|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
BTW, I am gay and I am in a relationship so I believe I am in the best position to understand how people treat homosexuals - both in the church and outside.
So when I say that your statement is naive, it's because I know better.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
Sorry ToujoursDan, I am a Christian and I talking about following Christ, heterosexual and homosexual do not figure adultery as heterosecual is error, so is same sex relations and I have given you the Biblical references.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Great. We're both Christians. Praise God for that. Now you'd think that after being an adult Christian for 25 years, I'd know what references you post. I am aware of what they say. We disagree on what they mean.
[ 18. December 2009, 16:58: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
Sorry tclune but if
This board [Dead Horses] is dedicated to those topics that recur with tedious regularity on nearly every multi-denominational religious debate forum on the internet. Specifically: biblical inerrancy, homosexuality,
what is this thread doing here? You arent about to tell me gay isnt homosexual but rather heterosexual are you? You have pages of discussion on this thread about Biblical inerrancy sexuality etc.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
As an outsider who has been following this discussion I have a number of questions about topics that have been touched on but not explored more fully. Perhaps they can help keep this discussion purgatorial and leave the scriptural discussions to the appropriate threads elsewhere.
First, as I understand it, ++KJS agreed to a moratorium on the approval of bishops whose lifestyle would deepen the rifts in the Communion.
Did this agreement apply just to TEC, or to all other provinces as well?
Does it apply to the actions of existing bishops, or just to the approval of new ones?
Did ++KJS have the authority to make a commitment on behalf of TEC? Or can she merely "suggest" or "recommend" that the bishops withhold consent in such cases?
Was this moratorium a stand-alone agreement, or part of a wider document that included other parties agreeing not to take actions that would threaten the unity of the Anglican Communion? If so, have those parties kept their side of the agreement? If not, does that mean the moratorium is moot?
Or is the moratorium an unwarranted intrusion into the domestic affairs of the individual dioceses of TEC, as some posters have claimed? Since bishops are chosen by the members of the dioceses rather than appointed by the church or political hierarchy, should they be able to choose the person who is best suited to providing pastoral care to the members of the diocese?
quote:
ken wrote back on page 2:
The traditional position of the churches has been that bishops (or priests, or any other ministers) should be either married or celibate.
Would make any difference in the eyes of her detractors if the bishop-elect was married to her partner, if the laws of the State of California so permitted?
Or if she followed the more traditional but less honest approach of living with a "devoted housekeeper" rather than publicly acknowledging her partner? It seems that there is a long history of gay bishops in the CoE, and likely in many of the other provinces as well: to what extent is the issue more about the public admission of her relationship more than her sexual orientation itself?
quote:
and again from the same post
Their (the objectors) problem is not that the Americans elect their (American) bishops, it is that some of them (the Americans) want to elect bishops who they (the objectors) believe to be living in unrepentant sin.
[Italics are mine to clarify the references as I believe ken meant them.]
Should this apply to non-sexual sins as well? Who decides which sins are significant enough to endanger the Communion? For example, from the comments on this and other threads it would appear that some Anglicans (not just members of TEC) believe that certain African primates are living in unrepentant sin of a more serious nature. If such a bishop remains in good standing in his/her diocese or province, what actions can/should other provinces take? [Trying to look at the general case, not any one set of specific circumstances.]
[Not to pick on you, ken, but your post brought up some good points that were easy to quote. The questions are open to anyone to answer.]
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
brightmorningstar
Inerrancy, like homosexuality, is a Dead Horse here. Probably without realising it, you are re-focusing discussions towards inerrancy and away from the original topic.
That's one of the reasons, why Purgatory Host tclune is considering closing the discussion.
It might be better for you to look at the various threads in Dead Horses which discuss biblical inerrancy. [There are two long ones on page 2 of the list of Dead Horses threads.] That way, you'll get some idea about the diversity of opinion on that issue.
Hope this helps. Many new members find it hard to come to terms with the diversity of opinions which exist here. It's a good idea to read around, look at the discussion guidelines, check out some threads just by reading, and try to get the feel of the place. Folks will make some initial allowances for your lack of experience.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
quote:
Should this apply to non-sexual sins as well? Who decides which sins are significant enough to endanger the Communion?
excellent question to expose the level of dysfunction in the discussion. Who is to suggest there are any non-sexual sins, if we dont agree with the interpretation of the nonsexual sins as sin then how can we decide which sins are significant is we cant decide what the sins are in the first place.
For me its no problem I just accept what the Bible says is sin and know it from the Holy Spirit.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
To Barnabus62,
Inerrnacy and the reliablity of scripture was what was being argued when I first joind the thread.
quote:
That's one of the reasons, why Purgatory Host tclune is considering closing the discussion.
I think it should be closed or better moved to the Dead Horses thread but as the topic continues to divide completely I fail to understand what is dead about it.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Jesus had a lot to say about the rich and accumulation of wealth. Should we refuse to consecrate wealthy people?
Jesus had a lot to say about divorce and remarriage. Should we refuse to consecrate divorced people (for reasons other than infidelity)?
Jesus called Gentiles dogs. Should people of only Jewish blood be consecrated?
The early Church in the book of Acts called eating blood a sin. Should we refuse to consecrate Bishops who like their steak rare?
We can go on and on.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Carex, to answer one of your questions, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has no metropolitical authority and hence could not unilaterally enter into a binding agreement with foreign primates. As a practical, de facto matter the House of Bishops of TEC could agree presumably not to consent to elections or to engage in consecrations but that wouldn't be an actual de jure provincial consent to a moratorium, which could only be done by the entire triennial General Convention of TEC. Indeed, there might be some constitutional and/or canonical problems with the bishops alone acting to enforce a moratorium in the absence of legislative action by the entire General Convention.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
To Barnabus62,
Inerrnacy and the reliablity of scripture was what was being argued when I first joind the thread.
quote:
That's one of the reasons, why Purgatory Host tclune is considering closing the discussion.
I think it should be closed or better moved to the Dead Horses thread but as the topic continues to divide completely I fail to understand what is dead about it.
Have you heard the expression "beating a dead horse"? Barnabas has already explained the purpose of the DH board, the exact name of which - but not the purpose or existance of which - has occasionally been a matter of debate here on the Ship.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Carex:
The Episcopal Church did pass a resolution in 2006 calling for an "exercise [of] restraint".
quote:
Resolution Number: 2006-B033
Title: Exercise Restraint in Consecrating Candidates
Legislative Action Taken: Concurred
Final Text:
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report's invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further
Resolved, That this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.
Citation: General Convention, Journal of the General Convention of...The Episcopal Church, Columbus, 2006 (New York: General Convention, 2007), pp. 650-653.
That was lifted in the 2009 General Convention which reaffirmed that the church will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Thanks for the reminder, ToujoursDan. To re-emphasise, the resolution calling for "restraint" was lifted earlier this year at the last General Convention. One might remember that means an affirmative vote for lifting the measure both in the House of Deputies (clergy and laity) and in the House of Bishops.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Sorry tclune but if
This board [Dead Horses] is dedicated to those topics that recur with tedious regularity on nearly every multi-denominational religious debate forum on the internet. Specifically: biblical inerrancy, homosexuality,
what is this thread doing here? You arent about to tell me gay isnt homosexual but rather heterosexual are you? You have pages of discussion on this thread about Biblical inerrancy sexuality etc.
This thread is specifically about the decision of TEC, and the wider Anglican response to that. The debate about scripture was in the context of what it means to be Anglican. The arguments on sexuality and inerrancy are understood and accepted as underpinning the debate.
This may seem a fine point, but it is one implicit in the OP and the rules concerning dead horses.
--------------------
You might want to visit my blog:
http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
But maybe not
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Here is the 2009 resolution:
quote:
* FINAL VERSION - Concurred
Resolution: D025
Title: Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion
Topic: Anglican Communion
Committee: 08 - World Mission
House of Initial Action: Deputies
Proposer: Ms. D. Rebecca Snow
Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church as a constituent member of the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church; and be it further
Resolved, That the 76th General Convention acknowledge that members of The Episcopal Church as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not of one mind, and Christians of good conscience disagree about some of these matters.
Of course, neither resolution caused a change in canon law. There was no canonical prohibition on the election of LGBT bishops during this period and at least one candidate was put forward (in Chicago I think), but the moratorium was observed.
[ 18. December 2009, 17:30: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
[ ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Looks up guidelines on junior hosting and decides "it's Christmas!"]
Seriously ...
Thanks, guys. Helpful additional explanations.
brightmorningstar, please feel free to send me a Private Message if you've got further questions about "Dead Horses" and how the topics are still very much alive. The titles of all the separate Boards are pretty whimsical. I mean, you'd hardly think "Purgatory" meant "Serious Discussion", would you?
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[Edited - Managed to pluralise myself by typo]
[ 18. December 2009, 18:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
To re-emphasise, the resolution calling for "restraint" was lifted earlier this year at the last General Convention. One might remember that means an affirmative vote for lifting the measure both in the House of Deputies (clergy and laity) and in the House of Bishops.
I think this in itself is a strong indication of the way the votes will go in re Mary Glasspool. I can't imagine that a bishop who voted in favor of this resolution would not consent to her consecration.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Pancho, to clarify even more broadly I am condemning all religious fundamentalisms and political intrusions of religion. I'm rather sympathetic to the restrictions placed on the Church historically in Mexico after each of the two Revolutions. If you don't like it, what can I say. Maybe reading through my postings over the course of the entire thread would give you a better understanding of the context.
LSK, I've followed this thread off and on and I think I have a sense of where you're coming from. I don't believe the Catholic Church's engagement in society can be dismissed as "political intrusions" or, FCB wrote above, can she be meaningfully described as "fundamentalist". I don't believe context absolves you from the prejudicial stereotypes and negative associations with which you worded your post.
My family (like so many others) had direct experiences with the Mexican Revolution and its aftermath. I do find it troubling that you'd express sympathy with the the anti-clerical measures of the 19th century or the repression of the Church that followed the 1910 Revolution as I can't see the government's closing of churches and the killing of priests as being anything other than a Bad Thing.
[ 18. December 2009, 18:42: Message edited by: Pancho ]
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
as the topic continues to divide completely I fail to understand what is dead about it.
Indeed the issue is not dead, nor is the Dead Horses area. A lot of people, I'm discovering, follow conversations there, and sometimes with an amazing amount of erudition. The "Lesbians and the Bible" thread is the only one in that area that I have ever dared to start, and already I feel rather out of my depth by the arguments on both sides, but am learning a lot. It may be the most challenging deck of the Ship.
Anyway, anyone who argues with a host's official advice tends to get shore leave.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
To re-emphasise, the resolution calling for "restraint" was lifted earlier this year at the last General Convention. One might remember that means an affirmative vote for lifting the measure both in the House of Deputies (clergy and laity) and in the House of Bishops.
I think this in itself is a strong indication of the way the votes will go in re Mary Glasspool. I can't imagine that a bishop who voted in favor of this resolution would not consent to her consecration.
Unless, in fact, they felt she was not a suitable candidate for other reasons, of which there could be many I suppose.
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There was no canonical prohibition on the election of LGBT bishops during this period and at least one candidate was put forward (in Chicago I think), but the moratorium was observed.
Yes, it was one of the Chicago candidates.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
And California and Minnesota as well.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
Well, from what I gather, the behind the scenes together with the upfront stuff is having an impact. However it works, let's hope that bill is defeated roundly or is pulled.
I don't think people were wrong to connect these two issues (Bp elect Glasspool and the Ugandan bill).
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
