|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: ECUSA vs. The C of E
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
This is the story. This may be the liturgy (Though this site clearly has a particular POV, so I am open to correction.)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
BroJames: I am wary of using the evidence of someone who is obviously a critic. I have tried to get to the same spot from the official TEC website but so far failed. The best I can do is to get to this Women's Worship Resources. I cant see how you get from here to the 'service' being criticised.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
Interestingly further down the page in the liturgy given by BroJames is a comment which says quote:
This ritual was never sanctioned by the Episcopal Church and how it got on their site is a mystery but it is gone now. The priests in question was looking for a way to bring pagans over to Christ, but they went too far and the story got twisted.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
I read the rite when it was on the Episcopal Church website, and what BroJames has linked to looks right to me. The rite was removed from TEC's website when it was found to be copyrighted material from the druid group the priests in the NY Times article belonged to.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Jeez that was all a while back. I remember thinking that an organization like TEC - with a modest membership by American standards - has a rather large organizational structure down there at 815. People get lost in ecclesiastical structures and particularly anomalous bits of liturgy get stuffed in file folders marked 'womens' liturgies' or 'save for review later on'. Nowadays, of course, with the sharks circling the Episcopal Church looking for anything which is news, everything which has any online presence at all is being pored over by folks who don't wish TEC well - all those bow-tied clad 'conservative pundits' on loan to Anglican Mainstream now that Hillary Clinton is no longer seen as as much of a threat are just waiting. Their nipples get hard when the little 'you've got mail' sticker comes on on their computers and then it 'fingers tap away, we got druids at 815!'
I wonder if weird liturgies stuffed in file folders by weary religious leaders for later review would have explained the Dead Sea Scrolls? Dunno
RR
[ 18. January 2007, 16:28: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
Thanks for the links. That explains a lot!
This what looks like a very isolated incident happened three years ago and it's still floating around as an (assumed) Episcopal practice?
[ 18. January 2007, 17:18: Message edited by: mgeorge ]
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
There was a rather testy thread on the subject with assorted evos saying: "Behold, the abomination of desolation foretold by the Prophet Daniel", the rest of us saying: "What to the point of ever" and Dave Marshall saying: "This is bad, why?"* Consequently 'raisin cakes' has entered ship folklore as a shorthand for liturgical flakiness. I don't think that anyone now thinks that ECUSA clergy routinely offer raisin cakes to Astarte, whatever more excitable people may have implied at the time.
*Actually, I just made that up to get a cheap laugh. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
What exactly does "out of communion" imply in a Communion that practices open Table Fellowship?
It seems to me that "out of communion" (variations include" "tearing the Communion apart" &tc) are sticks which both sides use to beat each other because, as someone said above, there is no defined authority in the Anglican Communion to enforce popular or unpopular discpline.
I've said it before: it seems astonishing to me that we could all live with divergent beliefs about the Office of the Holy Communion, but we have to get in a pet about what people do with their knobs.
Somewhere on this thread the Bishop of Willesdon said that if he came into the United States he would probably not go to an Episcopal Church (is he "out of communion" with ECUSA?). Would he not do so because of the dirty sexual habits of one of ECUSA's bishops, or because the ECUSA teaches a belief in the Real Presence in the Holy Communion?
These troubled times make me wonder just with whom I am "in communion" (if that phrase has any meaning) and if "in communion" has anything whatever to do with the actual Holy Communion or if it's just a way to get het up about the buggery.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
Got it, Callan. Thanks!
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Somewhere on this thread the Bishop of Willesdon said that if he came into the United States he would probably not go to an Episcopal Church (is he "out of communion" with ECUSA?). Would he not do so because of the dirty sexual habits of one of ECUSA's bishops, or because the ECUSA teaches a belief in the Real Presence in the Holy Communion?
These troubled times make me wonder just with whom I am "in communion" (if that phrase has any meaning) and if "in communion" has anything whatever to do with the actual Holy Communion or if it's just a way to get het up about the buggery.
I think I'd prefer pete173, just to keep us in SOF mode, please. And it's "Willesden".
And, no, I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA. I await the results of the Primates Meeting and the response of ECUSA to the Windsor proposals. And you misrepresent (rather trivially) the point I was trying to make about limits to diversity.
The conversation, yonks back on the thread, was about whether the "governing ideology" or plausibility structure - take your pick as to how you describe it - of a denomination can make it inherently liberal (or conservative, or whatever), and therefore unpalatable as a first choice place of worship to someone of a different theological hue.
Because we misunderstand each other across the Pond, many of the ECUSA folk might assume that all CofE people would automatically resort to an ECUSA church when in the US. I was saying that I wouldn't.
(Sorry, long point of explanation, but I do think that you were rather venting your spleen on the wrong target!)
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The conversation, yonks back on the thread, was about whether the "governing ideology" or plausibility structure - take your pick as to how you describe it - of a denomination can make it inherently liberal (or conservative, or whatever), and therefore unpalatable as a first choice place of worship to someone of a different theological hue.
Yes, I remember. And you basically accused the Episcopal Church of not having a governing ideology based on scripture. I'd still like to know where on earth you got that idea.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I think we had that discussion on page 1 of the thread! You may not have liked my answer, or thought it resonated with your understanding, but I think I did try to answer it.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
No, you just cited our presiding bishop's sermon on the millenial goals as evidence that we're not biblically based, and that was refuted, complete with scriptural citation (Matthew 25), before we reached page 2. If you're going to make the truly outrageous claim that the Bible is not our governing principle, you would do well to provide some real evidence that this is the case. And if you really want to try to make a real argument, you could say, with evidence, what you think is the governing principle of the Episcopal Church.
[typo]
[ 18. January 2007, 19:27: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
... and Dave Marshall saying: "This is bad, why?"* Consequently 'raisin cakes' has entered ship folklore...
*Actually, I just made that up to get a cheap laugh.
As cheap laughs go, I probably resemble that one. Good to know I'm at least making an impression on you, Callan, if not on the foundations of the Church of England. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I think I'd prefer pete173, just to keep us in SOF mode, please.
As you wish, but the point I was trying to make is that there is somewhat different implication for an Anglican bishop saying he would seek outside the Anglican communion for worship than yer average punter from WillesdEn.
quote:
And you misrepresent (rather trivially) the point I was trying to make about limits to diversity.
Well, no, I'm not representing anything. I'm actually asking how divergent theologies of the Lord's Supper are within the limits of diversity but differing views on buggery in the purple are outside?
quote:
(Sorry, long point of explanation, but I do think that you were rather venting your spleen on the wrong target!)
Don't know about my spleen and its vents. For what it's worth I'm conservative on the issue of the Bishop of New Hampshire but it doesn't mean I feel compelled to seek alternative oversight from My Lord of Chester.
So I'm just wondering what the big deal is (not just for pete173).
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, you just cited our presiding bishop's sermon on the millenial goals as evidence that we're not biblically based, and that was refuted, complete with scriptural citation (Matthew 25), before we reached page 2. If you're going to make the truly outrageous claim that the Bible is not our governing principle, you would do well to provide some real evidence that this is the case. And if you really want to try to make a real argument, you could say, with evidence, what you think is the governing principle of the Episcopal Church.
I've been awaiting that evidence as well.
By the way, I sat and watched the entire ++KJSfest, and while I thought it was frequently tedious and silly, I didn't see any ashes on the altar. That sounds like the David Virtue version.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA
Now I'm really confused. Surely you must be one or the other? And, as a bishop in the Church of England, you must know which?
I assumed you were in communion with ECUSA for the time being at least, that being the default position in the Anglican Communion. Seems to me that you are straining the bonds of affection a lot on this thread, and not least by equivocating on this pretty basic point.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
Hookers Trick said:
quote:
For what it's worth I'm conservative on the issue of the Bishop of New Hampshire but it doesn't mean I feel compelled to seek alternative oversight from My Lord of Chester.
So I'm just wondering what the big deal is (not just for pete173).
And this is really the cruncher. It's pretty clear Akinola and his fan club really do regard homosexuals as unspeakably vile and abhorent which at least explains why they are acting as they are.
For those who claim they don't feel like this, I still don't see:
a: How other provinces get to intefere in the appointment of a TEC bishop when it's all been done by the book, and when such interference is clearly in violation of Anglican tradition/governance. And indeed how Akinola's behaviour in all this is better than TECs.
b: How the previous behaviour of a CofE cleric, who has sworn to stop said behaviour, and has cleared this with his bishop is the business of anyone else at all.
c: When you are consecrated as a bishop, where in your vows do you get to stick in the caveat: "unless the liberals take over".
I'm aware there some in the CofE who feel far more loyalty to the EA or whatever than they do to their actual church, I just wasn't aware that there were bishops among them.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wulfstan:
I still don't see:
a: How other provinces get to intefere in the appointment of a TEC bishop when it's all been done by the book, and when such interference is clearly in violation of Anglican tradition/governance.
I'm an observer in all this, but it seems to me that the view that there's been any interference is a very unhelpful misreading of the situation.
My understanding is that being 'in communion', what being part of the Anglican Communion is about, is a state that exists when different Churches recognise in each other a shared way of being a Church. It's not a club membership thing. If one Church decides, for whatever reason, in whatever way, to do something the others would not do, they're not 'kicked out' of the Communion. They simply no longer have the same way of being a Church as the others. It's a state that has changed, not a membership that's been revoked.
If the others point this out, which is I think what has been going on here, I don't see that is interfering. It's a consequence of what is being or has been done. I'd have thought that fell squarely within the freedom of speech values that TEC upholds, and was an unavoidable outcome of Churches who try to talk openly and honestly to each other.
Of course the politics makes this look infinitely complex. But I can't help thinking that a bit more clarity about the nature of 'communion' in this context would avoid some of the misunderstandings.
[ 19. January 2007, 13:22: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
This is a tangent, but indulge me:
Is it possible for an Anglican church to be out of communion with the Church of England?
Presumably all Anglicans have to be in communion with the Church of England (or the See of Canterbury at least) whether or not they are in "communion" with each other.
Can yo be "in communion" with the See of Canterbury and "out of communion" with the Church of England?
Presumably being "out of communion" with the See of Canterbury results in no longer being Anglican.
I'm not sure what the consequences of being out of communion with the Province of Nigeria or the ECUSA are.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There was a rather testy thread on the subject with assorted evos saying: "Behold, the abomination of desolation foretold by the Prophet Daniel", the rest of us saying: "What to the point of ever" and Dave Marshall saying: "This is bad, why?"*
If we cut it off right there before the raisin cakes, this describes about 2/3 of the threads in Purgatory.
--------------------
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
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Hooker's Trick asks:
quote:
Is it possible for an Anglican church to be out of communion with the Church of England?
Well, there is the Church of England in South Africa, which broke away in the wake of Bishop Colenso's critique of Deuteronomy etc., and which continues, supplied by retired CoE bishops and the Archbishop of Sydney, whom I gather provided them with the Apostolic Succession. I'm not sure if the Reformed ECUSA (an 1870s-era secession from the then-PECUSA) classifies itself as Anglican, but perhaps some US shipmates might provide us with that information. And then, of course, there is the alphabet soup of the Continuum...
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
"It is also entirely possible for a church to be completely Anglican in heritage and origin, but for it not to be in communion with the See of Canterbury."
Se this list from "Anglicans Online"
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
Is it possible for an Anglican church to be out of communion with the Church of England?
Certainly, in my humble and unlearned opinion.
Mind you, I haven't quite worked out a precise definition of what it means to be Anglican yet. It would just seem like rank hypocrisy to claim churches that break away from the Communion lose their Anglicanism, yet get all huffy when the Roman Catholics ask what happened in the 16th century.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA
Now I'm really confused. Surely you must be one or the other?
Hmmm... I read that as "I personally as an individual am not in or out of communion"
Intercocommunion in this sense being between churches as churches (or dioceses as dioceses, or provinces as provinces) rather than between individual Christians.
As someone else said, as Anglican churches tend to welcome worshippers from other traditions to the Lord's table anyway, it doesn't really mean much to say that some individual is in or out of communion.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
Dave Marshall said:
quote:
If one Church decides, for whatever reason, in whatever way, to do something the others would not do, they're not 'kicked out' of the Communion. They simply no longer have the same way of being a Church as the others. It's a state that has changed, not a membership that's been revoked.
Except it's not been done over other differences. Issues over various African churghes have been cited, women priests, liturgical differences have all been taken in their stride. Why suddenly is there such an extreme and unpreedented response?
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I'm not sure if the Reformed ECUSA (an 1870s-era secession from the then-PECUSA) classifies itself as Anglican, but perhaps some US shipmates might provide us with that information.
I read in a book, just today, that they had ordinations by the South Africans that were mentioend earlier.
As far as I can gther the REC is the only one of these split-off churches than has more than a handful of parishes or a few hundred worshippers. Is that about right?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
Originally posted by pete173:
quote:
I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA
Now I'm really confused. Surely you must be one or the other? And, as a bishop in the Church of England, you must know which?
I assumed you were in communion with ECUSA for the time being at least, that being the default position in the Anglican Communion. Seems to me that you are straining the bonds of affection a lot on this thread, and not least by equivocating on this pretty basic point.
*Sigh* that looks like what's going on to me.
For what it's worth, Pete, your attitude on this thread is very, very, very discouraging (to say the least) to those of us on the more-progressive side who have been urging patience (etc.) to the more-extremists in *our* camp. Ruth touched on this with her "I wonder why I bother" but I think this is worth spelling out.
If this is the way that you're trying to keep the Run-That-Woman-Out-On-A-Rail gang in line, I can see why things have been getting worse.
If this is All Not What You Really Meant, I am, of course, all ears.
Bede's reminder that a lot of the rest of the AC isn't really aware of our polity* is an excellent one. And, of course, the Raisin Cakes/Clown Mass brigade gets *press*.
* Ruth's point that TPTB should have done policy before the VGR thing is a Most Excellent one.
After reading your posts, I'm both hungry for waffles (don't know if that slang requires a pond translation, but if so, I hope some kind shipmate will step up and provide it) and have "The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord" going through my mind's ear. Time for breakfast ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) .
Charlotte
[ 19. January 2007, 15:37: Message edited by: Amazing Grace ]
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Hooker's Trick asks:
quote:
Is it possible for an Anglican church to be out of communion with the Church of England?
Well, there is the Church of England in South Africa, which broke away in the wake of Bishop Colenso's critique of Deuteronomy etc., and which continues, supplied by retired CoE bishops and the Archbishop of Sydney, whom I gather provided them with the Apostolic Succession. I'm not sure if the Reformed ECUSA (an 1870s-era secession from the then-PECUSA) classifies itself as Anglican, but perhaps some US shipmates might provide us with that information. And then, of course, there is the alphabet soup of the Continuum...
The REC does consider itself Anglican . . . because we are. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And we are in the apostolic succession.
Yes, the Continuum is quite an alphabet soup, to our discredit. We are making concrete moves to become more unified, such as the ongoing merger of the REC and the APA.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA
Now I'm really confused. Surely you must be one or the other?
Hmmm... I read that as "I personally as an individual am not in or out of communion"
I wondered about that after I posted, but the full quote was "And, no, I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA. I await the results of the Primates Meeting and the response of ECUSA to the Windsor proposals." - which suggests that he will have a personal in-or-out-of-communion position, when the results are in, and is in a state of suspended communion in the meantime, which was a surprise (if that is what he meant) to me.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Genevičve
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
Well-said, "Wulfstan!"
And for those of you who do not know what the "interference" is, it is the continuing interference into the lives/process/polity of other dioceses in the Anglican Communion by Akinola and other likek-minded bishops. The Windsor Report specifically asked for such interference to stop.
Another example of the double standards going on in the whole debacle.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
The REC does consider itself Anglican . . . because we are.
If the EUCSA were not in communion with the See of Canterbury I would no longer consider her Anglican.
Greyface: I'm rather with the Roman Catholics on that one.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
HT, do you consider there to be anything special about Anglican churches? In leaving communion with Canterbury, have the continuum lost anything beyond the obvious?
If so, we're all in trouble. If not, Anglican is just a label that means "in communion with Canterbury" and nothing more.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If not, Anglican is just a label that means "in communion with Canterbury" and nothing more.
I think that is what it is.
Continuing "Anglican" is essentially a synonym for "worshipping according to some variation of the 1928 BCP".
If the "special" thing about Anglicanism is worship derived from the Prayer Book, then Divine Outlaw Dwarf (and others) are not Anglicans.
If the "special" thing about Anglicanism is comprehensiveness, the very existence of "continuing Anglicans" (and indeed, the existence of this thread) seems to undercut that notion.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
* Ruth's point that TPTB should have done policy before the VGR thing is a Most Excellent one.
I think that was me, but anyway, it's something that is very important. That step was skipped, and it shouldn't have been. But in the end, the problem with this issue is that it seems all very theoretical until you're dealing with actual gay people who you know and love (really, not just in a Christian sense). Do we somehow have more gay members of TEC than the CofE does and so far greater knowledge of actual gay people? Because extensive exposure makes having a theoretical theological discussion about whether having gay sex is a bar to ordination (or whatever) much more difficult. However difficult, though, it's a decision that should have been made, though, before we made a gay guy a bishop.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Do we somehow have more gay members of TEC than the CofE does and so far greater knowledge of actual gay people?
Having been to a geat many Anglo-Catholic churches here in England its hard to see how that would be possible. Short of actual gay clubs or bars they seem to have a higher proportion of gay men as members than any other institution in society.
Though my main experiences are in Brighton (my home town) and the dicocese of Southwark where I live now, so it might not be statistically valid. Both places are much more "High Church" than most parts of the Church of England, Southwark dicocese has a partly deserved reputation for theological liberalism, Brighton has an entirely deserved reputation for social liberalism. It also has the largest proportion of out gay men of any city in Britain. (And the largest proportion of drug-related deaths of any city in Britain ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ). So my observations may not be relevant to the rest of the country.
Evangelical churches are a different story. But I don't think I've ever been to one of any size that didn't have homosexual members. (More lesbians than gay men I think, not that I've ever tried to count). But very often, even if they are "out" in general society they are not obviously out and gay in church.
So it might be possible for someone who wanted to believe that there are none in th church to carry on believing that, if they didn;t pay too much attention. Don't ask, don't tell is still the default policy. (and I'm not sure its a bad one, but that's a subject for another thread, which is probably dead)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Though my main experiences are in Brighton (my home town) and the dicocese of Southwark where I live now, so it might not be statistically valid.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I nominate this remark for understatement of the year!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
I find myself growing (quite rightly unpopularly)nostalgic for the days when
quote:
Don't ask, don't tell (was) still the default policy.
I think the issue with TEC is that the policy was abandoned there. Honesty is a costly policy.
RR
[ 21. January 2007, 22:07: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jerusalemcross
Shipmate
# 12179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Though my main experiences are in Brighton (my home town) and the dicocese of Southwark where I live now, so it might not be statistically valid.
I nominate this remark for understatement of the year!
And seconded...and third-ed! Interesting how +Southwark went from guns-blazing-anti-gay-clergy to "don't ask, don't tell" in a very short space of time. Probably realised that he would have too many vacancies if he really did refuse to "knowingly license or institute homosexual clergy living in full same-sex relationships" in Southwk. His get-out, of course, was "knowingly". ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
What's the difference between an organist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Posts: 305 | From: somewhere west of Eden | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I think Don't Ask Don't Tell is dreadfully underrated. It covers so many things, from gluttony to adultery that we really just don't want to know about, and gives us all plausible deniability, even when you know that the organist's "friend" is so much more. Worked for our parents' generation. Well, apart from the alcoholism, depression, suicide and occasional prosecution.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Personally Laura I think that
quote:
alcoholism, depression, suicide and occasional prosecution
are dreadfully under-rated. There is a tendency now in parishes to underplay the events which mark life's passages.
il faut souffrir pour etre belle
Everything's so homogenous nowadays!
R
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I think Don't Ask Don't Tell is dreadfully underrated. It covers so many things, from gluttony to adultery that we really just don't want to know about, and gives us all plausible deniability
There are plenty of things that some Christians think are sins and either avoid or confess, but others either don't think are sins at all, and legitimate practices, or at worst morally neutral weaknesses.
Like drinking beer, or drinking lots of beer, or betting on horse races, or oral sex, or voting Tory, or reading Harry Potter books, or telling dirty jokes, or lending money at interest, or marrying a Jew, or joining the army, or eating meat, or not eating meat, or using pornography, or getting fat, or listening to punk rock, or smoking, or saying prayers to Mary. Just to name a few.
If we were always going on about such things in church we'd never get round to worshipping.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Ken, that was a great post ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I agree with ken. I was making a joke, but obviously not doing a very good job of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Actually, I'm at a real disadvantage in the homosexuality debates because I just don't really care about what priests' family lives are as long as they aren't scandalous, abusive, adulterous, what-have-you. (I care far more about other qualities -- whether the priest is able to model Christ, whether he administers his responsibilities well, whether she understands liturgy and music, whether she can give good Sermon. That sort of thing.)
I also feel very strongly that the decision to spend a lot of time and energy on who's stupfing whom is taking attention away from things like the fact that huge proportions of the globe's population are living in war-torn half-starved misery and the environment is going down the toilet and this is time we could spend on that.
So perhaps I'm not a good person to be participating in this argument, in fairness.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
- on the other hand, maybe it makes you well qualified to offer guidance on that basis.
- or on the other hand again (I have 3 hands) perhaps we are supposed to get all these things right ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wulfstan
Shipmate
# 558
|
Posted
Amazing Grace said:
quote:
* Ruth's point that TPTB should have done policy before the VGR thing is a Most Excellent one.
Perhaps but I don't see why it doesn't equally apply to TEC's opponents. Again, the point is not simply that the consecration of GR was wrong, but that it's being made out that it was SO wrong that radical changes have to be made to the governance of the entire Communion so that we can more effectively cut off the right hand that is being so offensive. The arguments so far seem to be as follows:
1: It's against traditional Anglican teaching.
Like the ordination of women was and like offering Alternative Episcopal Oversight to TEC parishes still is.
2: It's a violation of Anglican policy on this issue.
Like many other provinces/dioceses/parishes who demonise homosexuals and are, in the case of Nigeria campaigning to have them all locked up.
3: It's immoral.
A rather more contentious suggestion, but how is it more so than the behaviour of certain bishops in Zimbabwe for example?
It's not that people who feel strongly shouldn't oppose or campaign against what's happening, but that they might stop short of restructuring the governance of the Anglican Communion so as to be able to expel those they disagree with.
This thread has been running for 10 pages now and I've yet to see anyone try to explain why this issue is so much worse than all the other examples cited.
Posts: 418 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
And, no, I'm not in or out of communion with ECUSA.
I struggle to see how this makes sense.
I understand that you await the results of the primates' meeting. But in the meantime, you presumably either are, or are not, in communion with the bishops of ECUSA.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foaming Draught
The Low in Low Church
# 9134
|
Posted
Look, I'm really cheesed off with this. Gene Robinson was unfit to be ordained presbyter, leave alone consecrated bishop, on so many grounds that ECUSA's support for him is sufficient by itself for that sect to be put beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
Parading homosexuality is just one symptom to be added to adultery, divorce and alcohol abuse. None of these disqualify him from God's love and the church's care, and in that regard perhaps ECUSA has the high ground. But all of them compounded remove him from consideration for presbyteral office.
How can any orthodox overseer associate himself with a sect which disregards scripture, tradition and reason so blatantly?
--------------------
Australians all let us ring Joyce
For she is young and free
Posts: 8661 | From: Et in Australia Ego | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Foaming Draught:
ECUSA's support for him is sufficient by itself for that sect to be put beyond the pale of orthodoxy.
Whereas, say, Jack Shelby Spong was OK.
It is faintly ridiculous to claim that the issue in the Robinson case is one of 'orthodoxy'. Which fundamental dogma has he denied?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
