March 25, 2017

May 16, 2010


Why nobody seems to care about the consecration of Mary Glasspool

Revisionist bloggers and some in the mainstream press are atwitter over the lack of interest in yesterday’s consecration. They seem to think that this signals some kind of breakthrough—that consecrating a non-celibate lesbian is the new normal. Here’s Susan Russell:

But what a difference seven years makes. Then there were police lines and bomb threats and CNN trucks with live satellite coverage of our every move as we gathered at a New Hampshire hockey rink to make Gene Robinson a Bishop in the Church of God. Today’s press conference drew a handful of church media and a local reporter or two and the only lines we needed to cross were the ones in the hotel cocktail lounge.

She’s certainly correct in her factual observations. That the Episcopal Church consecrated Mary Glasspool is much less interesting and not nearly as headline grabbing as Gene Robinson’s consecration seven years ago is obvious. I just don’t think the lack of interest points to or even hints at any sort of broad societal tectonic shift.

That the Episcopal Church—an evaporating pond already overstocked with committed Muslims, witches and wizards, Sufi dancers, labyrinths, cosmic techno masses, Buddhists, John Spong, Marcus Borg, John Chane, and, yes, many people who engage in sex acts with members of the same sex—tosses an episcopal lesbian into the stagnating water just isn’t news. Its sadly obvious that they desperately wanted the attention. They rented an auditorium that seats tens of thousands of people. They were preparing for a vast media presence. You get the sense that they really wanted to recreate that old magic civil rights breaking the barriers feeling—that rush of exhilaration: “Look at me world! I’m a brave revolutionary! I am defending the downtrodden, upholding the outcast, including the excluded!” They wanted the crowds. They wanted the coverage. “Everybody look! Here we are, an historic church. And look what we are doing. We’re consecrating a lesbian! Isn’t that grand? Aren’t we the embodiment of all that the masses long for?”

How disappointing it must have been when no one took much notice. I am reminded of this section from Thomas Mann’s “Death in Venice”:

Leaning with one arm on the handrail, he contemplated both the idle people who were mooching at the pier to witness the ship’s departure and his fellow passengers. Those of the second class were crouching on the foredeck, using boxes and bundles as seats. A group of young people formed the company of the first deck, apparently tradesman’s apprentices from Pola who had merrily united for a trip to Italy. They made a lot of fuss about themselves and their enterprise, chattered, laughed, contentedly enjoyed their own gesticulating and mocked those colleagues, who, portfolios tucked under their arms, were walking along the street to pursue their business and who made threatening gestures to the departing. One in a bright yellow, excessively fashionable summer suit, red tie, and a boldly bent up panama hat, exceeded all the others with his shrill voice and gayness. No sooner had Aschenbach set eyes on him than he realized with a kind of terror that this ephebe was false. He was ancient, there could be no doubt about it. Wrinkles surrounded his mouth and eyes. The meek crimson of his cheeks was makeup, that brown hair below the colorfully-banded straw hat was a wig, his neck was dilapidated and sinewy, his moustache was dyed, his yellowish and complete set of teeth which he laughingly presented was a cheap counterfeit, and his hands with signet rings on both index fingers were that of a very old man.With a shudder Aschenbach looked at him and his communion with his friends. Did they not know or notice that he was elderly, that he was wrongfully appropriating their garish dress, fraudulently played one of theirs?As if nothing had happened, seemingly out of habit, they tolerated him among themselves, treated him as an equal, answered his teasing nudges without disgust. How could that be?

That is the Episcopal Church, a decaying body in bright yellow, tilted hat, and makeup making as big a ruckus as possible, pimping for attention. It is very sad I suppose. But predictable.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

193 comments

“This ephebe was false,” indeed.  In fact this consecration pretty much solidified the irrelevance of the Episcopal Church, because about all it had left was the ability to shock, and now even that has gone.  Jim Collins in his book How the Mighty Fall talks about the five steps of insititutional death, with Step Four (following loss of values) being excessive gestures (we might call them “new things”) that in desperation some hope will save the organization.  When those fail, as they almost always do as they are untethered from values, the organization enters Step Five—irrelevance or death, which may be slow, but from which there is no return.  Collins’s book reads like a history of the modern Episcopal Church.  The Glasspool consecration could easily have been in one of the very last chapters.

[1] Posted by RomeAnglican on 5-16-2010 at 06:49 AM · [top]

Apostasy can be sooo boring.

[2] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 5-16-2010 at 07:08 AM · [top]

Well, a good bit of it is that everything that there is to be said has been already said. We had the intervention, certain promises were made, now some of the promises were broken and now others relating to consequences are being kept.

Also the outrageousness of the Episcopal Church had news value when it was seen to be in the mainstream. Now the non-Christians are not especially outraged or delighted by church related shenanigans and the Christians don’t really think of the Episcopal Church at all. Freaking the mundanes no longer works for the progressives in the Episcopal Church.

I feel a small amount of pity for them. They have done their level best, using every trick they know, to get some more attention. And the world isn’t listening. It must be an empty feeling. On the one hand, you have everything you’ve ever demanded. You have triumphed. Your foes are vanquished. and you have won nothing. The world doesn’t commend you. And you have lost the   Church. You have lost God. You have lost Christ. The spirit you were following hasn’t turned out to be the Spirit you thought you were following.

[3] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 5-16-2010 at 07:12 AM · [top]

TEO is nearly 20% smaller than it was 7 years ago—it has lost a huge number of the likely vocal objectors to yesterday’s travesty, and clearly shown its institutional irrelevance.

It would be interesting for the media to note the relationship between the decline of TEO and its increasingly non-scriptural practices, but like many important stories that don’t fit the narrative, you won’t see than in the NYT.

[4] Posted by elanor on 5-16-2010 at 07:14 AM · [top]

I am sure somewhere in the world there is a little religous sect doing things far more outlandish than TEC.  Because of their obscurity, who cares?  And when the third consecretion, the 4th, 5th…........20th, comes along, it may not even make the news [if TEC lasts that long].

[5] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 5-16-2010 at 07:20 AM · [top]

[6] Posted by Jagged Edge on 5-16-2010 at 07:54 AM · [top]

The Episcopal Church is now irrelevant and is on death’s door.

[7] Posted by King E on 5-16-2010 at 07:59 AM · [top]

I’m curious.  How full was the 13,000 seat stadium where the consecration took place?

[8] Posted by Red Bird on 5-16-2010 at 08:15 AM · [top]

Maybe no one cares because it isn’t “news.” What would actually be news would be when TEC consecrates an orthodox bishop, husband of one wife, etc. But the media won’t report such an exceptional event.

It is sad that the only thing that appears to qualify this woman to the episcopate is her irregular sexual behavior. She apparently has no notion of what the “doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received” might be. One wonders, having disposed of that vow, how she will be able to fulfill the new one—to guard the faith and unity of the Church.

Perhaps the other reason “no one cares” is that those who might care have taken our Lord’s advice in Mark 13:14-16.

Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights.

[9] Posted by Septuagenarian on 5-16-2010 at 08:18 AM · [top]

Not even an interest in the Diocese of Los Angeles.  Not 10% or even 5% of membership in attendance.  How does this speak to relevancy or necessity?

[10] Posted by francis on 5-16-2010 at 08:20 AM · [top]

What is news ... what drives the media to cover the story ... is the fight with conservative religion.  The secular cosmopolitan world fears conservative religion, and the media thrives on conflict.  That’s why VGR got covered.  It was the beginning of the real fight.  Now that the fight is all but over, and the forces of peace, justice, enlightenment, and sexual incontinence have emerged victorious, the story has lost all the hooks that made it interesting.  TEC really doesn’t understand this.  It thinks it has a role to play in forming the brave new progressive world.  But TEC is going to find out the hard way that the secular world is no more interested in liberal religion than any other kind.  The secular world prefers its religion emasculated and safely hidden in a closet.  And TEC is the Very Image of emasculated religion.

carl

[11] Posted by carl on 5-16-2010 at 08:38 AM · [top]

Matt,
I, too, wondered about the lack of interest. Of course, Kevin wasn’t there live-streaming it on-line, but still, there seemed to be either little interest or denial in the silence. It reminds me of a quote attributed to Goethe, “I laughed because it hurt too much to cry”. The roots of what happened, or didn’t happen, in Los Angeles are to be found in the original ordinations back in 1974. The ground for which was prepared well before that. Don’t forget Bishop Pike. This is why any reaction to what became of what had been the Episcopal Church, and for that matter the C of E, has to correct what happened back in 1974, and later in England. Many Anglicans looked for an alternative that would protect them from this, but found almost none that were viable which did not either accept or perpetuate the ordination of women. The dispensation of Anglicanism may be coming to an end rather shortly. As I said yesterday on BabyBlue, the Sun rose and set the consecrations went forward, the Continuing Episcopalians got their knickers in a knot and not a damned thing changed. These are all just ripples from what happened in 1974.

[12] Posted by RMBruton on 5-16-2010 at 08:43 AM · [top]

btw.  What kind of ridiculous word is ‘ephebe’ anyways?  I get to the most important sentence in the excerpt…

No sooner had Aschenbach set eyes on him than he realized with a kind of terror that this ephebe was false.

...and I discover a random collection of letters where a noun should be.  My morning repose has been disturbed by the requirement of having to look up a word in the dictionary!  The effrontery.

carl
Who read a brief plot summary of ‘Death in Venice’ and found it ... disturbing.

[13] Posted by carl on 5-16-2010 at 09:19 AM · [top]

There was nothing happening there, and folks moved on.

Another chink in satan’s plan.

Pax

[14] Posted by r3ussell on 5-16-2010 at 09:28 AM · [top]

It seems that in both politics and religion, appointments are not based on qualifications or ability but are merely a recognition of a person who is representative of who the current leadership is.  No news here, nothing to look at, just keep moving on by.

[15] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 5-16-2010 at 09:29 AM · [top]

Just representative of the Cesspool that is TEO.

[16] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 5-16-2010 at 09:31 AM · [top]

3000/13,500—I agree with Fr. Darin and Sarah—attendance sucked.  That probably means people don’t care, or abstained in disgust. The Convention Center probably seemed most cavernous and empty. 

Fr. Matt has nailed it, and I was thinking of a similar analogy—his is possibly a little less crass.  It’s like trying to use Chanel cosmetics to make-up a 75-year-old hooker—you can do your best for appearances’ sake, with some pretty expensive stuff, but you just can’t hide the ravages of time, sin, and bad experience. 

And yeah, it is sad, but in TEC’s case, suicidally self-induced.

[17] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 5-16-2010 at 09:59 AM · [top]

Many of us have just shaken the dust from our feet and moved forward to do the real work of the Kingdom…the work we were charged with doing and that is making disciples. Not declaring people in open sinful living blessed, right and good. But being an instrument that God can use teaching and preaching His Truth, living as right of a life as we can, repenting of our sins and turning from them to be changed to look more like the disciples of Jesus Christ, than an image that we are comfortable with. When people see the real “Jesus truly lives in my heart and is pilot of my life, thoughts, actions, and living” change in someone they want it and they will do what God instructs to get that Way of life and living. These people do not really want to know Jesus they just want to “claim” Him so that others will accept them and their self-centered, “I am okay you are the one with a problem because Jesus accepts me” kind if attitude and thinking people. Jesus accepted the lepers but leprosy is not a sexual preference. Jesus accepted the adulterous because He wanted to change her from her sinful living to a more godly living. To put her right with God so that she would be found acceptable in His sight. So he gave her a choice…..,b>Repent and sin no more</b>.

So no one is really paying attention because you see it is not my job to spend all of my tie on those who do not want to Repent and son no more but rather to continue to walk in the light and change of Jesus Christ and touch those that God deems redeemable once they accept Him on His terms no theirs. I have work to do for the Kingdom of God not he Kingdom of a demagogue.

[18] Posted by TLDillon on 5-16-2010 at 10:15 AM · [top]

Yes the “charm” is back….. son should be sin and I apologize for not getting my first bold Repent and sin no more correct. It has been a long vacation

[19] Posted by TLDillon on 5-16-2010 at 10:19 AM · [top]

How times change! When Jon Bruno was consecrated, I was still an Episcopalian and assisting at St Paul’s, Lancaster, CA. We chartered a bus to go to the consecration, and it was FULL! My information is that yesterday, the priestess and one other person from St Paul’s attended Glasspool’s service.
desert padre

[20] Posted by desertpadre on 5-16-2010 at 10:35 AM · [top]

“That the Episcopal Church—an evaporating pond already overstocked with committed Muslims, witches and wizards, Sufi dancers, labyrinths, cosmic techno masses, Buddhists, John Spong, Marcus Borg, John Chane, and, yes, many people who engage in sex acts with members of the same sex—tosses an episcopal lesbian into the stagnating water just isn’t news.”

Sweet.  Sweet Sweet.

I’m jealous.

[21] Posted by Sarah on 5-16-2010 at 10:38 AM · [top]

RE: “with Step Four (following loss of values) being excessive gestures (we might call them “new things”) that in desperation some hope will save the organization.  When those fail, as they almost always do as they are untethered from values, the organization enters Step Five—irrelevance or death, which may be slow, but from which there is no return.”

Yup . . . The Glasspool consecration was an “excessive gesture” too . . .

Elanor is right—the church is soooo much tinier than it was 7 years ago.  And folks like me—in TEC and entirely unchanged in my Gospel [along with every single one of the hundreds of friends I have here in TEC]—didn’t even remember that the consecration was yesterday.  There’s nothing much I have to say about it. 

RedBird—they managed to scrape together 3000 [so they claim] in the Diocese of Los Angeles and after some frantic urgings from Bruno to come one come all, general invitation, with no need of tickets!

I think he had an inkling that 13,500 seats weren’t going to be anywhere close to full.

Heh.

The only way the libs can really spin this is by trying to pretend like the masses within TEC have changed and now “accept” same gender sexual relations as holy and blessed.

[22] Posted by Sarah on 5-16-2010 at 10:44 AM · [top]

Minds seem to be made up.  Those who have left TEC over the past few years don’t care any more.  Those who have decided to stay have internalized what they are dealing with and this is no longer a shock to their systems.  Nobody is left to be outraged.

[23] Posted by Katherine on 5-16-2010 at 11:28 AM · [top]

As for the lack of attendance, rumour has it Piccadilly was having a senior special during the times of the consecration: Free whipped prunes with every entree. You have to go with the free dessert under those circumstances.

[24] Posted by Matthew A (formerly mousestalker) on 5-16-2010 at 11:57 AM · [top]

When something happens that you know will happen, it is hardly a surprise.

++Rowan Williams takes action.

Now, that would be a newsworthy surprise.

[25] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-16-2010 at 12:20 PM · [top]

I think he had an inkling that 13,500 seats weren’t going to be anywhere close to full.

Perhaps Bruno should have done his homework:
http://deadspin.com/5306316/why-your-stadium-sucks-oakland+alameda-county-coliseum
Intercessor

[26] Posted by Intercessor on 5-16-2010 at 12:24 PM · [top]

I read on another thread that there were about 3,000 people present in a venue that could accommodate 39,000.

[27] Posted by Nellie on 5-16-2010 at 12:25 PM · [top]

Oops! Sorry - that should be a venue that can accomodate 13,500 people.

[28] Posted by Nellie on 5-16-2010 at 12:33 PM · [top]

I for one am glad that the stadium was not full….and my concern is that there were 3000+ misguided people in attendance that are being led on a straight path to hell. That is a subject for concern, not that the stadium was not full

[29] Posted by TLDillon on 5-16-2010 at 12:35 PM · [top]

Matt+  Thank you once again.  I second Sarah in appreciation of the absolute brilliance and accuracy of every word in this paragraph:

“That the Episcopal Church—an evaporating pond already overstocked with committed Muslims, witches and wizards, Sufi dancers, labyrinths, cosmic techno masses, Buddhists, John Spong, Marcus Borg, John Chane, and, yes, many people who engage in sex acts with members of the same sex—tosses an episcopal lesbian into the stagnating water just isn’t news.” 

Those of us who have left the dying institution of TEC, literally or in spirit, have moved on, blessed by God to be able to focus on the beauty and wonder of Our Savior and whatever He calls us to do for Him in a world that is so badly in need of His love and healing grace.  The AC-NA is a miracle given by His hand, and for that I praise His Holy Name!

[30] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 5-16-2010 at 01:13 PM · [top]

#30 BettyLee Payne
I can agree with you up until this point right here:

The AC-NA is a miracle given by His hand, and for that I praise His Holy Name!

ACNA is NOT a miracle given by His Hand. ACNA is a group of leavers, my diocese being one of them,that put his together out of a necessity that they saw. It has from conception had its own issues and as of yesterday, the same day as TEC’s most horrific gesture to the WWAC, also consecrated a woman to the priesthood and this was the second time. So for those of you who who suppoert Fr. Rosenberry and the AMiA/ACiA I can see where this is not a problem for you….but it is a HUGE problem for many of us who do see it as a HUGE problem for ACNA and its future to not be led down the same path that TEc was back in 1976. This road is looking all too familiar.

[31] Posted by TLDillon on 5-16-2010 at 01:29 PM · [top]

P.S. I don’t think anyone ever believed the “restraint” spin TEC shamelessly sent out as lies to the Anglican Communion in its attempt to hold off the inevitable break which their self-centered decisions would cause with the vast majority of the world"s Anglicans. 

The Global South is leading the way for all faithful Anglicans.  God has given us wonderful shepherds.  Don’t miss one of the talks on Anglicantv.org from the Global South Encounter. Then fall to your knees and thank God for all that He is doing through them, not only for Anglican Christians, but for all who know and will know the saving, transforming grace of the Lord Jesus Christ through their witness. Genesis 50:19-20

[32] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 5-16-2010 at 01:34 PM · [top]

RE: “It has from conception had its own issues and as of yesterday, the same day as TEC’s most horrific gesture to the WWAC, also consecrated a woman to the priesthood and this was the second time.”

Actually it’s been plenty more than twice—if anyone has been keeping up.

But this thread is not about ACNA nor WO and further comments about such matters will be deleted.

[33] Posted by Sarah on 5-16-2010 at 01:40 PM · [top]

yes, let’s do please stay on topic. Thank you.

[34] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-16-2010 at 01:52 PM · [top]

The story here sports fans is NON attendance in the great diocese of LA where we are constantly pushing the envelope.  Their post Christianity cannot even be maintained at the center.  A bad joke, no!

[35] Posted by francis on 5-16-2010 at 02:03 PM · [top]

[off topic comment deleted—“confused” questions about SF protocol may be asked of any SF blogger using your useful Private Message system but not on SF threads about other topics; commenter is warned]

[36] Posted by wyclif on 5-16-2010 at 02:28 PM · [top]

As T.S. Eliot once said:

This is the way the church ends
Not with a bang but a whimper

[37] Posted by LDW1988 on 5-16-2010 at 02:58 PM · [top]

I think a lot of the silence is due to desensitiztion and dumbing down of the remaining pewsitters. A dumbed down congregation/diocese is doomed to stagnation and death. The attendance at the consecration points out that the number of pro-Glasspool activists is probably small, but like termites, it doesn’t take many to bring down a great house.

Are we so desensitized to the rot that we face it with silence, shrugging our shoulders, laying down our crowbars, hammers, and nails? Don’t forget, there are still people inside the house.

[38] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 5-16-2010 at 02:59 PM · [top]

Yes Undergroundpewster there are people still inside the house and those people have chosen to stay admirably. They do not want to hear from those who have chosen to leave the house. Do I have buyers remorse for following my diocese out? In a way yes because I think I am beginning to get what Sarah has been trying to say all along. I remember when a dear friend was dying of cancer and when she got close to the end everyone fell silent when they came around her as they really did not know what to say or do. Not much was left to say and what could anyone possibly do? It was the same with her family…what could we say or do? TEc is dying and I cannot help but think that we who left have helped in the dying. We were complacent then woke to look around then leave. Those who have stayed are either trying to still stand and witness and fight, or are still in a fog and simply do not care, or they are of the ilk of TEc. So really it appears that both ignorance is bliss or you just become a spectator watching the house begin to crumble from the infestation of the termites.

[39] Posted by TLDillon on 5-16-2010 at 03:10 PM · [top]

I’m waiting for the letter to the ABC from KJS and BA stating that they have not officially consecrated Mary Glasspool. Until she participates in the college of bishops and the consecration of another Bishop she is not really performing the duties of a Bishop. So let’s not get too hasty RW ABC, issuing another letter of regret.

[40] Posted by Fr. Dale on 5-16-2010 at 03:14 PM · [top]

An the Lord God Almighty says:

Hebrews 12:25-27 (English Standard Version)

25See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. 26At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” 27This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain.

[41] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 5-16-2010 at 03:32 PM · [top]

The Bishop of Epworth’s link (#6) sums up the situation well. smile

[42] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 5-16-2010 at 04:23 PM · [top]

Unfortunately, the BBC has been broadcasting the whole day the “good news about the consacration of the first lesbian bishop”. Furthermore, they have reported wrongly that ECUSA is the “representative of Anglicanism in America”, and portray us all as a minority of “conservative Christians that believe that homosexuality is a sin”. The wording is worrisome… So, yes, there has been some coverage, but of course never as in 2003.

[43] Posted by Armando on 5-16-2010 at 04:28 PM · [top]

Here’s the Piskie Pravda write-up:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_122244_ENG_HTM.htm

Apparently, at least one brave traditionalist did attend.

[44] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 5-16-2010 at 04:29 PM · [top]

The consecration service was disrupted briefly by a man and a young boy who held up a sign and a bible and shouted anti-gay comments. Applause erupted when someone in the congregation yelled back: “We’re praying for you.”

Referring to the disruption and to other protestors outside, Bruno said, “They don’t understand the inclusive nature of the Episcopal Church.”

So inclusive they threw them both out!

[45] Posted by TLDillon on 5-16-2010 at 04:36 PM · [top]

I find it interesting that on the second day of the traditional novena for the coming of the Holy Spirit, which is dedicated to praying for Wisdom, that these unwise actions would take place. Continue to pray for bishops with wisdom and conviction.

[46] Posted by FrChris on 5-16-2010 at 05:00 PM · [top]

I am hopeful, even though this was a so-called non-event, that its non-eventness causes the remaining orthodox no end of opportunity to fill the pews that revisionists are completely unable to fill with their non-theological, non-Christological, nonsensical approach to religion-lite.

The differences between revisionist junk theology and orthodoxy are now in plain contrast.  The orthodox offer Christ at the center.  The revisionists, something else entirely.

Stir the pot, y’all!!!

[47] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-16-2010 at 05:31 PM · [top]

The Episcopal church really needs a transgender Bishop if they want to keep up with things.

[48] Posted by DietofWorms on 5-16-2010 at 05:36 PM · [top]

I don’t know why it would be a big deal.  Nobody made a big deal out of the hundreds of gay marriages and SSBs performed in TEC.  Essentially the same thing. You already have 60+ bishops in open violation of Communion doctrine. They all go to Lambeth anyway.  So what difference does it make?

[49] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-16-2010 at 05:52 PM · [top]

LOL DietofWorms   LOL! It just came to me .....Give Gene Robinson time….he has been out of the center of attention and focus that he just may walk down that path thinking it will stir up enough hoopla to put him squarely in the center of attention and in the media once again.

[50] Posted by TLDillon on 5-16-2010 at 06:00 PM · [top]

Apparently, at least one brave traditionalist did attend.

Two, actually. And one a mere child with more on the ball than most there.

I love Bruno’s remark.

“They don’t understand the inclusive nature of the Episcopal Church.”

“Security, cast those two ‘into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’” Oh, so, so inclusive. Just like Jesus was.

[51] Posted by Septuagenarian on 5-16-2010 at 08:52 PM · [top]

Consecrating gay bishops is, like, so 15-minutes-ago!

[52] Posted by st. anonymous on 5-16-2010 at 09:31 PM · [top]

The path that TEC has chosen to take over the years has led them so far from the straight and narrow path down which the Lord shepherds us that they can now barely be seen.  Another such consecration, another step away and they will be out of sight. There will be (if there still is anything) nothing to ‘listen to’ anymore.  That process is now done.  All that is left to do is to pray for the thousands of complacent souls who are vanishing with TEC and to always pray for those who stay on the Lord’s track but remain with TEC to continue to be a witness.

[comment edited—off topic; commenter is warned—warnings were clear above]

Regardless of all, our way must always continue with prayer in our heart for TEC as we should with all the lost.

[53] Posted by Bill C on 5-16-2010 at 09:53 PM · [top]

St. A, I think you’ve put your finger on it.  Those cheering on these outrages and heresies will soon see the next wave, and they’ll be as aghast as we mossbacks are today.  It’ll be great fun to see that day come.

[54] Posted by Jeffersonian on 5-16-2010 at 09:53 PM · [top]

What matters is that we learn the lessons. It would be helpful to revisit some of the articles here about the practical, political and theological roots of what we saw in LA today. They go back long ago, were hard to detect at the beginning, and advanced incrementally. If we are to avoid the same result, we must understand where the ship began to get off course, and the forces that prevented a course correction when it was still possible.  I am against ordination of female Priests, but believe the roots of the problem extent much deeper than that issue.  I suspect many of us who take pride in our orthodoxy are blind to some of these root cause. I want to learn from TECs history, and be vigilant about the “small” things now, so I don’t have to fight the big things later. Kind of like what we try to teach our kids.

[55] Posted by Going Home on 5-16-2010 at 10:23 PM · [top]

Just back from our parish men’s weekend in the Black Hills.  Really blessed time and I forgot about the L.A. silliness.

[56] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 5-17-2010 at 05:11 AM · [top]

Those cheering on these outrages and heresies will soon see the next wave, and they’ll be as aghast as we mossbacks are today.  It’ll be great fun to see that day come.


It is fun to see the liberal bloggers get upset when you ask if, for instance, bisexuals might be more comfortable in a three-person arrangement, so why not bless those?  I can think of two reasons for their anger:
1: They are truly aghast at the possibility.
2: You have inadvertently revealed the next step from their playbook.

(HINT) A priest in Newark claims to have already blessed a “family” arrangement of five unrelated individuals.

[57] Posted by The Pilgrim on 5-17-2010 at 05:22 AM · [top]

#55. Going Home
Stephen Noll’s comments http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/26070/. at post #65 on the above thread provides some excellent historical backdrop with connecting links to TEC being unwilling to discipline itself. The Righter trial was certainly an important milestone along the road.

[58] Posted by Fr. Dale on 5-17-2010 at 06:50 AM · [top]

We have been told, by the Lord, to treat them as we would pagans.
“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[c] 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
So let however many of them as remain revel in their petulance and apostasy as the church moves on to fulfill God’s plan.

[59] Posted by DaveG on 5-17-2010 at 07:06 AM · [top]

Well, the Global South set the opposition a month ago:
http://sg.christianpost.com/dbase/church/2517/section/1.htm

It’s just that the EcUSA/TEc is the ugly American in vestments - self centered, unilateralists, doing their own thing with mere insincere apologies for others.

Same old same old.

[60] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 5-17-2010 at 07:38 AM · [top]

Slight edit to the “Headline”..
“Why no one seems to care (including the ABC) about the “consecration” of Mary Glasspool…

Grannie Gloria

[61] Posted by Grandmother on 5-17-2010 at 08:06 AM · [top]

Considering the two posts on the “consecration” in seem to have racked up over 160 comments by now, to say nothing of the commentary on the various headlines linked as TS19 and the other conservative blogs, I’m think that perhaps there a bit to much protesting about the lack of caring.

[62] Posted by AndrewA on 5-17-2010 at 08:26 AM · [top]

RE: “I’m think that perhaps there a bit to much protesting about the lack of caring. . . . “

Mmm—think as you like.  I had actually forgotten about the consecration on Saturday until reminded. 

I think if you compare the two events—the Robinson thingy and the Glasspool thingy—people will see the difference.  The institutional moderates—like Tony Clavier—definitely noticed the *comparative* silence [see his post].  Silence not just from SF bloggers [save two measly posts, one of which I’m intensely jealous of] but silence from the Global South, silence from the ABC, silence from most TECans, including the conservative ones.  I think—personally—that it’s a recognition that the dialogue is . . . over.

Thank goodness Matt posted something on it over here—two whole posts in the last week, eh?  And not one news report posted here.  I couldn’t work up the energy and I’m wagering nobody else could either.  And I had noticed the lack of seeming to care as well amongst so many of my friends.

But hey . . . in a manner of speaking all Christians “care” I suppose about sinful behavior.  So in that sense, all of us “care” and you’re correct. 

My main point of interest—the thing I “care” about the most—is the frantic recognition of the lack of numbers that ended up in attendance at the Grand Rebellious Display, and the resulting attempts to spin that.  I’m going to be interested in watching that play out a bit over the next couple of days.  So far, the spin is “look—we’ve progressed!” 

But honestly, I don’t even think that Russell and Kaeton and the rest of the most affected actually believe that, especially in light of their astonishing defeat at the polls on Prop 8 last year. Right now they’re just salvaging some pride.

[63] Posted by Sarah on 5-17-2010 at 08:45 AM · [top]

Yeah, “pride,” because they sure don’t have anything else!

[64] Posted by Cennydd on 5-17-2010 at 08:53 AM · [top]

Sarah—

the thing I “care” about the most—is the frantic recognition of the lack of numbers that ended up in attendance at the Grand Rebellious Display…

What makes for an even poorer showing from the Diocese of LA is the fact that many of the 3000 attendees came from outside the Diocese; EK and her partner flew out from New Jersey, for instance. 
Perhaps they were expecting a large number of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant observers that failed to materialize for whatever reason, or cancelled at the last moment.

[65] Posted by The Pilgrim on 5-17-2010 at 09:07 AM · [top]

Fr. Tim Fountain (#56),

Glad you had a great parish men’s retreat.  Aren’t you glad you’re not still stuck in the Diocese of LA??

David Handy+

[66] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 5-17-2010 at 09:09 AM · [top]

I warning to the orthodox who decide accept this travestry to maintain “unity” - if you stay in the sewer long enough you will eventually get accustomed to the smell.

[67] Posted by Exiled in Babylon on 5-17-2010 at 09:43 AM · [top]

I couldn’t help notice in the Huffington Post article that the other bp consecrated rec’d one line, simply her name, former position, and “was also consecrated.”  So much for one of the most important occasions of her life - her obit will say more. 

Wasn’t it also Preakness day? I daresay that got gobs more attention.  “My diocese for a horse”?

[68] Posted by maineiac on 5-17-2010 at 09:46 AM · [top]

sorry, Huffington Post link:

Are full of passionate intensity.” (W. B. Yeats)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/15/mary-glasspool-lesbian-bishop_n_577648.html

I had to add the last few spaces of the link when I tried to connect to it.

[69] Posted by maineiac on 5-17-2010 at 09:49 AM · [top]

[13] carl,

Ephebe is from the Latin ephebus, which is from the Greek ἔφηβος, the term describing someone as an adolescent male. It is from that root which we get ephebophilia, which describes the majority (60%) of the sexual abuse incidents dealt with by the Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the nine-year period 2001-2010. Mann is describing an older man attempting to present himself as an adolescent male, presumably in order to appeal to someone among the group described by the author as “his friends.”

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[70] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-17-2010 at 10:14 AM · [top]

I have no intent to be, or seem to be, triumphalist, but I find it telling that the attendance for this was ≈3,000, in the same week in which the Mass offered up by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI in Porto was attended (in person) by a modest group of about 200,000 souls. I think that handily summarizes the situation between TEC and just one orthodox Christian Church.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[71] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-17-2010 at 10:19 AM · [top]

As unanimous as we are in subscribing to the Ennui Theory, why are there 71 posts here?

I’m logging off for a while to go do our Lord’s work.

[72] Posted by Marion R. on 5-17-2010 at 10:20 AM · [top]

#63. Sarah,

My main point of interest—the thing I “care” about the most—is the frantic recognition of the lack of numbers that ended up in attendance at the Grand Rebellious Display, and the resulting attempts to spin that.

Here are some possible reasons:
1. The press got the numbers wrong.
2. It was cloudy with a threat of rain.
3. They had designated proxy attendees for a “green” consecration.
4. The Pay Per View brought in a ton of funds.
5. They were going for quality not quantity
6. Their per capita diversity was commendable.
7. Someone thought Mick Jagger might have been there.
8. We’ll get a bigger audience when we consecrate the “B” and “T” groups.
9. Southbound Interstate 5 out of the City by the Bay was jammed up.
10. Kobe had a sore ankle

[73] Posted by Fr. Dale on 5-17-2010 at 10:34 AM · [top]

[48] Diet of Worms,

A transgender bishop? You are so behind the times! What about all those other letters of the alphabet that Robinson mentioned within the past several fortnights? Fear not, I will not embarrass anyone by bothering to enumerate them, but the possibilities are numerous, and apparently required if TEC is to live into Susan Russell’s description of it as being [my bold emphasis]

a beacon of hope to everyone looking for a community willing to lead in love, justice and compassion for all people.

It is breathtakingly stunning how someone who styles herself a Doctor can appear so ignorant of the implications of a sentence she utters, when that simple sentence is composed of nothing but simple English words. Condemned out of her own mouth.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[74] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-17-2010 at 10:36 AM · [top]

Umm…that’s nice, dear.

gmm

[75] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 5-17-2010 at 11:00 AM · [top]

Keith/alias HP/or old MA,

Thanks for livening up this thread.  I especially liked your #71, contrasting the meager turnout in big, metropolitan LA and the papal gathering in little, rural Fatima.  With your reception into full communion with the Catholic Church only days away now, I wish you all the best as you continue walking in the way of Christ with new companions.

FWIW, since you attend a Domincan parish, I’ve often wondered just why we Anglicans have (a few) Franciscans and a few more Benedictines, but virtually no Dominicans.  Whatever that says about Anglicanism, it isn’t good.

David Handy+

[76] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 5-17-2010 at 11:05 AM · [top]

[76] New Reformation Advocate+,

Thank you for the compliment and for the kind wishes.

As regards the absence of Dominicans within Anglicanism, I suspect, but really do not konw, that the following may be a factor. If I understand correctly, those Franciscans and Benedictines who are Anglican are either never, or at least very rarely, ordained to the presbyterate. (Please feel free to correct me if this is not the case.) Excluding Dominican brothers (who are all seminarians) and deacons (who are always transitional), the Dominicans consist of only three orders: (a) ordained priests, (b) consecrated religious women, i.e., nuns, and (c) third order men and women.

The abbreviaton that designates a Dominicans is O.P., which stands for Order of Preachers. So, the Pastor at our parish is Fr. Daniel Syverstad, O.P. Obviously, the charism of Dominicans is preaching. The nuns are, or were, predominantly teachers. The Third Order Dominicans live in the world, and take much simpler and less restrictive vows (e.g. they can be married, they do not take a vow of poverty, etc.) as is the case with the other religious communities which have third order members, such as the Carmelites, to which our close friends and sponsors (husband and wife) belong.

My surmise in this is, in part, based on the fact that I have met and seen Anglican religious in the other orders, but have neither encountered, nor having heard of, Anglican priests who were members of a vowed religious order (I don’t think of SSC, or OSL as vowed religious orders in the particular sense of having taken vows of poverty, celibacy, etc. (IOW, I am not considering third order confreres here, as I doubt that there would be a third order religious community in the absence of an ordained priest, who was also a religious, at its head.

Just a guess for what it’s worth.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[77] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-17-2010 at 11:50 AM · [top]

“Why nobody seems to care about the consecration of Mary Glasspool”

It’s like being expected to take an interest in whom your ex is sleeping with.  Honestly, who cares?

[78] Posted by st. anonymous on 5-17-2010 at 06:54 PM · [top]

[off topic comment deleted—#33 and 34 provided clear warnings, please send a PM to any one of the SF bloggers letting us know why you should not be banned; at this point we will now move back to a season of instant bannings for violating commenting protocols.  The commenting rules are clear, years-long in standing, consistently enforced, and will be followed by all commenters—or they will not be commenters at SF any longer.  We will not be providing further warnings, merely action.  Let one of us know why the instant bannings should not begin with Anglicans Ablaze since he chose to ignore the warnings above with three to four further sentences.]

I do not feel that there is much as lack of interest in the Glasspool consecration as there is recognition that nothing will be done about it at least officially by the Anglican Communion. There have been protests but as in the past those protests go unheeded both by TEC and Lambeth. When Gene Robinson was consecrated, some of us concluded that it would be only a matter of time before TEC elected, confirmed, and consecrated another openly homosexual bishop. Radical liberalism and the normalization of homosexuality have replaced the gospel of divine grace in TEC. Except in those churches in which the pure word of God are preached and the sacraments are rightly administered according to Christ’s institution, there is no visible church in TEC. The invisible church in that body is known only to God. Those provinces and dioceses that recognize developments in TEC as a rejection of the authority and inspiration of the Bible are going to remain in a state of broken communion with TEC. TEC broke communion by its pluralism, its denial of the uniqueness of Christ, its ordination of homosexuals and blessing of homosexual relations. Any healing of this breach must come from TEC and must be accompanied by repentance on the part of TEC. In God’s time that may happen. Nothing is impossible for God. But we are not likely to see it in our life times. What we may be seeing is a retrobate church which in its rebellion has removed itself from God’s mercy and placed itself under God’s wrath. God promises blessing to the obedient but removes his protection from the disobedient. They are permitted to suffer the consequences of their rebellion. Even if most of TEC has bowed a knee to Baal and kissed his image, God will preserve a remnant of the faithful in TEC. We should pray for this remnant as well as those who have become the servants of Baal that God may soften their hearts and bring them to repentance. God does not wish the death of the wicked. It is the wicked who make that choice.

[79] Posted by AnglicansAblaze on 5-18-2010 at 01:13 PM · [top]

So let me get this straight:

1. Jesus heals a sick person

2. he does so beside a pool believed to be stirred by an Angel…before the sick person can get into the pool.

3. some whacked out scholar ascribes the act of stirring to some pagan god

4. Mary Glasspool’s name includes the word “pool”

5. therefore, the waters may not be stagnant.

truly you have a dizzying intellect.

[80] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-20-2010 at 09:36 PM · [top]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaha! Never with a Sicilian! With death on the line!
AP+

[81] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 5-20-2010 at 09:45 PM · [top]

Loukas,
Jesus didn’t ‘assume the ritual role’, he stirred no water, was plainly visible, and did not work on ‘first come, only served’ basis.  He made it rather obvious that He was not the angel.

Glasspool is, likewise, rather obviously not a bishop.

[82] Posted by Bo on 5-20-2010 at 10:04 PM · [top]

It’s was all just living out that there “baptismal covenant” stuff. (Boy will I be glad when that ambiguity is gone, and we’re back to striving manfully against sin!)

Fr. Chris Larimer
Louisville Anglican Prayer Fellowship

[83] Posted by FrChris on 5-20-2010 at 10:26 PM · [top]

Loukas
And of course Glasspool isn’t a bishop.

The Lord didn’t do any of the ‘ritual stuff’ either. 
Glasspool’s ‘consecration’, does do a lot of ‘ritual stuff’, but it has no impact (like the Angel had none for the one Christ healed).

No, everything can’t be cleansed and used by the Church:
Passing ones’ children through the fire comes to mind (a certain ‘theological school’s leadership’ withstanding). 

Of those things which can be, the ‘false meaning’ must be rejected before it can be used (read the BCP, on ceremonies of the Church).

[84] Posted by Bo on 5-20-2010 at 11:19 PM · [top]

Do these words sound familiar?

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I N.N., chosen Bishop of the Church in N., solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the N.N. Church (my italics) in the United States of America.

Now, what part or parts of this do the bishops of TEC not understand?  This is found on page 513 of their own Prayer Book!

[85] Posted by Cennydd on 5-20-2010 at 11:41 PM · [top]

Cennydd….They crossed their fingers. It is all about just getting n so that they could change tings up…and boy did we let’em do it.

[86] Posted by TLDillon on 5-20-2010 at 11:58 PM · [top]

“What I’m saying is that he fulfills the ritual, the tradition;”

No he doesn’t. The “ritual tradition” was “get in the pool while the water is stirred in order to be healed”. If Jesus were “fulfilling” that tradition, he would have helped the man into the pool or said “I am the angel who stirs the waters” or something of that sort.

Instead he Subverts the “ritual tradition” by healing apart from the pool and apart from the stirred waters.

“That he doesn’t condemn, but sanctifies it - with himself.”

What on earth are you talking about? Sanctifies it with himself? Does he sanctify the pool? Does he sanctify the stirring? No, Rather he lifts the man from silly superstition and reveals to him the true physician.

“Naturally, whether you consider it of any value depends on what you think of the pagan-tample assumption.”

Well with regard to “pagan-temple assumptions”, I tend to agree with the word of Christ through Paul:

“14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: [3] are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor 10:14-22)

“The message of this would be then: everything can be cleansed and transformed and lead to Jesus who is the Lord of everything.”

Yes, Jesus can transform all people and all things. Some times that transformation means death and resurrection. Idolatry is one of those things that must die before true faith can be born.

[87] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-21-2010 at 05:23 AM · [top]

One hates to run the risk of getting a comment nuked for mentioning ACNA, but one has to wonder how viable they are going to be if the African bishops aren’t going to take formal steps, regardless of what Cantuar says or does.

[88] Posted by C. Wingate on 5-21-2010 at 06:31 AM · [top]

Hi C. Wingate,

I personally could care less about recognition from the ABC and, in fact, hope that it does not happen. The fewer ties to TEC the better. The Archbishop of the ACNA does, however, seem to think it important.

If our “viability” rests on recognition from any bishop or archbishop then we should just call it a day now.

[89] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-21-2010 at 08:01 AM · [top]

C. Wingate, nobody knows for certain what steps the African primates are going to take.  They haven’t met yet, so please don’t assume that they’ll do nothing.  And I agree with Matt+.

[90] Posted by Cennydd on 5-21-2010 at 08:34 AM · [top]

Cennydd, please note the conditional mood of my response.

[91] Posted by C. Wingate on 5-21-2010 at 08:42 AM · [top]

To be aware is to be alive. All this wonderful diversity in the TEC. So some are like Balak who understood that there is neither sorcery nor divination against Judah nor Israel and God spoke the the dumb ass of Balak. In the new book’s interpretations of Jesus and His followers we hear of the Temple of the Unknown God. Get to know Him who alone is able to keep us from falling. God does and is able to speak through and use us all whereever we are on our respective paths. All the paths of our God are mercy and truth for those of us who humble ourselves before His chosen Mercy Seat and Throne of Grace found in Jesus the Christ. And as we do we will find that nothing else and no one else matters but the Lord. Love, and only Love, conquers ALL.

[92] Posted by Calhoun on 5-22-2010 at 02:09 PM · [top]

[96] Calhoun

All this wonderful diversity in the TEC.

What diversity would that be?  Theological?  Racial?  Economic?  Are you kidding me?  TEC is primarily a Northeastern church for aging white upper-class liberals.  It’s led by a bunch of unbelieving neo-religious radicals masquerading as ministers of the Gospel.  It has all the diversity of white bread. 

Hiring a bunch of non-western dance teams doesn’t make you diverse. Putting a rainbow on a website doesn’t make you diverse. Justifying homosexuality doesn’t make you diverse.  Blathering endlessly about inclusion doesn’t make you diverse.  True diversity in Christianity is expressed by a common Creed displayed across many different cultures.  It’s not a synchretistic manifestation of the validity of all religions, but the display of the One True Exclusive Religion in many nations.  It is a reflection of the fact that Christianity is both universally and exclusively True. 

In fact, “diversity” these days has acquired a totally different meaning.  It now refers to a system of morality that denies the existence of Universal truth claims.  To be diverse is to assert that what is true for me need not be true for you.  That is why orthodox Christians have so much trouble with TEC.  All are ‘included’ but the price of ‘inclusion’ is to admit that all sets of mutually-exclusive truth claims are equally valid.  No legitimate Christian can admit this.  And that is why the inclusive diverse TEC is driving them out in droves.

carl

[93] Posted by carl on 5-22-2010 at 03:11 PM · [top]

It is expressed by a common Creed which all true Anglican Christians believe; one which isn’t just “mouthed” every Sunday morning.

[94] Posted by Cennydd on 5-22-2010 at 04:29 PM · [top]

And yes, Carl, I agree with you.

[95] Posted by Cennydd on 5-22-2010 at 04:30 PM · [top]

So some are like Balak who understood that there is neither sorcery nor divination against Judah nor Israel and God spoke the the dumb ass of Balak.

Calhoun, one of the most troubling things about liberal theological thought is the belief that all you have to do is throw out an illustration or analogy, and that automatically proves your point, even if the illustration is invalid. But do you see the problem? I could just as easily offer the opposite analogy and say that God speaking through the donkey is like the orthodox voices in the mainlines warning that the liberal fringe has slipped into apostasy. Now we both have an analogy, so which one of us is right? Do you not see that this is a recipe for anarchy and confusion?

You say “God does and is able to speak through and use us all whereever we are on our respective paths”, but you don’t seem to be interested in figuring out when this is the case, or when the person in question is simply speaking falsehood, I’m assuming because you offered a couple of analogies (the donkey and the Unknown God) therefore your work is done. Can you see why this is a problem? Can you see why a responsible, thinking adult simply cannot let the matter rest here?

[96] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 5-22-2010 at 06:56 PM · [top]

Congratulations everyone!  Your “non-event” that nobody cares about anymore because The Episcopal Church is SO irrelevant just logged 100 posts.  Keep the hype coming!

[97] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-23-2010 at 12:35 AM · [top]

[101] inclusion2010

Your “non-event” that nobody cares about anymore because The Episcopal Church is SO irrelevant just logged 100 posts.

Did you not get the memo?  It is Liberals who are saying no one cares about the consecration of a Lesbian as bishop anymore.  Like Susan Russell.  Remember her?  Liberals are saying this to explain why the attendance for this momentous occasion was ... shall we say ... somewhat below forecasts.  You should be telling us that “Lesbianism has been normalized, and no one cares what conservatives think anymore, and that we are irrelevant, and that whatever hype we could generate would disappear like the morning fog, and that it was just a stuffy consecration service, and that’s why so few attended”  (Well, OK, it reminded me of a post-modern Roman Triumph complete with dancing girls and circus elephants and deposed bishops bound in chains.  I presume KJS was accompanied in her chariot by a lawyer who whispered in her ear “Remember, thou art mortal, and we don’t know if there is an afterlife.”)

Get on the right page, man!  You are not speaking to the right talking points, here.

carl

[98] Posted by carl on 5-23-2010 at 01:02 AM · [top]

Carl, Carl, Carl.  *shakes head sadly* Do you really believe that someone who counts blog posts to find a reaction because even the “joyously inclusive” couldn’t muster warm bodies for their “inclusive event” is going to respond to logic?  Give it up, man.  You are expecting waaayyy too much from people who long ago abandoned their brains to the zeitgeist before they got to the door of the church.  Sad, really…....

[99] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 5-23-2010 at 07:57 AM · [top]

Your “non-event” that nobody cares about anymore because The Episcopal Church is SO irrelevant just logged 100 posts.  Keep the hype coming!

We often comment heavily on non-events.  Why, when KGT Forrester was (non)consented to, we logged 500 posts, IIRC on one thread.  And there must have been a total of 10 or 15 threads on the subject of that bishop’s election and (non) consent which between them logged a number of comments several times the ASA of the diocese.
  But in any case, your “victory” (which is shortlived, as at most, it will last only a lifetime, and what is that in eternity?) is in the silence of one man, not in what we say. And, who knows, perhaps that man will someday break his silence.

[100] Posted by tjmcmahon on 5-23-2010 at 08:11 AM · [top]

RE: “just logged 100 posts.”

Wow!  A hundred whole posts [sic]?  Who’d a thunk it?

You can always tell the newbies around here—no real point of comparison to other posts on similar topics.

And Inclusion2010 is *waaaay* off message.  Maybe he needs to get with some of the other TEC revisionist activists who are proclaiming the lack of caring too, and sort out what they want to spin.  Surely the lack of interest is because so many of us have changed our minds!  ; > )

But Matt certainly didn’t say the Episcopal Church was irrelevant.  It’s always relevant when a church that claims to be Christian upholds non-Christian immoral behavior.

But thankfully, the more it does such things, the more it declines. 

But yeh . . . that passage from Death in Venice is dead on—I can see why it would make revisionist activists so irritated—the application’s just got to be eery.

[101] Posted by Sarah on 5-23-2010 at 09:50 AM · [top]

Yeah, you think 100 posts is a lot?  Watch this:

Penal Substitution!

There.  That should be good for 300, at least!

[102] Posted by Dr. Mabuse on 5-23-2010 at 11:44 AM · [top]

“And Inclusion2010 is *waaaay* off message.”

Whose message, yours?  Your new African church’s?  Yeah, I would say I’m in disagreement.  However, my point is that a lot of people that comment on this site appear to want it two ways:  they want to froth at the mouth about the current state of TEC while at the same time completely dismissing it.  You have the right to move on, and many of you have done so.  So why the bitterness that is apparent to anyone who happens upon this site for information (and I’m not a newbie, incidentally; I have read columns and comments here for a considerable time, making the effort to understand how others think and why they have come to their conclusions)?  Why the hundreds of parting shots?  If you have left TEC and found a richer experience, I am truly happy for you.  Now how about expending your energy in a positive way?  The vitriol that I witness on this site every day saddens me as I would think it does many.  We evidently have our differences, but we have many, many more things in common.  And as the host of this site recommends right here at the bottom of the page:  “Before you post, please remember Matthew 5:43-45

[103] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-26-2010 at 02:59 PM · [top]

Well inclusion2010….the moniker tells us everything we need to know and folks here we go down this road again…..

Inclusion2010 if you have truly been reading SF and trying to get a better understanding of much of the reasons why we who have left and those who have not left comment here and you have not yet figured it out….Well then I am at a lost as to what to tell you except continue to read and engage in conversation. Ask questions but do not get defensive when one of us answers your question(s) but you do not like the answer.

Your moniker gives me the impression that you are all for inclusion of openly practicing LGBT person to Holy Orders and that having a Universalist Unitarian type church is perfectly acceptable in a Christian Church that worships (or used to anyway) God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And that feminizing our Father in Heaven is perfectly okay too, and that a person who embrace Buddhism is okay to lift to the episcopate. You see just by listing these very few things should give you an idea as to why we comment here and why it is so important for those who hold to the Holy Scriptures as the Truth of God revealed through the Holy Spirit to the Apostles handed down for all then that also should help you to understand why we need to Stand Firm for the Gospel of the Truth, the Way, and the Life that is only found in Jesus Christ our Risen Lord and Savior.

[104] Posted by TLDillon on 5-26-2010 at 03:28 PM · [top]

RE: “Whose message, yours?”

Oh, I think it was clear “whose message” by the next dozen or so words in my comment: “Maybe he needs to get with some of the other TEC revisionist activists who are proclaiming the lack of caring”  . . .  ; > )

But then, Inclusion knew that.

RE: “Your new African church’s?”

Not sure to what Inclusion is referring . . . ACNA? 

I’m a happy Episcopalian.

RE: “they want to froth at the mouth about the current state of TEC while at the same time completely dismissing it.”

The post was *clearly* not dismissing TEC.  It was offering a good theory for why the comparative lack of interest in the Glasspool consecration—something that the revisionists have done as well.

RE: “You have the right to move on . . . “

Oh I plan to stick around with bells on and fight the current direction of the national church leaders in my own small way for a gooooooooddddd long time.  ; > )

RE: “and I’m not a newbie, incidentally; I have read columns and comments here for a considerable time” . . . .

Not long enough not to know that 100 “posts” [sic] is nothing around here.

RE: “Now how about expending your energy in a positive way?”

Oh, resistance of the agenda of the progressive activists in TEC by other Episcopalians is beautifully positive.  Not to mention all the other ways I’m expending energy in a positive way.

Yes, I feel comfortable with the ways I’m spending my time.

But thanks for caring so much.

[105] Posted by Sarah on 5-26-2010 at 04:09 PM · [top]

Thanks #105.
Heh…stick a fork in him/her. He/She is done.
Intercessor

[106] Posted by Intercessor on 5-26-2010 at 04:23 PM · [top]

Sarah, what resistance? It seems to me that pretty much everyone, even people such as the two of us who have stuck with ECUSA, has given up on the possibility of any successful resistance against the revisionist establishment. If Matt Kennedy is saying that he wants to avoid Cantuar’s recognition because it would imply some connection to ECUSA, that in my book is throwing in the towel. So why is it so popular to keep retreading the same path of ridicule? You’re just reading from the script they’ve handed you!

Maybe you personally can be given a pass on this one, but it’s about time all the people who’ve supposedly turned their back on ECUSA to get on with their lives. If ECUSA were Sodom, the internet would be littered with pillars of salt.

[107] Posted by C. Wingate on 5-26-2010 at 04:33 PM · [top]

[103] inclusion2010

And as the host of this site recommends right here at the bottom of the page:  “Before you post, please remember Matthew 5:43-45

I always find it curious when liberals quote Scripture as if it has authority.  The same people who reject every statement about homosexuality in Scripture still somehow think that Matthew 5 is clear and comprehensible.  Curious.

carl

[108] Posted by carl on 5-26-2010 at 04:41 PM · [top]

RE: “Sarah, what resistance? It seems to me that pretty much everyone, even people such as the two of us who have stuck with ECUSA, has given up on the possibility of any successful resistance against the revisionist establishment.”

Well, C Wingate, I think I’ll let you speak for yourself.

As I’ve said time and time again over the past 6 years . . . this is not about reforming TEC.  This is about accomplishing other things that require resistance *within* TEC.  I’m going to be generally silent about what those other things might be—I think some people could come up with a list, but I’m not going to list those things here.

I’d be interested to know what diocese you are in, if you’re up for sharing.

[109] Posted by Sarah on 5-26-2010 at 05:07 PM · [top]

Sarah/Intercessor:  Truly, this needn’t be about sarcasm and sticking forks in people;  I understand that’s the protocol here, but I believe it is counter-productive.  In the short term, I am sure it is immensely satisfying to get the digs in where you can, but in the long term, that approach will do nothing but damage any hopes of real dialogue.  Clearly, there is strong division here and I think both sides understand at least that much.  We are all in the midst of a crisis involving a church body that we have (or had) a tremendous amount of passion about.  The good news is that we—on both sides of a particular issue—do care about its future.  There is a lot of work to be done, but I’m hopeful that reconciliation can be a reality. 

And carl:  Matthew 5:43-45 IS clear and comprehensible, even to liberals and socialists.  And what we find curious is the fact that homosexuality has been a issue cherry-picked like no other.  Jesus Christ could not have been clearer on the topic of divorce, but I think we can all generally agree that this issue has been removed from debate in modern American society.  Ever notice how prejudice towards homosexuals typically runs along Republican/conservative lines?  It’s a political/idealogical issue cloaked by many as a religious one.  Yeah, trot out Leviticus again, so I can remind everyone of all the other archaic passages that surround the ones about gays.

And Sarah:  I do care.  And not in a disingenuous way.

[110] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-26-2010 at 05:50 PM · [top]

[110] inclusion2010

Matthew 5:43-45 IS clear and comprehensible, even to liberals and socialists.

You will be hard-pressed to explain from the text why Matthew 5 is clear and comprehensible while Romans 1 is not.  Are there some words in there you don’t understand?  Your distinction in fact has nothing to do with the clarity of the itext.  It has to do with the content of the text.  It would be enlightening if you could cite the standard by which you presume to make such judgments.  I ask this question of liberals all the time, and I never receive an answer.

And what we find curious is the fact that homosexuality has been a issue cherry-picked like no other.

Homosexuality was not ‘cherry-picked.’  The legitimization of homosexuality effectively renounces all structural barriers to sexual behavior.  It establishes consent as the only determining factor of sexual morality.  That is a disastrous decision with predictable consequences.

Jesus Christ could not have been clearer on the topic of divorce

I agree.  He was clear.  The legitimization of divorce was disastrous and has had predictable consequences.  And you are right.  Divorce has been removed from debate in modern society.  What is that to me?  Degenerate cultures make degenerate decision.  That doesn’t make it right.  Certainly I do not accept the modern standard.  And I hold that men are just as accountable to the biblical standard of divorce as they are to the biblical standard of sexual behavior.  Both of which are blindingly clear, no matter how much itching ears would rather hear otherwise.

Yeah, trot out Leviticus again, so I can remind everyone of all the other archaic passages that surround the ones about gays.

I love it when liberals torpedo their own arguments.  Evidently, Matthew 5 is not counted among the ‘archaic’ parts of Scripture.  So let me repeat my previous question, inclusion2010.  What standard do you apply to parse Scripture between truth and falsehood, archaic or relevant, authoritative or not authoritative.  And for goodness sakes, don’t say something useless like ‘reason.’  We all use reason.  It’s not a standard.  It’s a mechanism that must be informed by a standard to operate.  So how about it, inclusion2010.  Will you be the first to answer the question no other liberal has even tried to answer?

carl

[111] Posted by carl on 5-26-2010 at 06:22 PM · [top]

Inclusion2010:

that approach will do nothing but damage any hopes of real dialogue.

Eh…around these parts TEC does not refer to this previously benign process as dialogue but as “Depositions”.
Intercessor

[112] Posted by Intercessor on 5-26-2010 at 06:55 PM · [top]

[110] Opposition to sodomy goes with religiosity. For instance, in California, somewhere around 70% of African Americans supported same sex prohibition while voting in Democrats by the droves.

[113] Posted by FrChris on 5-26-2010 at 07:06 PM · [top]

If Inclusion2010 wants to understand why some of us who have left TEC act the way we do (and why TEC and Inclusion 2010 acts the way it does) there is the parallel to divorce, even down to the squabble over who gets what property.

Or if that doesn’t ring a bell, remember that 400 years after the Protestant Reformation separations, Protestants are still bitching about the Roman Church and the Roman Church about the Protestant churches. Why even the Orthodox and Romans can squabble—and that separation took place took place nearly a millennium ago! So don’t think the critics of TEC are going to go away anytime soon.

As for your comment about divorce, there are some of us who do not believe that divorce is A Good Thing. There is increasing evidence that the “acceptance” of divorce over the past half century have had a tragic effect on children—who are less secure, less emotionally stable, less able to form lasting relationships—and society in general. And there was “remark” a few years ago when TEC presumed to consecrate a twice divorced, thrice remarried man a bishop.

“Inclusion2010” is a joke. Inclusion includes defrocking scores of clergy, expelling lay members of standing committees, changing locks on church doors, security guards escorting dissenters to the exits (while the bishop inanely intones, “See how inclusive we are”!

[114] Posted by Septuagenarian on 5-26-2010 at 07:25 PM · [top]

Inclusion2010, I’d like to answer specifically your post #110, because I think it deserves an answer.

If as you say, you’ve monitored SF for any length of time, then I assume you have seen a generous amount of tragedy among the Orthodox who post here.  You’ve seen and read about families losing their parishes, Dads like myself having to make some very tough decisions driven by a Church that has revealed itself to be something other than we thought it was.  I joined TEC in 1987, and knew I had found a Church home.  Over the ensuing twenty years, I watched as piece by piece, and frame by frame, the leadership at 815 with the full complicity of a House of Bishops that seemed to grow more spineless with every passing year de-coupled the core of the Church from traditional Christianity, Holy Scripture, and the Deposit of Faith it had been entrusted with about two hundred years ago. 

We have all here been through the range of emotions as we have been forced to observe this deterioration, disbelief, anger, depression, and finally grief.  Grief at the demise of a once mighty spiritual Rock of a Church that has descended into “cultural relevance”.  And yes, I do mean descended.

The attitudes you observe here are largely borne of this grief.  Our homes have been removed from us.  We have reacted in many ways, not all of them productive or even smart, but we are doing our best to cope with a national movement to embrace that which has been forbidden for good reason for over 2,000 years.

We have watched as the “Big Tent” has grown so large it no longer has sides, a roof, or poles.  We have watched as even the risen nature of Jesus, surely the raison d’etre of Christianity itself, has been squarely questioned and put aside by BISHOPS without retribution, doubt, or recrimination.

So forgive us if our hospitality is lacking.  Losing a a loved one, which is what has happened to almost all of us, for surely we have all loved our Church at one time or another, for better or worse, is always challenging.

KTF!...mrb

[115] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-26-2010 at 07:41 PM · [top]

115. Yep you make many good points. I grew up in PECUSA/TEC and it has saddened me beyond words to realize that the church I grew up in is largely gone except for a few isolated places like my diocese (South Carolina). My parents left and i have given it thought myself but here I remain until when… I don’t know. It is like watching a loved one die by inches… painful…....very painful.

[116] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 5-26-2010 at 08:16 PM · [top]

Sarah, I think I’ve said several times I’m in the Diocese of Maryland—or to be precise, I go to church in said diocese, as my house is actually in The Other Diocese (that is, Washington).

And two comments re your own situation. First, as far as I’m concerned, you’ve left. Second, I think a case could be made that your situation is in violation of the disciplinary rubrics, so perhaps you are fortunate in having a rector who does not feel moved, for whatever reason, to apply them.

[117] Posted by C. Wingate on 5-26-2010 at 10:56 PM · [top]

Does the rubric still address “Malicious and open contention” and retain “grave and open sin” without repentance along with ‘grave and immediate scandal’ as the bars to communion?

[118] Posted by Bo on 5-26-2010 at 11:14 PM · [top]

There is a lot of input here to respond to, but I will make an honest effort.  First, permit me to say that I truly appreciate all of the comments, particularly those that are civil, rational, and devoid of the mean-spirited sarcasm that rears its head from time to time on this—and other similar—sites.  I have thought about the recent comments and freely admit that there are many compelling points for consideration.
    To begin, Mike Bertaut and SC blue cat lady, I have read extensively from this site for some time and have become quite aware of the “generous amount of tragedy” present, as Mr. Bertaut eloquently put it;  I assure you that the tragedy extends to both sides of the aisle, as it were.  The loss of members of our great Church has been a tremendous source of pain for those of us that remain.  We experience this pain every hour of every day, spiritually, personally, financially, and in many other ways.  While you have left friends behind, we have seen friends take their leave.  I’m not certain for whom it is worse, but I feel strongly that it is not a question worth debating.  Many “liberals” may have told you not to let the doorknob hit you on the way out; it is not a sentiment that I share.  We do not have the resources we once had. We do not have the talent we once had.  We do not have the brain trust we once had.  We do not have the fellowship we once had.  The ones that have left are missed.
    On to other more contentious points:  Simply put, I do not share your conviction that homosexuality is a sin.  Let’s agree to place Leviticus aside (which, I must say, has not really been a point of contention in any of my conversations with others).  The reason for my position rests within the Gospels:  I don’t think Jesus took a position, and if he did he certainly didn’t appear to place any sort of emphasis on it.  That brings us to Romans, and I disagree with the interpretation popular to most of the commentators on this site.  Allow me to quote from the notes of the Third Edition of the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) regarding Romans 1: 26-27:
    “Paul’s Jewish contemporaries criticized a range of sexual behaviors common in the pagan world.  Although widely read today as a reference to homosexuality, the language of unnatural intercourse was more often used in Paul’s day to denote not the orientation of sexual desire, but its immoderate indulgence, which was believed to weaken the body (the due penalty).”
    I understand if someone out there interprets this passage in a different manner; indeed, there are countless passages in Holy Scripture that are subject to all types of interpretation. How many sects have been created over the interpretation of single passages? The crux of my argument is that this is a tenuous hook upon which to hang a Schism.  This passage—subject to interpretation—from an Epistle in no way carries the same weight as, say:
    “But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” or:
    “Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.”
    Both of these passages, spoken by Jesus Christ during the Sermon on the Mount would not appear to any person of reason to possess much wriggle-room.  I believe that if Our Lord intended homosexuality to be considered the grave sin so many think it is today, He would have been a lot clearer about the whole thing.  I understand almost no one here agrees with me, but I am attempting to answer some questions and explain a position.  Thanks again to all for a provocative discussion.  I sign off this evening with one more line from Matthew:
    “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

[119] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-26-2010 at 11:18 PM · [top]

If you wish to play ‘red-letter’ games, parse:
Matthew 19:4-6

We know of course that outside of marriage sexual relations are fornication, and that fornication is a sin.  Do you need those ‘red-letter’ locations as well?

[120] Posted by Bo on 5-26-2010 at 11:40 PM · [top]

[119]  inclusion2010

So let’s take these major points one at a time.

I don’t think Jesus took a position, and if he did he certainly didn’t appear to place any sort of emphasis on it.

I believe that if Our Lord intended homosexuality to be considered the grave sin so many think it is today, He would have been a lot clearer about the whole thing.

This is an argument from silence.  You are in effect saying “Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality, so he must have approved of it.”  On its face this is an invalid argument.  It assumes that approval is the only possible reason for the absence of comment.  But of course there arer alternative explanations.  The universal condemnation of homosexuality at the time presented no reason for explicit comment.  Who would have argued with Him? 

Even so, I do not believe even you accept this argument on its face.  The Lord Jesus also nowhere explicitly condemns a man having sex with his daughter.  Are we therefore to infer He would approve?  In fact, there are many activities that Jesus did not explicitly condemn that you would never allow to be justified by such argumentation.  Cannibalism, for example, or child sacrifice.  Yet homosexuality somehow passes the test.  Why the special treatment?  You have approached scripture with a prior judgment about the morality of homosexual behavior, and imposed that judgment on the text.  That’s why you allow yourself to infer approval from silence in this specific circumstance. Upon what basis did you make that moral judgment?

Let’s agree to place Leviticus aside

This passage—subject to interpretation—from an Epistle in no way carries the same weight as, say: “But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”

No, let’s not agree to set Leviticus aside.  You have read it out of the Canon by some unspecified standard, but I have not.  Nor do I agree that the Epistles of Paul carry less weight than the Gospels.  You seem fundamentally confused about the nature of scripture.  Paul is not the authority behind the Book of Romans.  The Holy Spirit is the authority behind the book of Romans, and the Godhead is not divided against itself.  The Father, the Son, and The Holy Spirit all present the same Truth.  Paul’s letter to the Romans is therefore just as authoritative as the words Jesus spoke to His disciples in the upper room. 

I understand if someone out there interprets this passage in a different manner; indeed, there are countless passages in Holy Scripture that are subject to all types of interpretation. How many sects have been created over the interpretation of single passages?

Yes, this is the fundamental liberal assertion of epistemological doubt.  “Bob disagrees, so who can really know?”  Every disagreement is covered over in a haze of uncertainty.  How then do we know anything about God?  How do we know good from evil?  How do we know right form wrong?  Why do you even speak of these things as if they have some meaning?  You try to blame men for an inability to understand, but in reality you are accusing God of being unable to overcome the limitations of His own creation.  Having created man with the ability to communicate, He finds Himself unable to actually be understood regarding the exact matters He wanted to communicate. 

In my experience, men do not struggle over the incomprehensibility of Scripture.  They struggle over its clarity.  They see it call homosexuality ‘toevah’ and they gnash their teeth in anger.  They seek to justify their behavior, and so seek ways to escape its clear pronouncements.  What better way that to say “Who can know?”  I can know the same way I know that adultery is wrong, and for the same reason.  Words have meaning, and meanings can be understood. 

carl

[121] Posted by carl on 5-27-2010 at 12:04 AM · [top]

Bo:  Again, Jesus is speaking of divorce, not homosexuality.  We are in complete agreement that He could not be more clear about divorce.  One of my main points is that the silence on this issue is deafening:  we as a society now completely accept what Jesus expressly told us NOT to do, and are somehow hung up on an issue that he said nothing about. 

And, hey, if you are truly worried about sexual relations outside of marriage, well the gays will happily take you up on letting them get married.  Keep arguing your point, and maybe we’ll all get there faster.  Thanks.

[122] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-27-2010 at 12:12 AM · [top]

#122 You didn’t have time to respond to the critique of the argument from silence other than saying that you find it deafening. I’m trying to understand the principle by which you are distinguishing Jesus’ silence on say incest or spousal abuse or the ethics of slavery from his silence on same sex matters. Any help would be appreciated.

[123] Posted by driver8 on 5-27-2010 at 12:49 AM · [top]

carl:  Ok, I understand you won’t put Leviticus aside.  That’s fine, because that only underscores my earlier point that homosexuality is an issue that has been cherry-picked by conservatives like no other.  Among the nearly countless other laws of this book, we are expected to not eat pork, give burnt offerings, not wear garments made of two different materials, not sow a field with two kinds of seed, not round off the hair on our temples or mar the edges of our beard, not tattoo any marks upon us. . .  do I really have to go on? 
    It’s convenient for you to single out the homosexuality reference because, in fact, you don’t like homosexuality.  You have a big problem with it.  And you’re entitled to your opinion about that.  But when you wrap your personal prejudices in the pages of Scripture and condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with you, well, we end up with the situation we are all in. 
    You mentioned in your last comment that I am “in effect saying ‘Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality, so He must have approved of it’ “.  Assuming for a moment that I accept that,  let’s examine your argument:  you (and a lot of others) are saying He condemns homosexuality, when in fact He said nothing about it.  Which is the more unfounded position?  And the one with the greater capacity to cause harm?
    And I didn’t state that Paul’s Epistles are not an authoritative word; I stated that the particular passage in Romans is subject to interpretation and naturally you are going to see it in the light you choose.  Time and time again, we have all seen these arguments back and forth.  We have seen the clear dictums ignored and the outrage about them nonexistent, and instead we spend the majority of our time hotly debating a point that by anyone’s standard is minuscule when comes to prominence in Holy Scripture.  Again, carl:  it’s political.  It’s ideological.  People that don’t like gay people are going to find every reason in the Holy Bible to exclude them, whether it’s relevant or accurate.  We both know how this argument ends:  it doesn’t.  We agree to disagree and in the end, we are all fiddling while Rome burns.

[124] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-27-2010 at 12:52 AM · [top]

inclusion2010,

You seem to be an expert (albeit a anonymous one), so let me ask you the same question I have asked others who support blessing same sex unions.
According to the Book of Common Prayer, we bless marriage for four reasons:
1.  God ordained marriage in Creation
2.  Jesus adorned marriage by his presence and first miracle at Cana
3.  Paul speaks of marriage as signifying the union between Christ and his Church
4.  Holy Scripture commends it to be honored by all people.
Can you share with me where any one of these four is true of same sex unions?
Please don’t bring up David and Jonathon because we can all agree that David is not a good example to follow when it comes to sexual purity.
The problem is that the permissive side of this option assumes same sex unions to be blessed and then come to Holy Scripture with that assumption.  Can you show me where an unbiased and person can read Scripture (whether it be Paul or Leviticus or the Gospels) and come away with the idea that God approves of homosexual unions?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[125] Posted by Philip Snyder on 5-27-2010 at 01:18 AM · [top]

But you don’t think Carl is interpreting truthfully - so in fact, you and he are in exactly the same place - you’re both making claims about truth. You disagree about truth - but you can’t both be correct. Of course questioning his (or your) motivation is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the truth claims you both are making but as anyone who has engaged in these conversations knows, accusations of bigotry, political agendas, homophobia (etc.) are a stock part of the argumentative repertoire that those folks who are merely persuaded of the truth of the church’s 2000 year old teaching, face.

In fact this argument does end - it ends when your bishop begins ordaining partnered gay clergy, it ends when your church elects partnered gay bishops etc. That is, it ends not in ceaseless interpretation but in action. (Indeed if all we had were discussions about interpretation our church would be in a very, very different place).

[126] Posted by driver8 on 5-27-2010 at 01:20 AM · [top]

“homosexuality is an issue that has been cherry-picked by conservatives like no other.”

The “cherry picking” goes back to the first Jerusalem council where sexual morality - sexual relations only in (heterosexual) marriage - was affirmed.

Of course, people like inclusion2010 know better than those ignorant first century Christians like Peter, Paul,...

[127] Posted by robroy on 5-27-2010 at 02:52 AM · [top]

OK, I’ll join in

carl:  Ok, I understand you won’t put Leviticus aside.  That’s fine, because that only underscores my earlier point that homosexuality is an issue that has been cherry-picked by conservatives like no other. 

No. Were you advocating murder, dishonouring parents, adultery, incest, bestiality, child sacrifice, stealing, coveting etc., our opposition would be just as strong, and we would equally quote the relevant sections in the books of Moses. The new testament covenant is different from the old testament covenant, and, as the new testament makes clear, the ceremonial aspects intended to separate Jews from Gentiles are not required for Christians, but the moral code, in particular sexual morality (c.f. Acts 15 for example) is required. This principle also follows from basic Christian ethics and is repeated time and time again in tradition. Why do those supporting homosexual activity always completely fail to grasp this basic theological concept, and think that this argument holds any weight whatsoever?

You mentioned in your last comment that I am “in effect saying ‘Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality, so He must have approved of it’ “.  Assuming for a moment that I accept that,  let’s examine your argument:  you (and a lot of others) are saying He condemns homosexuality, when in fact He said nothing about it.  Which is the more unfounded position?

Unquestionably yours. Firstly, we don’t know everything that Jesus said in his ministry, only that which is recorded in the gospels. Those who did know all that Jesus said, and spent their lives trying to imitate him,—the apostles—were firmly opposed to homosexual practice. Secondly, on matters of sexual immorality Jesus strengthened the law of Moses rather than reduced it. Thirdly, the silence in the record is more likely to mean that Jesus said nothing controversial, so what he said would have conformed to the Judeo/Christian society in which he and the apostles lived, which was firmly against homosexual practice.

And the one with the greater capacity to cause harm?

Again, unquestionably yours. Leaving aside the consequences outlined in 1 Corithians 6:9-10, a growing body of medical evidence clearly shows that homosexual practice is associated with a great deal of physical and psychological harm. Even without the scriptural record, love for homosexuals would require us to oppose homosexual practice.

Jesus Christ could not have been clearer on the topic of divorce, but I think we can all generally agree that this issue has been removed from debate in modern American society.

No. Many here, including myself, regard that relaxing the restrictions on divorce was one of the biggest mistakes of Western society in general and the church in particular in the 20th century, and would love to see the position reversed. The increasing breakdown of family life, caused to a large extent by the degradation of marriage of which the relaxation of divorce is a significant part, is a major cause of the problems around us (and in my view equally important to issues of homosexual practice, if not more so). If our society is to survive, the `debate’ from the 1960s has to be repealed.

[128] Posted by Boring Bloke on 5-27-2010 at 02:54 AM · [top]

If we are going to hang all of the dissent, all of the betrayal, all of the sadness and schism within the Church on the Words of Jesus, and require that he be explicit before we take a stand, then I’m ok with that.  Because from the gospels we get plenty of “red letter” verbiage that the Law as the Jews received it was and still is valid in its entirety, no matter how we treat it and have received it today. 

Mom used to say two wrongs don’t make a right.  Our embrace of divorce as a Church was certainly just as wrong as our embrace of same-sex sex.  Why schism now?  I’m not qualified to comment.  Had I been in TEC when divorce became ok, I’m sure I would have been quite aggravated at the same time. But let’s not forget that even Jesus made exception for divorce in the case of adultery.

But let’s remember, Jesus had a few other things to say that apply here:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17)

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18)

In addition, when Jesus condemned the “teachers of the Law” he did not do so on the basis of the fact that they followed the Law, or were teachers, but that they were hypocrites “loading the people with the Law but not carrying the lightest of burdens yourself.”  Clearly a shot at hypocricy, not the Law itself. 

Jesus was clearly defiant on the portions of the Law that constituted Temple Code, that from which the Scribes and Pharisees drew their authority.  But he never, ever relented on the basics like adultery or idolatry or the like.  To presuppose that he failed to mentioned same-sex sin because he approved of it is definitly a stretch, especially considering the statements on the importance and validity of the Moral Law above.

KTF!...mrb

[129] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-27-2010 at 03:41 AM · [top]

A well-reasoned comment, Boring Bloke. Many thanks.

[130] Posted by MichaelA on 5-27-2010 at 03:41 AM · [top]

Let’s agree to place Leviticus aside

Right, because it’s too difficult.  I mean, we like our shrimp coctails and divorces on demand, so we’d need to get rid of the difficult stuff so we could .  Um, what were we trying to do. 

Oh yes.  We were supposed to be arguing against your worldview, using your worldview as a basis.  How silly of me to forget. 

Seriously now, this is the point where you are supposed to say, “But if one part of the book isn’t binding (and clearly it is not binding now) then the rest is never binding.”

To which I would say, the book is indeed binding to particular nations whose charter acknowledges the reality of the Presence of the Almighty dwells with them.  The law of such a country would perforce demand that what is unholy must be removed from the presence of the Almighty. 

In the age to come, whatever is unholy will also be removed from the Presence of the Almighty.  This is the fulfillment (c.f., Matthew 5) of Leviticus. 

See now?  I was able to keep Leviticus, and not go overboard with applying dietary laws to the present age.  That wasn’t so hard, was it?

Oh right.  But it was only my interpretation. 

And that’s what scientists tell one another too, when one scientist comes up with a theory that explains anamolies better than previous scientists, “Oh, but that’s only your interpretation.” 

Hahahahaha.  smile

[131] Posted by J Eppinga on 5-27-2010 at 06:48 AM · [top]

[124] inclusion2010

Among the nearly countless other laws of this book, we are expected to not eat pork, give burnt offerings, not wear garments made of two different materials, not sow a field with two kinds of seed, not round off the hair on our temples or mar the edges of our beard, not tattoo any marks upon us. . .  do I really have to go on?

No, but could you please actually respond to the arguments we make about this assertion instead of just mindlessly repeating the above claim.  You act as if we have never heard of such a claim, nor ever responded to it.  For example, you might explain why God would condemn the Canaanites for violating the Ceremonial Laws of Israel - homosexuality being one of the reasons God lists for
his judgment of Canaan.  You might also explain how this argument avoids invalidating every other moral imperative in the Old Testament.  Or is that the whole point?

It’s convenient for you to single out the homosexuality reference because ...

... we are arguing about the morality of homosexual behavior.  If we were arguing about another subject like (say) a father having sex with his daughter, I would single out other verses from the Old Testament to support my case.  And in that case you would not be saying things like “Yes, but the Bible also says we shouldn’t eat shellfish.”

you don’t like homosexuality.  You have a big problem with it.  And you’re entitled to your opinion about that.  But when you wrap your personal prejudices in the pages of Scripture and condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with you, well, we end up with the situation we are all in.

Your evidence for these accusations amounts to “You think homosexual behavior is wrong.”  Who cares what I think?  Am I God that I should define right from wrong?  Did I fashion man after my own image, and do I set the bounds of his conduct?  You act as if God has said nothing at all on the matter.  In fact, He is quite explicit in His condemnation in both the Old and New Testament.  I am bound to submit to that condemnation whether I like it or not.  You in fact do not accept that condemnation.  You in fact reject the Scriptural witness.  You in fact have determined that homosexual behavior is righteous behavior, but you steadfastly refuse to explain the authority behind that determination.

You mentioned in your last comment that I am “in effect saying ‘Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn homosexuality, so He must have approved of it’ “.  Assuming for a moment that I accept that,  let’s examine your argument:  you (and a lot of others) are saying He condemns homosexuality, when in fact He said nothing about it.  Which is the more unfounded position? 

Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality in the Gospels.  He implicitly condemns it by affirming the Law, but it does not matter that Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality in the Gospels.  God condemns homosexuality.  The Lord Jesus is the second person of the Godhead.  There is no discord between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  What the Father condemns, the Son condemns.  What the Son condemns, the Spirit condemns.  To reject the condemnation of God is rebellion against the very God who made you. 

And the one with the greater capacity to cause harm?

An interesting little admission.  Does this reveal the utilitarian standard by which you parse the acceptability of God’s revelation?  Do you presume to set aside the moral standard of God because you think “It doesn’t hurt anyone.” 

And I didn’t state that Paul’s Epistles are not an authoritative word

You said (and I quote): “an Epistle in no way carries the same weight as, say: [a quote from the Gospel].”  You said it was a lesser authority.  The only way that can be true is if the words of Paul in Romans do not carry the authority of God.

it’s political.  It’s ideological.  People that don’t like gay people are going to find every reason in the Holy Bible to exclude them, whether it’s relevant or accurate.

That certainly is a convenient assertion for you to make.  But it’s a lie from beginning to end.  Let me summarize your whole argument for you.  “The bible doesn’t say anything relevant about homosexuality, and if you weren’t such an ideologically-driven bigot, you would understand.”  Doesn’t sound so impressive when its laid out like that, does it. 

carl

[132] Posted by carl on 5-27-2010 at 07:54 AM · [top]

it’s political.  It’s ideological.  People that don’t like gay people are going to find every reason in the Holy Bible to exclude them, whether it’s relevant or accurate.

Of course, it has nothing to do with “liking” or “not liking” gay people, but try explaining that to people that are offering the functional equivlent of a child claming that his parents don’t love him if they send him to bed at a reasonable hour and keep him from gorging on sweets. 

I, personally, would have absolutly no reason to object to homosexualty, and indeed very little reason to embrace any any restrictions on sexual behavoir, if it weren’t for the fact that thousands of years worth of Scripture and consistent Judeo-Christian teaching say otherwise.

In otherwords, my condemnation of homosexual behavoir come from, and is soley motivated by, God’s Word, not the other way around.  It certainly doesn arise out of my own sinful nature, which would be thrilled to accept a very libertine approach to sexuality.

[133] Posted by AndrewA on 5-27-2010 at 08:09 AM · [top]

RE; “First, as far as I’m concerned, you’ve left. Second, I think a case could be made that your situation is in violation of the disciplinary rubrics, so perhaps you are fortunate in having a rector who does not feel moved, for whatever reason, to apply them.”

C. Wingate—an interesting perspective.  I’m not certain why any rector should apply “disciplinary rubrics” to me or why you would think I have left.  I am paid up on my pledge from years past [although I have not paid my pledge this year, but will] and I partake of Holy Eucharist at my parish and am a very happy Episcopalian, while enjoying any resistance I am able to make to the national church’s leadership.  I help my parish as I am able—slim due to travel and work obligations but I certainly have tried to be of assistance with various projects throughout even the last 12 months.  I have been a faithful member for more than a decade and attended even longer than that.  I am also very pleased with what God has allowed me to do in the area of resistance within TEC, and hopeful that He will allow me to do more in the future.

In short, God has blessed me.

I’m sorry you’re so angry and have no idea why you are bitter at me or why you have been unable [so you claim] to resist TEC leadership in some way.  But it’s not really my affair.

Inclusion—a few points.

RE: “Truly, this needn’t be about sarcasm and sticking forks in people. . . “

Not certain what you are talking about.  I responded to your points and asserted differently.  Simple as that.

RE: “that approach will do nothing but damage any hopes of real dialogue.”

I am not remotely interested in “dialogue” with progressive activists within TEC.  So rest easy on that score.  We do not share a sufficiently similar foundational worldview to “dialogue”—were you a person who happily claimed to be a pagan [some of my friends and acquaintances] we could have a friendship and nice conversations.  But you and I not only do not share the same gospel, but you are working to subvert the gospel within a church.  In short—you fall nicely into the “progressive activist” category of deconstructionist destructive faux Christians hiding out in churches.  I have no interest in dialogue—merely in pointing out your glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies and irrationality when I find the time.  Obviously there will be no convincing of each other—we have two separate and mutually antithetical gospels which we both believe strongly. And obviously, within TEC, there will be no reconciliation.  The two gospels will not co-exist within the same organization, ultimately.  That much is clear to all. 

As to divorce, this site has been vociferous against divorce, I attended the GC with Barry Beisner’s consent, reported on that debacle, reported on the *minority report of one* that came out of the consent committee from the one person who believed the Gospel on that TEC committee, and the AAC also vociferously publicized that debacle and disagreed.  So you are, quite simply, wrong about conservatives within TEC not caring about divorce.  We were, in fact, the only ones that cared at General Convention.

As to cherry picking, that is silly.  Were the progressive activists to decide to sacrifice goats on the altars at Eucharists in TEC, and to create a liturgy for such sacrifices, you’d find me out front loud and clear vigorously protesting that act.  Instead,—oddly enough—TEC progressive activists, which clearly control the national and diocesan leadership—decided to bless the sexual acts between the same genders and to publicly, legally, officially, nationally, and formally proclaim those sexual acts as holy and blessed and within God’s will.  Just as soon as we do that for gluttony or kleptomania or any other *disorder* I will loudly proclaim that to be wrong and our blogging fodder will turn in that direction too. 

Finally, how dare you decide that because people recognize sexual acts between the same sex as unholy, unblessed, disordered, damaging, and sinful they also hate those people who do such things.  There are many actions which are unholy, unblessed, disordered, damaging, and sinful that people do and their job is to repent of such things [certainly not manipulate society and churches into pretending they are a-ok] and my job is to love those who do them.  I work with, play with and am taught and mentored by gays and I have loved gays and been with gays all of my adult life. 

You lie.  And that lie is a repugnant and self-serving one to you as a progressive activist bent on eliminating opposition within an organization which you covet.

You lie.

[134] Posted by Sarah on 5-27-2010 at 08:09 AM · [top]

“it’s about time all the people who’ve supposedly turned their back on ECUSA to get on with their lives.”

I’m sure that would make you more comfortable C Wingate…but I am not really concerned about your comfort level.

I am concerned about heresy and the Episcopal Church because heresy like Gangrene does not stay in a nice tight little compartment but tends to infect whole bodies if it is not cut out.

The Episcopal Church in its present form needs to die so that she does not infect the rest of Anglicanism or, heaven forbid, the rest of Christendom…to that end I will always happily and with great eagerness and glee point out, highlight, emphasize, the whacked out all gods are our gods, free love, aging hipster heresies that she herself routinely sets on display so that the rest of the Christian world can see where they will end up should they determine to follow her broad wide path.

[135] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-27-2010 at 08:27 AM · [top]

[122] Posted by inclusion2010
Our Lord talks first of what the ‘design’ is - that which was from the beginning.  What is the permitted, nay, intended sexual union? From the beginning it was one Male and one Female.  ANYTHING else is a corruption (including the plural ‘marriages’ of the patriarchs), and fornication is the cause sufficient for a man to divorce his wife (and even that due to the hardness of men’s hearts).  The Lord does not answer the ‘divorce question’ with only the later part, but brings the answer based on ‘first principals’.  You are being wilfully blind to those first principals, just as the divorce supporting Jews were.

[136] Posted by Bo on 5-27-2010 at 08:39 AM · [top]

Inclusion—if you want the answer to the OT/NT challenge, Anglicanism answered that for itself long long ago—feel free to read Article 7 on The Old Testament:

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for in both the Old and New Testaments eternal life is offered to mankind through Christ. Hence he, being both God and man, is the only mediator between God and man. Those who pretend that the Patriarchs only looked for transitory promises must not be listened to. Although the law given by God through Moses is not binding on Christians as far as its forms of worship and ritual are concerned and the civil regulations are not binding on any nation state, nevertheless no Christian is free to disobey those commandments which may be classified as moral.

The traditional way that one knows what is the “moral law” for Christians is by its repetition in the New Testament.

The fact that an Episcopalian would not know something so simple or basic about Anglican history or Anglican theology or its way of handling scripture is another reason for the mess that we are in.

[137] Posted by Sarah on 5-27-2010 at 08:44 AM · [top]

“The fact that an Episcopalian would not know something so simple or basic about Anglican history or Anglican theology or its way of handling scripture is another reason for the mess that we are in.”

Exactly, Sarah!  Unfortunately, this applies to us Anglicans as well.  How often have you heard of or experienced a course in Anglican History at a local church?  I’d venture to say seldom or never, and that is a fundamental failing of the Church.  I’d also suggest that such a course should be a mandatory part of any Inquirer’s Class and pre-Confirmation education.  In fact, it should be drilled into all seminarians throughout their three years at seminary.

[138] Posted by Cennydd on 5-27-2010 at 08:57 AM · [top]

And not only that, but it also wouldn’t be a bad idea if clergy were to include it as subject matter in their sermons periodically; sort of a “continuing education in the Church,” as it were.

[139] Posted by Cennydd on 5-27-2010 at 09:01 AM · [top]

Cennydd,
It was in the church in Hanford when I came to it in 1998 and I took it. Again it is the fault of the leadership. They know they should be teaching this but they choose not to and it truly should be mandatory through out the diocese for all newcomers no matter whether they took this class in college for Church History or at another church in another location….It should be mandatory period.

[140] Posted by TLDillon on 5-27-2010 at 09:02 AM · [top]

re i2010: The assertion that homosexuality was presented as an issue by conservatives simply will not withstand the most cursory historical review. Righter’s ordination of Robert Williams, at Spong’s direction and with Spong’s approval, was known to be an offensive act before it was even contemplated. It isn’t as though up to that point conservatives didn’t care. It was presented as the radical act that it was; Spong’s statement, as presented in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, was that it was time for the church to finish the job of discarding the old disproven opposition to homosexuality, a statement that presumed that the troglodytes were going to object as they had for a millennium and more.

[141] Posted by C. Wingate on 5-27-2010 at 09:10 AM · [top]

carl, what you well wrote:

In my experience, men do not struggle over the incomprehensibility of Scripture.  They struggle over its clarity.

reminds me of what Mark Twain, an admitted unbeliever, said:

It’s not the parts of the Bible I don’t understand that give me problems.  It’s the parts I do understand and don’t like.

[142] Posted by Milton on 5-27-2010 at 09:33 AM · [top]

Alas, I have not found a single red-letter pronouncement on nuclear weapons, global warming, or the state as provider of health care.  Apparently, Jesus did not have an opinion on those issues along with homosexuality and flush toilets. 

I refuse to be devastated.

[143] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 5-27-2010 at 09:43 AM · [top]

“Finally, how dare you decide that because people recognize sexual acts between the same sex as unholy, unblessed, disordered, damaging, and sinful they also hate those people who do such things.”

Whoa, there, Sarah.  I’ve never said anything about anyone hating people; let’s be clear about that.  My assertion that there are people who have a big problem with homosexuality is not the same thing as making an accusation that they are guilty of hatred.  You seem a bit eager to head in that direction;  it sounds like you’ve had that conversation before, and often.  And it’s really not nice to call someone a lier.  This is a debate, there is rhetoric involved, people have their respective positions.  Letting it degrade to “you lie” is petty.  Can anyone else out there kindly support me on at least this point? 

In any case, stepping away from the back and forth for a moment I would like to get a feel for the ways in which a homosexual might be able to participate in the Chuch, as you (the collective commentators) see it.  This is a sincere and honest request for information and feedback so that I can continue to learn more about this issue as a whole.  My question is this:  what roles, specifically, do you have a problem with homosexuals filling within the Church?  In other words, I understand that gay and lesbian Bishops are not wanted.  I assume that would extend to other clergy, but I am not certain of this.  What about Vestry members?  Could a gay man serve as Junior Warden, but not Senior Warden?  Are gay acolytes OK but not gay lay ministers?  Would gays even be allowed in the congregation, if you had a choice in the matter?  Again, this is a sincere question, because I really want to understand what, exactly, are the positions out there.  I have never completely understood this issue because there is so much noise about the gay and lesbian Bishops, it is hard to hear the nuance of other arguments for and against gays in general.  I thank everyone in advance for their comments and look forward to learning more about this.

[144] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-27-2010 at 09:58 AM · [top]

Inclusion2010 - what roles should people who are sexually active outside of holy matrimony (gay or straight) allowed to fulfill in the Church?  For a start, they should not be clergy.  I would go so far as to say that they shouldn’t be on the vestry or serve as Sr/Jr Warden, but I would leave that decision up to the Rector/congregation. Acolytes, LEMs, LEVs, lay readers, all serve at the pleasure of the Rector/Vicar/Priest in Charge.  Were I a rector of a parish and a homosexual couple wanted to be acolytes, I would have to think and pray about it, but I would be disinclined to allow them to function in that role because they are living contradictions to what the Church teaches.

I don’t see how you can lead the Church when you are not willing to abide by the teaching of the Church.  If your life is a walking contradiction to the teaching of the Church, then you should not be leading it.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[145] Posted by Philip Snyder on 5-27-2010 at 10:24 AM · [top]

#144
Speaking only for myself, it depends on how you define “gay.” If you mean someone who is attracted to other men, but nonetheless has his attraction under control, leads a celibate life (or is married to a woman) and teaches others to do the same (firm in his orthodox doctrine in all respects), then I have no objections to him filling any role in the Church, up to archbishop if you like, assuming that he is otherwise suitable. The key question, of course, is 1 Timothy 3, that he is morally above reproach, and will not by nature of his office and his attraction bring the church into disrepute, and that has to be judged on an individual basis.

If you mean someone who before becoming a Christian lived in homosexual practice, publicly and unequivocally repented, and shows no sign of reverting to his former sin, then again, once he is mature enough in his faith, and assuming that he is solid in doctrine, has his homosexual attraction under control, and is otherwise suitable, I see no issue in him taking any office in the Church.

Somebody who claimed to be a Christian, then later repented, has his homosexual attraction under control, the same basic principle applies, although I would wait some time before giving him an office in the church to ensure that the repentance is genuine.

Somebody who practices homosexual sex, and is not repentant, or who teaches others to practice it, then, no different from adulterers, gamblers, and any other form of repeated sinners should be warned and, if that fails, suspended from communion and any Church office until, after a time of penance, he mends his ways (following the principle outlined in 1 Corinthians 5).  I would not bar him from attending services as a non-communicant unless he causes trouble in the congregation.

The basic point is that we are all sinners to some degree, including bishops, archbishops, presbyters, deacons and those with some lay office. It is only those who are unrepentant in their sin or who teach others to practice sin (again, assuming that everything else is OK) who should be bared or suspended from Church office. It does not matter (within reason) what that sin is; homosexual practice is no different in this regard from anything else condemned in scripture. Of course, we don’t fully live up to the standard I have outlined here, but that doesn’t excuse us from applying it in any one case.

[146] Posted by Boring Bloke on 5-27-2010 at 10:32 AM · [top]

#144 Inclusion2010

what roles, specifically, do you have a problem with homosexuals filling within the Church?  In other words, I understand that gay and lesbian Bishops are not wanted.  I assume that would extend to other clergy, but I am not certain of this.  What about Vestry members?  Could a gay man serve as Junior Warden, but not Senior Warden?  Are gay acolytes OK but not gay lay ministers?  Would gays even be allowed in the congregation, if you had a choice in the matter?

Unrepentant sinners should not be allowed to server in leadership positions in the Church.  Those suffering from a same-sex disorder should be loved and ministered to by the members of the Church.  They should be supported and discipled by brothers and sisters who can walk with them, pray with them, pray for healing for them.  However, they should be counseled that same-sex behavior is sinful and that unrepentant sin is a barrier to receipt of the body and blood of the Lord.

[147] Posted by hereistand on 5-27-2010 at 10:32 AM · [top]

#14 Philip Synder answers Inclusion2010’s question well but the Bible answers it better:

1 Tim. 3:1-16
  The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. [2] Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, [3] not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. [4] He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, [5] for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? [6] He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. [7] Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
  [8] Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. [9] They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. [10] And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. [11] Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. [12] Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. [13] For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
  [14] I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, [15] if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth. [16] Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

  He was manifested in the flesh,
      vindicated by the Spirit,
      seen by angels,
  proclaimed among the nations,
      believed on in the world,
      taken up in glory.

I would say that anyone who is looking to be in any servant role and/or leadership role in the church must live in the way that the church has taught since the Apostles.

[148] Posted by TLDillon on 5-27-2010 at 10:33 AM · [top]

Speaking of cherry-picking, you seem quite adept at it, inclusion 2010.  Have you read Matthew 19:4-6?

[149] Posted by Jackie on 5-27-2010 at 10:35 AM · [top]

Boring Bloke
Has it dead-on.

Open and unrepentant sin is a bar to the Lord’s Supper (I Corinthians 5), and to any an all service in the church. 

A rebel is not made a steward.  Without repentance there is no restoration to the table, much less to office.

[150] Posted by Bo on 5-27-2010 at 10:46 AM · [top]

Inclusion2010, your question has been answered so many times by conservative Christians (and on this list to boot), it is apparent that you have not been listening.

A homosexual man or woman (meaning an individual who is attracted to members of the same sex) can participate quite fully in a Christian church in exactly the same way as any sinner. The innate propensity of humankind to sinful disobedience is not barrier. After all, Jesus died on the Cross in order to free us from the bondage of our sinfulness, not to somehow sanctify the sin.

In other words, if I am inclined to covet my neighbor’s wife, for example, I should resist the temptation to act upon that inclination. If I should fail, and have intercourse with her, I am to repent and strive to amend my life. That is what the rite of reconciliation is about. Jesus’ words to the woman taken in adultery was not to go, sin some more, but to cease the sinful behavior.

The assumption from TEC’s leadership seems to be that there is no such thing as a man or woman who is sexually attracted to members of their own sex who abstains from sex with members of the same sex. That is, of course, utter nonsense. No one is entitled to have sex with those whom they find sexually attractive. And there are those who abstain altogether from sexual intercourse and live chaste, celibate lives regardless of what TEC’s leadership seem to think. And, quite frankly, many of those who do live such lives find TEC’s stance quite unhelpful, dishonest, blind and off-putting—hardly a celebration of “inclusion” and “diversity.”

[151] Posted by Septuagenarian on 5-27-2010 at 11:45 AM · [top]

I’m listening, Septuagenarian.  I was interested in some of the finer points that were addressed by others, and I thank Philip Synder and Boring Bloke in particular for their responses.  In particular, I am truly attempting to get a handle on some of the logistical (for lack of a better term) questions regarding the service of gay vestry members, Eucharistic Lay Ministers, acolytes, lay readers, etc. . .  . If this is a repeat for you, I apologize.  I am only one individual working to understand all sides of this issue and there is probably a lot of material I have missed along the way.
    I found these comments to be enlightening and I walk away from all of this discussion with a better understanding of how and why others think about this particular issue.  Much thanks, truly!

[152] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-27-2010 at 12:54 PM · [top]

#124
People that don’t like gay people are going to find every reason in the Holy Bible to exclude them, whether it’s relevant or accurate.

The problem with that is that you probably do not live up to that standard yourself. The passages in Leviticus are bookended by condemnations of incest and bestiality. If a proponent of them tried to justify them to you on the bases that those who condemned them mistook personal distaste for a moral intuition, would you really accept that? Seriously? If so, your problem is with Paul (ie. exclusion0050) who instructed the Corinthian church to excommunicate the man having sex with his father’s wife (I Co 5). All we ask for is a little consistency. That’s all. Is that too much to ask for?

we are expected to not eat pork, give burnt offerings, not wear garments made of two different materials, not sow a field with two kinds of seed, not round off the hair on our temples or mar the edges of our beard, not tattoo any marks upon us. . .  do I really have to go on? 

The problem with this is that Jesus and Paul abrogate the ceremonial law, while upholding the moral law in very strong terms. So your problem is really with them, not conservative Christians.

Ie. if your argument goes through, it would prove that Christianity itself was inconsistent and therefore false. Why would you even want to belong to an organization you thought espoused contradictory and therefore false beliefs? Better to convert to Judaism or atheism.

[153] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 5-27-2010 at 01:57 PM · [top]

meant “on the basis

[154] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 5-27-2010 at 01:58 PM · [top]

#152, I always say keep it simple.  An unrepenant sinner cannot lead in the Church of Christ.  The argument we are having is not about functions and/or leadership.  The argument is “What is sin?”. 

Is “sin” something that I get to define myself?  Or am I obligated to accept that definition via a higher power?  Certainly if I am to call myself Christian, I am certifying that I submit to a standard of behavior, repentance, forgiveness and salvation that conforms with Christian teachings and thought, contained in a deposit of faith that has been handed down to the church and defended (not always very well) by the faithful.

I am not inclined to make distinctions between “classes” or “types” of unrepentant sin.  Either we acknowledge our behavior as sinful or we do not.  Either we are sorry or we are not.  If one doesn’t acknowledge their behavior as sinful, they are not fit to lead a church seeking repentance and salvation.  If one doesn’t acknowledge they are sorry for their behavior, they are unfit to lead.  If their lifelong goal is to “change the Church’s mind” on a definition of sin, then they are self-serving, selfish, and risking the salvation of everyone who learns the faith from that church.

Dangerous ground.  Are you sure enough in your faith to guarantee those around you who embrace same-sex sex that their way to heaven is assured and no metanoia is required? 

KTF!...mrb

[155] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-27-2010 at 02:10 PM · [top]

You bring up some interesting points, Mr. Bertaut, so I would take our discussion to what I feel is the next logical step and ask you (and others) the following:  Since I am not homosexual myself, yet accept and defend those who are, am I fit to lead?  In other words, do you view my attitude as a sin of association?  What about someone who might step forward to defend my viewpoint?  Is that person fit to lead?  Exactly how far removed from the homosexual sinner must one be before he or she can lead the Church, as you see it?

[156] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-27-2010 at 02:38 PM · [top]

As someone who has been involved in selecting and working with Church leadership for a few years now (twenty-ish) I can say pretty clearly that if TEC is going to continue to embrace the “Big Tent” strategy of church growth that it embarked upon years ago, the only hope of success and survival is to make sure that the people holding up the poles (perhaps they are actually the tent poles themselves in this analogy) need to be the strongest.  Mentally, spiritually, and physically (I mean durable, not that they all be weightlifters) they need to be at the top of their game to do an effective job. 

I would be very hesitant to put anyone in a leadership position who embraced any sinful behavior as “well, that’s not a sin in my book” and was unwilling to keep it to himself.  Anyone who is a vocal advocate of sinful behavior is not fit to lead, in my opinion and experience.

So in your example above, I’m not all that concerned with whether or not someone publicly acknowledges that same-sex sex is a problem for them personally, but if that personal attitude becomes public support of the act (not the people engaged in the act) then they are out.

Brings me to another question based on a statement in your post:

Since I am not homosexual myself, yet accept and defend those who are, am I fit to lead?

What are you defending them from?  If you are defending their right to live a sinful lifestyle and engage in sinful acts, no matter what they might be, then you are unfit for leadership in the Church of Christ.  If you are defending them as a person, as a soul to be loved and cherished and supported and nurtured in the Church of Christ, then you are a First-Class Christian in my book.  I would do, and expect nothing less.

If you can’t separate the two, then you are misguided and being ruled by a tyranny of feelings, which will not serve you well on the road to Salvation.

Sorry if that sounds harsh.  That’s what I think and I have formed these opinions based on Scripture, which has, over the years, taught me many hard lessons, often things that I REALLY REALLY disagreed with and did not want to know.

But it is there, and we can’t ignore God’s truth forever.

KTF!...mrb

[157] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-27-2010 at 02:58 PM · [top]

[156] If I do not covet, but I teach and disciple others that to covet is a holy and blessed activity, am I a true teacher of the gospel, fit to lead?

[158] Posted by tired on 5-27-2010 at 03:02 PM · [top]

I don’t shoot up heroin in church myself, yet and accept and defend the act of shooting up heroin in church, can I teach your Sunday School?

No?

Okay what about my friend here who does not shoot up heroin in church and does not defend the act of shooting up heroin in church but who thinks those who defend heroin shooting should be permitted to teach Sunday school…can he teach Sunday school?

No?

Wow, talk about intolerance.

[159] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-27-2010 at 03:29 PM · [top]

Fit to lead what where?

Let me offer a parallel. If a scientist believes that God created the universe 6000 years ago in a six 24 hour day period, that the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat, would he be “fit to lead” a science department of a major university?

Nearly a half century ago ago when when I was ordained in the TEC there was concern on the part of my bishop that I would adhere to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ (not TEC, btw) as received, would teach nothing contrary to Holy Scripture and would so order my life as to be a wholesome example to the people committed to my care. In other words, there was, at least in my diocese, the notion that leaders led people in a particular direction, and that direction was to be found in Holy Scripture and the tradition of the universal Christian Church.

If you were to defend pederasts and would use your position to promote pederast would you be “fit to lead”? If you were to defend bigamists (after all many men and even some women) find many others sexuality attractive and multiple partners personally gratifying and defend their “lifestyle”, would you be “fit to lead”?

If an MBA were to promote Hondas actively (even though he drove a Ford) would he be “fit to lead” a Ford dealership?

Doesn’t leadership imply some sort of conformity to the norms and goals of the organization in which one leads? And doesn’t leadership also imply that one is not about subverting the norms and goals of that organization?

For nearly 2,000 years, the Christian Church has maintained a fairly consistent doctrine and discipline involving sexual behaviors. That doctrine and discipline is consistent with the witness of the teachings of Jesus, the apostles and Holy Scripture. That doctrine and discipline was not based on the popular opinions of secular society. Nor was it made up to satisfy the sinful wishes of even the people of God. On what authority does TEC, its leaders, and General Convention presume to alter the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received and to substitute for it doctrines and practices that clearly contradict Holy Scripture, the traditions of the Church—not only that of the universal Christian Church, but that of the four century old tradition of Anglicanism and even the two century old tradition of TEC itself?

[160] Posted by Septuagenarian on 5-27-2010 at 03:35 PM · [top]

#157 Mike Bertaut,
The quality of your dispassionate logic is in its precision and is a compliment to the quality of your humor. Bless you brother.

[161] Posted by Fr. Dale on 5-27-2010 at 03:38 PM · [top]

#161, at the risk of creating (yet another) mutual admiration society, I consider that high praise coming from you.  But we are all beneficiaries of the graces conferred upon us by our Lord Jesus Christ.  Only with Him and through Him will be be successful.

Which brings me to another point that Inclusion2010 may find interesting.

Once I quit trying to define my own existence, and began to accept the one that Christ had already made available to me before I was even born I learned a critical fact.  That is, it is not OUR JOB to be successful. 

It is our job to be FAITHFUL.  Success belongs to the Lord.

KTF!..mrb

[162] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-27-2010 at 03:46 PM · [top]

Inclusion2010
There is a huge difference between believing a practice in the Church needs to change and working towards that change and acting as if the change has already been made.  Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you are an ordained priest in TEC.  You believe that the Church should bless same sex unions.  I don’t have much of a problem with you privately holding that belief so long as you teach and practice according to the official teaching of the Church until that teaching is changed.

So, working towards the change and advocating for change, but recognizing that the Church teaches and practices “X” is OK.  However, once you start blessing same sex unions or supporting those involved in them towards the ordination process (or ordaining them) or even taking part in the ordination of someone involved in same sex unions, then you have violated your ordination vows and should be disciplined - or even deposed - for violating your ordination vows.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[163] Posted by Philip Snyder on 5-27-2010 at 03:53 PM · [top]

I disagree Philip Snyder, a presbyter “must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.” (Titus 1:9)

I don’t think, given that standard, an advocate for overturning the “word as taught” even if he teaches the official doctrine from the pulpit qualifies for leadership in the church.

[164] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-27-2010 at 04:15 PM · [top]

[155] Mike Bertaut,

You asked

(i)s “sin” something that I get to define myself?  Or am I obligated to accept that definition via a higher power?  Certainly if I am to call myself Christian, I am certifying that I submit to a standard of behavior, repentance, forgiveness and salvation that conforms with Christian teachings and thought, contained in a deposit of faith that has been handed down to the church and defended (not always very well) by the faithful.

The answer truly is pluriform. If you are a progressive Christian, then sin is what you define it to be. If you are not a progressive Christian, then sin is what is revealed.

Progressives, in whatever area of life, believe, as a first principle, that humanity is advancing, i.e., progressing in knowledge and understanding. Their mantras include “We today are much [Pick one: smarter, more knowlegeable, more sophisticated] than our forebears were in the [general or particular] past.” This premise underlies what it means to be a progressive, which is implied by my use of the term “first principle” in the first sentence of this paragraph. At some point, each progressive person realizes that they no longer require a revelation from God to know Good from Evil, they are sufficiently [substitute word or phrase chosen above] that they can determine on their own what is Good and what is Evil. It has become obvious to them. The non-progressive, on the other hand, recognizes that, as a human, he or she is fundamentally broken or flawed by the taint of Original Sin, and therefore needs revelation from God to understand what is Good and what is Evil, and even then may have difficulty in choosing, always and everywhere, the Good instead of the Evil.

So, what it all boils down to is that the wonderful, kind, caring progressive is doing neither more nor less than reenacting Original Sin in their own lives. Progressivism is the apotheosis of Man’s intellect in lieu of God’s.*

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
________________________
*—Please note that nowhere above is it suggested that non-progressives are somehow automagically (and I purposely express it using that word) vaccinated against the possibility of making equally sinful choices—after all, we are all human and, therefore, all subject to the taint of original sin influencing our actions. We just strive not to make an habitual virtue out of our own precocious intellectual superiority, because we tend to recall the presence of our flaws, which is, always and everywhere, a good thing.

[165] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-27-2010 at 04:38 PM · [top]

#165 KT the best part of posting here is waiting for you to show up and force me to use my brain in ways I’m certain it was never intended!  But I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Like you, I have always thought the Progressive Movement simply cover for “I’m the smartest, so let’s just go ahead and do it my way, shall we?” whether that be in faith matters or politics, but I have not come by that knowledge easily or quickly. 

To paraphrase Churchill, if one is not progressive at 20, one has no heart, if not orthodox at 40, one has no head.  To this I would add, if not Broken by 50, one has no hope (of salvation).

KTF!...mrb

[166] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-27-2010 at 04:45 PM · [top]

[166] Mike Bertaut,

Being only a week and four months from the 65th anniversary of my arrival as a newborn, I can attest that I have not come by that knowledge easily or quickly, either. In fact, I have only been able to articulate my understanding of the theological flaw at the heart of progressivism within some part of the past half year, although I have been a professed (and more often than not) practicing Christian since 1970, and what Hayek termed an “Old Whig” (what some would call a classical liberal of Burkean, Hayekian, or Röpkean stripe) for at least the latter half of my adult life. One of the human things which keeps me going has been reading to expand my areas of learning as God has led me. And nothing has helped that as much as has coming to know our Lord on an increasingly closer basis. He may yet make a useful tool out of this pitiful lump of clay.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[167] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 5-27-2010 at 05:06 PM · [top]

Matt,
I would agree with you when it comes to the the essence of the faith.  But there are things that have been considered of the essence of the faith that the Church (or the Anglican Communion) have determined were issues of Church Order - such as the ordination of women to diaconal and presbyterial orders.  Now how TEC went about implimenting this change was very wrong and the lack of discipline for those bishops who laid hands on the first women in defiance of the canons and on the women themselves paved the way for todays “theology (sic) by political activism.”
So we do have a precedent for moving a practice from essence to an issue of order.  Might that happen again?
If things can move from essence to order, they should only do so when sound theological arguments have been made and accepted that they deserve to be so and these arguments must be made within the restrictions of the existing belief and practice of the Church.  Much like we are required to obey the speed limits while arguing for raising them on a specific street.

It is one thing to argue for a change.  It is another to act as if the change has been made.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[168] Posted by Philip Snyder on 5-27-2010 at 06:34 PM · [top]

I agree with Fr.Kennedy…How can one person teach one thing while believing another and not have that influence their behavior and words?

[169] Posted by TLDillon on 5-27-2010 at 08:09 PM · [top]

Then is there nothing that can be considered essential at one time and adiaphora at another?  Celibacy for the priesthood was considered desireable in the sub-apostolic Church, but not mandatory.  Later it became mandatory and not adiaphora.  Before the Reformation, several priests and bishops began to question celibacy for the priesthood and in the reformation, it became adiaphora. But, from what I read of your positions, Matt and TL, once priests began to question the nature of priestly celibacy, they should have resigned their orders.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[170] Posted by Philip Snyder on 5-27-2010 at 08:39 PM · [top]

The church does not have the authority to call what God clearly forbids “adiaphora”. This particular sex act is simply not up for debate.

[171] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-27-2010 at 08:42 PM · [top]

I concur with Fr. Kennedy and I never said anything about celibacy in the priesthood. Please do not attribute words to me that I never said (wrote)

[172] Posted by TLDillon on 5-27-2010 at 08:51 PM · [top]

Phil Snyder at 168:

But there are things that have been considered of the essence of the faith that the Church (or the Anglican Communion) have determined were issues of Church Order - such as the ordination of women to diaconal and presbyterial orders.

I appreciate you are raising this as an issue of general principle; In that context, we need to remember that just because any church determines that an issue is one of church order, does not mean that it is so. All that the church has done is make a determination as to what it will/will not allow - churches are not infallible, and in some cases their determinations are wrong.

The Anglican position is set out in our formularies, specifically Article 21:

“...And when [General Councils of the whole Church] be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture”

Now there may be some issues where Scripture provides little guidance, or where its practical effect is unclear, but this is not one of them!

Therefore, even if the liberals can get the numbers in the leadership of a church (such as TEC), it does not follow that christians must accept whatever they ordain, any more than Athanasius and other 4th century Christians were obliged to follow the dictates of a church whose leaders espoused Arianism.

[173] Posted by MichaelA on 5-27-2010 at 09:47 PM · [top]

RE: “I’ve never said anything about anyone hating people; let’s be clear about that.”

You’re repeated implications were perfectly clear—see below.

. . . it’s political.  It’s ideological.  People that don’t like gay people are going to find every reason in the Holy Bible to exclude them, whether it’s relevant or accurate.

Ever notice how prejudice towards homosexuals typically runs along Republican/conservative lines?

It’s convenient for you to single out the homosexuality reference because, in fact, you don’t like homosexuality.  You have a big problem with it.  And you’re entitled to your opinion about that.  But when you wrap your personal prejudices in the pages of Scripture and condemn anyone who doesn’t agree with you, well, we end up with the situation we are all in.

RE: “Letting it degrade to “you lie” is petty.”

Not when it’s the truth, it’s not.

And yes, you lie.  It has nothing to do with “not liking gay people,” or “personal prejudices” towards homosexuals.

You lie.

And you know good and well what you said, more than once.

BS.

[174] Posted by Sarah on 5-27-2010 at 11:12 PM · [top]

156.  Umm, inclusion2010, we’ve been down this road before on a blog which is now extinct.  Well said, Sarah.

[175] Posted by Cennydd on 5-27-2010 at 11:50 PM · [top]

I would agree with you when it comes to the the essence of the faith.  But there are things that have been considered of the essence of the faith that the Church (or the Anglican Communion) have determined were issues of Church Order - such as the ordination of women to diaconal and presbyterial orders.

Which begs the question, of course, does the Church have the authority to declare as essential what was once considered adiaphora, or adiaphora what was once (particularly in apostolic times) considered essential? (leaving aside that just naming the categories of essential and adiaphora is too simplistic).

[176] Posted by Boring Bloke on 5-28-2010 at 01:44 AM · [top]

The ABC has finally responded. Again a failure of true leadership

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2876

[177] Posted by ACNApriest on 5-28-2010 at 02:05 AM · [top]

Those asked not come would be TEC, ACoC, Rwanda, (due to AMiA) and who else?

[178] Posted by Bo on 5-28-2010 at 04:41 AM · [top]

My best guess is that the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada will decline to resign so long as the Nigerian, Rwandan, Ugandan, Kenyan, and Southern Cone continue to be represented.  And as Abp Williams notes the Anglican Consultative Council has its own rules.

[179] Posted by TomRightmyer on 5-28-2010 at 04:52 AM · [top]

I am not sure about any of that, Bo. Not necessarily disagreeing, but this will need careful study. ABC writes:

I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged.  I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members.

Leave aside for the moment the sanction that is being proposed: being left out of ecumenical dialogues and the Interfaith Commission (although the latter in itself will be a subject in itself - what does RW intend for it?).

Rather, I would like to focus on these words: “provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria”. What does this mean? It is clearly very specific - he is not interested in KJS publicly rejecting the redeeming work of Christ, because she is not a “Synod or House of Bishops”. She can say or do anything she likes.

I am wondering if it would cover the Glasspool consecration or even the 2003 VGR consecration - after all, was there ever a “formal adoption of a policy” by the TEC House of Bishops or General Council that practicing homosexuals would be ordained/consecrated? If there wasn’t, then TEC is not going to be excluded from anything.

What about Rwanda? As we have been recently reminded, its Canons provide for the AMiA. Also, because Rwanda does things properly and synodically as an Anglican province should, there is probably a resolution of the Rwandan general Synod that they agree with AMiA planting churches in America. Wouldn’t that qualify? It is a resolution of a House of Bishops or Synod that provides for church planting within the boundaries of another bishop, being a TEC diocese.

So that probably means that any openly orthodox province will be excluded, but TEC and ACoC will not be. Not only that, but TEC and ACoC will now be encouraged to do anything they like BY FIAT OF THEIR PB/AB, and leave the Synod/General Council out of it.

Therefore, this may not be a “failure of true leadership”, but rather a very hostile move against the orthodox.

[180] Posted by MichaelA on 5-28-2010 at 05:01 AM · [top]

I thought the PB had made it clear that the violation of the moritorium by TEc was a ‘formal choice’ of the ‘church’ including ‘clergy’ and elected representatives…

I can see how ACoC might slide (it is only Diocese, right?)...

Of course I presume that words have meanings…..

[181] Posted by Bo on 5-28-2010 at 05:09 AM · [top]

Further to my last, it may be that we can see a strategy emerging from ABC (and no doubt from his liberal cronies, since at heart he appears to be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, even though he will never ever admit as much):

Step 1. Emphasise the “moratoria”. Ignore or downplay the fact that these actually have very little status within Anglicanism - they are merely a recommendation in a report from a commission, which in turn were adopted by a resolution of the ACC - which is supposed to be a *consultative* and *advisory* body only. Rather, play up the moratoria as though they are of greater standing than REAL determinations, such as Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference

Step 2. Suggest or insinuate that a new “rule” should be adopted by the Communion: A breach of the Moratoria should only be accountable if the breach is sanctioned by a formal resolution of a House of Bishops or Synod.

You see the beauty of this? The liberals don’t like real decisions to be made by synods or councils anyway - too much opportunity for members to actually debate an issue, argue or think for themselves. Rather, the liberals prefer to let synods make decisions that don’t matter OR (even better) vote Yes or No on decisions that are drafted for them. Meanwhile, the real decisions that matter (like the ordination or consecration of an openly practicing homosexual, or the spending of millions on law suits against the faithful) can be taken by a key executive (such as a bishop, archbishop or presiding bishop) who is unaccountable to anyone.

By contrast, orthodox Anglicans tend to like Synods and Councils, partly because that is what we have been doing ever since Acts 1, and partly because that is how we KNOW that a decision is truly one made and affirmed by the whole church.

So Rowan Williams new “rule” sounds innocuous, but has the potential to let through the most serious liberal infractions, but penalise the orthodox right where they are at their strongest.

[182] Posted by MichaelA on 5-28-2010 at 05:16 AM · [top]

++Cantur plays chess, does he?

[183] Posted by Bo on 5-28-2010 at 05:20 AM · [top]

Hi MichaelA,

I would disagree with you. 1. The consent to glasspool’s election would, I think, qualify as an action of the HOB since it required the consent of the majority of bishops. And 2.  there were two resolutions passed at the last Convention which specifically rejected the moratoria

[184] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 5-28-2010 at 05:26 AM · [top]

Michael A.:

Therefore, this may not be a “failure of true leadership”, but rather a
very hostile move against the orthodox.

I agree,I agree…thank you for stating here what is to me the obvious.
Intercessor

[185] Posted by Intercessor on 5-28-2010 at 10:29 AM · [top]

So inclusion, have we given you something to think about? You claim to want rational, sane dialog, yet you come to the table with the assumption that we are motivated by some guilt-by-association reaction (#156), rather than that we are concerned about harmful false teaching, something you’d be concerned with in other contexts.

Please consider, perhaps you have some presuppositions and misconceptions of your own. I just hope you are as sincere about the wish for dialogue as you claim.

[186] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 5-28-2010 at 11:03 AM · [top]

Yes, SpongJohn, it is a sincere desire for understanding, much to the chagrin of many commentators who want nothing more than to trade insults; I’m sorry to disappoint. And, of course, I am certain that I bring many of my misconceptions to the table; I would not be so arrogant to assume that I have none.  One of those misconceptions dealt directly with the possibility of reconciliation.  Interestingly, I ran across a quote in this morning’s paper from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell that is a pretty good summation of my time spent here:  “Get all of the information and then listen—especially to those you disagree with.”

    I like that sentiment.  And, you see, I never forget that the writers and commentators here were all (mostly) at one point part of The Episcopal Church, and certainly part of the Anglican Communion currently.  They are all my brothers and sisters and while the gulf is substantial, I’ll listen to what they have to say any day of the week.  I have found many of the comments to be poignant, provocative, and thoughtful though I will reiterate that commentators like Sarah do nothing to contribute to the conversation; the tone is simply too angry and uncivil.  To the rest of you I offer thanks and best wishes!

[187] Posted by inclusion2010 on 5-30-2010 at 12:38 PM · [top]

well inclusion2010….hey did not award her he “Meanest Blogger Award” for nothing!  grin

I do hope that you can at least come away with a better understanding of how we feel….but most of all How God sees this. After all it is all about Him not us and we are all supposed o be living into all of the Scriptures not just those ones that make us feel good and try to rewrite God’s Holy Inspired Word to get our way to bless our sins.

[188] Posted by TLDillon on 5-30-2010 at 12:49 PM · [top]

[187] inclusion2010

commentators like Sarah do nothing to contribute to the conversation

Yes, that Sarah can be difficult.  But she has gotten a lot better since the Commenatrix reigned her in.

Innocently
carl

[189] Posted by carl on 5-30-2010 at 12:57 PM · [top]

Well, I’m glad that Sarah’s a Christian, just imagine what she’d be like if she wasn’t! 

(Apologies to Dorothy Parker, if memory serves correctly, whose quotation I modified.  Or correct my attribution if you know better, please.)

[190] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 5-30-2010 at 01:06 PM · [top]

Matt at #184,

Re your point 1, trying to fit that into ABC’s words seems to me to be drawing a very long bow.

Re your point 2, I wasn’t aware of that, thanks. Mind you, the way ABC’s mind works, it would have to be a specific rejection, not just an implied one.

But I could be wrong. I guess we will get further indications of what he really means further along.

[191] Posted by MichaelA on 5-30-2010 at 06:24 PM · [top]

RE: “And, you see, I never forget that the writers and commentators here were all (mostly) at one point part of The Episcopal Church, and certainly part of the Anglican Communion currently.”

Oh, no need to use past tense for many of us, though I’m sure hope springs eternal—heh.

Just think—out of the five SF bloggers, three of us reside in The Episcopal Church [Diocese of Louisiana, Diocese of MS, Diocese of Upper SC], one in the Province of Australia, and one in ACNA.  It’s got to be a depressing thought for the likes of “Inclusion” [sic].

Signed,

A Happy Episcopalian

[192] Posted by Sarah on 5-30-2010 at 07:19 PM · [top]

Inclusion2010, I hope my #157 above was an honest enough answer to your queries.  I’m not typically one to pull punches around here, but I thought your question in #156 deserved a truthful and thoughtful answer.

KTF!...mrb

[193] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 5-30-2010 at 09:36 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.