Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14
|
"Be on your guard. Stand firm in the faith. Be brave. Be strong. Be loving in everything you do." - I Corinthians 16:13-14 |
Defeat of Federal Marriage Amendment
Integrity is gratified that the Federal Marriage Amendment failed in the
U.S. Senate today. Although the country as a whole is still divided on
same-sex marriage, our elected senators have wisely rejected an attempt
to write discrimination against gay and lesbian couples into the
Constitution-the foundation of liberty for all the citizens of this
nation.
Integrity applauds Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the Episcopal
Church's Office of Government Relations for their work on this issue.
Integrity also thanks those Episcopal senators who voted to block the
measure.
(The Reverend) Susan Russell, President
John Clinton Bradley, Director of Communications
I saw this and was floored. I have sent the Integrity link to one of our clergy to see if we can find out exactly what Frank and the others did in this regard. Between this and having official representatives marching at a pro-choice rally, ECUSA is really falling into the ditch, isn't it? What can we do other than attempt to gain control of the Executive Council? We need to do something, but it seems as if every time we make efforts to follow the request to be prayerful and wait, the liberal camp is doing everythign in its power to say "we are going forward with our agenda, despite requests to the contrary and we are putting it IN YOUR FACE." Our leaders are following suit. What's a conservative parish to do? Our children's education and influence will not wait until this thing is worked out.
# Posted by: Tired in Alabama at July 19, 2004 11:48 AMTired, you need to read Louie Crew's memos mentioned in today's titusonenine.
classicalanglican.net issue. The hair on the back of your neck will stand out straight.
BTW, Louie Crew, an in-your-face homosexual, is a member of the ECUSA House of Deputies.
# Posted by: Carolyn at July 19, 2004 02:15 PMCan someone, pray tell, tell me when, if ever, we can see the day that frank griswald leaves the scene??? A man who would call Fr. Edwards a heritic; and would call the consecration of vicki jean robinson "the greatest day in the history of the Episcopal Church" has no place in the Episcopal Church, in my humble opinion.
I dont know whether to pray "Good Lord, deliver us" or "Good Lord have Mercy on us"
Good Lore "have mercy upon us"
You all need to understand the re-alingment is not in the future, it is underway. There is no turning back. God have mercy.
# Posted by: Steve at July 24, 2004 05:31 PMGood continually has mercy upon us, and also upon the ECUSA. We need to be careful of what we do during this time of conflict and remember that whatever transpires, we are to love our enemy and pray for them that hurt us.
# Posted by: Thomas at July 24, 2004 06:02 PMOf course, I meant GOD continually showers us with mercy--and goodness, too, for that matter. We're all going to be okay, but it's going to be a long struggle and a lot of humility will be required of us all.
# Posted by: Thomas at July 24, 2004 06:09 PMBTW, Frank Griwold is with us until he retires, I don't know how old he is, but we're stuck with him for awhile.
# Posted by: Thomas at July 24, 2004 06:10 PMBTW, your Fr. Edwards make a kind of vow to be obedient to his bishops--so he's also out of line. This is not an easy issue. We can't just cling to those who think like us, but need to pray and read and study, and work together for change or just leave and build up a new church--the AAC for example.
# Posted by: Thomas at July 24, 2004 06:21 PMI ran across this and don't know what to make of it. It came to me in an email. I'm just copying it to this conversation. I don't know what to think, some of this seems real.
"As certain politicians work diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, others of us have been busy drafting a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on Biblical principles. After all, God wouldn't want us to "pick and choose" which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore:
Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife (II Sam5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)
* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)
I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.
# Posted by: Sarah at July 24, 2004 06:27 PMJust to clarify. The above was from another "Sarah", not me ["Sarah 2"]. "Sarah 1" gives her agenda away by her statement at the end: "I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government's righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us."
; > )
Sarah,
Excuse me, but its not my agenda. I was looking for help. I don't know what the last line is talking about. I said I copied it directly to this post from an email sent to me.
# Posted by: Sarah at July 25, 2004 04:06 PMThe ALLEDGED draft just seems to be something to inflame opposition to the actual proposal presented and defeated on a procedural technicality (it didn't get the 60 votes required to move out of committee and reach the floor for a vote of the ENTIRE Senate). Hear tell that a notorious polygamist in Utah is challenging his conviction for polygamy on the basis of the same-sex marriage arguments offered lately, namely, it's a violation of his civil rights! While there may be a "looney right," there is also most definitely a "looney left"!
# Posted by: Lee Schmidt at July 25, 2004 07:40 PMMaybe, but I do wonder what to do with those texts. I mean I like to be a "devils advocate" forgive the language--and I still don't hear a good answer for the what to do with scripture that doesn't fit our current conditions.
# Posted by: Thomas at July 25, 2004 07:47 PMThese marriage rules are very confusing. Well, I guess the Global South's stance affirming polygamy in certain circumstances and approved in Lambeth 1988 is ok according to Sarah's references. In the interest of orthodoxy, let's not forget that mixed marriage (Christian and non-Christian) is contrary to scripture, as are second marriages of clergy.
# Posted by: Ian at July 25, 2004 10:41 PMHmm, I've come to think someone was yanking my chain as they say. It is hard to know what to say when friends offer these challenges to a modern scripture-based life. Thanks.
# Posted by: Sarah at July 30, 2004 03:43 PMBoy, those new liturgies are getting weirder and weirder.
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at March 7, 2005 02:35 AM(In ref to the incoherent cigar spam, which will probably be deleted by the time you read this. Cheers, TH)
# Posted by: TH at March 7, 2005 02:36 AMTom,
I am in the wrong blog but I have been sick most of this week and have not had a opportunity to get back with you on our last conversation about the 2006 B.C.P. , I must recant my statement: not that I was in error at seeing the said text. But I am unable to reproduce the said text as stated . But after further looking and speaking with + Fr.Joe. you are right in the time frames
it would take to make the said changes. and in fact it is an off the shelf rite if the Preist needs it . Thanks for correcting my mistake in my last blog entry. I just Got your email about Fr. Urban, and his church. Thanks
I will keep you in the loop.
Your Brother in Christ
Paul
No problem, Paul--I've made similar mistakes from time to time. Liturgy is a strange and wonderful thing!
Glad to hear you got a chance to talk to Joe+; I should probably give him another phone call myself one of these days. Gosh, I miss him.
I hope the email helps. Please do keep me in the loop!
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at March 9, 2005 11:54 PMTom,
I must also give credit To + Fr. Alston in helping me with the project. Are you of the same mind set that we (Ms.) could split from the ecusa?
I might be reading more into it but I do see something happening along those lines. Mainly because both sides are pretty much at an impass?
Peace
paul
I certainly hope the Diocese of Mississippi won't split from the ECUSA! In practical terms, I'm not sure how that would happen; we have a vote-by-orders system (where controversial resolutions have to pass both the lay and clergy houses separately, much like in the House and Senate), and I can't see a majority of our clergy ever voting to leave the national church. But I do think that an AC-recognized parallel jursidiction in Mississippi is probably inevitable, and could potentially meet with some success, particularly in rural areas.
Alston+'s a good man.
It's important to remember that the Windsor Report has little to do with how the Mississippi diocese relates to the Episcopal Church; rather it's about how the Episcopal Church and other provinces relate to the Anglican Communion. Whether Bishop Gray endorses the Windsor Report or not will affect his vote in the House of Bishops (though it probably won't affect the outcome of any GC2006 resolutions--he already voted against +Gene in 2003), but our lay and clergy deputies will still have the option of choosing, on an individual basis, whether to adopt its recommendations. There are no real means by which the diocese as a whole can adopt the Windsor Report, except by declaring a moratorium on same-sex unions and gay bishops (which already exists in this diocese, for all intents and purposes).
Cheers,
TH
# Posted by: TH at March 10, 2005 12:49 AMTom,
I agree that the diocese must vote as a whole in the matter, but I should also point out that a under current of seperation of some churches from the diocese of Ms. seems more evident every day,
I would bet that some of their own priests may not be aware of this small trend. I do mean small at this point but still showing signs of growth.
Christ's Church in Kansas may be just the start of a small surge this year. But that may also grow in time if matters are not attended to in a more timely manner. Just a thought. I had a few hours tonight to look at some more blogs and stuff. you are right Very Interesting!
Bro. Paul