some way by almost every major employer here) goes a bit far in some ways, it gives us a few good tools to address real cultural differences and diferent approaches to body language. The prospective complainant has a duty to first try to resolve the situation informally i.e., "Please don't touch me on the shoulder; it makes me uncomfortable.") and then there are a number of intermediate steps which are intended to make the workplace more professional, less touchy-feely (in every sense), less open to abuse. As I elliptically suggested in my previous post, there is no longer a common ground of understanding here, nor is there a universally-accepted common sense of what is appropriate-- which is why we have long threads on the Peace.
All that having been said, I have no idea what, precisely, is going on in the Robinson case -- for that, I join the other shipmates in waiting on the investigation -- nor why this particular complaint arose at this late stage in the proceeding. It all seems very odd and sometimes one longs for the episcopal selection procedure used in the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria- a small child chooses the Patriarch by lot.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eanswyth:
That's cause cool counts triple. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
And triple the size of ECUSA makes you, er, maybe somewhere in the top 10 largest denominations in the USA...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
...sometimes one longs for the episcopal selection procedure used in the Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria- a small child chooses the Patriarch by lot.
Amen to that, Brother.
We do something similar over here except instead of using a small child as our we-hope-in-tune-with-God randomiser we use the Prime Minister.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
In another thread, in another contexct entirely,
quote:
Originally posted by Sacristan:
If there are no protesters General Convention gives the go-ahead. Poof.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ultraspike
Incensemeister
# 268
|
Posted
I'm puzzled about the quote from David Lewis. In some reports it says Robinson "does not maintain appropriate boundaries with me." In the first report I read yesterday and this one from the NY Post today (who we know always double check their facts) "me" becomes "men":
quote:
when a male parishioner from Vermont emailed his bishop to charge that New Hampshire Bishop-elect Gene Robinson is a "grab-assing skirt chaser" who "does not maintain appropriate boundaries with men."
Certainly a wide difference with that added "n". And skirt chaser??? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
A cowgirl's work is never done.
Posts: 2732 | From: NYC | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ultraspike
Incensemeister
# 268
|
Posted
Sorry to DP but this is turning into a game of telephone. The NY Daily News (who may check their facts only slightly better than the Post) has this quote:
quote:
Robinson's accuser, David Lewis, said the clergyman called him a "grab-assing skirt chaser."
"My personal experience with him is he does not maintain appropriate boundaries with men," Lewis wrote.
So now it's Lewis that's the skirt chaser? I'm getting more confused by the minute.
--------------------
A cowgirl's work is never done.
Posts: 2732 | From: NYC | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Ah, I found the e-mail text
and more on the background
There's a bit more here and here
It's certainly an odd case, my gut reaction is it looks too good to be true - if I wanted to carefully-craft something to bring down Gene Robinson, whilst putting up a big smokescreen against any accusations of homophobia, I couldn't do better than this - looking at the particular tack it takes and the buttons it pushes. If it is false or trumped up or exaggerated, then it's a truly Machiavellian creation.
But such things need to be investigated, it'll be interesting to see the outcome.
L.
[ 05. August 2003, 15:22: 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
|
|
Ultraspike
Incensemeister
# 268
|
Posted
Thanks, Louise, that makes it alot clearer.
Perhaps he's a Cursillista. That kind of affectionate touching is quite common and quite harmless (most of the time). I think it will be very hard to prove this was an overtly sexual touch, especially if it was in a crowd of people and way above the waistline, but then I have never taken a sexual misconduct workshop so I don't know the exact rules.
--------------------
A cowgirl's work is never done.
Posts: 2732 | From: NYC | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ultraspike:
And skirt chaser???
Maybe he only dates Scotsmen ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ultraspike:
I have never taken a sexual misconduct workshop so I don't know the exact rules.
I have - the one required by the diocese for all people working with kids. Affectionate touching on the arms and shoulders is not automatically considered harassment.
If this guy didn't like this kind of touching, it was up to him to say something about it at the time. It's what I do when someone touches me and I don't want them to.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Recovering Yankee
Apprentice
# 4806
|
Posted
Nobody seems to have noticed one extremely vital point: People marry each other. They are not married by the government, and they are not married by a representative of their religion. The formal recognition of a marriage by society began as a way to protect women from men who would rather "recreate" than take responsibility for their part in procreation. ("Baby? Why should I support her baby when all I did was boink her?")
In other words, all this hoo-hah today with President Bush calling all gays "sinners" by definition and the Vatican saying that recognizing gay marriage will cause "grave harm" to society misses the point. (And besides, why doesn't the Vatican think that priestly rapists and pederasts cause "grave harm"?)
Homosexuals have been marrying each other for thousands of years, in their own eyes and in God's eyes. I know five or six couples who are married in their own eyes, God's eyes, and my eyes -- two sets of lesbians and several sets of males. The point is the LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay marriage.
I have been in a faithful, committed relationship with my husband for more than 13 years. Because I married him legally, in front of human witnesses, I have many legal rights, including property rights, inheritance rights, and the right to make health care decisions on my husband's behalf if need be.
Bishop-elect Robinson has been in a faithful, committed relationship with his partner for more than 13 years. If his partner were to fall ill or die, the bishop-elect would be screwed. It's simply not fair.
The Bible says more than once that ALL human beings are created in God's image. Nowhere does it say that God's image does not include women, blacks, harelips, quadriplegics, left-handed people, or homosexuals. The Bible says more than once that we are to love all of God's creation as much as we love ourselves -- and again, the Bible puts in no exceptions. We are to love ALL of God's creation, not just the folks who love us. (Matthew 5:46 and elsewhere)
Blessings, Mary
--------------------
Chocolate is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
http://www.extremelysmart.com
Posts: 4 | From: St. Petersburg, FL | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I have two points to make.
The first is that on two separate occasions in the lab where I work, this summer, I apparently sexually harrassed two men during a celebration over successfully culturing a new species of organism.
The second is that I had the integrity to leave organized Christianity for "Belief in Exile" and then "Unitarianism." I tired of defending a modern, scientific, rational world view that refuses to assent to the creed that "every syllable of the Bible is God-breathed, divinely inspired, and we ignore it at the peril of our eternal souls." It is my opinion that treating the syllables of any text as sacred, combined with a warning of eternal punishment from a personal God who makes no excuses for those who reject him via rejection of his word, is the central heresy of the kind of "Christianity" that refuses ordination of gays and women in the 21st century. My Unitarian priest is a gay woman.
Not that you'd ever want me back ECUSA, but make a stand here and I might pay a visit. Not so that I could refuse communion and preach damnation to brothers and sisters who still operate under the traditional framework, but just so that I could sit in a church and not feel a liar, a fake, and a pariah headed for Hell, taking the innocent with me, by a self-righteous subset of bigots who are convinced that they are on the "straight and narrow."
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melon
Ship's desserter
# 4038
|
Posted
What is and isn't considered sexual harassment is surely more than a little cultural. By the terms described here, I was sexually harassed by two male clients before lunchtime, and I'm sure I could be locked up for what I do with female French nodding (sic) acquaintances and their children in public places. Of course we don't do that sort of thing where I grew up, which is possibly why France's first female prime minister once famously announced that all English men are homosexual...
All of which is to say, what is OK in Bogata or Vancouver doesn't make a lot of odds here. What are the cultural norms where the 'asault' happened?
--------------------
French Whine
Posts: 4177 | From: Cavaillon, France | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Recovering Yankee are you posting on the right thread?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
The first is that on two separate occasions in the lab where I work, this summer, I apparently sexually harrassed two men during a celebration over successfully culturing a new species of organism.
One lousy sentence? That's all you're going to give us? One lousy sentence?
(Of course we all understand how riotous things could get celebrating a new species of orgasm.)
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
To me, the reality is that the broad church of Anglicanism is starting to make less sense and be less effective than we might be if we operated seperately.
So the model of Christianity that you are advocating is an infinite number of custom-made niche churches catering to each identity group or political persuasion? Why should we bother to go to church at all? Wouldn't it just be easier to sit home and read our Bibles or whatever political tracts one takes one's theological perspective from?
quote:
For it has become an incomprehensible laughing-stock to those outside.
Hmm. People outside the church think that ernest Christians inside it are foolish? Gosh! You're RIGHT! We DO need a schism.
I didn't realise that breaking up into our own little micro-churches would make the non-believer respect and admire us, hold us in esteem and thusly receive the Good News. Silly me. When you put it like THAT, sign me up!
quote:
At the moment I think its inevitable,
Of course it's not inevitable. It's nothing more than the hysterical talk of hand-wringing doomsayers.
quote:
I'm just not convinced that Anglicanism can survive containing people who have diametrically opposite views on so many things.
How has it survived diametrically opposite views on the nature of the Sacraments, the operation of Grace, the morality of slavery, the role of Imperialism, predestination, the efficacy of Episcopacy, the ordination of women...
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
The model of Christianity which already exists is exactly as you describe!
quote:
custom-made niche churches catering to each identity group or political persuasion
One more denomination will do no harm.
If we were no longer trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, the headlines in the papers would not be as they are today, and there could be a church which is not afraid of co-existing with contemporary reality. It has nothing to do with 'earnestness' as to why people outside find us odd, it has to do with the current arguments, which are not going away.
Do you seriously think the Church can continue this sort of wrangling forever? Because I don't think either 'side' will give up, or compromise.
--------------------
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
|
|
Elizabeth Anne
Altar Girl
# 3555
|
Posted
The final vote begins in an hour. The wait will be agonizing....
--------------------
Born under a bad sign with a blue moon in my eyes...
Posts: 974 | From: New York | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I'm just not convinced that Anglicanism can survive containing people who have diametrically opposite views on so many things.
How has it survived diametrically opposite views on the nature of the Sacraments, the operation of Grace, the morality of slavery, the role of Imperialism, predestination, the efficacy of Episcopacy, the ordination of women...
Well, exactly. We've held the show on the road for almost 500 years without getting anywhere near agreement. Including more than one actual shooting war. And also spinning off the Congregationalists, the Methodists, the Brethren & a large part of the Baptists.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Do you seriously think the Church can continue this sort of wrangling forever?
You act as though the church has never wrangled before.
We've survived worse than a gay bish or two.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
One more denomination will do no harm.
What would you like to call it?
Who will be your first bishops?
Will you let evangelicals in if they want in or just boot them out?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Oh, we'll be the Anglican Church. I don't know what the fundamentalist breakaway will be called ! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
One more denomination will do no harm.
What would you like to call it?
Who will be your first bishops?
Will you let evangelicals in if they want in or just boot them out?
1. The New Hampshire Synod of the Worldwide Anglican communion.
2. Spong, Borg, MerseyMike, and Gene Robinson. I will be Archbishop.
3. Evangelicals will be allowed, but each church bulletin will make clear that primacy of scripture, penal substitutionary atonement, and eternal punishment are minority opinions that are not sanctioned by the Church. Don't fight me on this MM; I'd hate to pull rank.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
maleveque
Shipmate
# 132
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
The final vote begins in an hour. The wait will be agonizing....
Unfortunately, we're going to have to wait just a little longer. I just got an email from a friend who works for the local diocese and he says quote:
they [the bishops]will be going into session at about 2:30 Central time, praying and debating until about 4:30 and then voting. It will probably take about 45 minutes to count the ballots, and they may not announce the vote totals until close of sesson at 6 pm Central.
6pm Central time is 7pm Eastern (CDT=GMT-6?)
Ooooh - yes, agonizing!
Anne L.
--------------------
Life isn't all fricasseed frogs and eel pie.
Posts: 1496 | From: Washington, DC or thereabouts | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re the "skirt-chaser" comment:
Per the link someone posted to the actual e-mail, he didn't say GR is a skirt-chaser. He said what if we were talking about a straight, married priest who was a skirt-chaser.
Re the type of touching:
I thought it might be something like that. That kind of touch can be meant totally innocently or very sexually. And it can be perceived either of those ways. And if DL ever had a bad experience with someone gay, or worried about it, that would color his perception, too.
IMHO, it's better just to avoid that kind of touching altogether, unless it's with a close friend and you *know* they're ok with it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Recovering Yankee
Apprentice
# 4806
|
Posted
MerseyMike asked about Jim T.'s proposed new church (name, first bishops, and whether evangelicals will be welcome), and Jim T. answered,
quote:
1. The New Hampshire Synod of the Worldwide Anglican communion.
2. Spong, Borg, MerseyMike, and Gene Robinson. I will be Archbishop.
3. Evangelicals will be allowed, but each church bulletin will make clear that primacy of scripture, penal substitutionary atonement, and eternal punishment are minority opinions that are not sanctioned by the Church. Don't fight me on this MM; I'd hate to pull rank.
Each church bulletin should also say, "Human beings wrote the Bible, NOT God. Scripture is NOT inerrant, unless you can prove that hares and rabbits chew their cud (Lev. 11:6). The doctrine of Original Sin is pernicious garbage that has done untold damage to Christianity. The only hells are those humans create for themselves and each other."
Blessings, Mary
[ 05. August 2003, 21:33: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Chocolate is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
http://www.extremelysmart.com
Posts: 4 | From: St. Petersburg, FL | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Each church bulletin should also say "we're making this up as we go along so please stay tuned for further changes as they develop".
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Oh eek. Now CNN says quote:
Meanwhile, Episcopal Church leaders opposing Robinson's ratification said Tuesday that they will walk out of the church's convention in Minneapolis if he wins the final vote.
They will go across the street to a Lutheran church for a prayer service and will speak with reporters there, they said.
Oh dear. Doesn't look good, in my opinion. Maybe this is the surprise they were talking about after all. *sigh*
David
praying we don't actually have a schism over this
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Come now; they're not going to become Lutherans. Think of all the molded jell-o puddings with suspended carrots and pineapples. *shiver*.
--------------------
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
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
They've been threatening and/or predicting that for days.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:
They've been threatening and/or predicting that for days.
That they would become Lutherans and eat jello or go outside to a Lutheran chapel and pray?
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
by HT: That they would become Lutherans and eat jello
That's hardcore. If that's the protest they're talking about, these guys aren't screwing around.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
praying we don't actually have a schism over this
Oh, come on, David. These are Episcopalians we're talking about here. They worship their buildings. Most of them aren't going to give them up if a two-headed, child-beating, transexual were elected bishop.
And I can't really get excited if I'm excommunicated by somebody in Nigeria, not having any vacation plans in that direction.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
