|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Second openly gay bishop in ECUSA (very likely)
|
Pretty Butterfly
Shipmate
# 15024
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
So in Uganda various people including Anglican bishops are suggesting life sentences for people like the gay and lesbian shipmates you all know on these boards, and what has been the Archbishop's response to that? Sssssh! Be vewy vewy qwiet! We are doing top secret diplomacy with the homophobes. We can't possibly say that jailing and executing gay people as part of a witch-hunt and moral panic is a bad thing! What do you think we are? A church that might possibly have something to say about something that immoral?
But a female bishop who might possibly be getting her bits jollied by someone not attached to a penis? Oh the humanity! We cannot have the abomination of lady fingers on an episcopal clitoris! We cannot stay in communion with these people! They climax the wrong way under the duvet!
Words do not even begin to capture how screwed up that is.
L.
Point.
Posts: 121 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Can I just say that I'm openly gay, and if anyone elected me to be a bishop I would take it as a massive insult. In my opinion, bishops are the lower intestine of the Body of Christ - necessary, but rather distasteful to think about in any great detail. The election of anyone to such a post should not be an occasion of celebration, but of commiseration.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.
But, to then expect dioceses to blatantly refuse to ordain LGBT people would place them in direct contravention with the teaching of the national Church. Wouldn't that be more contrary to the canons than trusting dioceses to make their own choices in regards to episcopal leadership?
I think you are missing the reasons the objectors have, or say they have, for objecting. For them its not a matter of "orientation" or "sexuality", nor of church government and canon laws, but of morality. The traditional position of the churches has been that bishops (or priests, or any other ministers) should be either married or celibate. So for people who do not believe that a permanent same-sex relationship is the moral equivalent of marriage, it looks more like what we used to call "living in sin".
Its not orientation or sexuality that they think should rule someone out but way of life. In theory they ought not to have a problem with a celibate gay bishop. (Unlike the Roman Catholics who seem to have recently changed their rules to prevent all ordinations of celibate gay men)
Which is why:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The brouhaha seems to be solely based on going through the process openly gay.
is logical for them. In their view a bishop who came out as gay and was living with a same-sex partner would be in the same situation as a bishop who was found to be unrepentantly guilty of some other sexual sin. They would still be a bishop, but would be a bad bishop. It is hardly earth-shattering news that a bishop can be a sinner.
But "going through the process openly gay" (or rather openly and unrepentantly in a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner) would imply that those who appoint bishops are colluding in ongoing sin. And for elected bishops that means the whole diocese. So canon law is neither here nor there, it seems irrelevant to them. Their problem is not that the Americans elect their bishops, it is that some of them want to elect bishops who they believe to be living in unrepentant sin.
Which is why some of them look on this as a communion-breaking issue, because it is about morality and sin. And so it is unlike ordination of women which is merely a matter of church government - most evangelical opponetns of the ordination of women can agree to disagree on that. There is no "taint" involved. Sydney is happy to be in communion with Uganda, even though Uganda ordains women (as do all East African Anglican provinces) as long as they don't have to ordain women themselves.
For example, some quotes from the GAFCON process:
Peter Jensen:
quote:
We ... do not ordain women — that is well known. The ordination of women is a different order of things from the presenting issue. Scripture never suggests an ordained woman is in danger of losing her salvation. The continual practice of greed or immorality is clearly a matter of being inside or outside the kingdom of God. People at GAFCON had different views. The Jerusalem Statement in paragraph 12 speaks of secondary matters and seeking the mind of Christ on issues that divide us. It is time to rethink this matter under the word of God, yet again. We may be wrong, but we need to bring this prayerfully with each other and to reconsider it. Similarly, we may rethink on divorce and remarriage.
- for him (& presumably a majority of his clergy) both the ordination of women and the remarriage of dovorced people are secondary issues. Different churches can legitimately have different opinions, and Sydney might one day change its position. But "immorality" and "the presenting issue" (by which I assume he means clergy in same-sex relationships) are more serious.
Or the church in Uganda:
quote:
The Bible is very clear that homosexual practice is sin. But, nowhere in the Bible is being a woman described as a sin. The ordination of women and the ordination of practicing homosexuals cannot be compared. They are not the same issue. People of equally strong evangelical conviction come to different conclusions about the ordination of women, but we in Uganda have understood the Bible to teach that God created men and women in His image and both can be ordained to serve God in His Church.
OK, you might not agree with all that, you might even think it is dishonest, but its as well to be aware of what your opponents are actually saying and thinking.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
The Anglican Church in the West is on a course to complete Feminization. Does any male over the age of 16 who is not also partially feminised himself actually enjoy Anglican Church membership much these days?
It follows therefore that having an all female all lesbian priesthood is a natural state of development. To try to stop this process would be pure Cnutism.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
The Anglican Church in the West is on a course to complete Feminization. Does any male over the age of 16 who is not also partially feminised himself actually enjoy Anglican Church membership much these days?
Is this a serious question?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The Anglican Church in the West is on a course to complete Feminization. Does any male over the age of 16 who is not also partially feminised himself actually enjoy Anglican Church membership much these days?
Is this a serious question?
Zach
Obviously not ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
I am an Anglican, and I hope I’m not partially feminised! True, my hair is slightly longer than average, but that has probably more to do with my taste in music than wanting to be ‘feminised’. I think the Church of England does seem rather more appealing (for whatever reasons) to women than men at the moment, which needs to be addressed (I am not sure how). I don’t think my (evangelical) C of E church is at all feminised, though!
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Most churches of whatever denomination tend to have greater female attendance and female hangers-on than faithful male disciples. It seems that even during Our Lord's earthly ministry this was likely the case; 'twas ever thus.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
I am an Anglican, and I hope I’m not partially feminised! True, my hair is slightly longer than average, but that has probably more to do with my taste in music than wanting to be ‘feminised’. I think the Church of England does seem rather more appealing (for whatever reasons) to women than men at the moment, which needs to be addressed (I am not sure how). I don’t think my (evangelical) C of E church is at all feminised, though!
It is possible that you represent a small island of testosterone in the sea of female juices that is Modern Anglicanism. The admission of long hair does raise some concerns however.
Do you spend much time watching television property makeover programmes by any chance?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511
|
Posted
No, I prefer quizzes, 'Have I Got News for You', 'Time Team' and David Attenborough-type programmes!
(I uesd to like ABBA a lot, though, ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) but I was 10-11 at the time!)
Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In their view a bishop who came out as gay and was living with a same-sex partner would be in the same situation as a bishop who was found to be unrepentantly guilty of some other sexual sin. They would still be a bishop, but would be a bad bishop. It is hardly earth-shattering news that a bishop can be a sinner.
But "going through the process openly gay" (or rather openly and unrepentantly in a sexual relationship with a same-sex partner) would imply that those who appoint bishops are colluding in ongoing sin. And for elected bishops that means the whole diocese. So canon law is neither here nor there, it seems irrelevant to them. Their problem is not that the Americans elect their bishops, it is that some of them want to elect bishops who they believe to be living in unrepentant sin.
I agree absolutely. The consecration of Gene Robinson was no worse than the consecration of any other openly creed-denying alcoholic in an unrepentant extra-marital sexual relationship.
But such a person shouldn't even be ordained, let alone consecrated, and the people who do that should be disciplined appropriately.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
I see, and who do you propose do the disciplining? HH Pope Rowan I? And I haven't heard +V Gene Robinson deny any articles of the Creed. He's no longer drinking and I wonder how many active but surreptitious alcoholic bishops are running about the Anglican Communion.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Qoheleth,
My comment on men in dresses wasn't a comment on the issue under discussion, it relates to the usual representatives of churches that we see in the media.
As for the meat of my point, I think it stands, the content of this discussion so far seems to fulfil most of the criteria.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I must as always be the one to point out that +Gene's isn't just like any other unmarried relationship, because in his case that's the only option the Church gives him. Reasserters of course know the disingenuousness of the argument (we've called them out on it enough times) but that doesn't stop them from using it. Classy.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
It is possible that you represent a small island of testosterone in the sea of female juices that is Modern Anglicanism. The admission of long hair does raise some concerns however.
Do you spend much time watching television property makeover programmes by any chance?
Oh dear. I have long hair. Enjoy shopping. Have worked in the field of Construction, Architecture and Interior design. Like to cook. Dislike Football, although enjoy Rugby. I do like Cars though and watch Top Gear. I also enjoy computer games. However I wear significantly less make up than most civilised men through human history. But I do read books. And seldom grunt, burp or pass wind in public. Probably a lost cause.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
In theory they ought not to have a problem with a celibate gay bishop.
I believe that the Diocese of Oxford road tested that particular theory to destruction in 2003.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Most churches of whatever denomination tend to have greater female attendance and female hangers-on than faithful male disciples. It seems that even during Our Lord's earthly ministry this was likely the case; 'twas ever thus.
I'm not actually sure this latter part is true, though I remain open to persuasion. From my admittedly limited knowledge, it rather looks looks like one of those things that comes in waves, so you can certainly find evidence if you seek it - the real question though is if that itself is true and then if so - why? It might give some insight.
Sorry about the tangent - pray continue (wish I could say that about Eccl. Angl.)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
If TEC want to 'do their own thing', then fine. I'm puzzled though why they want to continue to regard themselves as part of the Anglican Communion; ISTM that this is a classic case of wanting to have their cake and eat it. Sorry, but real life don't work like that.
Unless ++Rowan is in charge.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This year the General Convention passed a resolution declaring that in ordination to the three orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation. People are free to disagree with that decision.
But, to then expect dioceses to blatantly refuse to ordain LGBT people would place them in direct contravention with the teaching of the national Church. Wouldn't that be more contrary to the canons than trusting dioceses to make their own choices in regards to episcopal leadership?
It is this claim that makes the election significant. I suspect that the Episcopal Bishop of South Carolina and his Standing Committee will deny consents precisely because she is a non-chaste lesbian, thereby ratcheting up a notch the Episcopal Church's ideological purge of social conservatives from its clerical and lay leadership.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.
That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!
[ 07. December 2009, 19:18: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.
That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!
And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I still genuinely don't understand the bile that some people come out with when talking about Rowan Williams. Well, I understand it from the mainstream "serious" British press, because that is how they deal with religion these days, but I don't understand it from some Anglicans. Sometimes it looks as if they are talking about someone imaginary who has very little to do with the actual bishop.
To be honest its hard to imagine how he could have done much better with this mess that's been handed to him that is very little to do with him.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Oh, you can't imagine why many members of the American Church have little time for ++Rowan? Really?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
caercybi06
Shipmate
# 15105
|
Posted
All that will come of this is 1- a statement from ABC Williams, 2- lots of sniping or worse from the right wing & the african church 3- proplr stop attending of course thats predicatd on her being confirmed ECUSA GC . Maybe saner heads will prevail ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbitt JRR Tolkien
Posts: 59 | From: Victoria BC Canada | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
By now I don't think many of us in TEC really give a rat's ass for the natterings of His Grace, nor certainly at all for what the various African provinces or Southern Coneheads have to say.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.
That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!
And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?
Hey, pumpkin, I didn't say word one about being unemotional. I'd prefer that Rowan showed an emotion to his US brethren and sistren in Christ beyond passive-aggressive one of these days, but I ain't holding my breath.
I also didn't say word one about keeping things unbiased, because if there's one thing that I learned from my sojourns in academia, it's that the only truly unbiased source for Truth is a four-year-old child. Who is quite good at speaking the Truth at such a time that it maximizes embarrassment to the adult caregivers of said child.
And of course the comment's selfish, I'm sick and tired of people, including the current Archbishop of Canterbury, whining when things don't go their power-grabbing way. The entire Communion needs to pull up its big girl panties and deal, because we got bigger issues surrounding us right now. When every child on this bright blue world goes to bed in a warm, safe space with a full stomach, then maybe I'll grant we've got some spare time on our hands to kvetch about who is in a consensual relationship with whom.
Maybe.
[ 07. December 2009, 20:21: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Ken, have your even been listening to what the conservatives have been accusing us of for whole decades? Then Rowan comes on stage to save the Communion, and blames us for it all. Why should we put up with that any more?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
By now I don't think many of us in TEC really give a rat's ass for the natterings of His Grace.
Blimey. I really don't get you guys at all.
You get an ABofC who is personally on the thoughtful-but-liberal side of the main ecclesio-political issues of the day; is a gentle but firm and honest intellectual; is interested in liturgy and is theologically highly literate; is very fluffy personally but not afraid to fight tricky corners; and has the most difficult job globally of any of his predecessors, which he is coping with as even handedly as anyone could reasonably expect.
And yet he is completely dismissed as a conservative-courting bozo becuse he doesn't unwaveringly side with the most liberal of all the world's Anglican provinces. Unbe-flippin'-lievable.
What (or who) on God's earth would be acceptable to you?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line. Any other takers on that?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.
You mean, to govern themselves clear out of communion with one another, without attempting to hold things together by urging restraint?
Sounds to me as if you want an ABofC that applauds every province's bold autonomous initiatives - unless, of course, they conflict with your own.
Some international arbiter of Anglicanism that would make him.
Really, your claim of "bullying" sounds rather silly from my side of the pond. The "bullying" doesn't seem to have stopped you from doing exactly what you would have done anyway. How precisely is the GAFCON-type pressure holding you guys back in TEC or Canada?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I still genuinely don't understand the bile that some people come out with when talking about Rowan Williams. Well, I understand it from the mainstream "serious" British press, because that is how they deal with religion these days, but I don't understand it from some Anglicans. Sometimes it looks as if they are talking about someone imaginary who has very little to do with the actual bishop.
To be honest its hard to imagine how he could have done much better with this mess that's been handed to him that is very little to do with him.
He's got a moral panic and witch-hunt on his hands where some Anglican churches have actually broken out into lobbying the secular arm to step in and kill and imprison.
We're talking classic witch-hunting, where a minority group is demonised, scapegoated, treated as a fifth column and blamed for the ills of society - everything from being inspired by the Devil, to spreading disease, to attacking fertility and this is used to justify even the death penalty, and it's religiously driven.
Even in churches which haven't gone as far as Nigeria and Uganda, we have the scapegoating of gay people as proxies for all kinds of issues about the authority of the Bible, heterosexual promiscuity and the failure of heterosexual marriages
God knows, I've tried not to think ill of the man, but now I do. He attacks those who stand in solidarity with a persecuted group and then can't bring himself to stand up and be counted against anti-gay witch-hunters who are seeking people's lives.
There's something very wrong with your Archbishop. Sorry.
L.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You mean, to govern themselves clear out of communion with one another, without attempting to hold things together by urging restraint?
Sounds to me as if you want an ABofC that applauds every province's bold autonomous initiatives - unless, of course, they conflict with your own.
Some international arbiter of Anglicanism that would make him.
Really, your claim of "bullying" sounds rather silly from my side of the pond. The "bullying" doesn't seem to have stopped you from doing exactly what you would have done anyway. How precisely is the GAFCON-type pressure holding you guys back in TEC or Canada?
How have we done any such thing? We've never demanded people obey our understanding. We are more than happy to be in communion with the conservatives. I will say AGAIN: It's the conservatives that won't have us. How is that not bullying?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Look, it would be better for ++Rowan to boldly and prophetically speak the truth to provinces like Nigeria and Uganda (and indeed to their secular governments as well), condemning in the harshest terms their hate-mongering, even if the Anglican Communion were to disintegrate around him. Instead, what we get from the ABC is moral cowerdice and the apparent motive to maintain a facade of Anglican unity to the exclusion of all other virtues. He's a messenger boy for the reactionaries and has never given the slightest public hint of disdain for the reactionaries. So English, so ineffectual, so burdened I would imagine with pointless post-colonial guilt.
[ 07. December 2009, 21:10: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I can certainly understand that, Louise. But Williams is not, as far as I can see, supporting such vile agendas as such - he is likley to be as disgusted by them as yourself.
It's just that some of those with vile agendas are using as springboards for those agendas what decent conservative (and some not so conservative) evangelicals and anglo-caths perceive as biblical othodoxy on sexual morality, etc.
What he's trying to do ISTM is get a balance between what the provinces have pretty much always taught on these issues hitherto and allowing room for legitimate doctrinal development without the whole edifice breaking up before that can be achieved.
I don't happen to think that that particular circle can be squared, but I certainly admire Rowan's efforts to do what he clearly thinks is the honourable thing - despite its clear antipathy to some of his own personal views.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.
You mean, to govern themselves clear out of communion with one another, without attempting to hold things together by urging restraint?
I checked my dictionary, communion is not a synonym for lockstep.
As my great-grandfather (a wise and holy man) was wont to say, "the only thing in this world a man can really have a firm hold on is his own dick, anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling himself."
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
.. and how is caving into conservatives' every whim "balance?"
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I will say AGAIN: It's the conservatives that won't have us. How is that not bullying?
But, Zach - can't you see that by that logic you would not be breaking communion with any other province no matter what TEC decreed? It's like saying, "Well sure we voted to rescind three out of four of the items of the historic creeds, but we wanted to be in communion with the Orthodox - and THEY broke with US! The bullies!"?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Pfft. What has the Communion done for me lately, Ches, other than making me (queer, brown, female) a scapegoat, a person to blame and to use to engender fear and loathing, which in turn engenders cash donations?
I'm of the opinion that the ABC and the rest of the powermongers can take their little Communion and let the doorknob hit them on the butt on the way out. Maybe then we could get some Kingdom Work done around here. I'm sure the millions of dollars we send to keep Cantaur's high holier-than-thou self up in that house of his will feed many, many hungry babies in the 16 countries covered by TEC.
[ 07. December 2009, 21:32: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, Zach - can't you see that by that logic you would not be breaking communion with any other province no matter what TEC decreed? It's like saying, "Well sure we voted to rescind three out of four of the items of the historic creeds, but we wanted to be in communion with the Orthodox - and THEY broke with US! The bullies!"?
Except we're not breaking with the creeds, so that's irrelevent. The creeds have been declared central to Anglican identity. A wish to stone homosexuals has not.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Well we see things quite differently, Spiff, and I doubt my admittedly blinkered view of the situation admits of much more mutual comprehension than we've already got.
But I certainly raise a hearty Caledonian "AMEN" for that proposed kingdom work. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Let's look at the things the witch-doctors and evo-reactionaries specifically object to:
1. Many of them still don't like/really approve of female clergy, especially female bishops; even more especially a female primate -- ++Katherine was treated most rudely by many at the last Lambeth Conf.
2. Granting full inclusion to all persons regardless of sexuality and recognising the possibility for grace and healthiness in faithful same-sex relatioships; acting on this recognition by being willing to ordain homosexual clergy in committed same-sex relationships and indeed being willing to solmenize and bless the vows that such couples make to one another.
None of this affects other provinces, except of course a queer or lesbo bishop could attend the Lambeth Conference and make one feel ever so uncomfortable.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eddy
Shipmate
# 3583
|
Posted
I thought Bishop Harris of Mass. was lesbian, and that appointment was like ages ago. Have I got that wrong?
Posts: 3237 | From: London, UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
so ineffectual, so burdened I would imagine with pointless post-colonial guilt.
You beat me to it. IMHO the best potential argument for our restraining ourselves as requested has been to assist the African missionaries in presenting the faith in competition with Islamists. But I'm beginning to wonder how realistic this argument is. Demands upon TEC look increasingly to me, on the contrary, like just another attempt to appease Islam, being made by the same people who are in the habit of it. An editorial-page column in today's New York Times commented on yet another book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe by Christopher Caldwall, detailing the troubling failure of "multiculturalism" as a policy in Europe. As I recall from reading this article only a few hours ago, the term "post-colonial guilt" came up there, too.
Even conservatives may soon be glad of such signs across the pond that some Westerners refuse to play this game.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Except we're not breaking with the creeds, so that's irrelevent. The creeds have been declared central to Anglican identity. A wish to stone homosexuals has not.
Except that, as you very well know, such changes to traditional (i.e., what almost all Anglicans have historically believed) biblical orthodoxy on sexual morality are deal-breaking, communion-impairing issues for tons of evangelical Anglicans (of the non-"stone-'em-to-death!" sort).
Knowing that and deciding to press ahead regardless - and still to cry foul when the conseravtives are not so cool with full communion - seems not entirely unmanipulative to me.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
I'm not saying foul. More like "whatever."
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Look, get this message, ok: The American Church has to do what is right within its own jurisdiction and territorial purview. If other's can't live with decisions that TEC has reached democratically, canonically and constitutionally -- too bad and let the chips fall where they may.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
There are some serious balanace issues with the proposed compromise. The libarals are expected to just suck it up for the sake of the communion. The liberals only want to follow Christ the best they know how, and are happy to be in communion with the conservatives with no expectation that they agree.
The conservatives, on the other hand, want everyone to do it their way. It seems to me that, as far as attitudes go, the conservatives are being far less conciliatory. They don't want compromise. They don't want a middle way. The very much want a window into men's hearts. How is that Anglican?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I would like it if he sided with the historic rights of all Provinces to govern themselves instead of joining the conservatives to attempt to bully us into line.
Me too. I started out with roughly the view Ken describes, but I don't think it's accurate. Rowan Williams is not in fact taking a benign, pragmatic line. He's trying to reinvent the Anglican Communion by imposing his Catholic theology. He doesn't seem to want a Communion but a global Anglican Church with central doctrinal control.
Not only is this new and as far as I'm aware a break with anglican tradition, he is presenting it as if it's no real change and the only option. That's the point where he's lost my sympathy. However difficult his job, if when push comes to shove he chooses control and his personal ecclesiology over respect for theological difference, he is betraying precisely what for me makes the Church of England and anglicanism worthwhile.
A different angle to more orthodox complaints, I guess, but I think essentially the same objection.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The liberals only want to follow Christ the best they know how, and are happy to be in communion with the conservatives with no expectation that they agree.
Fine. But you can't just be "in communion" by fiat. Being in commuinion must surely mean more than agreeing to differ over really big essentials, otherwise I'd be in communion with TEC myself!
No one expects TEC to value being in communion with other Anglicans over doing what they feel Christ is calling them do. Go for it if conscience leads you there. But similarly, if TEC do what they know is completely unacceptable to tons of other Anglicans they cannot then entirely blame those other Anglicans for not playing any more - they can't help seeing your actions as communion-breaking any more that you can (apparently) resist acting in those ways.
Rowan cannot be any threat to your real autonomy because he cannot stop you legislating whatever way you chose and isn't even trying beyond attempting to urge caution and patience, so I don't see how he's the big meanie all of a sudden for just explaining the inevitable communion-wide consequences of acting in that way (i.e., that other provinces will see themselves as no longer being in communion with you). That's hardly bullying in my book.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I'm so fed up with everyone making this election all about themselves. Selfish gits.
That goes double for people who want to make the Church over in their own image. ++Rowan, I am looking at you, ya old farty white man!
And this is a totally unselfish, totally unbiased, totally unemotional comment?
Hey, pumpkin, I didn't say word one about being unemotional. I'd prefer that Rowan showed an emotion to his US brethren and sistren in Christ beyond passive-aggressive one of these days, but I ain't holding my breath.
I also didn't say word one about keeping things unbiased, because if there's one thing that I learned from my sojourns in academia, it's that the only truly unbiased source for Truth is a four-year-old child. Who is quite good at speaking the Truth at such a time that it maximizes embarrassment to the adult caregivers of said child.
And of course the comment's selfish, I'm sick and tired of people, including the current Archbishop of Canterbury, whining when things don't go their power-grabbing way. The entire Communion needs to pull up its big girl panties and deal, because we got bigger issues surrounding us right now. When every child on this bright blue world goes to bed in a warm, safe space with a full stomach, then maybe I'll grant we've got some spare time on our hands to kvetch about who is in a consensual relationship with whom.
Maybe.
Pumpkin?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
So you've been in academia?
I can just get a glimpse of bizarrely twisted logic in your last para.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
