|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: New Hampshire gay bishop
|
Gekko
Shipmate
# 4045
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by calpurnia:
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"
Err...no, it doesn't. Please take your cheap shots somewhere else. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Today is truly a day for rejoicing. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 204 | From: SE London | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
A couple of interesting quotes
"In countries like ours, it is not only contrary to Scripture teaching, but also not conducive in our environment," Bishop Dr Lim Cheng Ean, West Malaysia.
"The election of a gay bishop is a blatant aggravation of societal norms, and in India it certainly will not be acceptable." John Dayal, All India Catholics Union
Both of those refer to the homophobic culture of their countries - and it is this which is the underlying reason for opposition.
Whatever happened to being 'counter-cultural' - or does that only apply to Western progress, not bigotry in the developing world ?
--------------------
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:
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.
Thank you, mike. I admire your courage, and have some sympathy with your logic. But the main problem he is your subsequent stance - you want others to leave, rather than leave yourself, which sort of undermines the integrity of your position. You want to lay claim to the name of Anglicanism whilst denying it to others. You want to pretend that you are standing in the true, catholic tradition (despite the fact that changes to attitudes to homosexuality are contrary to that tradition) whilst denying others the same thing. Frankly, if you believe the best way forward for the church is for it to schism, you should act on your principles and leave it yourself. How can you stay any longer in it given your view of it?
--------------------
"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
I think , if agreement to live and let live isn't possible, that there should be a civilised and agreed split if at all possible. I just don't have the problem with it which many seem to ; the church started as the result of a split, and there have been other splits since.
I don't think a split in itself is necessarily wrong. I'm quite sure that both bodies will lay claim to something of Anglicanism. I don't have the right to stop them doing that. My question is ; can we co-exist ? In other words, can those who disagree with gay priests or same sex blessings accept their existence, even though they do not agree with them and would not partake in them. I just don't see any evidence for that, long-term.
I have stayed in the Church despite its attitude and policies ; if those are beginning to change, why should I leave? A split does not necessarily mean that any one group shopuld 'leave' ; a split suggests two different bodies emerging from the fractured and warring whole.
--------------------
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
|
|
'Justus'
Shipmate
# 2424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Both of those refer to the homophobic culture of their countries - and it is this which is the underlying reason for opposition.
Whatever happened to being 'counter-cultural' - or does that only apply to Western progress, not bigotry in the developing world ?
MerseyMike
You might want to add alongside those quotes in your post the views of the Rev. Rod Thomas of Reform who will be saying something similar no doubt in the hours to come or Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh who has said the decsion has "filled him with sorrow".
Bigots aren't confirmed to the developing world, as I'm sure you know, and selective representation like that in your quote misses the point. On the theory you posit anyone would think the Diocese of Reading was to be found in the developing world, where bigotry resides in splendid isolation.
To link "western" and "progress" and set it up against "bigotry" and "developing world" is shallow, oversimplified and laughable. As if only those of us in the west were the world's purveyors of justice and truth.
Yes today is a day for rejoicing, but that doesn't mean throwing away your brain cells as part of the celebrations.
[ 06. August 2003, 09:53: Message edited by: Justus ]
Posts: 295 | From: York | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by calpurnia:
I'm a little late to the party as a newbie on the boards, but I've got to say that I'm more than a little dismayed by the appointment of Robinson as Bishop.
I believe that rather than check the Anglican/Episcopal rule book, perhaps a check of the Bible might be more appropriate.
The Bible makes it very clear its views on homosexuality, more obviously in the Old Testament.
So, what about the New? The role of the priest/minister/pastor/'insert the name of your prefered title here' is to lead the church (body of believers) closer to God by teaching and encouraging to understand His role for our lives and His desire to forge a reconciliation between imperfect man and perfect Diety.
So important is this role that Paul describes Christ's love for the church as that of a husband for his wife.
Question - Is Robinson a suitable representative for this role when he:
a. Breaks his vow to his (now ex-)wife and to God (Oh, yeah God, I didn't really mean forever, Amen)
b. Unable to understand or identify with the complex and most powerful relationship between a man and a woman and how it relates to God's relationship with the church.
c. Is part of a culture which encourages promiscuity, lack of commitment and whose political agenda is to mock the values of others.
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"
hosting
Welcome aboard Calpurnia!
Take a while to check out the various boards which all have different guidelines and have a good read of the Ship's Ten Commandments
These ones.
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)
cheers,
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
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Justus ;
I am simply rather tired of being told by clerics from the developing world that we cannot have gays in the church because it clashes with the underlying beliefs and practices of their culture. I have heard this from a variety of sources, not only the ones quoted. It has very little to do with theology, and a lot to do with underlying prejudice.
At the same time, we have people like Reform and Tom Wright constantly saying that the church should be counter-cultural, and that we should not accept gay people in the church simply because it reflects our culture. Yet I never hear any counteraction of the remarks such as the ones I posted - even though they have nothing to do with theology, and everything to do with fear of countering their own culture.
Yes, we are far from perfect,and you know well that I am a critic of those in our own country and in other Westerm countries as well. But, again, it was fear of disruption of the wider church ( read ; Nigeria et al) which forced Jeffrey John out. Seems like it wasn't worth it now, doesn't it ?
And whilst I will happily denounce homophobia here, it is a damned sight worse in much of the developing world. Talk to gay people in Africa and parts of Asia and you may see what I am getting at.
Why is there this attitude that what we would find totally unacceptable here can somehow be accepted because it forms part of someone's traditional culture ? Why is the Third World always above criticism ? I don't think those gay men and lesbians in those countries who have the courage to come out would share your enthusiasm. Particularly as the Church does precisely nothing to counteract or challenge the prejudices which exist - and in some cases, both promote and encourage them.
[ 06. August 2003, 10:10: 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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by calpurnia:
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"
Wow, that was a rude and tasteless debut.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
well congratulations guys, and heres hoping that your example gets us united methodists miving in the tight direction.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
Since this is not Hell, I won't comment on Calpurnia's disgusting remark.
Erin---move on up here! Bishop Chane is a lovely man (even if he did "steal" our parish priest as one of his first new staff hires ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) ), and I think he has the gifts needed to lead us through any crisis.
Has anyone seen a list of who voted which way? Or is the ballot secret?
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I think , if agreement to live and let live isn't possible, that there should be a civilised and agreed split if at all possible. I just don't have the problem with it which many seem to ; the church started as the result of a split, and there have been other splits since.
I don't think a split in itself is necessarily wrong. I'm quite sure that both bodies will lay claim to something of Anglicanism. I don't have the right to stop them doing that. My question is ; can we co-exist ? In other words, can those who disagree with gay priests or same sex blessings accept their existence, even though they do not agree with them and would not partake in them. I just don't see any evidence for that, long-term.
I have stayed in the Church despite its attitude and policies ; if those are beginning to change, why should I leave? A split does not necessarily mean that any one group shopuld 'leave' ; a split suggests two different bodies emerging from the fractured and warring whole.
It works both ways Mike. Can those who agree with gay priests/same sex blessings accept those who don't? You clearly can't.
You have held your present views on this issue for many years. Those views are not, and never have been, the official teaching of the Church of England. But you have stayed within the church and campaigned for change. One Anglican province now supports your view. And the second it does you now say all those who disagree (whether in that province or elsewhere) should leave. Perhaps they might take a leaf out of your book, stay and campaign for change within?
There is no real difference between you saying that the likes of Reform should leave the C of E and Reform saying people like you should go.
It is regrettable that conservatives in the Episcopalian church are making a lot of noise over this issue rather than over the likes of Spong. Or perhaps they did so but didn't get media attention that this issue has?
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
'Justus'
Shipmate
# 2424
|
Posted
Merseymike;
It's clear that we both agree that bigotry - wherever its geograhical location - should be fought and opposed. It's a fundamental of justice.
Where we disagree is your suggestion is that the bigotry found in developing countries is somehow different than that found in more economically advanced societies.
I don't go along with your contention that the bigotry of the Archbishop of Nigeria, say, on this issue is somehow worse than that of David Banting, the Chair of Reform. Both would argue they have a scriptual validity for their position, and both would find echoes of their position in their respective cultures.
To say that the main grounds for opposition in developing countries is cultural, but here in the west we have oh-so-more advanced reasons for our bigotry, and is therefore less hurtful, destructive or unjust doesn't work for me.
Telling someone who is struggling with the issue of coming out in a rural mining village in Derbyshire that they should be happy they don't live in Nigeria becuase they would have much more difficulty doing so seems to be the coldest of comforts and hardly a reason for reassurance.
You say the main reason for Jeffrey John's non-appointment lies with the developing world - I would beg to differ. I agree it was a factor but think that the reaction of parts of the CofE, and parts of the Oxford diocese was more crucial.
I'm not saying that bigotry found in the developing world is beyond reproach. I'm just not convinced the bigotry here is any better. And given that I think you share this view, why create the false dichotomy between them ?
Posts: 295 | From: York | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I agree with just about all of that. The bigotry here is every bit as bad.
However - and this is the core of what I am trying to say - the arguments based purely on incompatibility with developing world cultures, or those based purely on personal disgust and loathing, which we have heard on a regular basis, should be challenged and condemned. I think that there is a reluctance to do this simply because they come from the developing world.
Why is it acceptable to cite 'culture' in opposition to gay people in the Church, but not acceptable to cite changing culture in support of it?
Why is it only acceptable to be counter-cultural in the case of 'liberal, Western culture'. Why can't we be counter-cultural with regard to developing world prejudices ?
I
--------------------
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
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
I can acceot those who disagree, Ian, but short of creating a totally different system of church governance, I find it difficult to seehow they can stay together.
I've never been in favour of flying bishops, for example, but if there were to be integrities which both supported and oppoosed gay clergy and blessing of same sex relationships recognised within one province and the wider communion, then unity would be little more than pretence. Would we have bishops according to our beliefs on gender and sexuality? The problem is that those who oppose the things I believe in just cannot live with the things I would want to see in the Church.
Its because I recognise that both sides feel so strongly that I think it may make more sense to move forward separately.
Seriously - given that neither side will ultimately compromise ( and I don't think they should) then what would be your solution ?
[ 06. August 2003, 11:15: 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
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Its because I recognise that both sides feel so strongly that I think it may make more sense to move forward separately.
So why don't you? Why don't you leave the Anglican Church? See, we understand and respect your point - what we want to know is why you don't follow it to its logical conclusion. You've suggested many times that certain people should leave the Anglican communion - it still seems to me that, if you believe in your position that much, that the first move must come from you.
Unless, of course, after thinking about it, you don't really believe that this is worth dying in a ditch over and that you're prepared to put up with the situation for now, which is a perfeclty legitimate place to be (and probalby the only distinguishing mark of Anglicanism - a pragmatic compromise that people are prepared to put up with. As Richard Hooker used to say (EP,Bk X.vi.3), "It may be a pile of shit, but it's my pile of shit." Or something like that, anyway.)
--------------------
"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
I think, ideally, that there should be some sort of mutual agreement to separate if a way of co-existing which doesn't include the current poisonous climate cannot be found.
I think its that climate which is doing the most damage. I'm not suggesting anyone leaves, but to be fair, its not us who are making all the rumbling noises and threats.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
Originally posted by Merseymike:
quote:
However - and this is the core of what I am trying to say - the arguments based purely on incompatibility with developing world cultures, or those based purely on personal disgust and loathing, which we have heard on a regular basis, should be challenged and condemned. I think that there is a reluctance to do this simply because they come from the developing world.
Mike, are you saying that all Third World Anglicans view on homosexuality is purely cultural? Is there any prospect that it may simply be derived from their interpretation of the Bible?
Many of the Third World primates you despise are being counter-cultural simply by living as Christians in predominantly Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist cultures. In some cases they face persecution because of their beliefs.
I don't see any evidence that Western evangelicals are agreeing with the Third World primates to avoid critiquing their culture. They do so because they interpret the Bible in the same way.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
But constantly, Third World clerics talk primarily about their culture as a reason for their views. Not the Bible.
I'm quite sure their interpretation of the Bible contributes as well ; but I think their statements speak for themselves.
I do not think there is anything particularly nearer to God about Third World cultures ; they may be more similar to those in the first century and before, but that is hardly a recommendation. Its like saying that the enlightenment and liberal progress is not welcome - which I totally refute.
--------------------
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
|
|
crb11
Apprentice
# 4817
|
Posted
(My first real post!)
One thing that surprises me is that the ECUSA only require a simple majority for a vote like this: a 58-42% split in favour is hardly a clear confirmation of God's will.
The Baptist church I attend requires a 75% vote in favour to send a call to a prospective new minister, and in general the minister won't come unless the figure is some way over that. Why? Because it's hard to be an effective leader with a sizeable minority who were against you coming in the first place.
I hope and pray Robinson knows what he's doing by accepting...
Posts: 3 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
Originally posted by Merseymike:
quote:
Seriously - given that neither side will ultimately compromise ( and I don't think they should) then what would be your solution ?
I do not support a split over this issue. The idea that we should reorganise the church over an issue which is mentioned about 6 times in the Bible, was never referred to by Jesus, does not feature in the Nicene Creed, 39 Articles or any other basis of faith is absolutely preposterous. It is making the church look a complete joke.
There may be a case for reorganising the episcopacy along doctrinal grounds rather than along purely regional grounds. I have mooted this before on this website. But if we are going to do that, let's try and do so on the basis of something other than homosexuality.
You are treating attitudes towards homosexuality as a test of Christian orthdoxy. I respect your views. I accept they are held with integrity. But Dyfrig is right. If this issue is so fundamental to you that you can't stand being in a church where there are people with different views then you are the one who should leave.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winnisquam Diamond
Apprentice
# 4813
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
quote:
Come now; they're not going to become Lutherans. Think of all the molded jell-o puddings with suspended carrots and pineapples. *shiver*.
Too true!!!!
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
- "Ad Astra alis porci"
(To the stars on the wings of a pig)
Posts: 11 | From: Indiana but I wish I were in NH | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Degs
Friend of dorothy
# 2824
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Its because I recognise that both sides feel so strongly that I think it may make more sense to move forward separately.
So why don't you? Why don't you leave the Anglican Church? See, we understand and respect your point - what we want to know is why you don't follow it to its logical conclusion. You've suggested many times that certain people should leave the Anglican communion - it still seems to me that, if you believe in your position that much, that the first move must come from you.
I don't see the logic of your argument.
The Anglican Communion will soon have an openly Gay Bishop. He will have all the same rights and responsibilities as any other Bishop in the Communion. He will be a member of the House of Bishops in his own province. He will be elligible to attend the next Lambeth Conference - that should be fun!
It seems to me the 'move' should come from those who reject his election, not those who accept and welcome it.
--------------------
The preest when he hath sayd and red all: he gyueth the benedyccion upon all those that be there present and then he doth tourne hym from the people retournynge thyther from whens he came.
Posts: 2388 | From: a land that I heard of once in a lullaby | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Later than a very late thing:
I'd like to offer my congratulations to Bishop Robinson.
I don't think there'll be a schism - remember when one was threatened over women priests? That hasn't happened, has it?
I think threatening to leave the Anglican Communion was just another tactic to try to keep the "gays" out. I'll be very surprised if anybody (any body ?) actually goes through with it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
The one thing I am disappointed by is how everyone reacted to the last minute allegations. The worst was assumed (i.e. a plot cooked up by conservative clerics) and the possibility, however flimsy, that there could be some truth to what the alleged victim was saying was completely written off. I guess we can't help but react with our own prejudices in emotional situations, but I hate seeing people go to the same level as creeps like David Virtue or the idiot (sorry I know this isn't Hell) who wrote the glory hole comment.
Rant over.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
quote:
If this issue is so fundamental to you that you can't stand being in a church where there are people with different views then you are the one who should leave.
But I can stand it ; I'm not proposing to leave. The only threats I have heard are from the evangelical wing .
Its the fact that I , as a gay man in a relationship - unrepentant, self-affirming, practising, as Gary Comstock once put it - remain within the Church , and that many of those who don't agree with me want to change this fact - as they made absolutely clear on the lunchtime news today.
Perhaps there could be ways of organising the Church to allow us all to stay under the same roof, but it doesn't change the fact that its the conservative wing which have declared this a 'first-order salvation issue'. Not me, not those who want to see an affirming Church.
I agree with Degs.
--------------------
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
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
May I draw the attention of all to the Jumping for Gene! thread in Heaven!
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
The only threats I have heard are from the evangelical wing.
Threats? What threats? Who here in the CofE has threatened you or your parish in any way whatsoever?
The only actual retaliation there has been over any of this has been theologically liberal Anglo-Catholic bishops in ECUSA taking legal action against theologically traditional Anglo-Catholic parishes in their own diocese.
--------------------
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, come off it, Ken. Reform and the Church Society here, and the delightful denizens of Anglican Mainstream have been making plenty of noises about what they intend to do should any of these terrible things happen.
Reform have also passed a resolution saying that appropriate discipline will be carried out to those of us who refuse to repent of our terrible wickedness in daring to love another person. Do I need to mention Akinola ?
And please lets not forget Jeffrey John. A martyr for nothing, given that the cause for threatened schism has happened but one month later.
--------------------
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 crb11:
One thing that surprises me is that the ECUSA only require a simple majority for a vote like this: a 58-42% split in favour is hardly a clear confirmation of God's will.
Bishop Robinson was the overwhelming choice of his own diocese. Given that those folks have lived and worked with him for the last 16 years, I believe their vote of confidence WAS a confirmation of God's will. That Convention had to ratify that choice was simply an accident of timing.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The only actual retaliation there has been over any of this has been theologically liberal Anglo-Catholic bishops in ECUSA taking legal action against theologically traditional Anglo-Catholic parishes in their own diocese.
Ken---please spell out what you are talking about here. Because if it's what I think it is, you seem to be misinformed about the issues at stake.
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Winnisquam Diamond
Apprentice
# 4813
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Winnisquam Diamond:
quote:
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
quote:
Come now; they're not going to become Lutherans. Think of all the molded jell-o puddings with suspended carrots and pineapples. *shiver*.
Too true!!!!
--------------------
- "Ad Astra alis porci"
(To the stars on the wings of a pig)
Posts: 11 | From: Indiana but I wish I were in NH | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crb11:
(My first real post!)
One thing that surprises me is that the ECUSA only require a simple majority for a vote like this: a 58-42% split in favour is hardly a clear confirmation of God's will.
Well, if He disagrees with it that much I'm sure He's capable of making His views known.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Oh, come off it, Ken. Reform and the Church Society here, and the delightful denizens of Anglican Mainstream have been making plenty of noises about what they intend to do should any of these terrible things happen.
What is it they intend to do? What do they say they will do to you and yours? Even if they come up with some scheme allowing them to deal with their own customised bishops how will that inconvenience you in any way? Are you likely to want to preside over the Eucharist in Jesmond in the near future? Are you actually threatened because Gene Robinson would not be welcome to do that?
How would that be any worse than the anti-women-priest FiF Anglo-Catholics in the parish I live in, but don't worship in, in whose church our parish priest woudl not be welcome?
Or, in fact, how is it worse than the fact that you and I would not be welcome to take communion in our local Roman Catholic parishes?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
Dyfrig, I have to go along with MM here. If liberals for example were screaming that Grahame Dow's school of recto-demonology was rank heresy and if he wasn't kicked out forthwith they would leave en-masse, the situation would be different. But it isn't that way round as well you know.
In England Jeffrey John was hounded out of his post by hardliners, primarily from outside of the diocese of Oxford and in ECUSA, a minority are demanding that a democratically elected bishop be prevented from taking up his post because they, and they alone, are the ultimate arbiters of orthodoxy.
These people are taking the line that they cannot be disagreed with on this issue and that their opinion is the only valid one. If they really feel that way, it's kind of difficult to coexist, but it is THEY who are causing the split by refusing to tolerate the views of others.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Appropriate discipline means exclusion from the Church, Ken. They simply don't think that gay people in a relationship should be in the Church. Actually, the Third World bishops give a better and clearer picture of their actual views, shorn of English pleasantry.
I know well that not all evangelicals think that, before you say anything, but I don't really regard 'well, its a sin, but we'll let you stay in the church as long as you don't want to be a priest' a very credible option either. Which is what we have at the moment in the CofE.
I would also underline what Wulfstan has said.
--------------------
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
|
|
Amazing Grace*
Shipmate
# 4754
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by basso:
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
[...] but El Camino Real just south of here is one of the ones talked about as possibly leaving.
ECR? I don't think they're likely to leave. +Dick Schimpfky is quite liberal and my sense is that the diocese is as well.
I think you're thinking of San Joaquin. +John-David Schofield is one of the three bishops in ECUSA who still doesn't ordain women, and my understanding is that that diocese is overall very conservative.
(For those from other countries or areas, El Camino Real runs down the California coast from San Jose to about San Luis Obispo(?); San Joaquin is the southern portion of the Central Valley from about Tracy to Bakersfield. The biggest political and social divide in this state is between the coast regions on the one hand and the much more conservative Valley and Sierras on the other. This IMO.)
[I don't mean to make this sound like a quibble, AG. I think it's important in times like this to be as accurate as we can be.]
basso
You are probably correct. But I will say that the only reason I knew what the ECR diocese was called was because I'd heard it in the news recently.
I agree with you that the coastal/inland split is the really important one in California these days, more so even than the historic north-south one. I come from the Valley myself.
Your understanding of where ECR runs seems to work with mine; I know that Santa Barbara proper is in the diocese with LA.
Charlotte (aka Amazing Grace)
--------------------
.sig on vacation
Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
This ia a full summary of the voting.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Hello Winnisquam Diamond,
You seem to be having problems! You can go to this thread on The Styx board to practice and ask questions about how to do things.
Welcome also to CRB11!
You might both want to check out my earlier post on this thread to Calpurnia for some basic introductory information.
cheers,
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
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by crb11:
One thing that surprises me is that the ECUSA only require a simple majority for a vote like this: a 58-42% split in favour is hardly a clear confirmation of God's will.
The Baptist church I attend requires a 75% vote in favour to send a call to a prospective new minister, and in general the minister won't come unless the figure is some way over that. Why? Because it's hard to be an effective leader with a sizeable minority who were against you coming in the first place.
A good and very overlooked point.
Some have probably been wondering where I've been -- on a "vacation" too busy to enable me to post here.
I think this whole episode is sad. The allegations were sad (and apparently had no substance), unfairly putting a cloud over GR and distracting from the real issues of his confirmation. I'm glad they were dismissed quickly.
But I do also feel it's sad that he was confirmed. Conservatives such as myself feel he has disqualified himself by his lifestyle and that his confirmation is a complete breakdown of the basics of church discipline.
I, like many conservatives, feel a complete breakdown of church discipline is grounds to leave a church. So there probably will be and should be a church split. So I find rejoicing inappropriate to say the least.
(BTW, as I've posted on another thread, this case is quite different from the Jeffery Johns case, as Johns is apparently leading a celibate lifestyle. GR is not.)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
Again, to reiterate Episcopal procedure to those of you outside our church: +Robinson had already been overwhelmingly elected by the Standing Committee in his own diocese. They are in a position to know best what sort of bishop that he would be and they would want.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
This ia a full summary of the voting.
(And a triumph of the HTML coders art it is too. Dark blue text on slightly darker blue background. A sore sight for my sore eyes. Oh look, they wrote it with Micrsoft Front Page - the 100% clue to spotting a brain-dead amateur who knows nothing at all about web pages and will probably never learn.)
Anyway, rant over, the triple-no votes are from:
Albany, Central Florida, Colombia, Dallas, Dominican Republic, East Carolina, Florida, Fort Worth, Haiti, Honduras, Northern Indiana, Pittsburgh, Quincy, Rio Grande, San Joaquin, South Carolina, Southwest Florida, Springfield, Taiwan, Texas, Virgin Islands, West Tennessee, West Texas, Western Kansas, Western Louisiana,
Which to my untutored eye shows a bias towards furrn parts and the south-east.
Northern Indiana, Pittsburgh stand out a little though. I don't know where Quincy is, I assume the Albany is the one in NY, and as for Springfield, isn't there one in every state?.
Not wishing to add fuel to Mike's idle speculations about nassssty Africans, but are these dioceses where the ECUSA faithful are more than usually likely to be black?
("El Camino Real"? It is as if we Brits renamed the diocese of Chelmsford as the "A13")
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mertseger
Faerie Bard
# 4534
|
Posted
Anyone know what the conservatives did immediately after the anouncement? Should we be sending condolances to the Lutherans for the sudden influx, or preparing emergency shipments of jello, and canned fruit for the refuges?
Oh, and, BTW, yay!
--------------------
Go and be who you are:
The Body of Christ,
The Goddess of Body,
The Manifest Song of Faerie.
Posts: 1765 | From: Oakland, CA, USA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Razorbacker
Apprentice
# 4814
|
Posted
Tomb:
National church authority never recognized? Can you cite me some case law that establishes this as the majority rule?
"We conclude that based upon the language of PECUSA Canon I.7.4, PECUSA was a real party in interest because it had a legal right to enforce the claim in question." Daniel v. Wray, 2003 N.C.App. LEXIS 1038, 580, S.E.2d 711, at *10 (using LexisOne) (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). See also Diocese of Albany v. Trinity Episcopal Church, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 471, 250 A.D.2d 282 (valid trust created in favor of both national church and its dioceses).
If you have the cites, I'd love to see some recent cases that come to a contrary conclusion.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Degs:
I don't see the logic of your argument.
Well, what do you expect from someone who likes "Be still for the presence of the Lord" ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Logic goes like this:
MM believes that there are irreconcilable differences between members of the Anglican communion.
He has on several occasions suggested that those who don't agree with him on the issue of sexuality should leave (despite his protestations on this thread, he has actually said this too many times to count.)
He fails to see that, perhaps, it's not his call to require people who are, rightly or wrongly, holding to the traditionally held position of hte church (as traditional and established as the chasuble, I might add) to leave the church - in fact, if he believes the Anglican church ought not to be one, then he is perfectly free to leave it and set up his own Church of England if he can't stand to be in the same body as the others whom Christ has called to be there too.
--------------------
"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
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
ken,
I do not have any statistics at hand to prove this, but I think the racial demographics of a diocese were not a causative factor in way. I don't think a single Afreican-American bishop voted against GR.
There are some more interesting common threads. Many of the dioceses listed were or continue to be opponents of women's ordination. Most are in areas that are conservative politcially as well as theologically, and would vote fairly solidly Republican. Outside of the South, many of the naysayers are relatively rural, e.g., Springfield (in Illinois and fragrant with the smell of cow manure) and El Camino Real.
I tink the divide we see is primarliy cultural, and it is being played out on this stage as it is repeatedly played out on others.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
To be honest I don't think the Church has a 'traditional' position on homosexuality, since the Church never seriously discussed the issue before the end of the 20th century. 'Tradition', in the theological sense, is not 'what we've always done', raffling victoria sandwiches does nopt constitute part of Holy Tradition. Tradition is what the consensus of the People of God, after discernment, holds to be implicit in revelation. I think the Church is in a period of discernment, and I think that the ultimata (?) issued by some conservatives are singularly unhelpful in this respect.
[aside] It's interesting that in a number of instances, notably the Arian controversy, those who have clung to a position ultimately declared unorthodox have been the scriptural conservatives. (Some Arians objected to the 'unbiblical' word homoousios .) [/aside]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Iakovos
Shipmate
# 623
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by calpurnia:
Question - Is Robinson a suitable representative for this role when he:
a. Breaks his vow to his (now ex-)wife and to God (Oh, yeah God, I didn't really mean forever, Amen)
c. Is part of a culture which encourages promiscuity, lack of commitment and whose political agenda is to mock the values of others.
PS - does his ordination bring a new dimension to the term "Glory Hole"
In regards to (a) if you had read the background of this carefully, you would know that he and his wife went back into the church and formally released each other from their vows, in addition to a civil divorce. As according to the theology
of marriage, the church does not marry people, they marry each other, it seems certainly possible for people to release each other from their vows.
(c) is a pure ad-hominem attack on all gay people with no basis in fact. Robinson has been in a faithful monogamous relationship. I have been for the last 13 years as well. As have most of my gay acquaintances. This talk of promiscuity is spreading a big lie.
Your PS is an extremely offensive and uncharitable
comment for a Christian to make.
-Iakovos
[ 06. August 2003, 15:36: Message edited by: Iakovos ]
Posts: 61 | From: Ossining, NY, USA | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
raffling victoria sandwiches does nopt constitute part of Holy Tradition.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Call yourself an Anglican! You'll be denying the liturgical neccesity of the Boy Scouts Church Parade next!
quote:
Tradition is what the consensus of the People of God, after discernment, holds to be implicit in revelation.
Cor. A new kind of tradition that we can make up as we go along!
And, what's more, that as it is "implicit in revelation" has to be the same as Scripture because those who say it isn't are reading Scripture wrong!
How many legs does that stool have now?
[ 06. August 2003, 15:36: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
ken,
Quincy is also in rural Illinois.
I confused El Camino Real with San Joaquin. The former is primarily coastal. After all my years in Califronia, I am still occasionally confounded by Spanish names.
El Camino Real refers to the road built by the Spanish during their colonization of California, and began as a foot trail connecting missions from San Diego in the south to Sonoma (a bit above San Francisco) in the north.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merseymike
Shipmate
# 3022
|
Posted
Catholic Tradition is a living thing rooted in the Revelation of Jesus Christ and growing in the Experience of the Church
(Affirming Catholicism)
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
