Fr. Jake sees the Light…

An excellent question, Matt, and a gracious challenge. I await Jake’s response (although I won’t be holding my breath as I do).

Good try, Fr. Matt, trying to get them to see the inconsistency of their stance here: censor the Nigerian bishop, but do nothing to Spong. Their extreme anger at you in the comments leads me to believe you’ve hit close to the mark! They’ll never see it that way, though. Too busy yelling, “Hatemonger!” at you….. Oh well.

By Jennifer’s reference, I crossed lines and looked. You’re a good debater Matt+ and you do have them all abuzz. I do hope ++Akinola does the right thing regardless if anyone else does where they have authority. You have made excellent points.

Their defence falls back upon the old universalist claptrap.  No one goes to Hell anyway, Christ was just pulling our leg about that, so leading souls away from Christ and into darkness doesn’t matter.

Heh.

Heh Heh.

Oh Matt—you are just so *divisive* to point out these things.

Keep waving that Spong flag to distract from +Orama’s words, Matt. Bury +Orama’s words deep in an article so that you can claim they were “discussed” on S.F., soft pedal your criticism of the friendly bishop as much as possible so that you can say you denounce it without many people actually seeing it, and make sure to frame the article as a criticism of someone else so that the troops don’t get demoralized.

You want real credibility that this is not about homophobia? Denounce ++Akinola advocating jailing gays for 5 years or +Orama saying that gays are unfit to live as a headline, not something you bury as deeply as possible in criticisms of others.

Oh, that is so not going to happen.

What happened in Nigeria is a hate crime directed at our fellow brothers and sisters and nongendered siblings in Christ.

What Bishop Spong has said is part of the never ending dialogue that is essential to our continuing Anglican experience in our mutual journey together.

It’s like apples and oranges. Or fudge with nuts and fudge without.

PatrickB - you ignore the fact that, had ECUSA deposed the unbelieving bishop, there would be no “Spong flag” to wave.  As with so much else, you reap what you sow.

Suggesting that homosexual people are unfit to live is, as I said, reprehensible.

Teaching doctrines that lead souls to eternal damnation is, from an eternal perspective, far, far worse.

Again the question falls upon authority.  For they will say “We know that bigotry is wrong, but we do not know with any certainty which doctrines are right.”  If there are no wrong doctrines, then there is no responsibility.  They will assert bigotry is wrong based upon their own enlightenment, and then deny true doctrines are knowable based upon epistemological uncertainty.  It’s maddening.

carl

We all know that revisionists will continue to claim that Spong is just a “non-representative” bishop of ECUSA.  And thus they are not responsible for him.  And thus they don’t have to denounce or state that they do not agree with his words.

Regardless of that, I do hope that Archbishop Akinola simply states that he does not agree with the reported words of the bishop, corrects the bishop [or allows him clarification, if he was misquoted]—unlike, of course, the progressives in ECUSA who are unable to say that about Spong, since they secretly agree with him and his theology.

Thanks, Matt, for pointing out the rank inconsistency of ECUSA’s claiming that they are not responsible for a bishop’s words and heresy, but demanding that Archbishop Akinola be responsible for another bishop’s words and heresy.

Matt—you can also take comfort in this thought: “they hate you—they really really hate you!”  ; > )

And they do.  Simply incredible how foaming-at-the-mouth enraged they are over your accurate summary of their inconsistency and hypocrisy.

Obviously what you have pointed out—stings.

So, Phil, why didn’t +Iker, +Duncan, +Schofield, +Howe, and others present charges against him if what he said was so vile? Don’t you believe that that’s part of their duty as bishops to preserve the doctrine of the church? If what +Spong has said is so beyond the pale, why haven’t your loyal orthodox bishops acted to preserve the faith by attempting to have him deposed, or are they delinquent in their duties as bishops of the church?

It couldn’t be that they’d rather have him around to use to distract people with so that they don’t have to remove the log from their own eye, is it? Nah… Couldn’t be…

This may be pedantic, Mousestalker, but the remarks are hate speech, not a hate crime, to my mind.  At least if they were uttered in the US.  We must protect even that speech which we find abhorent, lest all speech be eventualy curtailed and restrained.

Matt,

I just got back from the thread at Jake’s, and I have to say… you PWNED over there. Game, set and match.

Well, PatrickB, a couple of reasons come to mind.  Perhaps it’s the old Episcopalian aversion to rocking the boat, or, in other words, the same reason you and your friends haven’t brought charges against +Iker, +Duncan, +Schofield, et al., even though (generic) you find them “vile.”

Or, it might be the experiences of James Pike and Walter Righter, which both show ECUSA is a church with no beliefs and, therefore, no basis for discipline.  In other words, +Iker, +Duncan, +Schofield, et al. have learned that such an exercise is a waste of time.

We all know that revisionists will continue to claim that Spong is just a “non-representative” bishop of ECUSA.  And thus they are not responsible for him.  And thus they don’t have to denounce or state that they do not agree with his words.

Instead, they keep inviting him to conferences. A sure sign of disapprobation.

mouse stalker (or is it mouses talker?),

At least spell the names in your rant correctly, please, so we know who you are fuming about.

For the record, Bishop Orama’s words are deeply offensive and should not have come from the mouth of a leader of a Christian church. They are the sort of words that make life cheap - which makes them not the words of a Christian. He should be disciplined/removed. We’ve talked about what kind of pastoral care gay-obsessed clergy provide non-gays - what kind of pastoral care could this man provide to a homosexual who came to his church?

Heh… here’s what Jake says in the thread at his place:

A Nigerian bishop has stated that gays are not fit to live. And all you can come up with is Bp. Spong?

Absurd, dishonorable and very sad.

I’ll not honor such twisted thinking with a response. I suggest others do the same.

What’s “absurd, dishonorable and very sad” is Jake’s mendacity: Matt posts a couple of dozen comments condemning the bishop’s words, and supporting a call for +Akinola to exercise discipline, and making a rock-solid case for the danger of unchecked heresy, and Jake writes that “all you can come up with is Bp. Spong?”

Jake won’t reply because he can’t. It’s check and mate, and Matt walks away with it.

And they say it’s us who need to work on that listening process thingy…

No matter how many times this statement is condemned (as it should be) they won’t hear it…

You should have quoted the entire UPI article:

The Anglican Bishop of Uyo, Rt. Rev. Isaac Orama, has condemned the activities of homosexuals and lesbians, and described those engaged in them as “insane people’‘. “It is scaring that any one should be involved in a thing like that and I want to say that they will not escape the wrath of God,’’ he said. Orama told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) today in Uyo, that the practice, which has worsened over the years, was “unbiblical and against God’s purpose for creating man’‘. Homosexuals - 2 “Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God’s purpose for man,’’ the Bishop said. He noted that the Anglican Church in Nigeria had continued to lead the fight against the practice especially in the US where it led the opposition to same sex marriages. “The aim of such fight is to provide a safe place for those who want to remain faithful Anglicans and Biblical Christians,’’ he explained.

The final two sentences are key.  Clearly, in this deranged bishop’s mind, the Nigerian presence in the US is designed to further this cruel and dishonorable goal.  Talk about alternative oversight.  The only remaining question is whether Akinola (or his confidant Minns) approved these statements.

“Listening” is something the orthodox do to the heterodox.  They are free to ignore us and put any words in our mouth whatsoever.  That’s how they turn Matt+‘s condemnations of Orama’s staement into what they see as supporting it. 

If they weren’t typing these out, I’d say they were illiterate.

James,

Here’s the pattern:

Them: “Why won’t you condemn this statement? Don’t you see that every hour that goes by without you condemning it, makes us more certain that you’re really hatemongering homophobes?”

Us: “We did condemn it - at the top of the comment thread two hours ago.”

Them: “So all you can come up with is Spong? How sad, and typical. We knew all along it was about hating queers.”

Us: “No, that’s not true in the least. We did condemn the statement. We bring up Spong because [restate the same points we made four posts ago].”

Them: “Well YOU may have condemned it, but where’s +Iker’s condemnation? Where’s +Duncan’s condemnation?”

Us: “We don’t speak for them. You asked us whether we condemn the statement, and we do.”

Them: “What about gluttony? Huh? What about divorce? Huh?”

You see, James - they don’t really care whether we condemn this or that statement, because they’re convinced that we’re hatemongering homophobes. Nothing we say or do will ever change that, because for them, it is simply not possible to hold the opinion that homosexual behavior is a sin, and have that opinion NOT derive from simple, unthinking hatred.

It is, you see, all about being tolerant and open-minded, able to understand and appreciate nuance and complexity.

I’ll not honor such twisted thinking with a response.

Translation: 

I really can’t respond in a way that suits my ego, so I’ll be [pick one]

a)  merciful to +Matt, or
b)  an honorable coward

and scurry (er, ‘proudly walk’) away with an air of nobility.

Heads up: Susan Russell is ringing her alarm bell.

Which is funny, because… you know… “Nigerian Anglicans are savages”... this is news?

Father Matt brings up a good point.

We are really dealing with two distinct issues.  One is Bishop Orama’s horrible comments, and the other is Archbishop Akinola’s responsiblity for this Bishop’s words and deeds and the general idea of leadership and responsiblity.

If I was to bet, I believe Father Jake (Terry Martin, of Church of the Holy Spirit in Tuckerton), will ultimately respond by calling Matt a bad name.

Stepping back a moment, though, I see all over the internet a general double standard for Christians in America vs. Christians in Africa.  For Akinola specifically, if a liberal does not see Akinola actually say he is against something bad, they assume he supports it.  KJS is not held to the same standard.  It is a fancy form of racism.

DoW

The point, Andrew717, is that Matt and everyone always have to throw in side issues to try to distract the conversation away instead of saying simply and only “This is wrong, hateful, and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.” The format of hte article above only makes that even clearer - any criticism of +Orama that Matt makes is soft-pedaled (e.g. “Well, none of us are *really* fit to live) and buried multiple paragraphs deep in a tract attacking a rival.

Like I said, if you want real credibility that this isn’t about homophobia, lead with headlines condemning +Orama and ++Akinola’s hateful statements and legal efforts. Burying them 5 paragraphs in with soft-pedalling language while trying to score points against your rivals instead encourages people to suspect that in the end this is really about homophobia and you’re just trying to dance around it.

Oh, and thank you, oscewicee, for your clear, forthright, and unequivocal condemnation of +Orama’s hateful language.

You see, James - they don’t really care whether we condemn this or that statement, because they’re convinced that we’re hatemongering homophobes. Nothing we say or do will ever change that, because for them, it is simply not possible to hold the opinion that homosexual behavior is a sin, and have that opinion NOT derive from simple, unthinking hatred.

Too true. And it goes on and on and on. It is so much easier for them to label and dismiss us than it is for them to listen to us. Yep, that listening is a one-way street, man. I’ll talk and you listen.

The point, Andrew717, is that Matt and everyone always have to throw in side issues to try to distract the conversation away instead of saying simply and only

The point, PatrickB, is that there are some things that the Episcopal Church should have been condemning in the strongest possible terms quite a long time ago. Instead, the church has celebrated what it should have condemned and has become in the last 10 years a one-issue church. TEC doesn’t care about God or Christ, putting them both in smaller and smaller boxes, burying them in flesh, in fact. And what you don’t hear, what you refuse to hear, is that we don’t hate gays, many of us have dear friends and beloved relatives who are gays, but we also love God and his Word. Which is why we are Christians. You keep throwing out litmus tests to “prove” we are “homophobes” - and you’re not “proving” a @%$# thing. You’re just continuing not to listen.

And if you want real credibility, PatrickB, lead with headlines condemning the apostasy of Spong, the Resurrection-denying of Chane, the Wiccan priest and priestess in DioPa, the fuzzy Unitarianism of Schori, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.  Advocating for changes that fly in the face of the consistent teaching of the Church throughout the ages and claiming they aren’t changes and, anyway, you’re just as orthodox as everybody else, when you don’t have the time to address the errors in teaching on your side encourages people to suspect that in the end this is really about deconstructing Christianity and you’re just trying to dance around it.

Matt+,
I really see this differently.  Bp. Spong never said that anyone was “unfit to live.”  He never implicitly called on Christians to kill other Christians.  I’m not a big fan of a lot of what Bp. Spong has written, but his intent has always been clear: to try to find ways and approaches to bring the Gospel to those unused to even its language in this post-modern age.  I believe he went too far in many cases.  But this article is not about Bp. Spong.  It’s about, and only should be about, Bp. Orama (presumably) said.  If what Bp. Orama said was wrong, there’s no need to soft-peddle, there’s no need to bring up Bp. Spong.  It only takes away from your message to say, “Yeah, but.”  Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No. 

A Christian saying of another Christian, or any human being, that that one is unfit to live is wrong.  Period.  Full Stop.  I call upon you and all at SF to simply make that affirmation.

RFSJ

Regarding Bp Oyo -

I also find his statement is reprehensible, in that it doesn’t go far enough.  We all deserve death, and in fact we all deserve to be born into Hell. 

That said, his view is one that needs to be addressed with a degree of patience, even as the chips fall where they may. 

I’m thinking of Theonomy here, folks.  It attracts conservatives who’ve been sitting under weak preaching for a long time, because it addresses the more difficult questions with simpler answers.  In my opinion, this is something that you guys (er, ‘we’) are going to hear more and more of, in the coming months and years. 

With regard to ++Akinola, based on this , I think he’ll address the thing with ++Oyo, prudently.

No “yeah but” at all. If he said that, he should be disciplined to the full extent of canonical law.

And ++Akinola as his Archbishop is ultimately responsible for how this is handled. I pray he does the right thing.

The point was that the same is true of Spong and KJS…something they have been denying for a year now.

So to paraphrase you, Matt, “No yeah, but at all. Yeah, he should be disciplined for what he said, assuming he said it. But what about Spong?”

LOL.

OT, but what does “PWNED” stand for?

It must be painful to be caught in such an open and blatant inconsistency. I understand, Patrick, your need to hide from that. It’s okay. We’re a caring community. We love you.

Why is it so hard for the left—who are putatively much smarter than the rest of us—to parse Matt’s very simple argument?  Neither here or at Jake’s, Matt has not tried to distract, he has not dissembled, he has not soft-pedalled his disdain for the Orama’s remarks, and he has certainly not argued any correlation between Orama and Spong.  It’s simply a question of consistency related to the revisionists’ “guilt by association” tactic.  I was going to say this over at Jake’s but it’s clear that nobody’s listening over there.

As an aside, I did leave a comment at Jake’s about the tone of their comments.  It’s only fair to say that some of us have been guilty of vitriol on our end.  It’s ugly no matter which side you’re on.  Jesus sees.

Jake said:

Matt,
A Nigerian bishop has stated that gays are not fit to live. And all you can come up with is Bp. Spong?
Absurd, dishonorable and very sad.
I’ll not honor such twisted thinking with a response. I suggest others do the same.
At least now we know what is currently being touted as “orthodox,” eh?

Good try, Jake, but no cigar.  Matt+ clearly and unequivocally reputed the words of +Orama. 

It appears that a Nigerian bishop may have (if the report is accurate) said some reprehensible things about those who engage in homosexual behavior:

Suggesting that homosexual people are unfit to live is, as I said, reprehensible

He said in no uncertain terms they were reprehensible.  He went even further and said that if left to stand without condemnation or correction, +Akinola is responsible.

Fr. Jake has seized upon the bishop’s words and has, rightly in my opinion, pointed out that it is Archbishop Akinola’s responsibility to correct and discipline the bishop or else, as the spiritual head of his province, participate in the bishop’s error:

But his article addresses the issue of whether you will hide behind hyprocrisy or step up and say one way or the other whether you believe +Schori is likewise responsible for not repudiating Spong.  Play the man, Jake.  Answer the question.

We should admit that liberals can respond.  Their response however will presume that arguing about doctrine is utterly devoid of any meaningful content.  To a liberal, religion is about process and not creed.  Spong has one opinion, Fr Jake another, and Bishop Akinola a third.  What each may think about the nature of God will matter to a liberal not at all, for he assumes that no one knows the truth with any certainty.  How then can God find fault?

But liberals do see themselves as farther along in the “process”, and therefore capable of making authoritative pronouncements on issues of morality.  That we do not listen to them is the ultimate evidence of our own less-developed status.  To compare (as they see it) an esoteric issue like doctrine to someone being killed is to them the height of folly.  One has to believe that bad doctrine has eternal consequences for this to be otherwise.

carl

I read the comments at both sites and have decided the revisionists read as well as they listen.

Here is a nice bit of advice from a tolerant mainstream episcopalian at Fr. Jake’s place:

Matt:

How’s this for Scripture?

“And Judas went and hanged himself.”

“Go thou and do likewise.”

Susan Russell is repeating over and over “Not fit to live” on her blog.  Well, I have news for her.  Not one of us is fit to live—not I, not her, not any of us.  It is only through the grace of God and the sacrifice on the cross of Jesus that any of us have life.  She may not like this said, but there it is. Unfortunately, it doesn’t fit in with progressive thinking (especially Spong’s) who say that all are saved, no matter what the sin, the belief, or lack of belief. Sin without repentance and the acceptance of this unfathomable gift, is death.

Sue,
According to Ms Russell, an unwanted, unborn baby is not fit to live.  I think we know her position on the value of life.

<applause to Elizabeth>

Father Matt might have soft-pedaled this a little.  Look at all the qualifiers here:

It appears that a Nigerian bishop may have (if the report is accurate) said some reprehensible things about those who engage in homosexual behavior.

There are a lot of qualifiers: “appears,” “may have” “if” “some.”

Take out most of the above words, and the statement gains strength without losing precision:

If the report is accurate, a Nigerian bishop said reprehensible things about those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Still, the weakness in writing does not undermine Father Matt’s very good point, and the revisionists should respond to it…not dismiss it.

Selah
With all due respect, Matt used due caution.  The Bishop in question has not owned the words yet and we have no other independent source verifying the accuracy of the report.  They are after all, quite astounding so much so we should use caution to determine if they are accurately reported.  We’ve all seen more than one MSM - or any media for that matter - take things out of context.  But in any event, Matt was quite clear, if the report is accurate, some of his words were reprehensible.  He then quoted the words that he found reprehensible.

I want to say this in the strongest and plainest terms possible:
ASSUMING THAT THE QUOTE IS ACCURATE, THE RT.REV.ISAAC ORAMA IS A SORRY EXCUSE FOR A CHRISTIAN. HE SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES BY ++AKINOLA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND RUN OUT OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF NIGERIA ON A RAIL.

Having said that, I can assure you that Jake and the gang will continue to tar us with the same brush that should properly be used on +Orama. I have not heard one response from the orthodox side that has stated anything other than the harshest comdemnation of this sorry excuse for a bishop. But Matt’s question (If archbishops/bishops are indeed responsible for their flock, why have ++Shori & Co. not denounced the quite obviously heretical teachings of Spong?) will be lost in the brouhaha and never, ever answered.
Because there is no good (from the revisionista standpoint) answer to the question. They will continue to fuss, fume, sputter, wail and gnash their teeth and try to tell the world that it is all our fault that some dipstick bishop in Africa apparently suffers from diarrhea of the mouth.

I will say this: If ++Akinola doesn’t do something about this and do it soon, I and a lot of other people are going to have some serious reevaluating to do.

the snarkster

Fr. Matt - I’m afraid that what we can all see there on that thread is par for the course, and I say that from long experience.

My counsel is to give it up: you’ve made your point, repeatedly and well, and you’ll only be goaded into saying something you’ll regret.

Most of us on this side of the aisle make the mistake of thinking that we can get somewhere if we only talk things out – in fact, we enjoy such a discussion.  But, you can see where the conversation always winds up with that crowd:

“Matt your so sick and people let me you get away with it by feeding you. You think murder is fine - we get that - now go away.”

“Maybe it’s time to just ignore Matt. If no one responds to any of his vile, he’ll eventually go away ... He has his own blogsite where he can spew hatred in The Word According to Matt.”

“Kennedy and his kind are truly evil, and their words are poisonous and repugnant to Christ and his teachings. Do not be fooled: Kennedy agrees fully with Orama, but does not really have the courage to speak what he truly feels.”

and, of course, being told to hang yourself for the crime of standing where Christians have always stood (Hey, isn’t that commenter saying people that think like Matt are “unfit to live?”  I thought that was a matter for screeching condemnation?  Or is that only when it’s said about gays?).

Jake himself said it best:

I’m not removing the ugly bits of this thread, because I think folks need to see who these extremists really are.

Let them condemn themselves with their own words.

I agree – let them.

I thought Jakes comments rather appropriate too, considering what is actually on that thread.

Like Phil, I’ve commented a few times on Fr Jakes, and in the same way, it degenerated into insults in leui of genuine debate.  I figured soon enough that it just wasn’t overly healthy to be there.

I think many of us would be encouraged if the leaders of TEC even expressed mild disagreement with Spong’s theology? If the leadership of TEC expressed their disapproval of any of Spong’s teachings and affirmed their belief in Scripture, there might be a basis for reconciliation - but - Spong still advertises his lectures and publications with his title “Bishop”.  His lectures are advertised in Episcopal Church newspapers, and Beliefnet describes John Shelby Spong as “the most published member of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States”:

  “John Shelby Spong, Beliefnet columnist
The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, D.D., is the retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark. As the author of 14 books, he is the most published member of the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States. His bestsellers include “Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism” and “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” He is a frequent lecturer at conference centers and on college campuses and will be a guest lecturer at Harvard this spring.”

It seems to me that Spong’s influence on The Episcopal Church is more powerful than it should be and we all suffer for that.

1) Trying to read through this thread and the one at Jake’s was overwhelming. Luckily, I had saved on the side Greg Griffith’s “Us and Them” comment timed at 10:08 AM that outlined the play by play of the arguments. Otherwise, I would have been LOST.
2) The quotes from this Bishop of Nigeria do seem to support the LGBT claim about “less than fully human”. In hindsight, it might have been better to make two threads; First a thread devoted to repudiating the deserving of death idea. Only then, after the first thread had run a few hours, a separate thread using Jake+‘s blog to make Matt+‘s very valid point about inconsistency regarding hierarchy and authority.

My thoughts exactly, Deja Vu, per your (2) above.  So much so, I felt like I had already seen them before.  Strange. 

Anyway, I realize that at any given moment there is probably an Anglican bishop somewhere saying something crazy, but this sort of thing makes me really uncomfortable and we would earn some favor if we were to condemn it immediately.  Seems to fly in the face of Lambeth, Windsor, and the Primates’ Communiques.

How about we do something truly novel? Perhaps we might pray for Jack Spong and for Isaac Orama that both would be filled with the love of Christ for all God’s children so that neither would be the proponent of teaching that would do harm to any.  If Bishop Orama said the things attributed to him and they were said in the context reported, his words are likely to incite harm to others.  Jack Spong unabashedly teaches that which likely harms the eternal souls of others.  Both teachings require rebuke and rejection.  And the advocates of such teachings need our prayers.

We really need time for the Church of Nigeria to sort this out.  The UPI article, imho, is conspicuously soundbyted.  The author does not seem interested in discussing the obvious “and’s” (breadth of condemnation) and “but” (the Good News that applies to all that have ears to hear) that ought to accompany the alleged statement. 

The other thing that seems superficial to me is that the article does not attempt to ask what the statement “are not fit to live,” means.  At worst, it has implications for how governments ought to punish homosexuality.  At best it’s a portion of a generic moral statement (ripped out of context by the UPI reporter ..?) that any reasserter would agree with:  “Yeah, sure - homosexuals are not fit to live for what they do, just as I am not fit to live for lusting after the office hottie for ten seconds last month.”

Even if the statement is as bad as we imagine (actually, especially if it is this bad) I really think UPI handled this poorly.  I’m up for waiting for some clarity here, before going off the deep end. 

FYI folks, my marriage is a fusion of two cultures.  What I learned in the first few months, is that our abilities to speak English, do not ensure that communication will occur between the two of us.  Active listening is never, ever, wrong.

And to reiterate (lest I be misrepresented by Jake’s bunch, not that there’s anything wrong with that), if the bishop’s statement was quoted faithfully by UPI, then that bishop needs to be taken to task by ++Akinola.

Everybody seems to accept that Bishop Oroma was offensively and reprehensibly wrong in his statement. However:

*Isn’t* it insane to endanger your salvation by doing something clearly condemned in scripture, and by trying to alter or reinterpret scripture to allow your perversion? Isn’t that at least a little scary, or rebellious?

Maybe Bishop Orama should have recognized that all people are sinners and not picked out homosexuals for his criticism. Yet, Satan has picked out homosexuality as the sharp point of the spear he is using to destroy Godly faith. It’s so far been an excellent strategy. That being so, the bishop is not wrong in attacking the spear’s very point and failing to give full attention to the other sections of the spear. How is that hate?

Now, yes, the good bishop went too far in saying that homosexuals aren’t fit to live. That’s judgement, and he will receive his own judgement - but not from us. And, yes, he should apologize for that one portion of his statement. But, isn’t the rest of what he said actually true???

Truth OFTEN hurts, but it also saves.

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

If it turns out that Bishop Orama’s words have been reported accurately (and I pray they haven’t), perhaps we reasserters should consider writing to ++Akinola and/or +Orama directly to voice our concern.  Yes, our Worthy Opponents often yell “homophobe” when it is unwarranted, but when it really does rear its ugly head we should be willing to denounce it as well.  Thankfully, Matt+ and the posters here have been clear in doing this.

However, in cases like this I think it’s particularly important for us to show that we are willing to confront even our allies when they speak and act in ungodly ways.  Statements like the ones +Orama reportedly made make us all look bad and do not represent most reasserter’s views.  They push homosexual people away from the Church instead of inviting them to be healed and transformed.  They help reappraisers feel justified in condemning all of us as bigots.

If these statements turn out to be accurate, I think ++Akinola and +Orama need to be reminded of how these kinds of statements are not only contrary to the Gospel, but also how they are hurting our witness.  Let us pray that ++Akinola takes quick, decisive action in denouncing this.

YBIC,
Stephen

There is a slight bit of difference here.  +Akinola’s bishops swear an oath to him.  The bishop who allegedly made these remarks (and I say “allegedly” because we only have one source) reports to him.  +Akinola can ask this bishop to apologize recant etc.  He is perfectly within his rights to do so.  +Katharine Schori is not in the same position.  First, +Spong is retired.  Second, it would take presentment brought by three bishops, any three.  As correctly pointed out, +Ackerman, +Schofield, +Duncan,  Iker, etc. could have done so at any time.  +Akinola has a major problem here.  Either his bishop is appallingly homophobic, appallingly politicaly obtuse, or both but +Akinola has the authority to solve the problem.  Anyone who has read the Church of Nigeria Constitution knows it.  It will be interesting to see what action he might take?

So it’s completely impossible for her to do anything at all about Spong, eh? She couldn’t discourage, for instance, his speaking engagements in TEC? She couldn’t warn the faithful that his “teachings” are outside the realm? She’s just helpless, utterly?

Emily, KJS did not have to invite Spong to her diocese to speak. While there, he was completely under her authority and he spoke at her leisure and with her approval. She invited him. She called all of her clergy to attend. She let him speak. This was 2003 long after his 12 Theses were published. By the same logic employed at Fr. Jake’s place, she is wholly responsible for all of the heresies that he spouted there and unless she distances herself from him, his heresies are her heresies.

Jackie,

I agree that Matt+ needs to use caution when dealing with MSM.  IMHO, I still think that the phrasing “If the report is accurate, a Nigerian bishop said reprehensible things about those who engage in homosexual behavior,” acknowledges the problems with MSM while aptly criticizing hate speech.  The other qualifiers make his criticism seem bland.

Emily H - Are you deliberately misreading Matt’s words or are you just trying to plant a flag for Jake? 
Do you not recognize how wonderful it would be if just ONCE 815 were to denounce any of the heresies that are permeating ECUSA?  Like for instance, Jesus didn’t die for our sins but because of our sins?  Or that Jesus is not the son of God?  Just those two would make a great start.  How about you?  Do you denounce the teachings of Spong and Ed Bacon?  Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only son of God and that He is The Way, The Truth and The Life?  I’ll start.  I believe the teachings of both Ed Bacon and John Spong are garbage fit for the bottom of the bird cage.  I believe Jesus Christ is in fact the only son of God, born of a real virgin, was really crucified, died on the cross for my sins and was raised (physically) from the dead.  Without Him, no one comes to the Father.

Matt+  If this gentlemen did say what he is alleged to have said, the problem is Akinola’s.  He has absolute control over his clergy and they are accountable to no one but him on this still earthly plain.  You can try to spin this into something about Spong and +Katherine Jefferts Schori, but it isn’t.  It’s about +Akinola and how he respondsbto those who are accountable to him.

Please be reminded that God does not see people who self-identify as ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ as a special ‘people’ exempt or granted special consideration but includes them (as stated in I Corinthians 6:9-11, 10:13) but only as women and men who have distorted self identities and who have conditioned and misdirected sexual feelings toward persons of the opposite sex.

All sin is a form of idolatry and rebellion.  Our bodies are to be living sacrifices, the flesh crucified, instruments of righteousness.

As Mario Bergner wrote in his articles, the terms used by the homosexual agenda are extra-biblical and invented for their apologetic.

Do not concede to use their terms.  We must only define and identify ourselves as God does.  All else is sin.

Agreed Emily. It is Akinola’s responsibility. And I agree with Greg’s article above.

And, also, the next time an orthodox leader suggests that Spong is indicative of the sort of theology embraced by the PB, you will agree no doubt…since she clearly participated in and facilitated his ministry and has not yet distanced herself from him.

Y’know, as I read the reappraiser diatribes at Jake’s and Susan’s places over the unbelievable hubris (to be kind) of Fr. Matt to even think about comparing advocating violence against LGBT et al persons with the “mere” heresy of Spong, I can’t help but think of this passage:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.—Matt. 10.28

Anthony,

I think ++Akinola has a responsibility to discipline bishop Orama. Not to do so is to participate in his false teaching.

I also think bishop Schori, as PB, has a responsibility to take whatever action she can against Spong. Inviting him and hosting him in her diocese in 2003 to, of all things, instruct her clergy, is essentially, participating in his wicked work. Her current position especially would benefit from such action.

Matt,

Did you eat TWO bowls of Wheaties today?  Or have you discovered an anti-hornet spray that you are testing out by kicking over the nest?

The line of comments over at Jake’s place was impressive.  They don’t like you very much and if you were gay they would hate you all the more.

As to the present post, it really is a valid question, but I don’t think Terry is brave enough to provide an answer. 

Peace

As a somewhat off topic note:

Spong has achieved just what he wanted…. to have lots of attention on himself.

EmilyH - No response?

Ah, Matt+, I think you got yourself BBJ’d .  Or was Jake just saying goodnight?

Yes, Spong has achieved what he wanted - but the question is have the Presiding Bishop and TEC accepted Spong’s theology.

Betty, KJS, when she was bishop of Nevada, invited Spong to her diocese to a special Guest of the bishop lecture series. Perhaps this is one reason that the diocese actually shrunk by 10% in her tenure while the population of the state exploded (fastest growth in the country) which was dead last in terms of population adjusted diocesan growth (or in this case diocesan shrinkage).

Rob Roy,  Maybe I missed it, but it seems to me that the Presiding Bishop contradicts Scripture more often than she says anything contrary to Spong’s theology.

Right on the money, Matt. Ironically, I was having a very similar discussion with “reappraisers” about this issue earlier today. Well, maybe it wasn’t a discussion—when I asked them why they, good people, never contradicted their comrades who labeled us all “homophobes,” there was silence. And silence again when I mentioned that reasserters have and will criticize over-the-top and unfair comments made about homosexuals or reappraisers.

I was also reminded of reading a series of letters between ABC George Carey and Spong when someone asked why ECUSA never brought charges against Spong. I managed to find one of them and I think links are available to more. Interesting re-read, 10 years after the fact!
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/abc2spong.html

this is by far the best comment on the whole thread:

Bishop Spong’s crime is bad theology, probably even a little heresy.

Or was Jake just saying goodnight?

+Matt was sharing the Gospel.  Apparently, not in season.

Betty, I catch your drift. Bp Spong has bad theology and KJS has a different bad theology.

Sifted through some of the responses to Father Matt’s pointing out of the hypocrisy of the left and they miss they boat by thinking that there is an asserted equivalency of the badness. Stating homosexuals are “unfit to live” is bad, leading Christians astray by teaching by advocating heresy is bad. This is not equivalent badness. BUT both should be condemned. To condemn one without the other is hypocritical. Easy!

I’ve now been asked to leave, but apparently not banned, from Fr. Jake’s place.

It is so very interesting that we are being accused of making this political when in fact Jake’s original post was little more than an attempt to use Orama’s despicable words to draw down fire on ++Akinola. Fr. Jake saw the political hay to be made from the very beginning.

And speaking of political capitalization…here’s Fr. Mark Harris.

This stuff is so sick that if any part of either story is true there needs to be more than apologies and removal from the lists of acceptable bishops for Lambeth and suspension of this priest from further service, there needs to be ecclesiastical enquiry and discipline.

One one level there is no way to top this sort of violence.

On another level Archbishop Kolini has taken part in another sort of violence. His Province has determined to make the wholly owned subsidiary called AMiA twice its current size. So the Province of Rwanda will ordain three new bishops for American soil bringing the international component of the Network partnerships to a new high.

+Matt,

Would it be sychophantic of me to offer this observation? 

I’ve read through your dialogues with Jake’s Pace (Skimming over the ones that weren’t interacting with you), and I’m amazed at your patience in dealing with folks who don’t understand a simply stated, reasoned argument, let alone one that was repeated ad nuaseum (On the plus side, it does make me a lot prouder of my 19-month old baby-girl!). 

You’ve got some gifts there, brother.  There’s no doubt in my mind about your calling, either.

Thank you Moot, very much, for the encouragement.

Matt=,  I think the discussion at jake’s place pretty much sums up the differences between the sides.

Unfortunately, the folks over there are more concerned with having a ‘good’ life here on earth than on what’s going to happen on Judgment Day.

Hence, all of the sputtering and indignation at the anti-gay words by the good Bishop (which were obviously wrong and can’t be hidden) and a total blank look at the mention that Spong has actually led people astray, caused a generation of liberals to reject basic doctrine and risk their souls.

You tried, but they just refused.  Of course, for them to acknowledge that linkage (between the anti-gay words and the anti Gospel words) would require them to acknowledge their bad theology and repent, and I don’t think that will come about as a result of a discussion on a blog.

Since I have been asked to leave Fr. Jake’s I will continue to respond to the rediculous arguments of his commenters here. The most recent has been this most fatuous post by Paul A.:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/terry137/2028890534447579433/#456900

Jake, if you’ve chased away Fr. Kennedy we will never get (as if we would ever get) his admission that his entire argument was based on a lie.

His thread-hijacking thesis was (a) that Archbishop Akinola should discipline Bishop Orama for his specific comment or else he is “responsible” for those comments. From this he concludes—and posits that you will agree—that (b) all bishops in The Episcopal Church are responsible in the same way for not having “disciplined” Bishop Spong for his [unstated] heresies and in particular that (c) Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori is likewise responsible for having invited Bishop Spong to speak at a clergy conference in her diocese some years ago for the heresies promulgated there.

The problem with (b), however, is that no one—including Fr. Kennedy—has ever proven charges of heresy against Bishop Spong in an ecclesiastical court: the only forum to establish this charge available in TEC. No one has even brought charges.

The problem with (c) is that—as Fr. Kennedy only admitted way downthread—he hasn’t the slightest idea whatsoever of what Bishop Spong said at that clergy conference. He may have been explaining how bishops should deal with errant priests in their dioceses. He may have been relating how to find a publisher who will publish anything with minimal editing. We just don’t know, and neither does Fr. Kennedy. So to say that the Presiding Bishop is “responsible” for heretical statements by Bishop Spong is wholly false. It is the same kind of “defamatory lie” (to use Kennedy’s term) that he accuses others of upthread. (A little projection, no?)

So, loath as I am to make personal attacks, Fr. Kennedy here has shown himself to be not only a hijacker of threads but a bearer of false witness. He is consequently the same kind of “false teacher” he accuses the majority of Episcopalians of being. He needs to be called on this, and not just allowed to walk away with an air of righteousness he does not deserve.

And of course he coupounded this on his own blog by continuing the posit that you, Jake, agree with his false thesis.

My reference to the Prayer of Humble Access, by the bye, was to the phrase “We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies.” Fr. Kennedy presumes to trust in his own righteousness. His trust is ill-placed, given his conduct. Don’t forget it.

First, where on earth does Paul A. get the idea that “I trust in my own righteousness”? It is remarkable that on a thread in which I have over and over again noted that we are all, by nature, worthy of wrath and redeemed by grace alone through faith alone…in which I have admitted clearly and plainly my own sinfulness and unworthiness that Paul A. could make such a charge and then, for extra pique, suggest that I am guilty of false witness. Glass houses Paul, glass houses.

Second, and I’ll have to pick this one up later. Paul suggests that “bishop” Spong cannot be a heretic. Why?...he hasn’t been condemned by an ecclesial court. He publicly denies every major tenet of the Christian faith, but, according to Paul he is not a heretic until the Episcopal Church declares him to be so. What a wonderful example of apparatich-think. No Paul, you are a heretic when, from a position of ecclesial authority, you embrace and promote a teaching contrary to the Word of God. This is true whether the Episcopal Church recognizes it to be so or not. The Church can “recognise” that truth, but her recognition does not “make” it true.

I’ll come back to this later in the day.

Also, quickly, I did not suggest that Fr. Jake “agrees with me” in my article. Rather, I agree with Fr. Jake in that it is Akinola’s job to take action. I agree with the principle that he is articulating here. Paul, again, significanly misconstrues my point…another case of “false witness”

Fr. Matt:

How amazing YOU were banned by Fr. Jake.  How indicative of the ‘tolerance’ of the non-orthodox.

I would not be surprised at all if you later were castigated for ‘choosing to leave the conversation’ and ‘breaking the communion (or communication, in this case)’.

All the while, of course, Fr. Jake has suffered no similar banning over at this site and is welcome to be ‘in communion’ with us.

However, remember we are ‘the intolerant’ ones.

Interesting, interesting… and how totally sad.

Eclipse, yes Jake’s place is a study in religious hypocrisy…preach inclusivity and open-mindedness, practice the opposite. He did not, however, ban me. He did ask me to leave.

Back to Paul’s post…I have addressed his point b above. In his point c he suggests that since I do not know precisely what Spong said in the clergy conference venue that my charges are specious.

First, regardless of what he said, whatever he said, she is responsible for it as the event took place in her diocese under her authority.

Second, she invited him in 2003 as a “facilitator” for a diocesan clergy conference and touted him as a leading light of “progressive Christianity.” This is after the publication of his 12 Theses in which Spong not only rejects Christianity, but Theism altogether. He was, at the time, touring the nation blathering on about a new Reformation…which it turns out never quite took off.

In any case, she invited a well-known notorious and public heretic to her diocese to “facilitate” the clergy-conference of her diocese. This most certainly makes her guilty of violating 2nd John 9-11 in which believers are told not even to offer greeting and hospitality to heretics and that those who do “participate in their wicked works”.

So, yes, regardless of what Spong said at the event itself…and have no doubt, it was consistent with what he has said before or after…KJS is responsible not only for that but responsible for supporting and furthering the ministry of a heretic and is, thus, a participant in his wicked work.

Heh.

I have to again give the old high sign to Matt.  You ‘da man, Matt!

I read revisionist blogs about once every two months, and even then it’s just a light skimming.  What an array of spluttering, rage, hissing, clawing, name calling, and inability to answer Matt’s argument was over at Father Jakes.

This makes me much prouder of our commenters.  The comparison is so stark. 

The thing that’s weird in all of this is that they won.  Why aren’t they happy?  We lost.  Why aren’t we bitter and spiteful?  It’s a startling contrast.

Matt—you are impressive!  ; > )    Father Jake decided that you—and only you—were just too hot to handle yesterday.  You were incredibly gracious, and they looked like . . . well, it’s clear to all.

Matt:  I’m the one who put the “Judas went and hanged himself”  “Go thou and do likewise” posting on Fr. Jake’s blog.  Honestly, I didn’t mean it in the way you took it.  It’s an old joke which I quoted in order to poke fun at some literalists who ignore the contexts of Biblical passages and simply believe that if something is in the Bible, it is valid for all situations.  As I said in an apology to you later on that blog, I would never have wanted you to go hang yourself.  I don’t wish you any harm, but if I did, the worst I would wish you would be to endure listening to fingernails being scratched across a chalkboard!

Wolfstan, thank you for that. I did not see your comment or I would have called attention to it sooner. Thank you again for your graciousness.

<a >David</a>—Yes, that comment at Jake’s is clearly a winner in the Understatement of the Decade category, but my favorite is
Marc’s which follows it:

And even if this story is a fabrication, as Cary contends (but I believe Cary is wrong), it certainly is an indictment that it is so easy to believe that an “orthodox” bishop in Nigeria would actually advocate dehumanization.

—this from people who have demonstrated over and over again that they will believe absolutely anything that plumps up their self-esteem.

Good grief, Craig. That one is really grasping at straws. Guilt by speculation? I hope this guy never serves on a jury!

If Wolfstan can take a little humor, when I read the “the worst I would wish you would be to endure listening to fingernails being scratched across a chalkboard!” I thought, man, isn’t that almost as bad???  Whatever happened to love your enemies!!!!!  My teeth are still aching at the thought.  God bless you, Wolfstan, for setting it right.

We agree that +Orama is way out of line.  And are saddened that a correction of any kind has not been issued yet either by +Orama or Akinola as it appeared on Sept. 2nd - 4 days ago. by UPI.  And by correction—that it is either a misquote or an error in judgement that has been corrected.  +Orama’s comment certainly doesn’t reflect how us L2 feel.  This wounded the entire body of Christ.

“I eagerly and expectantly await Fr. Jake’s recognition that the Presiding Bishop…bears responsibility for and participates in the teachings of John Shelby Spong”

Brilliant!

I note that Mark Harris’ comment on Preludium has drawn exactly zero outrage from the other side:

The Nigerian bishop has declared human beings less than human and unfit to live. The Rwandan bishops have declared the Episcopal Church less than Christian and unfit to exist. AMiA has decided to look to the unchurched in North America and includes in that number the members of The Episcopal Church.

The first is clearly worse than the last, but they are of a kind.

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/

The real battle is against orthodox belief. I’m not surprised that now the effort is to paint us all with the Nigerian bishop’s words.

On Mark Harris, why is it “positioning for power and influence” and “shameful” when overseas churches establish a presence here, but when ECUSA insists it owns the whole United States (somebody tell the Roman Catholics) it’s all sunshine and cookies?

Andrew: to-may-to, to-mah-to

Chip: Who’s name did I mis-spell?. And I did not intend to rant. I was trying to snark.

I guess I am not suprised, but the revisionist camp stays true to its creed by finding the one nat in the microscope and proclaiming it to be the whole world just because they have yet to pull their eye from the viewfinder.

Sad to say, but any and all protestations by reassterters that +Orama’s words do not represent what we think of homosexuals will fall on deaf ears.  They have heard what they will and nothing else.

Silly people.

Speaking of Spong, you really have to read his latest gift to orthodox Anglicans:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/an_unfortunate_letter.html

Dear Greg Griffith, would you think it prudent to make Bishop Spong’s open letter to +++Rowan a separate thread?

That’s their hero!

Ah yes!!! John “Don’t Believe a Word Of It” Spong: The gift that just keeps on giving. Whatta guy…....

the snarkster

To be fair, Naughton’s embarrassed as he can possibly by Spong’s letter.

What about this comment?- “Spong, like N. T. Wright, has become one of those figures whose public utternances frequently do more to bolster the cause of his adversaries than his allies. ”  Talk about a slam there.

“Naughton’s embarrassed as he can possibly by Spong’s letter”

How much is that?

Naughton has posted astute criticism of Spong’s letter:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/an_unfortunate_letter.html

I read revisionist blogs about once every two months, and even then it’s just a light skimming.  What an array of spluttering, rage, hissing, clawing, name calling, and inability to answer Matt’s argument was over at Father Jakes.

Sarah!

YOU ARE BLOWING OUR COVER!  We have them all thinking all we do in our spare time is read their blogs, and now, they know the truth - we really don’t care.  Remember:  We are supposed to be obsessing about Elizabeth Keaton - or is it Susan Russell?  Which one has the Umbridge-pink website?  I always forget.  Whichever one should be in impaired communion until they take a class in color modification… bleah.

I’ll do you one better - I don’t have time to read StandFirm well so I don’t think I’ve ever even read an entire post on a revisionist site unless it is first posted here.  I figure if it ain’t on StandFirm, it ain’t news.

Anyway, back on point…

Re:  Taking responsiblity as a Professional

Well, most of us in positions of authority DO take responsibility<b> for what goes on when we are supposed to be in charge of things - true leaders DON’T pass the buck onto others…

I think that pretty well sums up KJS and the Episcopal church.

Which one has the Umbridge-pink website?  I always forget. 

Eclipse - I had just finished a cup of coffee when I read that. I am glad that I finished it, because I think I would have spat most of it out in laughter…

I think that this is just a bit more proof that you really can’t talk to these people. The evidence mounts day by day.

“How wonderful it would be if just ONCE 815 were to denounce any of the heresies that are permeating ECUSA”—-Jackie

Excellent point. Just once.

Connecticutian, our opponents have demonstrated that they cannot, or care not, understand the plain meaning of Scripture.  If God, Himself, cannot use words in a way that will get through to them, we dare not think that we can communicate anything to them verbally. 

Is this hyperbole?  Perhaps a little.  But there really is no common language anymore.

I posted this info over on T19. Don’t know if it has any significance.

I googled “bishop orama” and got many hits for the story about his statement re homosexuals from blogs and homosexual news sources, but nothing from the regular media. I repeated the search on Yahoo News and got no hits. On Google News I got one hit, from a German homosexual source. Fr Kendall had furnished a link to a UPI story on Bishop Orama’s statement, http://www.upi.com/AfricaMonitoring/view.php?StoryID=20070902-831713-6007-r . On that link there is a search box. I entered “orama” and got NO RESULTS. I’ve tried the same search on UPI’s home page and got the same result.

It seems odd to me that UPI’s own search facility doesn’t have any record of the story, althouth Fr Kendall’s link is good, and that none of the regular media seem to be covering the story. I’m wondering strongly if there *IS* a story. Does anyone know anything about this?

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas

I once said out loud, before I could take it back, that I thought that Bishop Spong was wrong about 99% of what he said. And I suppose those numbers might fluctuate a bit in my mind, but its close enough. But then I thought about the one percent, the one lost sheep, the one banished from the fold, condemned to hell by the church as evil, inhuman, and satanic, and I began to see. Bishop Spong may indeed be wrong about 99% of the time in his theological pronouncements and doctrinal exactitudes, but by going out of the sheepfold, into the outer darkness, where he has suffered the outrageous slings and arrows of those who would kill his spirit with their death dealing words, and faced the hell others would make and stoke for him with their words, for having had the courage to do so, I say he has the mind and the body of Christ within him, and tonight, when I too feel myself in the pits, I give the greatest thanks to the episcopal witness of Bishop John Shelby Spong. May he rest in peace this night.
Clark West

Clark

That was a rather - erm - ‘dramatic’ defence of an unbeliever (yes - a harsh but true word) who holds Christianity in such contempt.

Come on, he doesn’t even believe in God. Have you actually read his 12 Theses?

Derek:

The last time I had been on that site, it was right after seeing “The Order of the Phoenix” - it was just too much of a coincidence. 

clark west :

Let’s try to see this logically - so what you are saying is that if a person has one good idea, it should negate all the bad ones they had.  The analogy that immediately leaps to mind is that of dictators.  Napoleon, for example, came up with the Napoleonic Code - so that makes his determined take over of Europe a moot point, correct?  And Stalin’s 5 Year Plan for Russia makes his oppression and destruction of the people of the Soviet Union not relevant, right? And Hitler’s rescuing of the Germany economy makes all his other atrocities not worth remembering?  Hmm….

I’m going to beg to differ with that take on things.  I think it is neither logical NOR just.

The problem with Spong, and those like him, is not just that they have poor ideas - or even have poor theology.  The problem is that they LEAD others astray by them - and do ETERNAL damage to souls.  In this way, they do more extensive damage than those who can kill the body or destroy democracy. Their ‘99 ideas’ are deceiving people and condemning them forever - not just a lifetime. 

I find that, as a Christian, not acceptable.

Clark: You’re kinda missing the point of the 99 sheep and the one that went astray.  The good shepherd has his 99 sheep </b>in a safe place</b>.  They’re taken care of , they’re not lost.  He goes after the single lost one because he doesn’t settle for a 99% success rate, as most people would.  The one lost sheep is not expendable - he wants it, too.  But he doesn’t just abandon the 99 to go haring off over hill and dale to find the one that wandered away.  Your comparison implies that it’s admirable to let infinite harm come to everyone else (which is what Spong’s 99% error amounts to) - sheep abandoned to be grabbed by predators, fall into canyons and wander off to starve - as long as the ONE is rescued.  The lost sheep is not the star of the movie, it’s the Shepherd.  The story is about HIM and HIS character.

Clark—I have a difficult time seeing a courageous evangelist braving the world’s abuse in a man who has violated his oath of office to become a well-paid celebrity by trashing Scripture on the basis of the moral precepts of the Editorial page of the New York Times.

But maybe that’s just me.

Clark, the problem is that any “sheep” who clings to the “gospel” Spong preaches clings to an idol. He does not bring people to the real Jesus, he brings them to a lie dressed as an angel of light.

Dave and Anthony:  I’ve also searched diligently since this first appeared and can find no verification of the accuracy of this second-hand story from UPI.  The supposed source, News Agency of Nigeria, has nothing on their site about it.  Perhaps we’ve all jumped far too quickly?  Not only is the MSM notoriously inaccurate, it is an equally major problem with the reporting done in Africa.  I’d like to wait to see if the facts support this second-hand UPI story.  The “if the report is accurate” qualification that Matt and others have added is extremely important.  We owe some patience before leaping to condemn Bishop Orama.  Anyone remember CBS and President Bush?

Well, it’s history now ^_^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In faith, Dave
Viva Texas