Two Gay Episcopal Priests Joined In Ceremony Officiated by Two Episcopal Priests

What are the odds Louie is giving on whether anyting will be done about it?

Open compliance with Windsor and Dromantine,not.
Praying that the Primates recognise hubris when they see it.

“Mr. Winslow from Nashotah House in Wisconsin.” Ouch!

Another Nashotah alum recently became the rector of a small parish in the Diocese of Newark.  I was wondering how he managed to get the diocesan OK—but a background like this would explain it.

As to Mr. Winslow being educated at Nashotah House…a person can always reject instruction.

Sources tell me that the Global South Primates no longer regard TEC as a credible entity and don’t plan to expend any more effort on trying to get her to repent.  They are short on patience with the present Archbishop of Canterbury as well.  Their churches are growing and they face daily challenges and hazards, yet they still care enough about the souls of American Anglicans to offer what help they can.  Bishop Kolini remembers when the world turned its back on Rwanda during the 1994 genocide.  He is not about to turn his back on Americans who are seeking him.

What are the odds Louie is giving on whether anyting will be done about it?

I’m not sure why anything would be done about it. Once you’ve allowed gay, non-celibate priests, what difference does their legal status make?

I note that the event did not take place in a church. I’d be grateful for some information from someone with local knowledge: (1) Are any of these clergy serving in parishes? (2) What are the requirements for establishing a “civil union” in New Jersey? Does the couple have to make some sort of declaration similar to applying for a marriage license?

    Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

Congratulations to them both and I hope they will have many happy years together.

... incidentally, Changing Attitude found that in the UK, at least 50 couples where one or both members was a priest in the Church of England had entered into a civil partnership in their first year of existence. Not to mention those in the laity one or both of whom were church members who made up a further 50 . That’s just those who responded to the Changing Attitude survey - so, this is not just about the USA.

Should Rowan Williams expel his own Church?

May God have mercy on them all and may the transforming power of the Holy Spirit bring them swiftly to thorough repentance and renewal of life.

I think it might be about dishonoring the father and the mother. In this case, particularly dishonoring the mother.
I think it might be a kind of rebellious acting out of rejection of the mother.
Kind of weird because of course we don’t want boys to marry their mothers, that would certainly be dishonoring the fathers.
But to publicly act out this same sex behavior obviously has implications in terms of previous as well as future generations.
Same sex behavior does not procreate future generations. And does not replicate the bahavior of one’s own father and mother that created oneself.

Here is the website for the parish where Mr. Lewis is rector:
http://www.secaucus.org/oursaviour/
Here is the website for Mr. Winslow, the Nashotah grad:
http://www.stpeterschelsea.com

Neither the officiant nor his wife are on the list of Newark Diocesan clergy (New York does not have a similar directory).  Interestingly, there are two Episcopal churches in Union City, where the couple reside; one is the parish of another Nashotah grad.

According to Clergy finder - Mr. Lewis has been Vicar of Church of Our Savior, NJ since 1994.  He was ordained to the deaconate by Bishop Lee in 1990.

Mr. Winslow has been the rector of St. Peter’s, NY, NY since 1998; ordained to the deaconate in 1974 by Bishop Stewart.

Mr. Hall appears to be resident in the Diocese of Chicago.  He does not appear to be in any position at this time.  He was ordained in 1968/Indianapolis.

There was no return on Mrs. Schmidt on Clergy Finder but ENS has an article in 2005 that lists her as chaplain at Harvard University and former assisting priest at St. Luke’s.

Incredible!

May God bless them! Fr. Winslow’s church, by the way, is growing nicely (contrary to popular belief about “reappraisers’ churches”), with a strong mission/outreach ministry. And what a treat to see them in the NYTimes! (And what evangelism it is to those who’ve felt disenfranchised by conservative Christians!)

The statistics of Mr. Winslow are worse than terrible, found here. The ASA is now 30. Giving has plummeted. The picture in the above weblink shows a beautiful interior. From their website, “Ours is a Eucharistic Community whose focus is the holy meal to which all are invited” so they apparently practice open communion. Will make a nice restaurant (hopefully, they don’t convert it to a nightclub). They are celebrating their 175th anniversary. No way they are making it to the 180th.

In the state of things, these civil ceremonies will happen more frequently just like they are happening in England.  They are legal in NJ just like in the UK.  I have stopped expending any emotional or cerebral energy on the phenomenon.  Things just are the way they are.  I have to live and let live.  I believe the Lord will fashion a way through all this if I just listen and pay attention to Him.

While I was writing the above, Padre Wayne, wrote his response. Padre Wayne, you’re looking at the graph upside down! Zing, there goes Padre Wayne’s credibility.

Precisely why the parish where I worship left for CANA today!

Gentle Rob-Roy,

I have visited St. Peter’s. I suspect you have not. Stats do not tell all.
Zing yourself.

RoyIII—What a reasonable way of looking at things.

RE: “Fr. Winslow’s church, by the way, is growing nicely (contrary to popular belief about “reappraisers’ churches”),”

“The statistics of Mr. Winslow are worse than terrible, found here. The ASA is now 30.”

LOLOLOLOLFOTCROTF!!!!

[gasp, wipes tears from eyes]

Rob-Roy . . . that’s reappraiser growth—a different thing entirely from what *you* see as growth, you narrow-minded, rigid fundamentalist you.

; > )

On the website for the Church of Our Savior is a sidebar where you can click to donate to “Save the Primates”.  I thought it was interesting this church recognizes that some of the primates may need saving until I realized they weren’t talking about <i>Anglican<i> Primates.

What odds is Louie giving that anything will ever be done about it?

Mr. Lewis didn’t find the idea of dating another priest unusual or enticing, so when a friend in New York volunteered to introduce him to Mr. Winslow, he had little interest. “It wasn’t, ‘Oh, what a rare bird, I must see it,’ ” Mr. Lewis said. He added, “I was assuming he would be pious and narrow-minded.”

In 2002, they became the lead plaintiffs in the Lambda Legal lawsuit challenging the marriage laws in New Jersey. The case resulted in the 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that led to the legalization of civil unions by the state legislature.

Mr. Lewis compared joining the lawsuit to his decision to become a priest. “I heard the same voice in my head saying here’s a job that needs to be done, and I can do it,” he said

<“Congratulations to them both and I hope they will have many happy years together.”>

How about an eternity in the pit?

“Should Rowan Williams expel his own Church?”

Funny..I thought it used to be God’s church.
If it really is Rowan’s church then God has left it long ago thus Rowan is truly in his element.

Intercessor,
This is your only warning.

Padre Wayne, I am sure the handful that remain are much more intimate! I stand by my statement, and the TEC’s statistician will back me up, that this “growing” church in the manner of PW won’t make another five. It will make a very pleasant restaurant.

The other church is kind of flat-lining in attendance - and money - hardly impressive—but given that decreasing numbers is “growth” I suppose this might be described as—perhaps—“prophetic”. Sound good enough for you.

“According to Clergy finder - Mr. Lewis has been Vicar of Church of Our Savior, NJ since 1994.  He was ordained to the deaconate by Bishop Lee in 1990”.

Back then, Lee was making homosexuals take a vow of celibacy prior to ordination.  Either he played “don’t ask, don’t tell” with this one, got lied to, or the “priest” has reneged on the vow. 

Or, will someone write in that “just because you register for a civil union, doesn’t mean you have sex”.  No sex in 15 years?  I find that hard to believe….

Slouching towards Gomorrah.

The travesty is not that people want to do this.  People and their ids want to do things all the time.  Why not, maybe I should consider mixing up the gene pool and procreating with someone else other than my spouse.  No, the slouch comes in when the Church deigns to put its institutional “blessing” on this sort of thing.  It may not have been done in church, but it was done by agents of the church.  Agents that should have had the Christian standards to say, “No, sorry, we care about you but the Biblical imperative says ‘one man, one woman’”.  Bet you dollars to donuts the priests officiated, also, by reading the post-Communion nuptial blessing, or the prayers for the Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage. 

A good friend of mine once had a bumper sticker that said, “Jesus is coming, and boy, is he p***ed”.  It’s not hard to see why.

Sorry to offend…I guess two male priests getting married is not sinful behavior….I must be 50 years behind the times. I am glad that KJS is so patient with me.

Orthoducky,
I know a lot of people who have walked away from sinful behavior for more than 15 years.  Episcopalinated has given his testimony of celebacy.  I know of others not to mention those who have chosen sobriety.

I don’t doubt that, Jackie.  My point was that obviously the subjects of this article have not walked apart from their behaviors.

PS—And frankly, obviously, neither have the officiating priests.  Brings to mind the words of Ben Kenobi.  “Which is a bigger fool?  The fool, or the fool who follows him?”

Ah, yes.  Their actions do tend to shout.

Am I the only one here besides Intercessor (whom I think unfairly got smacked by the way) that finds this appalling!???? I am in utter disgust that this has happened! I mean first ECUSA ordains and openly gay priest to be a bishop, but now joins two gay priests in civil matrimony! Thank God I am one day closeer to the Table!

I also remembered that 2005 was a Christmas effect year (Christmas falls on the weekend and so inflates the ASA). Thus, the adjusted ASA would be lower than 30. It would probably be easy to be elected to the vestry when it entails half the active congregation.

I wonder if Intercessor is from the south. I am, and I am pretty used to that kind of talk. Conversation between two Southern Baptists: Fred - “Shore is might hot round these parts.” Tom - “Yep, an’ I reckon that unrepentant sinners are goin’ to spend an eternity in the pit.” Fred - “Yep, I reckon that, too.”

DOK4HS -
I think most of us here would agree with you (and Intercessor) that this is contrary to the teaching of the church not to mention Scripture.  (At the risk of getting in the way of a smack, I will risk a guess the slap was a result of the pit comment.)

RR,
I suspect Intercessor to be a very conservative - orthodox Christian who finds that this action is reprehensible just as I do! Yet all I am reading regarding this is stats, numbers, percentages…..who cares!!! Many of us high school graduates with maybe some college working a blue or white collar job who are trying to raise our children in a God fearing way in a sound Biblical church don’t really care about #‘s we care about living a just and upright life!

Jackie….I suspect it is, but most of us who are like minded believe that that behavior may not get one to the Pearly Gates!

I’m not sure the majority of ECUSA parishes and bishops recognize the word repentence.  It’s become so, so yesterday.

Strange - I always considered Him to be the Lord of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

RR-
I was born in San Francisco and raised in California as a native son of a native son.
I also believe in the Bible so I am struggling to find the passages to share with my impressionable young sons who love their church that it is just a blessing that two homosexual male priests are married and that’s just another happy occaison for celebration.

As for the pit…
Luke 6:39
  He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?
Matthew 15:14
  Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
 
Ezekiel 32:30
  “The princes of the north are there, all of them, and all the Sidonians, who have gone down in shame with the slain, for all the terror that they caused by their might; they lie uncircumcised with those who are slain by the sword, and bear their shame with those who go down to the pit.

Sorry if I am “so ...like nowhere man”.

Padre Wayne wrote that

Stats do not tell all.

to which I would respond that he is correct, but dismissiveness is much easier than explanation.

—————-

In response to rob-roy‘s earlier comment

... there goes Padre Wayne’s credibility.

I would only say that, although I have not been posting here for very long, and do not follow all threads, I believe I have noticed a pattern in Padre Wayne’s comments that suggest to me that his “mind is made up” and that he is not likely to be receptive to factual data. Of course, as I said, I have only a modest sample from which to draw conclusions. Nevertheless, I would greatly appreciate reading reasoned posts as compared with simple and unsupported assertions of fact, from whatever poster or source. For me discussion and learning are dependent upon the exchange of information and the openness that comes from “thinking aloud.”

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

“See, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all the evil doers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who revere my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts.”
Malachi 4:1-3

Come Lord Jesus, Come.

My wife says that I should take back the “zing” towards Padre Wayne and, as usual, she is right. I apologize, Padre. This is not about one-up man ship. But credibility or the loss there of is an incredibly important issue. Katherine Jefferts Schori is blithely telling people that the church is healthy and happy. Padre Wayne is apparently following her truth stretching ways to speak euphemistically. Father Ephraim has called for the church to return to a place of credibility. I, for one, don’t see this happening.

As a physician, integrity is all important. I don’t have my staff tell people that I am out when I am not, etc. There are no small lies. I would argue that for clergy, integrity is just as important.

I know that KJS is not reading, but here goes: You have said that Episcopalians are in the upper percentiles for intelligence. Then you make ridiculous statements about how healthy the church is.  Episcopalians are not stupid. They can see the crisis. Don’t forgo your integrity so easily.

For those of you who are shocked—there is at least one ECUSA parish in Newark where a gay clergy couple share the job of rector and assistant rector.  There is another one where the priest’s partner is (or at least until recently was), the church organist.

Well, at least I agree with PadreWayne that it is good this couple is getting big-time publicity.  I hope their denomination is prominently mentioned.  Ignorantly walking into the wrong kind of church can be worse than ignorantly walking into the wrong kind of nightclub.  Here’s to full disclosure!

Thank you Little Mouse!

LORD HEAR OUR PRAYER!

In Newark said: “For those of you who are shocked—there is at least one ECUSA parish in Newark where a gay clergy couple share the job of rector and assistant rector.  There is another one where the priest’s partner is (or at least until recently was), the church organist.”

Great! Just Great!

Dear DOK4HS,

Sounds like Newark could be another missonary battleground for Christ…by CANA??

We ARE another day closer to His table.
I love you and thank you for making dinner tonight.

“But you, beloved, must remember the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; for they said to you,  “In the last time there will be scoffers, indulging their own ungodly lusts.” It is these worldly people, devoid of the Spirit, who are causing divisions. But you beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; look forward to the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on some who are wavering; save others by snatching them out of the fire; and have mercy on still others with fear, hating even the tunic defiled by their bodies.”
Now to him who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen!
Jude 1:17-25

As this most Holy day of Pentecost comes to a close, I pray that God will indeed send His Spirit to us all, enlightening us. And that His will be done.

This particular Mr. Winslow graduated from Nashotah House and was ordained deacon (1974) and priest (1975) by Alexander Stewart, Bishop of Western Massachusetts.  Only old-timers will remember Alex Stewart, but he was a truly great and godly evangelical bishop.  Among other things, he helped Fr. Terry Fullam find his way into the Episcopal Church and wrote the introduction to the first edition of Bp. John Howe’s Our Anglican Heritage.  Unfortunately, these days, you cannot always infer much about a priest from his background.
 
As for the other graduate of Nashotah House who recently became rector of a parish in Newark, there is a great irony here:  He was a perpetual Deacon from Newark (who had been ordained in El Camino Real when he worked there as a computer programmer) who wanted to come to Nashotah House.  Newark wouldn’t send him.  He came anyway, was ordained a priest in Quincy, and was then called to one of the few orthodox parishes in—amazingly—Newark!  If, someday, he proves not to be orthodox (God forbid!), I will be as stunned as I am sure Bp. Stewart (now in heaven) would be about Mr. Winslow.

Robert S. Munday+
Nashotah House

But if this is happening in the UK as well - which is clearly is, as civil partnerships are legal and the church canot legally forbid its clergy, let alone its laity. from entering into them, why are you not up in arms about this and calling for the removal of the Church of England from the AC?

Surely you should be a little more consistent?

Padre Wayne,

Delighted to see that you are back. I hope that you will respond to my very civil and reasonable question. Where does the Bible support SSR blessing or marriage, and where does the Bible say or imply that SSR should be celebrated on par with heterosexual marriage?

Best,

Bill

Now BillS, there you go quoting the bible as if it was authoritative instead of a compendium of semitic folk tales. The New Episcopal Reality is any foul behaviour is excused due to The New Episcopal Revelations. You know, “the Holy Spirit told me it was o.k.”

Well so much for the moratoria.

But what about the CofE, Pageantmaster - why should they not be disciplined too?

MM, of course, the church can forbid its clergy from SSUs. Marriage (male/female) has been legal for a long time and the Roman Catholic church has been forbidding it for a thousand years or so.

Would you like that MM?

I am not awaret that the Cof E have rites for blessing of ss relationships.  Anyone can of course have a civil ceremony.  The only question is are these relationships that the church has power to “marry”.

I am also puzzled as to why there is pressure from the very small percentage who want to “marry” out of the also small percentage who are gay.  I also fail to understand the attitude that people want ‘Daddy’ to bless what they are doing, and if ‘Daddy’ won’t they would rather kill ‘Daddy’.

Something very complex here.

“Rob-Roy . . . that’s reappraiser growth—a different thing entirely from what *you* see as growth, you narrow-minded, rigid fundamentalist you.

Oh I get it! This is “evangelism it is to those who’ve felt disenfranchised by conservative Christians!”

No, Rob, the CofE took legal advice and concluded that this wasn’t the case. Do you seriously think that anti-gay bishops like Tom Wright would happily sit back as priests in his diocese enter into civil partnerships ( there have been a couple of well publicised instants where one of his predecessors was involved in the ceremony)
It was partially the CofE’s own fault as they justified support for CPO’s by arguing that they were nothing at all like civil marriage. Now, everyone else knows that is not the case, but it meant that their position was somewhat compromised. If they then turned around and said ‘no, you can’t enter civil partnerships’, then they would be saying that they were the same as civil marriage. Which was the opposite to what they had always argued.

Irrespective of that, legal advice was that the church wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if they tried to restrict it - the RC’s are different in that they are not established, have no responsibility to anyone outside their own baptised members, and have a celibate priesthood. The CofE as a national church have a responsibility to the entire nation, hence the stress on gay and lesbian people in the laity being ‘full and active members of the church’ in the recent Synod debate. They can hardly break the law of the State they are an integral part of. The CofE does not have a celibate priesthood and has no intention of introducing one.

The US church is clearly in a different position, but the CofE is closely tied up with the State in England. So, all their actions have to bear in mind the likely legal consequences.

PM ; I would imagine that the ceremony in NJ was essentially a ‘blessing’ - I know people who have had these in the UK after the civil ceremony. Personally, I do not think that churches should be obliged to provide what is a civil service, although I don’t think they should be prevented from it either.

I am sure that the NJ regulations have not established religious civil unions - its a contradiction in terms. It appears to me that people here are talking more about the ability for priests to have a civil union, not the involvement of the church in that union. The reality is,as I was pointing out, that similar situations have occurred in the UK - that priests have entered into civil partnerships, and that the church has been involved in the provision of blessings.

I should also add that I am happy with the civil partnership situation in the UK. It is legally and in terms of content , equivalent to civil marriage. I think it might make sense to separate the religious and civil marriage role altogether so that we all have civil marriages, with the churches themselves having the option of offering religious ceremonial in addition. I do not think that individual churches should be forced to be involved with blessing gay ceremonies unless they wish to do so as the issue is so central to religious practice. I am sure that if it was lft to the churches themselves there would be enough willing to do so to fulfil demand.

MerseyMike

Two reasons not to call for the removal of the CoE over civil unions: it is the established church and must abide by the law and it practices a very formal nudge nudge wink wink wherein there are no public blessings allowed for the couple. Clergy who go beyond the private pastoral care of such couples should, and probably will, be disciplined for bad form.

There is a tone of triumphalism in the article, either prophetic or adolescent, depending on the readers’ biases.

We are the established church, for better or worse, but there is no civil legal reason for establishing rites of blessing or marriage for ss unions.  That is a matter for the church alone, mindful of its obligations to God and to the Communion.

All Christians and non-Christians are of course welcome in church.  Where else should sinners including myself be?

Thanks, MM. I was referring to the TEC and you to the CoE. Apples and oranges. Didn’t know that about the CoE. Some have argued for the cutting of the umbilical cord of the CoE, including George Carey, I believe. There is a problem when the church is a civil organization, too. I suppose that limits what is said in the pulpit, too. Some would argue that the CoE should ban SSU’s whether or not they can and suffer the consequences of the civil disobedience. In fact, aren’t there conservative bishops there doing precisely that?

Respectfully and contritely. And btw, I have never been to Britain, though have wanted to visit that hallowed isle. If I do, perhaps I might buy you an ale at one of your celebrated pubs?

I agree,. Bill, regarding the first point - that is one of the issues I had raised.

But the second point - I’m less convinced. The whole ‘nudge, nudge, wink, wink, don’t ask, don’t tell’, whilst very typical of the CofE, really isn’t very edifying or honest. If blessings are to be held, and they are, then is it really any better to agree to them as long as its ‘done quietly’

We were offered at least three blessings by three different priests (of different churchmanships and theology!) but opted not to have one simply because I didn’t think it would be meaningful if held under these circumstances.

Its also less realistic when gay couples are now recognised by the state, so the need for the closet has decreased outside the church. This is bound to have an impact on how the church itself reacts.

Merseymike,
That is one of the prime reasons for the disestablishment of the CofE. Once that happens perhaps it will once again speak as a part of the Church of God and not as a department of the state.

There are probably more British Christians outside the CofE, so it really is time for the British people to call for the disestablishment of the Anglican Church, and let even the Royal Family be members of whatever Church they wish to be.

You certainly can, Rob! We have some good ones here in Liverpool….with regard to conservative bishops, the answer is no, simply because they cannot actually do so. Though they may make life difficult for clergy in their diocese. From what I see, they tend instead to simply pretend they do not exist. Durham being a good example. All sorts of threats, no action.

Rick ; I don’t disagree, but given the number of church attenders in the UK, the CofE would become just another small denomination - remember that only about 5-6% of Brits attend church.

As a result they would undoubtedly lose influence, so I can’t see them being all that keen on the idea. Its one of the main reasons why conservative evangelicals stay in the CofE at all.

Disestablishment would make no difference to what has become a matter of anti-discrimination legislation here, both in employment and elsewhere.  The CofE is legislated for by parliament but I am not aware of any particular interference on what are matters of doctrine such as this.

I also do not approve of nudge, nudge, wink, wink but it is very British and can sometimes in practical terms provide solutions to impasses.  Not best practice for matters of faith.

There was the Vicar of Bray a prime example.

FrRick, a month or two ago, the Roman Catholic Church surpassed the CoE in numbers. I suspect the CoE’s numbers are inflated by habit, in that people will simply and habitually say they are members but are so in name only.

George Carey, former ABC, has called for disestablishment. Rowan Williams, as his norm, is lost in nebulosity. The incoming prime minister, James Brown, son of a Church of Scotland minister, promises big changes in the CoE.

George Carey, a wonderful evangelical archbishop now runs the risk of being seen as taking on the role assumed by Edward Heath in relation to Lady Thatcher.  He has however supported the persescuted conservative christians.

The son of the manse promises much including more control over appointment of senior bishops and archbishops WITHOUT changes to the law.

Rob-Roy said:
“I know that KJS is not reading, but here goes: You have said that Episcopalians are in the upper percentiles for intelligence. Then you make ridiculous statements about how healthy the church is.  Episcopalians are not stupid. They can see the crisis. Don’t forgo your integrity so easily.”

Don’t be so sure KJS is not kept abreast on what appears on the blogs.  I think it is good that you are pointing out “ridiculous statements”, and am sure it gets back to the “ridiculous statement maker”.......

In reality, it has depended very much on who is PM as to the level of Government involvement. Thatcher is known to have blocked John Habgood from becoming AofC simply because they couldn’t stick each other. Blair has taken a more active interest.

As brown is from a presbyterian background, he is likely to believe in more autonomy in terms of the involvement of Government in appointments to bishoprics, but in reality there have been few interventions - the church makes the decision.

And don;t read too much into this - there is no clamour for disestablishment from within the Church at the moment, i think because it IS in such a weak position. That may also say a lot about why it has been unable to get its way on a number of issues in recent years.

MM - I agree with that except for the last paragraph..
Christians generally have had to fight to have their voice heard in the UK.  That is why the CofE, RC church and others have recently begun to speak loudly and with one voice in an increasingly secular country and world.  Would that governments listened to them more.

The CofE if it appears weak, has only itself to blame.  It has an extraordinarily powerful position, covering the whole of England in every town and village.  Bishops sit in the Lords although only a pathetic few bothered to turn up to the SSR debate.  I detect change however and a stronger voice coming out from both Williams and Sentamu among others.

One lives in hope.

Rob-Roy, you forgot one of “our” other favorite expressions;

Stick a fork in it - it’s done…............

Let’s recap TEC’s response to the AC as articulated most recently in Tanzania. Alternate Primatal Vicar - no thank you can’t do it, it’s against our polity. Cease and desist all civil lawsuits - no thank you, no need for that right now. Consecration of Bishops in same-sex relationships - maybe, we don’t have anyone teed up right now. Blessing of same-sex unions - no thank you, we think it is best left to a “local option” and therefore allowable by our polity

Vis a vie polity and it’s use in the TEC; our polity is inviolate and must be respected, your’s on the other hand is always subject to our scrutiny.

On all other topics, our oceanographer is smarter than you are, if you don’t agree with us. If you do, congratulations you are the intellectual backbone of TEC that will reshape the world!

The brief history available to us on this subject seems to show that how the issue of SSU is ultimately resolved - whether in ECUSA or another province - will determine its long term viability.  Those diocese that are riding that cutting edge are falling rapidly.  Of course, that makes perfect sense when one thinks about it.  Belonging to a country club is much more fun and you get to play golf on Sundays.  It all depends on the ultimate goal of the church.  Is it to be a platform for the culture to launch its latest thing or to be a member of the Body of Christ and bring the Gospel to a starving world?  And isn’t it a shame that two pioneering countries such as England and USA have led the way in breeching the walls of faith? 

“I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. Ezekiel 22:30-31

PW says with regard to the ‘cv’ of the two men:
“...(And what evangelism it is to those who’ve felt disenfranchised by conservative Christians!)...”

I have always believed that evangelism refers to spreading the GOOD news of salvation through the resurrected Christ and His atonement for our sins on the cross and not the use to which PW puts the term.
The CofE is a state, civil, non-religious, government sanctioned organization.  Thankfully there are thousands of faithful believers who worship Jesus despite the government’s interference in the traditional Faith of those believers who follow the Faith once given to us two thousand years ago through God’s inspired Word, the Holy Scriptures (despite the ‘opinion’ of those who see any value of the Bible able to be condensed to a thin pamphlet containing only the useful advice found therein). 

DOK, are you married to Intercessor?

At some point, the CofE will face expulsion from the Anglican Communion because of its growing secularization.  The overwhelming bulk of Christians will form a new Christ-centered Anglican Communion that perhaps will not use the word Anglican but will follow fully the traditional path of Anglicanism as given to us through the examples and words of Crammer and Ridley (and many others), the 39 Articles, the Holy Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, the traditions and beliefs of those who have followed Jesus Christ for the past two millenia.
Interference and control of a Church by a government means it is a civil organization like the transportation ministry and ssus have as much ‘blessing’ associated with them as a blessing given to them by the Ministry of Defence.

Thanks, Dee, I sometimes wonder whether our public conversations amount to much and whether anybody else is listening. When I was in highschool, I would passionately argue the world’s problems, and, of course, we didn’t solve any of them. In these blogs, I have returned to passionate debate, not all for the good. Several days ago, in anger at the actions of the ABC and KJS, etc, I said something very inappropriate to Merseymike, who has never said an unkind word despite the vitriol hurled at him. I truly would consider it an honor to sip an ale with in a Liverpool pub. I think we can all learn from him. I know that I have.

I hope that our little contributions to the debate can be edifying and helpful. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”

Why did Jackie Bruchi, the author of this thread use the word wed<>?  The NYT artcle never used the term.  It didn’t use the term “marriage.”  It described it as a civil union. 

On the basis that Anglican conservatives would flat out deny that same sex partners ccould enter into the covenant (“mystery” or “sacrament” of marriage), why is there concern here about the “wedding” of those who cannot “wed.”  It seems to me that that those who protest this “joining” because it <B>is a wedding are giving the joining more weight than the couple and principal witness who were actually involved.  Why would you protest a “wedding”, that you, in fact, deny can take place?

Bill C

You really should come and see what you are talking about with the CofE.  It is considerably more traditional in its teaching than most of TEC and the Continuum.  We are not a secular organisation, are mission focused on spreading the Good News and try to walk humbly with our God.  There are some loudmouths in St Albans and Putney but we stand exactly where we always have.

Expect you would enjoy worshipping with us.

All the best

PM

Emily H has discovered the bold formatting button.  Outstanding.

Oops!  two missing commas:

“... worship Jesus, despite the government’s interference, in the traditional Faith of those believers who follow the Faith once given to us two….”

By and large the government don’t interfere, but many of us are desperately concerned by the heavy-handed requirements recently seen that we put up no smoking signs in our historic porches.  What next, our rood screens condemned as fire hazards?

Pageantmaster, I am English.  I accepted Jesus into my life in an Anglican church in the Wirral in 1966.  I also know that there are many, many spirit-filled. alive , vibrant Anglican churches in England.  Over the years, during my approximately twice yearly returns home, I have worshipped in many CofE churches around the country and am always at home with them since I have looked for the type of church I described above.  I agree with everything you said, even regarding the government involvement, but that is becoming more and more intrusive.  So I perhaps spoke more vociferously than perhaps I should have.  However, I do think that down the road there will be increasing secularization and government interference.
Blessings,
Bill Channon originally from Clitheroe, Lancs and Sale, Cheshire.

Sorry about the bold formatting.  I guess I screwed up the end > on the word <B>wed<>  Did I get it right this time?

Dear Bill C

Difficult times, but one can but try.  Oddly enough I feel God may be on the move.  It is always upsetting when he is, which is one of the signs as far as I can see.  Very strange but wonderful to see.  We are being called.

Best wishes and blessings too.

PM

Mr. Lewis, 47, ... Mr. Winslow, 57

Once again, the individuals involved are middle-aged.  My evidence is entirely anecdotal but it does seem that every report I see of a homosexual civil union involves a middle-aged couple.  If this observation is correct, then homosexual unions are entered primarily to provide a stable companion during the Fall and Winter of life - after the passions of youth have relatively declined.  It would then serve a completely different social function from marriage - having no necessary connection to sexual exclusivity.

Whatever else it might be, a homosexual union is not an analog of its heterosexual counterpart. 

carl

One more try, please forgive me.  I learned to program because I could actually program faster than I could type.  UGH!

Remember both the pointy brackets enclose the /b or cut and paste if you can Emily H.

I think she’s got it; I really think she’s really got it.

Our answer to EmilyH’s question:  Jackie isn’t the issue here. 
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck - it’s probably a duck.  It doesn’t matter whether it’s a civil ceremony in or out of a church, it’s four clergy who chose to violate what has been asked by the leadership of the Anglican Communion that’s the issue. 

Playing word games, Episcobabble, fudge…call it what you want—doesn’t change the basic point/intent behind the event:  disobedience and a challenge to the primates.  This, for us, is not an example of Christ’s love, but having their own way. Their “Whatcha goin’ to do about it” moment was done forcing their way onto the rest of the church.

So, PM, your real name is Henry Higgins!!!! 

PM, may I ask where you live?

Lakeland Two:  The you concede that two people of the same sex CAN marry????

Henry Higgins - ssch! don’t let on.

I live in a house.

“Whatever else it might be, a homosexual union is not an analog of its
heterosexual counterpart.”

With all due respect Carl,
I believe you are viewing with one eye open! The majority of these “relationships” are not a “mid-life crisis” event! And they are very much centered around sexual activity! Either way to me and many…It’s bad behavior!

I find it extraordinarily sad that there are 100 comments on this post, but so few posts or comments on how to actually become missionaries to the 130 million unchurched people in the U.S. who have not been innoculated against the gospel like those in the Episcopal Church.

Perhaps this is why we are in the mess we are in….. over-focus on politically charged commenting, and under-focus on gospel ministry.

One of the difficulties we have in discussions of marriage and “civil unions” is that the state has appropriated the use of the word “marriage” and uses it to mean something much different than what it means to us.  This word, to us, describes a sacramental commitment of one man and one woman to live together as one “for as long as they both shall live.”  To the state, it is a licensed arrangement of two people (in most, but not all, places, still one man and one woman) to live together in a household.  In the modern day, it is essentially “for as long as it is mutually convenient.”  It would make more sense, in my humble opinion, for the state to get out of the “marriage” business altogether.  Leave marriage to religious institutions to define.  The state’s interest is to define what constitutes a “household” for tax purposes.  If a man and woman get married at the courthouse by the local judge, call that a civil union as well.  Let the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples define “marriage.”

Emily H -
You asked: 

Why did Jackie Bruchi, the author of this thread use the word wed?

  Item 1 - Tomato/to-ma-to - you decide.
Item 2 - officiated

The Rev. Tim S. Hall, also an Episcopal priest, officiated at the couple’s home in Union City, N.J., assisted by his wife, the Rev. Jacqueline Schmidt.

Item 3 - The ceremony was conducted by and for individuals who are members of a church that would have the Primates believe that they are not conducting SSU. Four Dioceses are involved.  Let’s see if any of the Bishops object.  Questions 2 and 3 appear to be duplicates so I will respond to them together: 

why is there concern here about the “wedding” of those who cannot “wed and Why would you protest a “wedding”, that you, in fact, deny can take place?

Concern is due to the fact that regardless of the wants and desires of ECUSA, it is still the official teaching of the Anglican Communion and ECUSA that marriage is an act reserved for one man and one woman.  Union of two people outside those boundaries is contrary to Church teaching which, of course, is based on Scripture.  If you can honestly read that article and believe that the ceremony was a wedding, I have a bridge in Florida I would really, really like to show you.  If you believe such public flaunting of the Church’s teaching is good for evangelism - well, let me refer you to any of 1,000 articles on the declining numbers in ECUSA.

Emily H - However - just to make sure - no one is misled by the headline- I changed it.  Now is there ANYONE here who thinks this was not intended to be a wedding?

tjmcmahon said:  “It would make more sense, in my humble opinion, for the state to get out of the “marriage” business altogether.  Leave marriage to religious institutions to define.  The state’s interest is to define what constitutes a “household” for tax purposes.  If a man and woman get married at the
courthouse by the local judge, call that a civil union as well.  Let the churches, synagogues, mosques and temples define “marriage.”

Sounds like a good solution but with one HUGE hitch…..Divorce attorneys! They would be all up at arms over this and thus a whole new can of worms would be open!

Episcopal priests…  Just doesn’t mean anything anymore.

I agree that a homosexual getting together of two or more of the same sex for what ever they do is not an analog of its heterosexual counterpart. Marriage, by definition, is two people of opposite sex joined in Holy Matrimony in a lifelong commitment.

As a result, it is impossible for two people of the same sex to be married. Whatever they are doing, it is not marriage. The nature of the relationship is fundamentally different. How does one determine “husband and wife” when both are of the same sex?

So, I am back to my question, which maybe EmilyH will try to answer, since clearly Padre Wayne has no answer. Where in the Bible does it say that SSR should be blessed, or celebrated on par with heterosexual marriage?

Best,

Bill

BillC said: “So, I am back to my question, which maybe EmilyH will try to answer, since clearly Padre Wayne has no answer. Where in the Bible does it say that SSR should be blessed, or celebrated on par with heterosexual marriage?”

BillC…..PW can’t answer that question because he knows what we all know…..There is no passage of scripture in the Bible that says anyhting anywhere remotely close that SSR’s should be, could be blessed, or celebrated! But, give the PW’s, KJS’s, VGR’s & MM’s time as they will write their own bible that states so and call it divinely inspired by the word of the universe!

The state’s interest is to define what constitutes a “household” for tax
purposes.

The state’s interest is to create a stable relationship within which the next generation of children may be civilized.  This is a hard, expensive task which people cannot be paid to perform.  Yet it must be performed or civilization dies - as Europe is finding out.  The point of marriage is to bind people against their own immediate self-interest for the purpose of serving the greater good of others -first among them their children.

This is the danger of re-constituting marriage not as covenant but rather as contract law.  When marriage becomes a revocable contract whose principle function is to confer benefits on the parties involved, then marriage cannot serve this function.  It becomes all to easy for one spouse to give priority to his own happiness at the expense of his children - because “The kids will be alright” don’t you know.  Autonomy eats its own offspring.

carl

Christoferos:  The topic of the post is about two men who were involved in a civil union service in ECUSA.

Also:  ” Mr. Winslow, referring to the many marriage ceremonies he has performed, said: “I say over and over again to couples, ‘Please don’t let us down. You’ve made these promises to us in public. Keep those promises.’ And that’s what we intend to do.”

“Please don’t let us down’ seems to me to be a pretty political statement.  I suggest that that comment is directed at the two men not to let down the concept of ssus and the liberal agenda, rather than a statement enjoining them not to let God down.

For Dok4hs…  Assuming, and I grant you that you are accepting,  of Article VI of the 39 Articles, and, is pretty big assumption, the article does not say:  that everything in Holy Scripture must be believed, what it says is:

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so whatsoever is not<B> read therein, nor proved thereby, is not</B> to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”  I don’t believe anyone is asking you to accept that such a blessing is scriptural.

DOK4HS,

Actually I am BillS. BillC is my other brother Derrell.

I have posed this question for a while in different forums. I have yet to get an answer. Nor do I get an admission that the Bible does not say anything about blessing SSR or SS marriage. Nor do I get an answer along the lines of, the Bible does not address the question directly, but here is why SSR should be blessed…. except in the vaguest terms of “justice”.

Occasionally some one will answer that they are not going to play that game. Clearly they do want to play the game, they just do not want to justify it, at least not Biblically.

However, like Diogenes searching for an honest man, I will continue my quest; Where in the Bible does it say that SSR should be celebrated on par with heterosexual marriage? EmilyH?

Best,

Bill

EmilyH…..I believe what God says and tells me! I believe, persoanlly for me, that everything in the Bible is true and very much USEFUL for my salvation. Somethings are necessary for salvation but for me and many all things in the Bible are useful for an obedient walk with God the Father & God the Son with God the Holy Spirit as our constant guide towards my salvation. There was a question that was asked (several times I might add)  “where in the scriptures does it state that ssu’s can be blessed or celebrated?” So since you seem to be an authority answer the question!

EmilyH - Can?  Have the ability to?  Even though the government can choose to allow/permit/license it doesn’t make it right or even acceptable to God.  There are many things that exist and are legal that aren’t biblical.  Just because it may be legal doesn’t mean that it is permissible for a follower of Christ to participate.  According to the primates, this was not permissible.  Even Paul comments on “permissible” in 1 Cor. 6:12

“Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial.

These four clergy didn’t just thumb their noses at the primates’s request of don’t do this.  In my opinion, these four sinned  against our community by going ahead and doing this.

Carl ; if you think about it, many of the couples first looking towards civil partnership/union are likely to be long-standing relationships who have been waiting for the law to change and so by definition are middle aged having been together for a long time. My partner and I had been together for 14 years, as an example

As I think that young people rush into marriage far too quickly and the outcome is often divorce, I welcome the thought that people may choose to wait a while before making a firm commitment.

Sorry BillS! My humblest apologies on the end initial! I am watching carefully your quest becuase I find it interesting that those who vie for this “union” of the same sex type and defend it can’t back it up biblically and just do what EmilyH just did in quoting man made rules that don’t say that they can be celebrated, or blessed just use written articles such as Article VI of the 39 Articles:

“so whatsoever is not read therein, nor proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” I don’t believe anyone is asking you to accept that such a blessing is scriptural.”

thier loop hole to spin their path!

The bible does not say that a “homosexual” marriage is to be celebrated in the same manner as a heterosexual one.  And I am not asking you to believe that it should be.  What I am saying is that, if you accept article 6, you are not required to believe that anything that is NOT in the bible IS true.  It is not saying that you are required to believe that everything that IS in the bible IS true.  If you choose to believe that everything that IS in the bible is true, that of course, is your choice DoK.  But you may find some contradictions where one part of scripture does not conform to others…and that can complicate your exegesis and even the principle of interpretation that you use.  But if you find all parts both consistent and of equal warrant, then I am happy for you.  Off to Memorial Day picnic so must leave you…

Thank you Lakeland Two!

A “legal view” is not a biblical view! Pharisees & Sadducees!

Bill, I am sure I have already given my answer, and I think it a weakness of liberal Christians that they fail to state clearly enough the limitations of the Bible and the fact that in places, it is simply wrong and culture-bound to the extent that it discriminates against people. I certainly don’t accept the conservative view regarding its authority and I do not believe most liberals do either.

This item was in the Sunday Styles section of the New York Times in the pages headed WEDDINGS/CELEBRATIONS

The items in this section are based on information submitted by the couples or their families to the NYT for consideration and verification by staff. This is not a news story developed by reporters.

Therefore we can conclude that the couple, these two Episcopal priests chose to have this event listed in the section WEDDINGS/CELEBRATIONS

Carl-
I do not disagree with you at all about what marriage should be.  Rather, I was trying to point out what the state has made marriage into by taking God out of the equation.  Even civil marriages should be about families and children, but if you look at the legal system, I don’t think that really enters into the thinking of the officials responsible, even if they spend a lot of rhetoric on it.  If 75% of the legislatures and congress were not attorneys, civil marriage might indeed be what you (and I) would like it to be. (I do not mean that as a slight on attorneys per se, since I know a number of fine attorneys.  But attorneys making up the majority of many legislatures has always struck as an inherent conflict of interest.) I hope you would agree with me that the best place for a wedding is a church, and the best officiated by a priest or minister.

Merseymike
I am curious and I am sure I am going to get slammed for this but…..I am curious why you post on this blog since you does not ascribe to the Bible and God’s teacing nor the conservative orthodox? And since I have always been an avid reader of SF posts & threads before I became a “poster” and I never seen your answer to Bill I would like for you to refresh us on what your answer was…......please!

DOK4HS,

Apology accepted. I would just hate for BillC to feel that he was being demeaned by being confused with me.

Let’s see if we can parse this logic. EmilyH is saying that the blessing is not scriptural. So its like our local priest blessing the shrimp boats? And, if it is not scriptural, is a priest required, or can the next door neighbor come over and do the same thing? Then everyone can feel good, thoelogically everything is fine, and we conservative, orthodox, fundies do not need to get our undies in a wad.

If it is not scriptural, then logically there is no fundamental moral issue at stake, and it is more in the category of might be nice, but we do not have to, and if that is the case, why are we being told that we have to? Maybe EmilyH will come to our rescue and clear up some of the confusion about the basis for blessing ssr in the Church.

BillS:  Your brother Darrell is BillC.  I am Bill C (or Bill Channon).
Any chance your bro. could be BillD?  Too many Bills around.

Blessing to all Bills

Bill                 C

DOK ; to put the pother side of the coin, and because i share an interest in the issues concerned.

Anyway, blame Sarah. I only used to post on T19 but she called me her ‘favourite reappraiser’ so I thought I’d check things out over here. I hardly post on T19 any more as a result!

MM

Thanks for your reply. I understand that you do not believe in the Bible, or see it as a good book that may be helpful in some instances, but other sources are more helpful in others, and I respect your view, and your honesty for stating it plainly.

EmilyH tells us on her way to her picnic that we are not required to believe that everything in the Bible is true. So, how do we know what is true, and what is not? Who decides? Do we each get to pick and choose?

I do not particularly like that part about adultery. It seems to prohibit the real me and the way that God made me from flourishing. I find that part about not lying really cramps my creative style, so there goes that part. Gluttony and sloth (it is Memorial Day) here we come! I never knew that Christianity could be so much fun! And easy to! Guess I have been wrong about Schori, and kept her in too small of a box.

I am feeling newly liberated now that I better understand Christian theology, and am off as well to a Memorial Day picnic. Blessings to all.

Seems that this blog thread is Full of Bills…

Thank you Merseymike for helping me to understand why you are on Stand Firm! But you ignored my latter question which is the same as Bill’s. Thinking that you have given your answer especially if you really have please state it again. We know you & liberals think that the Bible is wrong, but that is not the question being put to you! You are skirting it! Or is that your way around the bush in answering the question?

But one can very easily see why adultery causes hurt and pain to others, Bill. And where those broader values of justice and kindness to others would be counteracted by adultery.

That’s where I think we can find the Bible helpful in some instances - but yes, that does mean there will be disagreements, and perhaps less of a stress on ‘doctrine’.I can appreciate that for some, that just wouldn’t be enough - that you require much more cut-and-dried rights-and-wrongs. Liberals tend to be situation ethicists.

If we could all just agree that we really do follow different paths and agree to differ in a civilised manner….

MM - did I detect some humour there?  Excellent.

Are you a real Scally?  Most I know have a highly developed GSOH.

The bible does not say that a “homosexual” marriage is to be celebrated in the same manner as a heterosexual one.

Nice try EmilyH.  But puuuulllllleaze.  Of course, in the Bible, it doesn’t say anything at all about homosexual marriage.  What it has to say about homosexuality is negative (at the very least a sin, and often an abomination).  SO- if homosexuality is effectively outside either Jewish or Christian practice, I think it is not particular difficult exegesis to conclude that one cannot, in either Jewish or Christian traditions, “celebrate” a homosexual marriage. While the older parts of the Old Testament do recognize that some men had many wives, all references to marriage as we understand it (and historically, all references after the Babylonian captivity, I believe)  are to one man and one woman.  Christ makes clear Himself what marriage is.

that referred to “blame Sarah” etc some comments back

Thank you tjmcmahon! But, since EmilyH has left us for Memorial Day celerations I think you and I are left on her “Article VI of the 39 Articles” hook! I don’t see the Articles listed anywhere in the Bible either. So since I view God & my Bible as my Authority, the Articles are of little concern to me! It is much more difficult to walk a Christian walk with the Bible as your laws & rules to follow, which is why most find following things like Articles written by men and insprired by men much easier to conform to because those can be changed where the Bible cannot! In the end, it will be God to whom we all answer to! So for me it would be much smarter to try and comform to His law and rules than to men of whom I will not answer to in the end! I value my eternal life with Christ much more than a cushy life here on earth!

‘Fraid not Pageant, I’m an interloper, though I have lived here for years.

tjmcmahon - that’s why liberals believe that revision is required, and why liberals are not traditional/conservative Christians! I think thats obvious, or we wouldn’t be having all the current debates.

Pageantmaster said,

Expect you would enjoy worshipping with us.

Although I am a native born citizen of the U.S., and have only been to the UK once (for three weeks in the spring of ‘99), I will gladly second his expectation. My wife and I attended choral evensong services at Bath Abbey and York Minster, and Sunday morning Eucharists at St. Peter, Newington, Edinburgh, and St. Martin in the Fields on Trafalgar Square. Worshipping in several of these locations is only one reason that I entertain some hopes of being permitted to live in the UK “for a time” once I am fully “retired” from my current professional life.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

—-“The problem with the British is that they think 200 miles is a long distance. The problem with Americans is that they think 200 years is a long time.” [the heroine in a Diana Gabaldon novel, cited by this poster’s wife]

<u>To which I would respond</u>:

“The problem with non-geologists, and <u>especially</u> American non-geologists, is that they think recorded history is a long time” [Keith Töpfer, alias Martial Artist]

MM said: “that’s why liberals believe that revision is required, and why
liberals are not traditional/conservative Christians! I think thats obvious, or we wouldn’t be having all the current debates.”

Then why not go form your own church instead of trying to over run the Tradional Orthodox Church? Lucifer tried to take over heaven and become equal with God….look what happened to him!

So when is the Episcopal Church going to get around to some real innovations?  Two male priests get married by a third.  Small potatoes.

I’m looking forward to the abortion liturgies, the crystals, the divorce liturgies, the multiple partner marriages, the transgender bishops, the WICCA prayer book, the Isis and Osiris prayers, the seances, the channelling of Christine Jorgensen, the reading of tea leaves, I Ching, alchemy, voodoo dolls, human sacrifice, you know, some really new things. 

When is the Episcopal Church going to become really progressive?

Emily H said that you ‘may find there are contradictions where one part of scriptures does not seem to conform to other parts’.
Emily, when this seems so, step back a little and look at the whole picture.
You are focused in too close to see the whole reality.
There are NO contradictions in scipture if you study and pray on them long enough and hard enough.
God will show you.
(It’s like the 4 blind men each touching a different part of an elephant and describing it. When you are looking too closely at the tail, it’s hard to see how it is joined to the trunk.)

tjmcmahon

I evidently misunderstood you then.    Sorry about that.

It does seem to me somewhat pointless to relegate “marriage” to the church, and “civil unions” to the state because only the state’s definition will be legally enforcable.  If sinful people are allowed to act upon their every self-interest without consequence, you can guarantee they will do so.  Yet this movement towards greater autonomy has been the basic trajectory of marriage law for several decades.  Civil Unions will only finalize what started a long time ago. 

It must eventually bring consequences of course.  But there will be one great party in the meantime.  And who knows but that the party goers will be dead before the consequences germinate into actual suffering?  Such is the nature of man.

“the channelling of Christine Jorgensen”

Who’s waiting??  See Griswold to Schori GC2006

“that’s why liberals believe that revision is required”

Mike,
Don’t you think the the revision likely to be made to the Bible by liberals will make it a very different book, one that liberals would be able to take literally?  UUs have done something along those lines.  For instance they have removed the name of Jesus from every hymn in their hymnal.  Similarly the Bible can be sanitized to remove all demands made on believers and unbelievers, all conditions, all examples of Holy and unholy behaviour given to us throughout the OT.  The demands of nasty descriptions of Christ’s crucufixion and gift of eternal life to those who accept Him.

Anyway, blame Sarah. I only used to post on T19 but she called me her ‘favourite reappraiser’ so I thought I’d check things out over here. I hardly post on T19 any more as a result!

  [Note - to get the full impact of the following one must remember a time when your mother discovered you broke the neighbor’s window.  You won’t be able to get the full impact without knowing her middle name.]

SSSAAAAARRRRRAAAAAHHHHHHHHH! 

Liberals tend to be situation ethicists.

  The first sentence in the description below should explain EVERYTHING.
From Wikipedia:  The situational ethics theory was developed by Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal priest, in the 1960s.The founding idea is that the only thing of intrinsic value is Love, (specifically agapē.) From there, Fletcher advocated a number of controversial courses of action.

Good point Bill C (got it right his time )!

Merseymike, why aren’t you liberals just moving over to the UU’s instead of wasting your time in the Anglican’Epsicopal church? Is it because you just wouldn’t be totally satisfied with the UU’s only?

[M]any of the couples first looking towards civil partnership/union are likely to be long-standing relationships who have been waiting for the law to change and so by definition are middle aged having been together for a long time.

MM

If you are right, then in a few years we should see a marked drop in the median age of those homosexuals entering civil unions as all those 20-something couples decide to commit to monogamy.  If the median does not change - and I suspect it will not - what then will you give for an explanation?

carl

Emily H—when the deacon at my parish exhorts the congregation to rejoice that God is clearly among us in Newark because three civil unions received a church blessing the previous week, then I am being commanded to do that which is contrary to Scripture.  All this blather about “but no one is forcing conservatives to…..” is totally contrary to the facts on the ground.

Intercessor, I’m late to this conversation, but the chastisement you received for referencing “the pit” was probably because the original poster used the word “hope.” I assume you agree that were are not to hope anyone ends up in the eternal pit, although Scripture does allow us room (at least in some circumstances) to pray that God (not us) take fitting vengeance on his enemies. This freaks some people out, but it’s widely attested in OT and NT.

Of course the path of love will never pretend that hell does not exist; and those who squelch the talk of eternal damnation are more likely to have calloused hearts, not merciful. For what is more merciful, to talk openly of hell and its realities, like Christ? or to be a party to those who conceal the entrance over the pit and thus make it into a trap instead of just a choice?

alfonsoq,
I don’t think Inercessor was inferring a “hope” that they would go to the pit! Rather I viewed his comment as one of seeing some headed to it with this action of total disobedience to the GS Primates moritorium & most of all to God in this act of blessing a same sex union over two priests by a priest of TEC!

alfonsoq-
You are spot on point by point.
To wish another to enter God’s wrath condemns one to a worst fate and breaks your communion with the Lord. I gladly will take any slap any time any where to defend my Lord…let me glorify Christ’s name in my own day…Prayed daily on my work commute as I recite Mass in the car.
I regret is that commenatrix went into slap mode without really reading what I had to say.

Carl,
To say that

The state’s interest is to create a stable relationship within which the next generation of children may be civilized.

is, I believe, an exaggeration. What you have named is, certainly, one of the interests of the state. However, that interest is not critical and has been gradually, but dangerously, undermined by the changes in divorce laws.

Further, by implying that the state has only one purpose in regulating marriage by law, you ignore the presenting issue that is being used by homosexual advocates to claim discrimination, equality before the law with respect to taxation and other legally mandated or regulated economic issues. The validity of this claim is not the topic under discussion on this thread and I will, therefore, not address it here. However, the remaining set of issues involving equality of treatment before the law goes away if every individual is treated as an individual for purposes of legally controlled economic benefits, e.g. taxation, health insurance, etc. The tax law is a good example of this, because the replacement of the income tax with a properly constructed and just (in the sense of the rule of law^*) consumption tax would allow every individual to be treated identically, in terms of finances, without creating a benefit or penalty for any individual or collection of individuals.

The state would also find its legislative task much simpler with respect to the establishment of truly just body of law to protect the rights of children and ensure their proper socialization, because they would not need to deal with the inherent internal contradictions which almost always appear when separable issues are unnaturally conflated, e.g., the needless linkage of tax law and family law which is inherent in insisting on an income tax.

I will not address here the issue of equality before the law in respect of who may, and who may not, have children to raise, except to point out that a homosexual couple is biologically incapable of having children of what I will call, for lack of another term, their union.

———————-
^* Warning: the phrase “rule of law” is a term of art in legal theory, having a very specific meaning.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Wow, I go away for a while and this posting has exploded.

I would tell Bill that it is a futile exercise to ask THE QUESTION.

EmilyH, what term would you have Jackie use? Unionized? That sounds like they joined the AFL-CIO. The third definition of Webster of wed is: to unite as if by marriage, to place in close or intimate association. In fact, the whole point of civil unions, is to ease the society into homosexual marriage, you should be grateful.

From Wikipedia: The situational ethics theory was developed by Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopal priest,

Holy cow, Jackie, that does explain everything. :-(

Martial Artist

However, that interest is not critical and has been gradually, but dangerously, undermined by the changes in divorce laws.

I am somewhat confused as to how an interest that is not critical can be dangerously undermined.  Be that as it may.

Neither the Roman Empire nor the Soviet Empire had any interest in treating people as equals before the law.  But they both had an interest in functioning subjects of the state.  Being good doctrinaire leftists, the Soviets all but abolished marriage after the revolution.  The resulting social dislocation quickly led them to reconsider their actions. 

Despite the best efforts of progressives everywhere, no replacement has ever been found for the nuclear family, and none ever will be.  Every successful society in the history of man has be founded upon it.  No other institution has ever been found which can successfully civilize children.  To say its maintenance is not the vital interest of the state in marriage is therefore problematic.  Tax laws pale by comparison.

carl

Rob Roy,
You are quite correct in your statement “a futile exercise to ask THE QUESTION.” As it will never get answered and for MM to say that he “thinks he already has answered” when in fact he has not is his way out to answering at any time. But, I like Bill am patient and don’t mind the wait as it plainly shows MM for who and what he truly is.

Which Bill????????????????       

Ooooh! Sorry!!!! That would be Bill S! I need to make a list of all the Bill’s so I can keep each one straight in my mnd! I am so blonde!!!! 

carl,

Sorry, I was momentarily distracted in the middle of typing that sentence and, upon returning, failed to re-read what I had written, recognize its incompletenss and and finish my intended thought. I was presumptuous in presuming that I had actually completed it undistracted.

It should have read ” ... that interest, although critical, is most assuredly not the sole focus of legislatures in regulating marriage, and has been ... “

My sincere apologies for the confusion which this caused.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

I don’t see how i can answer any more clearly. I do not think that the Bible says anything at all about same-sex partnerships, so it cannot be used to provide an explicit support for them. There are values and principles which can point to such support, but as I said earlier, I think the Bible is limited in its usefulness in this area for all the reasons I have given here or elsewhere.

If there hadn’t been a liberal wing in the Church of England then I wouldn’t have been at all interested in it, but it does have a liberal wing. However, I fully agree that the breadth of belief does lead to incoherence and contradiction and ideally I would support an agreed divide. That won’t happen whilst one side or the other talks in terms of ‘throwing the other out’

Carl ; I just don’t know what the future will bring with regard to civil partnerships. I think that the initial couples are likely to be long-term partnerships, but how long couples will choose to wait in future is anyone’s guess. I can’t predict the future. But I rather hope people won’t rush in too early.

Actually, I think that MerseyMike has hit it on the head when he said that we need to agree to disagree and separate amicably. Then, we could provide Christian witness. As to “what and who he is” in regards to MerseyMike, he is a lost a wayward soul like you and me (well maybe a little more wayward!, sorry MM,    )

This being said, I do not think that it will be an amicable separation. Therefore, I think that we need to remember to keep our anger in check as we mutually go through a terrible situation. I say this as one who has not always followed this advice but was quick to ask forgiveness.  The situation is similar to the American Civil War. Lincoln knew that after all the bloodshed, the north was going to have to embrace the south as brothers.

rob-roy
I can wholeheartedly agree that we are all sinners in need of God’s redeeming love and grace.  I think where the problem comes in is to the name of Christianity.  ECUSA claims to be a Christian organization.  I disagree.  I believe it to be an organization that contains some Christians.  ECUSA has prided itself for sometime now on diversity of thought - so much so that even the most outrageous claims and actions by revisionist clergy are allowed to go unchecked.  Usually they are praised for their openness.  And in this great land of diversity, orthodoxy is hated and scorned.  To put it bluntly, an organization where its leader cannot affirm that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life - well, they put the nails in their own coffin.  But worse - they have become a stumbling block to the unchurched.  I for one am happy to send the message to the co-habitating, drugging, drinking, lying, gluttonous, gossiping, cheating world to come as you are BUT it must also include Jesus’ call to come and be transformed through the hearing of His Word - not some bloke in a pulpit who thought being clergy was a good vocation with great benefits.

I disagree! It most certainly can be an amicable separation! The liberal revisionists can pick up and go to build their own church with their own “book.” Written just like they would like it to read! After all the Bible is one central focus of our Liturgy and as MM has stated “the Bible is limited in its usefulness”...to the Liberals and Revisionists I say go, plant, and be prosperous! God’s Peace!

EmilyH,

In quoting Article VI of the 39 Articles, you seem to be implying that as long as we hold all those

... things necessary to salvation ... as requisite or necessary to salvation.

then, anything else we might add that is not in conflict with those requisites is acceptable. If that is your intended meaning (I am uncertain because I find your post sufficiently vague with respect to its intended point, and because no other interpretation suggests itself to me) then, I believe that you are ignoring the clause of Article VI which limits the latitude it grants to the individual believer to that which is

... not read therein, nor proved thereby ....

If I have read your point correctly, I would humbly point out that the proscriptions against homosexual conduct are, indisputably “read” in the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments. Further, the last cited clauses of Article VI plainly signify that their citation in scripture is sufficient to place those proscription beyond exclusion from the beliefs that are requisite or necessary for salvation, i.e., being left to the discretion of the individual believer, by the Article. I would therefore posit, that we (subscribers to the Anglican branch of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church) are not indubitably free either to sacramentalize or endorse homosexual unions, or to invoke God’s blessings on homosexual unions.

The plain words of Article VI argue rather directly against any point to the contrary. If you concur in this understanding of the article, and yet continue to believe that, despite Article VI, the church should engage in either practice, I would humbly suggest that leaves you in the position of accepting at most 38 of the 39 Articles, which would lace in question whether you are correct in regarding yourself as a fully faithful Anglican.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist,

Thanks for that very clear analysis. It appears that our local priest can still bless the shrimp boats. Still no answer on where the Bible says that SSR can be blessed or celebrated on par with a heterosexual marriage, however.

Best

Bill

I looked at the magnificent Chelsea interior and, for a brief moment, was jealous, having lost my church sanctuary.  Then I read the following illuminating exchange:

Pardre Wayne: “May God bless them! Fr. Winslow’s church, by the way, is growing nicely (contrary to popular belief about “reappraisers’ churches”), with a strong mission/outreach ministry.”

Response: “The statistics of Mr. Winslow are worse than terrible, found here. The ASA is now 30. Giving has plummeted.”

Padre Wayne: “Stats do not tell all.”

Thirty attending parishioners left in a magnificent church designed for hundreds, led by a male Episcopal Priest who is married to another male Episcopal Priest.  This pretty much sums it up.

My jealousy has passed.

EmilyH,

You wrote “... you may find some contradictions where one part of scripture does not conform to others ...”
Might I humbly inquire which scriptural references you find which, in your view, contradict the proscriptions against homosexual conduct, whether Levitical or Pauline, in the Bible?

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Bill S….Merseymike did answer the “Question”....
Merseymike said:
“I don’t see how i can answer any more clearly. I do not think that the Bible says anything at all about same-sex partnerships, so it cannot be used to provide an explicit support for them.”

The interesting thing I find about his statement is the “I don’t think that the Bible says anything at all about same-sex partnerships….”

I wonder Merseymike….do you read the Bible at all? Or just the parts that make you feel all warm and cozy and really good about yourself? Please I am not trying to be condescending or mean….I just don’t understand how someone can make arguments if they do not ascribe to the Scriptures as a whole but only in part! And if you aren’t really sure if the Bible says anything about SS-partners then I have to wonder how much of it you have really read and digested! I know that many here on SF and in the media have quoted all the passages that speak negatively about that life-style and that God considers it to be an abomination! The list consists of more than one passage!

I really think that your point of view and many others that are of your mind set are really on a political activist agenda and have grabbed the Church as your platform! How sad for you & yours!

DOK4HS,

MerseyMike and those who sympathize with him are not at all compelled by the testimony of Scripture.  They have their own beliefs. 

However, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that homosexul practise belongs to God’s design for humanity.  Unless they can do so, they have nothing else to support them but their own experience.  Regardless of what they claim, the scientific support simply isn’t there. 

Human anatomy alone presents an insurmountable obstacle to anyone attempting to claim that homosexuality is either natural OR designed by God.

Of course, such a remark will never convince those who are well into the homosexual lifestyle, have accepted themselves as such, and have worked out a rationale for themselves as being homosexual. 

That doesn’t change the facts of the case, though.  Nothing could be clearer by simple observation than that homosexuality is an aberration and was never God’s design or intention for His children.  The testimony of Holy Scripture only confirms what is plainly obvious.

<blockquote>That doesn’t change the facts of the case, though.  Nothing could be clearer by simple observation than that homosexuality is an aberration and was never God’s design or intention for His children.  The testimony of Holy scripture only confirms what is plainly obvious.</blockquote>

The problem, Dave, is that your argument uses logic.  Revisionist arguments are based solely on emotion:“I feel such-and-such, therefore it must be The Truth.”  You can’t possibly reason with them.

The problem is that you think there is a single blueprint, whereas I would see gay people being a minority variant. That appears perfectly logical and the fact that there are gay people being born of heterosexual parents suggests that it is part of human patterning. If you mean that it isn’t normative, absolutely - its relatively uncommon as a minority variant. If, however, you believe in a uniform world, then we will simply have to disagree.

Scientific , medical and psychological viewpoints overwhelmingly support this position - indeed, advocates of the conservative view have to form their own research centres because the material they produced has been shown to be ethically questionable and those without their biased position are unable to peer review the work affirmatively.

I don;t think that we have to ‘prove’ anything. My existence is proof enough, and I think its up to you to ‘prove’ your case without assuming that others share your religious beliefs. If that is all your view is based on, then we reach a stand-off since i do not believe in the same religion as you.

DO…I have just gone through this entire argument and I don’t see the point in doing it again, as all we will do ie repeat ourselves.

With regard to the separation, it will only be amicable if both sides agree to separate without the obvious conclusion of your solution that one side is leaving voluntarily, and not the other. If that’s how you want to play it, then expect more angst and argument. If, however, you are willing to say - OK we think differently, but without judging who is ‘correct’, how can we mutually agree to part - then we might have got somewhere. I think its too late for that now and there are likely to be continued threats and machinations which benefit no-one.

Merseymike, I wish there was a consensus for a “no-fault” seperation, one that would not require a declaration of victory, but would allow both sides to seperate and move forward to engage in their mission.

It is obviously not going to happen, and I am not sure there was every any real chance of it.  On the “revisionist” side, there are those (unlike, I believe you) who are determined to fight for the trappings and relics of orthodox Christianity because it provides good “cover” under which their agenda can be advanced.  So they sue, and countersue, to keep a church building in a contradiction to the heartfelt convictions of 90% of its parishioners who wish to affiliate with an GS church. 

On the “reasserter” side, in the past their were some that were so upset over what they consider the hijacking of their church that they could find it within themselves to move on.

Hello MM

My Church or Communion broken up yet?  No - oh well keep trying.

Why by the way? you in the CofE, or a Quaker or a Post- Christian or whatever?  Not getting this clearly.  Perhaps you are just in favour of painless separation even if a clear fault line were established, but I have to tell you there is no such animal.

Hope you do find God; if you haven’t already that is and perhaps think twice about the wisdom of breaking up HIS church.

Also have to say that this is a ludicrously long thread; soon be breaking the 200 barrier.  Woo hoo!

Dear MM,
“Scientific , medical and psychological viewpoints overwhelmingly support this position - indeed, advocates of the conservative view have to form their own research centres because the material they produced has been shown to be ethically questionable and those without their biased position are unable to peer review the work affirmatively.”
The same could be said of your advocates of the liberal view!

“since i do not believe in the same religion as you.”
Then why are you in it? Go do your own thing!

” If that’s how you want to play it, “
I am not playing anything you and yours are! I was and am happy worshipping my Father, His Son and living in the Holy Spirit through His divine Word! You’re playing the political minority game and using the Church as your platform for your “cause.” I don’t play with my faith & salvation!

Dear Pageantmaster…I don’t think there is anything “laughable or abusrd” about this thread at all! In as much as I don’t think that two priests getting hitched even in a civil ceremony by another priest is laughable or absurd! It’s disgraceful and rips even further the Communion of God’s Church!

Dear DOK4HS

Ludicrous applies to the sheer length of this thread; not to its content which I think far from farcical and very serious for my church as well as yours.  172 is an extraordinary number of entries and still going strong as far as I can see.  I would humbly suggest that gentle humour in dealing with one another is more than appropriate and perhaps even helpful.

I see no humor in Merseymike’s assertions nor anything that is like unto it! Your word “ludicrously” means exactly
Main Entry: lu·di·crous
Pronunciation: ‘lü-d&-kr&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin ludicrus, from ludus play, sport; perhaps akin to Greek loidoros abusive
1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity
2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish
synonym see LAUGHABLE
- lu·di·crous·ly adverb
- lu·di·crous·ness noun

Maybe the word “seriously” long thread would have worked better!

DOK4HS -
I can agree that the revisionistic view of the Bible is absurdly inept, false and foolish.

Dear DOK4HS Whatever.  There I shall leave it.  Sleep on it.

Pageantmaster: not sure exactly where i will end up at present - but trying to observe and think of a solution.

I do understand what you say about ‘braking up the church’. But don’t you think that is a bit over-dramatic - after all, its not as if it hasn’t many other ‘breaks’ within it? I am pretty sure that if it was left to its own devices, the CofE would contine to muddle through and manage to hold together by its constituewnt parts having nothing to do with each other. Already FiF churches are virtually out on a limb and I think the same sort of network might well form amongst the liberal/progressive churches if a dual integrity was allowed on the sexuality issue, for example.

But, internationally, it appears that we are way past that and its now more a matter of how and when the split will happen. Put it like this, I can’t see it all holding together, and I haven’t a clue about who will be in communion with who at the end of the day

You are right about clear fault lines. It is complex. There are Anglo-Catholic churches which are liberal on gays but won’t let women near the altar, there are Bishops who are conservative on gays but pro-women and very liberal indeed on divorce, there are others who are liberal on gays and women but quite conservative on some political/economic issues….

But I still come back to the view that there is going to be some sort of split, and I’d rather than be done without the level of unpleasantness which we see at the moment ( and which I try not to add to but sometimes fail…)

Churches such as the one in Chelsea have become part of TEC’s Potemkin Village.

The issue is not MerseyMike! If he were in a position of power in the TEC, we could come to an amicable separation. He, again, shows patience and perseverance and rationality and reasonableness despite the hammering! I would much rather have him for a presiding bishop than KJS and her sidekick Beers (or is it the other way around?). MM, are you up for it? Hmm, perhaps the power would corrupt him, though. No, he does have remarkable strength of character not to get ruffled, so I think he is indeed up to it. What say you MM? Would you be willing to be a Yank for a year or two and help the liberals and conservatives come to an amicable separation?

rob-roy:
The one thing you have left out of the mm agenda is that he wants amicable splits between liberals and reasserters in EVERY province in the AC.  Therefore homosexual civil unions/marriages would be ok anywhere in the Communion.  He hasn’t mentioned that on this thread but he has several times on other threads.  Soooooo, you would have to make him head (ABC) of the Anglican Communion.

Bill ; yes, I think that’s logical, because a formal split in the US won’t make the issues go away elsewhere.

I dont expect the issue will go away until Jesus returns, after all same-sex sex was one of those issues that lead to the destruction of Sodom…. and has been an issue throughout Biblical times to the present day. The issue is how to rid the church of its promotion.

For me it does not follow that ‘issues’ necessitate splits and I see no widespread pressure in the CofE for splits even if that were feasible in our established church.  In many ways splitting is the easy option; it means not engaging with each other in a Christian manner when there are disputes; doing our own thing in spite of others.  Look where that has got us.  The harder thing is to engage with each other and deal with the issues prayerfully and to seek HIS guidance for HIS church.

Its an issue mainly for the US, UK and former dominions, a relatively small part of the Communion, athough where we are it can look out of proportion.

It is amazing how far this thread has traveled, all the way to calls for MerseyMike to be the next ABC. As I said, I believe that amicable split is not in the cards. Here in the States, David Beers’ law firm is expected to make millions in the litigation. It is hardly surprising that he advises the PB to continue with them. These lawsuits in turn breed very much un-Christian rancor for all the world to see.

rob-roy:  You are quite right.  MM will have to stick to lecturing.

Nevertheless with his courteous unconfrontational style he would make a very good Christian.

Pageantmaster,

In many ways splitting is the easy option; it means not engaging with each other in a Christian manner when there are disputes; doing our own thing in spite of others.  Look where that has got us.  The harder thing is to engage with each other and deal with the issues prayerfully and to seek HIS guidance for HIS church.

Well and truly said. For me, this is a part of what Anglicanism has always been about. It requires a sense of humility, something often referred to as “holding issues in tension,” but which I tend to prefer to view this as having provisional understandings. By provisional I mean that I have a working hypothesis, a considered (or so I would hope) opinion, but I recognize that I still see “as through a glass darkly.” There are many questions, the answers to which I do not yet know with certitude, and which scripture suggests I may not know until I have been raised at the last day. Until that day comes, to assume that my opinion, based on my limited understanding is the final word; without presuming to “be like God.”

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

P.S., I am posting this even though, since mid-day local time (UTC-7:00) yesterday, the page rendering engine seems to be incorrectly handling tags on a seemingly random basis. It may or may not do so when this is actually posted, but I can find nothing wrong with the HTML when it happens.

Greg or Elves,
Please note the incorrectly rendered italics tags (visible in my last post to this thread), as well as the apparently incomplete sentence preceding the signature. This sentence was completely entered, but the HTML rendering engine simply omitted the balance of the paragraph following an italicized word. I have sent Greg three Private Messages (with attachments) to document the input and output. It is happening on the Preview Page and when the post is sent, although the results are not identical between the two.

Kind regards,
Martial Artist

Pageantmaster,
Herewith a repeat of the final (truncated sentence), replacing italic tags with quotation marks, and inserting a missing comma:

Until that day comes, to assume that my opinion, based on my limited understanding, is the ‘final word’ would be presuming to “be like God.”

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Interesting Martial Artist.  By your definition ‘humility’ is a characteristic not of weakness but of great strength. 

Quite good for a muscular Christian?

This thread has given me clear insight as to why MM is Sarah’s second most favorite reappraiser. 
He is never fails to be polite and calm.  He appears measured and above all is focused on his agenda.  He doesn’t pretend to hold to traditional Christian views - or even Christian views.  He openly admits that the Bible has little to no sway over his opinions.  YET he is clear that he desires an affiliation with a church and has chosen a branch of Anglicanism that has no expectations of him other than those of society.  He also is clear that if in the U.S., he could easily become a member of ECUSA as it holds to that same standard.  Would that the Episcopal Church had been as clear about their goals 25-40 years ago.  Me thinks there would be few Beloved Moderates in our church at this point.

Pageantmaster,
Thank you for the observation. I hadn’t really thought about it in those terms, but I guess it does take a certain amount of (at least) strength of ego, or at least surmounting of one’s intellectual or personal insecurities, to be humble.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

MM is Sarah’s second most favorite reappraiser

Who is number one?