Jon Bruno is So Happy

Gee, did St. Paul say that?  Could one fairly even call that a paraphrase?

Greg, I think it probable that Bp Bruno is such an ardent GLBT activist because he sincerely believes it to be the right thing.  He is so passionate about the cause that he believes the ends justify the means—e.g. proceeding with ecclesiastical actions while knowing that they would tear the fabric of the Communion and lying on camera.

Blessed Paul knew a pervert when he saw one, and he called people on it.  Just ask the Corinthians.

Little wonder what he would say to the likes of Susan, [comment edited and commenter warned.  Please see this post concerning use of Mr. Robinson’s first name], Liz Keaton, Louie, and the like.

Today’s ruling will stand only as long as it takes for the voters to deep-six it in November.

LIAR-ARROGANT-LIAR-ARROGANT-LIAR-ARROGANT-LIAR.
Yes,I get your message Jon.
Shalom,
Intercessor

Whatever! I’m moving on!

Bruno’s last statement has gone beyond heresy to blasphemy.

This is just so bad.  I guess when he says that the “work” of the Episcopal church is honored by this ruling, he’s saying that they’ve received their reward.  To quote, rather than paraphrase, Matthew 6:1-2:
1"Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.

Revelation 22:18-21.
The Rabbit.

California - What a great and prosperous state.  It has great weather, and is a fantastic agricultural producer for America. However, none-the-less, it appears to prefer the title and desires to be remembered for its repugnant nickname ” The Cereal State” ie: full of fruits and flakes. What a waste.

California is actually the Granola State: Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes! Even their governor is an interesting fella. An unauthorized biography suggests that he might have some reasons for his support of this decision. If it’s true, then it would be comforting to know that he’s apparently post-gay.
http://www.ergogenics.org/122.html

Bp. Bruno seems not to realize that gender is a grammatical term. Oh well. There’s more that he seems not to realize.

The blatantly heretical Paul paraphrase is bad enough, but there’s a veiled statement about his intent for the 2009 General Convention, isn’t there?

More fuel for GAFCON, and all the more reason that conservative bishops should attend Lambeth and hijack the agenda.

Bruno’s re-write of scripture brings to mind Revelation 22:18-19 (Which, ironically, is omitted from the daily lectionary in the 1979 Prayer Book):

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Thanks, AngliCanDo.
Great minds think alike.
The Rabbit.

It’s simply an apostate statement from an apostate bishop of an apostate church.  We can expect nothing less.

Br_er Rabbit (#8) and AngliCanDo (#11),

Your instincts are correct, but perhaps other passages of Scripture might be more apt.  After all, that scary warning in Rev. 22:18-19 explicitly h.as to do with those who add to “THIS book,” i.e., the book of Revelation itself.  Not “this book” as if referring to the New Testament as a whole.  Although I think your application of the text is a valid extension.  Personally, I suspect that Rev. 22:18-19 originally had scribes who copy the text in mind, warning them not to leave out or add words in the process of copying the text (remember, there weren’t copy machines, printing presses, or publishers in those days; all manuscripts had to be copied by hand).

So if this is a case of “right idea, wrong text,” what would be a more appropriate biblical text to make the same valid point?  Well, the first one that comes to my mind is 2 Cor. 4:2b, where Paul insists, “we refuse to practice cunning or TO FALSIFY GOD’s WORD.”

Sorry if that seems like being nit picky or unduly critical.  But since this Anglican civil war is all about submitting to the authority of God’s Word written, and treating the Holy Scriptures with the care and deference which they are due, I hope you’ll both take this as a “friendly amendment.”

David Handy+

Someone should send this to ABC Williams.  It will gladden his personal heart AND give his something to chat with Bruno about in the letter/phone call/figment of imagination of NT Wright/illusion that was so anticipated and so not-going-to-happen-to-any-effect.  Lame-beth’s a-comin’!  Lame-beth’s a-comin’! Get on bored, little chil’ren!  Get on bored!  Inadaba and Ubuntu, too!

I love the smell of Windsor compliance in the morning.

And here I thought such things never happened in his diocese with his knowledge or permission.  Who said that?  I forget…..

We will continue to advocate for equality in the future and will do so at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, which will meet in Anaheim in 2009.

Oh you will, will you?  Do give us some more details about your proposed agenda.  I wouldn’t want to think you’re hiding anything.  Only sinister, underhanded conservatives do that…

Good point, David. But if one holds to a canonical hermeneutic, one might note that those words are the closing paean of the entire Christian Bible. Those very words may have been a strong influence in placing John’s Apocalypse as the last book of what is now our single canonical book, the Bible.
The Rabbit.

Whatever,water is wet and kittens are cute. And oh ,yeah SSB’s become mandatory at Anahiem and go into the next disfigurement of the Prayer Book.

Re: New Reformation Advocate (# 14)

I fully agree more with your analysis.  I too believe that the specific Revelation passage cited refers to Revelation itself.  My intent, that I should have explicitly specified, was to make the “valid extension,” and illustrate the unfortunate and pervasive tendency of those given over to the various perversions and heresies to “falsify scripture” to serve their purposes and appetites.  The Corinthian passage that you cite is certainly more directly on point.  By the way, did the Corinthian passage to which you refer survive the Lectionary cuts?

Thank you for rightly dividing the Word of Truth!!

Another quote from Bruno:

“Where are we going?  why are we in this handbasket?”

AngliCanDo (#21),

I’m glad you and Br_er Rabbit took my friendly amendment as indeed friendly.  And as for your question about the (daily office) lectionary, yes, I’m happy to say that 2 Cor. 4:2 was not one of those passages edited out of the 1979 BCP lectionary.  For instance, it would have come up in just two weeks if this were Year 1 instead of Year 2.  That is, among other places, 2 Cor. 4:1-12 is the assigned passage for Friday of Proper 3 (Week of the Sunday closest to May 25), in odd-numbered years.

BTW, I like your chosen handle or moniker.  We need that “can do” spirit in the New Reformation.

David Handy+

Greg, I think you went too far in suggesting that Bishop Bruno has to be blackmailed to be such a passionate advocate for the gay community.  Why is it so hard to believe that a “grown man” and “ex-cop” would support gay people?  In using “ex-cop” it kind of sounds like you are saying that no “man’s man,” would—of his own volition—support gay rights.  Surely you know that such a notion is mistaken.  Anyway, even if he is personally invested, maybe it’s because he has family members or friends who are gay and he’s become an activist because of them.

“...maybe it’s because he has family members or friends who are gay and he’s become an activist because of them.”

Well that’s not much of a better reason either! If one has a family member who is gay, and you are priest or not, but especially a priest, then I would think that you would want to set an example of trying to enlighten that family member to God’s Word on the subject. Yes! Love them enough to let them know that that is not what God has in mind for them and that that is not God’s design. That He gave His ony Son for the forgiveness of our sins and that that way of living, gay/homosexual, is a sin. You know, love the sinner but not the sin. One doesn’t have to ignore, kick to the curb, exile, etc… one’s own family member just because they are living in sin, but rather love them enough to show them the transforming love of Christ to show them their sin and repent of it and turn to Jesus and the teaching of His Word.

Today’s Supreme Court decision on same-gender relationships is important because it reflects our baptismal vow to “strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being” and our commitment to justice and mercy for all people.

Sounds like a baptism service in the EDLA is a short rite, with only one vow.  Then photos with the bishop and latte’s all around.  What a relief to deep-six all those dusty prayers and anachronistic dogma.

ODC, I don’t know Chase well enough to know if his comment was intended to justify Bruno’s beliefs or simply explain them.

I don’t find it hard to believe that a “grown man” and “ex-cop” would come to the sincere belief that homosexualty and homosexual behavior is perfectly acceptable, without any blackmail or hidden homosexuality of their own.  I don’t have a particulary hard time reconstructing the chain of reason or the paradigm that could lead to such a conclusion.  Activists keep claiming that people aren’t listening to them enough and don’t understand them.  Well, I’ve listened, and I understand, and I can even as an intellectual and emotional exercise empathize.

I think Bruno in sincere.  I also think he is sincerely wrong, and that unlesss he repents he will one day answer for it.  The thought doesn’t given me any giddy pleasure that he will one day get his.  I can’t hate him.  I only pity him, but even more I pity those that look to him to be the “living icon of Christ”, to use an ancient understanding of the role of the bishop, only to receive poison wrapped up in enough sugar to decieve people into thinking it is Christianity.

Neat.  Now maybe he doesn’t have to play a shell game with “I can neither confirm nor deny SSB’s are happening in the DioLA”.  He can just say he’s upholding the law.

Interesting direction taken on this thread - wondering about +Bruno’s motives.
Having spent most of my life in that diocese, I would agree with Jill W.  +Bruno is a convinced liberal.  He’s bought the whole TEC “new thing” line.
But, to be fair to GG and the others who are wondering about hidden motives, +Paul Moore of New York!  There’s the archetype of the progressive bishop, speaking “peace and justice” while really playing out a personal psychodrama to self-serving ends.
Ubuntu, baby.

Hello all:  look at #8 on the “Come Let Us Reason Togehter” thread.  I find it hard to believe that institutionalist clergy like + Bruno are not fully aware of the direction they are taking TEC. His joy expressed after this shameful ruling by the “California Supremes” only tells me he read After the Ball, and loved it.

Come now… we all know that SSB does not happen in +JB’s diocese. Even if it if did, he didn’t give his permission, right?

He can just say he’s upholding the law.

Man’s law, not God’s.  That doesn’t get him off the hook.

Bruno’s mutilation of scripture is bilous.  How sickening to think this is a man who’s supposed to uphold the Apostles’ teachings.  He’s been wholly consumed by the Spirit of the Age and is a paragon of what TEC is becoming.

‘Gender’ ‘gay’ and ‘sexual orientation’ ‘sexual identity’ are extra-biblical manufactured socio-political propaganda concepts that are not supported by evidence in Scripture, Medicine or Science.

Therefore the Church has no business recognizing, accepting or affirming them.  To do so is giving place to evil. 

The unchanging reality remains that sin of thought, word and deed, either done to us or by us, harms, distorts and disorients us and eventually leads to death. 

All sin is evil and destructive.  Evidence in Science, Medicine and Scripture agree in this matter.

I Corinthians 6:9-11 is the most inclusive Scripture passage and reiterates the FACT that Christ has overcome the power of sin and has taken captivity captive; He is able to save us to the uttermost.

As wrong as it is, we are in an age where public opinion is moving toward acceptance of same-sex marriage type relationships, and rejection of Biblically based reasons against it.
This is one reason that the orthodox resistance movement in TEC has been hampered; it took the Robinson consecration for it to become substantial and well integrated with the international Anglican community. When it did, it became forever identified with the the “Gay Bishop” controversy. 

The cries for restraint, continuing dialogue and delay by some within the orthodox community failed to adequately consider that the revisionist’s views are becoming increasingly popular in the culture of the western world, and if there was going to be a coordinated effort to create a separate Anglican like entity in the US it had to happen soon, before the interested participants gave up the fight or moved to safer denominations.

In other words, the Robinson consecration is in the process of being vindicated by our culture, and not too long from now those of us that oppose it will be the “radicals”.  Many of our leaders seem to run from that label and all it entails.  For example, are there any of the orthodox leaders left in the Episcopal Church are willing to be considered “radicals” among their peers? Sure, Iker, Duncan, Schofield, but who else? The last HOB meeting would suggest none-zero. Nor is the ABC willing to resist the tide of public opinion in England.

This morning,  I am not particularly optimistic about an orthodox Anglican presence in the US.  The one thing I had hoped for—a solid break with a broad base of GS and sympathetic leaders—seems to be diminishing over the last few months through the hard work of an alliance of revisionists and conservative institutionalists who, for very different reasons, want to keep everyone tied to Canterbury.  Meanwhile, every day the Western world becomes desensitized to this type of sin, and the efforts of the conservative Episcopalians and Anglicans to create institutional change appears increasingly quixotic.

Going Home, while your points are good, they beg the following questions:
How is it that even in a faily liberal state, the law that was overruled was passed by the majority of those voting in the state, yet only San Joaquin is likely to be against the ruling of the judge and Los Angeles is very actively vocal in support of it?

How does you link between growing cultural support of such things with the lack of resistence in TEC account for the fact that the majority of the churches in the US, including the largests churches, the fastest growing churches, and the most culturally visible churches (TEC is none of those things) are still very much against such thing?

What makes/made TEC different?  I think this is an important question to ask.

Great question Andrew.
I will focus on myself. When I look back, I realize that one of the reasons I joined the Episcopal Church was that it was socially acceptable expression of faith, e.g., I was joining the “church of the Presidents.”  You could drink, tell off color jokes, and over half of the Priests I knew smoked. Several were divorced, others were headed in that direction. Information about my membership fit in well on a resume with a discription of my business and corporate board memberships. It carried no adverse political consequences, since it was acceptable to Cheney Republicans, on the one side, and Kennedy Democrats, on the other.  I didnt have to talk about Jesus or “being saved”, etc. in public. We had the best cocktail parties.  I could be on the Vestry, or even Warden, without really giving anything up. It should be no surprise that when culture moved, the church moved right along with it.

For the most part, those of my friends who were faithful members of the Southern Baptist, PCA, Free Evangelical or in some cases Roman Catholic Church, were different. They lived a counter-cultural life, and their church expoused a counter-cultural lifestyle.  They stayed married, were pro-life groups, often didnt drink, didnt watch R rated films, and talked about being “saved.” In short, they lived a distinctly different life.  So when the culture moved in areas such as sexual morality, they were much less impacted. In fact, in the case of some (like the Southern Baptist Convention) they became even more committed to biblical truth, scrutinizing their seminaries and other church supported institutions. The churches also went to great lengths to provide all encompassing social alternatives for families, particularly teenagers.  They understood they were existing in an increasingly hostile territory and needed to protect their members.

When my life was renewed through Jesus Christ and “I saw the light” (to quote Hank Williams), I spent years trying to influence parish, Diocisian and to a small extent national affairs within TEC. A lot of good work was done in the eighties and nineties, and it produced wonderful leaders. But there was little enthusiasm even among the orthodox leaders in TEC for the type of radical opposition and change needed to have any chance to change the course of the denomination, assuming that change was even possible.  Remember how controversial, even among the orthodox, was the “First Promise” declaration signed by a small group of Priests meeting in Georgia?  It was a basic declaration of orthodox Christian belief and responsiblity, yet for one reason or another the vast majority of our orthodox Priests and Bishops found a reason why they should not sign. 

So, you are right, those denominaitions that will applaud this ruling (either officially or unofficially through certain of their advocacy groups), the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the PCUSA, Diciples of Christ and to a lessor extent, the United Methodist Church, are declining, and the churches that will decry this ruling are the ones that are growing. But as a percentage of our population as a whole, every poll shows that the percentage of those that support protecting traditional marraige is declining.

Going Home (#37),

Thanks for your personal testimony.  Many of us could identify with it, or we know many friends or family who could tell a similar story.  I share your concerns, but perhaps without so much pessimism about the future of orthodox Anglicanism in the western world.

But I heartily agree that we are dealing with a very deep and decisive struggle within orthodox Anglicanism over our relationship to the general culture.  That is why I keep bringing up the topic for discussion at every opportunity.  That is, I am totally convinced that the supreme challenge we face is coming to terms at last with the fact (and it is an undeniable fact) that we live in an increasingly hostile, secularized, post-Christendom society.  And that means that we are being forced, willy-nilly, whether we like it or not (and mostly we don’t), into a radically counter-cultural, post-Christendom, sectarian stance as a misunderstood and maligned minority group.  But given our state church heritage, and our particular association with society’s elite in TEC, it’s EXTREMELY difficult for us to morph into a sectarian, counter-cultural kind of church.  As I say so often, 1500 year old habits are hard to break.  But break them we must.

The Global South can assist us greatly here.  They know what it’s like to be persecuted or shunned.  But we can also learn a great deal from our pre-Constantinian forbears in the faith.

But there is no denying the radicality of the challenge before.  It’s nothing less than the re-inventing of western Anglicanism and rebuilding it from the ground up on a new post-Christendom style foundation.  It will be very, very divisive, as the original Reformation was.  But this 21st century New Reformation will be just as beneficial and life-giving in the end as the first one was.  Or so I firmly believe.

David Handy+

Andrew, (cont from above):

In short, the answer to your question lies with me, and people like me, who joined and remained in the Episcopal Church for years for the wrong reasons.  This left the Episcopal Church without a firm anchor in Christ, and when the tide shifted it drifted to sea.  The question is, what is the correct boat to get on now? A GS tied Anglican church, or another denomination or community type church?