The Case Against Anglican Schism

one of my dearest firends in the wold is a gay episcopalian priest-
he started a drop in cneter for people with AIDS over 15 years ago, in a small city in america- (pittsburgh pa)
it has grown and expanded and now serves a neglected and poorly served segment of our society- a segment which was forgotten but for his efforts-

he received the heinz lifetime acheivement award 2 years ago-

his contribution to, and capacity as a priest and counsellor have been invaluable to that city-

despite severe athsma and health concerns- you will find him morning to night in the hospitals visiting and comforting the dying-

it is inconceivable that such a man might be excluded for his sexual preference-
(and, true to his calling he has been celibate for some 30 years)

People can differ on the roles of women and gay people in the church. What seems wrong is that those wanting radical change are claiming they represent the core beliefs of the church, and are compelling the traditionalists to leave. This is backwards.
If the liberals want to change biblical interpretations and traditions that are hundreds of years old, let them form their own branch of the Anglican church and coexist in peace with the more conservative elements. That would be the honest and right thing to do.
Their agenda, though, is to seize control of the church and damn the traditionalists and the consequences. So much for tolerance and peace. What hypocrisy.

Victoria,

Your priest friend sounds like a wonderful person.

As a Christian somewhat new to the faith, I struggle with the question of homosexuality and the church. I myself have a number of homosexual friends, two of whom are committed to each other and among the most decent caring people I know.

One thing of note about your friend: in the bible (my TNIV Version at least) the word "practicing" preceeds "homosexuals", so its the act that is condemned not the person. Of course, adulterers, murderers and tax collectors are lumped into the same condemned group. But, as a celebate priest your friend is not by nature of his feelings condemned...again, according to my bible.

The Anglican church's problem in the developed world is that its members have become too education to actually believe in traditional religion.

Fifty years ago, when the Episcopal church was one of the largest in America, it would have been inconceivable that some parishes would break off to follow a Nigerian.

The people with their heads in the 21st century have mostly left the church to those in the 19th.

Victoria - inconceivable to you, but it's all there in black and white in that book that your priest friend should be following: The Bible. For those who consider themselves Orthodox, we don't have to like it...we just have to follow it.

The problem of homosexuality in the Anglican & Episcopal communion has even trickled down to my tiny parish in northwestern Pennsylvania, where older members have left my church because of Gene Robinson and the ongoing debate about gay priests and bishops. I think it's a shame.

My own views on the subject were shaped considerably by a single event. I watched a televised speaking engagement by Rev. Robinson, and was stuck by his eloquence and true love of Christ. One younger member of the audience challenged him, repeating all the Scripture condemning Robinson's behavior, all the while slapping his Bible in his hand and starting every line with "It is written..." It was sad to see such barely-controlled anger. The man's veins were practically popping out of his neck.

Robinson waited patiently for the young man to finish, and then said, with great respect, "If it wasn't for that Book you hold in your hands, I'd be dead. As a young, confused gay teenager in a rural region, that book saved my life, in spite of what you're throwing in my face right now."

It was an impressive response, and left me with much to ponder. In the NT, we're told that if we try to live by the Law only, and not through grace, then we are subject to all the Law, and that if we break one part of it, then we break it all. In other words, it's impossible for us to not be sinners ourselves. The Law convicts us all. Regardless of what that young man thought of Gene Robinson's presumed sin, he was ignoring his own.

And in doing so, the young man forgot the most important part of being a Christian: living in grace, and following Christ, who tells us not to judge, or we'll be judged. To show mercy, so that we can be shown mercy. To love one another as He has loved us.

One other point. It also says in the New Testament that as Christians, we can recognize our own sin when our hearts convict us, and that only God knows our hearts. Whatever sins you may think Gene Robinson is engaging in is between Gene Robinson and God, and only God truly knows Gene Robinson's heart. I'm certainly in no position to judge him.

As a Christian, I know I have my own sins to worry about and correct, and that my interactions with others must be grounded in love. That's where my focus should be, not on the stumblings of institutional religion or someone else's relationship with his Creator.

http://sheriger-codex.blogspot.com

Victoria writes: "it is inconceivable that such a man might be excluded for his sexual preference-
(and, true to his calling he has been celibate for some 30 years)"

That little caveat at the end of your post makes ALL the difference in the world.

Sexuality is not wholly a biological imperative; people MAKE choices - some choices are compatible with the Gospels and others are not.

This is not bigotry, this is truth - Jesus did not come to bring peace, but the sword.

Thank God for the Catholic Church!

Victoria,
Your friend who is a celibate gay priest has no quarrel with the church. He is living and serving faithfully.

Now, can you picture your friend showcasing his lover and, instead of visiting the sick and comforting the dying, going out on frequent worldwide tours to promote himself and a book he wrote about being an active homosexual? This man, V. Gene Robinson, is far more interested in self-promotion and gay activism than he is in serving the people who chose him to be their bishop. He promised to be a faithful bishop who happens to be gay instead of "the gay bishop." It didn't take him long to break that promise.

I'm sorry but being a bishop isn't a pulpit for self-promotion and personal gain. A bishop is supposed to proclaim the faith (not himself), teach the authentic faith of the Church (not the faith he came up with to justify his needs and desires), and to serve all of God's people through the Word and Sacraments (not serve only the gay community through his pro-gay speaking engagements, books and movies).

This church used to be a wonderful place to serve and be served, and to learn and grow in faith. Now, all they talk about and serve is homosexuality. We pewsitters are tired of it.

I am concerned with the commenting body of this article mainly.

I believe that God does not want us to condemn, but to love. God also does not want us to surrender to evil either - that means we hold up our end of the bargain when it comes to sin. We strive to be holy and help others be holy.

It may seem difficult to fathom a gay or lesbian in a church acting as an official or any sort of leader. I don't believe that it is their place, even if they have the holiest of intentions. Unfortunately, people will go on judging wherever they are officals and schisms will happen because of decisions such as this.

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Doing homosexual acts (sexual relations with another person of the same sex intentionally and knowingly; consenting to homosexual tendencies) is. Let me explain; if we are called to be holy - in all of the meaning behind that word - we are to think of Jesus. We are to think of Mary. We are to think of Joseph and all the saints. We are to think of those who every day, offer up their lives to God in service and love. Jesus did not go around pointing fingers at people like you and I in His day, but went around being a RADICAL. He was the ultimate radical. BUT he was not morally radical. Here's the difference. He helped ALL people - the good and the bad and the just and the unjust - knowing that whatever those people chose to do with themselves after encountering His presence would be up to the Lord. He calls us to make those right and purest of decisions to better our relationship with our Lord. If we don't, there are obvious consequences. Look at Mary, she out of all of the saints, gave up everything for God. She sacrificed her family and their name, her husband to be and his name, her people, her life, her future, her existence, and all because an angel told her to do it - and she did.

If we were to look at the basic aspect of sexuality - it is the Lord's. He gave us the gift of sexuality and told us in the Bible to "be fruitful and multiply". Obviously, that happened.
Female and Female cannot naturally multiply, just as Male and Male cannot. It is not that they do not love one another if they are gays or lesbians in a relationship, but difficult to see past the reality of their decisions if they are Christians.

My frustration is the fact that we go on judging them rather than helping and loving them. We should be showing them that they can be a part of our rich religious heritage and not reject them.

I do not agree with their lifestyle, but I will not keep them from making up their own minds about their lives. You cannot convince a person to do something by yelling at them and persecuting them. You only drive them away. You convince someone by being the best example of what you stand for and believe in. I do not believe the vast married population that commits adultery, divorces, or "swings" is a great example of loving couples populating America and the known world. I do not believe that one night stands, contraception, birth control, the death penalty, abortion (the various kinds that kills millions around the world monthly), or anything else that destroys the vitality and the truth in living is a great example of what Jesus had in mind. No wonder people don't want to be like the "Christians or holy people" or various religions who think abortion is okay or divorce a solution to a marriage gone bad. To all these things you can put up a great fight with all sorts of facts and arguments. But in the end you are just fighting the reality that you cannot control life. It is not supposed to be.

Therefore, accept people, and help them live holier lives. DO NOT CONDEMN them because you do not know them or understand them. Be an example of what Jesus taught - if you aren't sure what that is, a great example is in the Bible and I would suggest HIS LIFE. Read Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel writers: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For further learning, Proverbs and Psalms.

I don't know what else to say but LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE AND MORE LOVE.

Sincerely,

Anonymously Catholic

S. Heriger,

Your post was well accepted by this progressive Episcopalian. Bishop Robinson's reply to the fanatic had my jaw dropped in sheer admiration. Despite what Julia says, the good bishop is not on a self-promotional tour, but out there trying to promote the tolerance that our Lord taught.

Arminius

julia- i believe the celibacy imposed upon servants of the church to be unnatural and against the makeup of man-

but even despite that- i find that the overall message of Jesus(ata) is one of forgiveness-

and to be false to that message but true to the letter of the law is being falsoe to the very spirit of that law-

nowhere do i find in the words of Jesus(ata) an exhortation to hate, nor judge- actually quite the opposite- as we all stand alone before the god's judgement- who is our only judge.

Arminius,

Christ did not promote the tolerance of sin -- he saved the adulteress' life; however, he then instructed her not to sin again.

Christ brings the sword to render men asunder from earthly life, not to bring peace and PC tolerance of evil or selfish acts.

To say otherwise is a willful misinterpretation and heresy.

Victoria writes: "i believe the celibacy imposed upon servants of the church to be unnatural and against the makeup of man"

And what of Christ? Both MAN and God.

Was he "unnatural?" Were his apostles "unnatural?"

The truly unnatural one here is the Bishop from NH -- don't call what is evil "good" and what is good "evil."

If the sexual act is divorced from religion and hence would have no basis in morality, two things happen, sex becomes transactional and secondly, anything goes. Mainstream religions have never embraced sodomy as a loving expression between people of different sexes never mind about the same sex. In other words, religion and culture treat such action as taboo. It has been a mistake to hide behind the phrase homophobia because people largely do not fear homosexuality and recognise for whatever reason sodomy is here to stay. On the other hand, because an event is common or even natural it is not necessarily desirable. Where for instance do we stand on incestuous relationships, sado masochism and many other proclivities in which people indulge - all of which including bestiality and paedophilia have been around for some considerable time? If you divorce sexuality and morality where are you going to draw the line or perhaps not? The argument that proclivities are a personal matter is a powerful one and, indeed, we should not condemn the wonderful man that Victoria describes. AND yet, this is the nub of it - we do not condemn the man but because those who regard heterosexual practice as an expression of true love between a man and a woman it is wholly objectionable to place sodomy on the same footing ie as having equal ultimacy. This is happening in church with gay weddings and even societally with civil partnerships. The appointment of gay Bishops will open the floodgates for gay weddings in church and this is why more than anything else it is an unacceptable practice to many. Equally too, those who do not participate in exotic sexual behaviour have a right to protest if such practice effects them and I am grateful at least that Rowan Williams recognises this.

I am sorry that everyone here is completely narrow-minded. I am frustrated with people who refuse to see the obvious struggle - the one of unity and love. From what I see, everyone here just wants what they say to be right and what they believe to be right. There are no words here conducive to a healthy faith in Christ.

I am a sinner. Do you not think that I struggle every day within myself? Christ is the only thing that keeps me going when I wake up. What keeps you alive? Hopefully Christ. I am a saint as well. I strive to be holy and strive to help others. I can always improve and learn. Therefore, I have read your comments and see only the blind leading the blind. Jesus did not come out of the womb yelling and throwing doctrine at people.

What has faith really come to but a battle to see who is better at being holy? Come on. What happened to Christ in this picture?

And what of Christ? Both MAN and God.

Was he "unnatural?" Were his apostles "unnatural?"

I think it's "unnatural" for you to believe that Jesus was anything more than a man. Do you also believe in fairies and Santa?

In any case, the history of Jesus has been grossly distorted by those who have been in power for a long time. Religion is no different than politics. An ambitious few wish to hold sway over the idiot masses. Those that do their homework find that there are things far older than Jesus...like equality between the sexes and an acceptance of sexuality in general.

And by separating sex from religion, we do not open the door to amoral practices. Those are already here. The rule is simple: Two consenting adults. What those two consenting adults do in their private time is their business.

Anon writes: "What has faith really come to but a battle to see who is better at being holy? Come on. What happened to Christ in this picture?"

Are you talking of Christ who drove the money changers from the Temple with a bull whip?

Or Christ who stated: "I come not to bring peace, but the sword."

Or the Christ who stated: "do not throw pearls before swine."

Of course love and forgiveness are a very big part of His message; however, this does not mean that we are to be relativistic or blind to the sin around us and the need to call for "right worship" i.e. orthodoxy.

The Anglican Church will be ripped apart as a result of it's false doctrine and rejection of the authority of God.

NNY,

What is truly unnatural is faith in scientific materialism...

As for your thoughts on theology:

"Religion is no different than politics. An ambitious few wish to hold sway over the idiot masses."

Amazingly uninformed...and proven false both in history and in academia.

it is inconceivable to me and most of the christian orthodox denominations to even entertain the notion that homosexuality(i do not mean homosexuals)to be associated with or condoned by the Christ we all claim to follow....but then again Christ did not condone or allow other forms of evil or sin .....so the arguments for "acceptance" much less allowance for practicing homosexuals to be in the heirarchy of any church body is incredible...that would be like saying let's allow a professed killer or practicing fornicator or brazen thief to represent Christ as bishop....how can any church body expect leadership that guides towards the Light...if the leaders are not Enlightened by a moral compass that is biblical in nature?...i wonder

The simple fact is that there is no such thing as 'god', a supreme being, creator, or any other such creature.
The tragedy is that so many simple minded people believer there is such a thing, and kill each other, and non believers as well, in conflict over the right way to worship it.

Galations. Read Galatians on the Greeks, the slaves and women. Read the letter by the Bishops of the United States of America issued in spring 2007 in Texas. Galatians.

Phlogiston: "The tragedy is that so many simple minded people believer there is such a thing, and kill each other, and non believers as well, in conflict over the right way to worship it."

Many, many more people have died worshiping and killing for the earthly utopia of scientific materialism and secular dictatorships...

100,000,000 in the last one hundred years - a horrible number for a horrible affliction.

Oh, for goodness sake, can't you conservatives stop obsessing about what other people are doing with their genitalia? Do you really think God is as obsessed with sex as you are?

Worry about the other six deadly sins. Pride, greed, and wrath cause a lot more harm to your brothers and sisters than where the Bishop of New Hampshire chooses to stick his, uh, crozier.

Victoria, your friend should be a Catholic priest.

Was there much talk of women priests and gay imams at IslamExpo?

Perhaps they can provide the COE some recommendations on enforcing orthodoxy.

"Do you really think God is as obsessed with sex as you are?"

YES!

Sex (marriage) = love = children = community = peace = continuity = God.

Divorcing the "unitive" from the "procreative" aspects of sex = societal disaster.

From the column: "There's deep anger among some [conservatives], put off about the communion's inability to prevent a few of its members from ordaining gay men and women as priests."

Note that anyone who is against ordaining practicing homosexuals has "deep anger" and is "put off," kind of like the problem derives from their own weaknesses and fussiness. And it's only "a few of its members" who are ordaining gays, as if conservatives are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Those who fail to see how big a problems this is for serious Anglicans simply can't imagine that these folks actually believe the Bible. They honestly think Scripture is true, as radical and unreasonable as that sounds to some. Nothing will convince them to change their minds -- no talking sessions, mutual understanding sessions, or anything in the repertoire of a bureaucratic organization -- if it isn't based in Scripture. The liberals see this all as a social or organizational issue, missing the conservatives' whole concern.

Homosexuality is not a sin. Homosexual activity is no more or less sinful than heterosexual activity. God gave me my sexuality as an important way of knowing love, and I know God exists, in part, through the sexual expression of that love with my same-sex partner, just as equally as the heterosexuals here might know that love through the sexual expression of that love with their opposite-sex partners. Why is this such a threatening idea to some people? Why does it make them hate us so much (despite all the talk of loving sinners) that they would split the Church. I'm American born, but with my father's work, was confirmed in the Anglican Church in West Africa; theoretically, African archbishops should be my pastors. But I wonder if any but Desmond Tutu could even listen to me and begin to understand. In the meantime, immeasurable violence, both physical and more importantly spiritual, is done to gay and lesbian people of faith by a theology of heterosexual supremacy, and violence in the name of Christ is never acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Doing homosexual acts (sexual relations with another person of the same sex intentionally and knowingly; consenting to homosexual tendencies) is.

-- Bingo. Even so, we shouldn't condemn them. Leave it to God. We can say, "Hey, the Bible says this is wrong, and Jesus wouldn't approve of it." But we shouldn't say, "And so you, gay person, are going to hell." That's not our call to make. We're all sinners. My sin might be pride. His sin might be homosexual activity. Which sin is worse? Probably pride. But we should leave it to God.

when the church goes against scripture, that has ruled it since its inception, you cant expect people to simply say ok we will reject what we have believed all of our life.
because some wanted a homo for bishop in the eastern US, the church is supposed to reject its own basic teachings.
same sex sex is a violatiuon of church dogma. now some will say that the dogma is just wrong and that being a christian is wrong.
dogma does not change to fit personal sexual desires. i have heard robinson say that the proscription against men having sex with men does not apply to committed men doing men. WHAT? i have read the proscritpion and what he says, to justify is sex life is not there.
and the man divorced his wife to do some guy, and the church says, well forget what we used to teach, adultry and homo conduct is now ok.
want to be homo, that is your business, but dont demand that my church change to meet your sexual desires. dont want to be in my church, dont. but dont try to change the bible.
you want to be in the power structure, well a "if it feels good do it" preaching is not consistent with dogma.
here are your options.
start your own church.
live within the structure of the requirements of dogma. remember the proscription is against homo conduct, not being a home.
dont be in the power structure and teach faulty dogma.

Anonymous wrote:

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Doing homosexual acts (sexual relations with another person of the same sex intentionally and knowingly; consenting to homosexual tendencies) is.

-- Bingo. Even so, we shouldn't condemn them. Leave it to God. We can say, "Hey, the Bible says this is wrong, and Jesus wouldn't approve of it." But we shouldn't say, "And so you, gay person, are going to hell." That's not our call to make. We're all sinners. My sin might be pride. His sin might be homosexual activity. Which sin is worse? Probably pride. But we should leave it to God.

In other words, I agree with you.

Well, I guess if Phlogiston says there's no God, it must be a fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Doing homosexual acts (sexual relations with another person of the same sex intentionally and knowingly; consenting to homosexual tendencies) is.

-- Bingo. Even so, we shouldn't condemn them. Leave it to God. We can say, "Hey, the Bible says this is wrong, and Jesus wouldn't approve of it." But we shouldn't say, "And so you, gay person, are going to hell." That's not our call to make. We're all sinners. My sin might be pride. His sin might be homosexual activity. Which sin is worse? Probably pride. But we should leave it to God.

In other words, I agree with you.

Sorry for the multiple posts.

I love your "Name". In fact, you are the first blogger in all of "On Faith" to exhibit a little humor.

"Jesus did not come out of the womb yelling and throwing doctrine at people."

It is possible to read all four Gospels and miss the mix. On one hand, Christ very clearly welcomed sinners, which we all are, to be healed, to have faith, and to love one another IN SPITE OF the sins of the world. ON THE OTHER, Christ was very clear that if we were to follow him perfectly, we had to live up to a very high standard ... no sexual immorality included. Do you really think that a priest/prophet/God like Christ who condemned ALL divorce except in cases of "lewd" acts would also say, "hey, it's OK for unmarried men to have sex?" I find it unlikely. How about you?

I'll say this much -- good thing Christ is so forgiving, because we ALL have sins. Some of us are promiscuous, others lack faith, others are cruel, and others are prideful. We all need salvation, including us straight folks. So I say hate the sin and love or at least tolerate the sinner. Just don't show me a sin and tell me it's A-OK with Christ.

Mr. Waters,

You asked in your posting, "Are there reasons to regret this, regardless of which side one takes on gay rights in church?"

The answer is clearly no. There is no reason for regret. These schisms are good for the human race. They reduce the overall power of religious institutions, thus limiting their ability to do evil and indoctrinate young people with their fictions. The squabbling may also drive people away from churches. Some of these people may eventually embrace a rational approach to life, or at least avoid religious affiliations.

But most of all, it's just plain funny when religious people argue over which kinds of sex their imaginary friends allow.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, because I don't know if there is a god or not. But I find the topic and the posts interesting (some frightening).

I agree with the posts that wonder why the Church - and religious people in general - seem to obsess so much about sex. And I find it humorous that it always seems to be a bunch of men in dresses who become the appointed arbiters of "correct" sexuality.

maizenbluecoach: "Homosexual activity is no more or less sinful than heterosexual activity."

Very true if heterosexual activity is simply for pleasure and completely divorced from the procreative nature of sexual union.

That being said, homosexual activity is an act against God as it is NEVER for procreation.

Calling sin what it is is not "violence," it is honesty in regards to the revolutionary teaching of Jesus Christ.

PS - He used violence to clear the temple of sinners and violence (crucification and then resurrection) was instrumental in the salvation of humanity from the grip of Satan's illusions.

Enemy Of The State:

I agree with the posts that wonder why the Church - and religious people in general - seem to obsess so much about sex. And I find it humorous that it always seems to be a bunch of men in dresses who become the appointed arbiters of "correct" sexuality.

-- Um, that's a cassock, not a dress. And they don't go around in them except during worship. Otherwise, they dress in slacks and shirt, jacket and some form of collar to show their vocation. And second, it seems to me that it's not religious people who are always talking about sex. If you doubt me, turn on the TV. Who is constantly CONSTANTLY obsessing about sex, about the better orgasm, about what his or her dirtiest fantasies are, about the logistics of an orgy, about whether it's OK to cheat on your partner/spouse/dog. Hint: Check with the secularists.

There is something wrong with sexuality in this culture, but it's not coming from the religious who have been following the same prescription for hundreds, nay thousands of years. It's the modern thinking progressives who are so concerned about whether I'm having enough sex.

CS Lewis was right -- the problem isn't that we don't talk about sex enough. The problem is we talk about it too much.

Vales: "That being said, homosexual activity is an act against God as it is NEVER for procreation."

The limitation of "acceptable" sexual activity to be that which could be procreative vastly underserves the wonder of God. There is certainly no sin in heterosexual activity in infertile couples where there is equally NEVER a chance for procreation as well. Homosexual sex is not an act against God, it is an act blessed by God in His wisdom as a way of communicating His love, in the way He created me.

Fuji:

I stand corrected: It's a cassock.

If I offended anyone else out there with no sense of humor, I apologize.

Enemy Of The State:
Fuji:

I stand corrected: It's a cassock.

If I offended anyone else out there with no sense of humor, I apologize.

-- Please, no apologies necessary. I'm sure the 8th graders out there found your comment hilarious.

"God in His wisdom as a way of communicating His love, in the way He created me."

Biology is not destiny as we are given free will by God: you have a choice in regards to your actions.

Homosexual acts are not in line with revelation of Christ, no matter how you try to use emotion to rationalize these actions.

As Christ said, "wide is the path to hell, narrow the path to heaven."

YOU decide which path you take.

Good luck and God bless!

Homosexual sex is not an act against God, it is an act blessed by God in His wisdom as a way of communicating His love, in the way He created me.

-- I'm hoping you can show me the evidence that homosexual sex is blessed by God. I'm willing to be persuaded.

Vales: Ah yes, since I disagree with your theology, I must be going to hell. If homosexuality is such the big sin, why did Christ never, as in ever, say one thing against it, at least given what's in scripture? Why are there far more prescriptions on heterosexual activity in the scriptures than there are on same-sex activity? Why is marriage today said to be only between one man and one woman, when clearly polygamy is a standard for marriage in the Old Testament? Did Christ stop speaking to us once scripture was canonized? Be sure you're sure when you make pronouncements about other peoples' lives, experience, knowledge and faith.

Hey guys are we talking about the same church, which came out of the loins of henry the eighth? This church born out lust of an english monarch who was rejected by the another corrupt church because spanish king paid off the pope better than henry, is the arbiter of human morals? Come on give me a break the folks who belong to C of E should really be laughed out of town just like the Alchemists would today. This church which is made for nothing else but to enable one man's debauchery should not even exist in 21st century. A church born out of the most lecherous of reasons should cease to exist. The subscribers of the church should be told of its origins time and time again and shame them and ridicule them for their immature belief system. This is not freedom of religion, this freedom to be imbecilic. While you may have right to it, does not mean I do not have right to ridicule you.

Hey guys are we talking about the same church, which came out of the loins of henry the eighth? This church born out lust of an english monarch who was rejected by the another corrupt church because spanish king paid off the pope better than henry, is the arbiter of human morals? Come on give me a break the folks who belong to C of E should really be laughed out of town just like the Alchemists would today. This church which is made for nothing else but to enable one man's debauchery should not even exist in 21st century. A church born out of the most lecherous of reasons should cease to exist. The subscribers of the church should be told of its origins time and time again and shame them and ridicule them for their immature belief system. This is not freedom of religion, this freedom to be imbecilic. While you may have right to it, does not mean I do not have right to ridicule you.

The whole argument boils down to whether you believe that homosexuality is caused by physical changes in the neurological system (a view which is increasingly supported by scientific research) or whether you believe it is a "life style choice". If you believe the former then you have to believe that God created some people that way just as he created some with diabetes or Down's syndrome and Scripture in the words of Jesus requires us to love those people and accept them as God's creations; if you believe the latter then you hold these people to acting on choice. As a scientist (and a "cradle Episcopalian") I find the former position both consistent with the knowledge God has given us the tools to ascertain and more expressive of God's love for all his creation.

If homosexuality is such the big sin, why did Christ never, as in ever, say one thing against it, at least given what's in scripture?

-- Homosexuality is not the BIG sin (most likely pride), but it is A sin. I think what rankles is that progressives now want to tell us it's not a sin at all and they use the most vaporous of arguments to prove their points. So Christ never talked about homosexuality ... it must be OK? That doesn't work, at least to my mind. Christ didn't mention slavery -- so, it's OK?

What do you make of Christ's prohibition against divorce? Was He right?

Hey guys are we talking about the same church, which came out of the loins of henry the eighth? This church born out lust of an english monarch who was rejected by the another corrupt church because spanish king paid off the pope better than henry, is the arbiter of human morals? Come on give me a break the folks who belong to C of E should really be laughed out of town just like the Alchemists would today. This church which is made for nothing else but to enable one man's debauchery should not even exist in 21st century. A church born out of the most lecherous of reasons should cease to exist. The subscribers of the church should be told of its origins time and time again and shame them and ridicule them for their immature belief system. This is not freedom of religion, this freedom to be imbecilic. While you may have right to it, does not mean I do not have right to ridicule you.

Fuji: Find gay and lesbian Christians and speak with them; listen to our lives and how we know what we know. Read weird, whacky, liberal theologians like John Shelby Spong and Desmond Tutu and others (including Gene Robinson) who are smart enough to question scripture and not simply swallow it like a bitter pill unquestioningly taken. And in the end, it won't be about "evidence" as much as it will be about becoming convinced.

The whole argument boils down to whether you believe that homosexuality is caused by physical changes in the neurological system (a view which is increasingly supported by scientific research) or whether you believe it is a "life style choice". If you believe the former then you have to believe that God created some people that way just as he created some with diabetes or Down's syndrome and Scripture in the words of Jesus requires us to love those people and accept them as God's creations; if you believe the latter then you hold these people to acting on choice. As a scientist (and a "cradle Episcopalian") I find the former position both consistent with the knowledge God has given us the tools to ascertain and more expressive of God's love for all his creation.

Maizenbluecoach,

Any of us could be hell-bound.

Want to know why?

Because we have freedom of will and, therefore, of freedom choice....

Like I said, best of luck.

What a lot of comments on sex and how few on schism! The truly sad part of the current disagreements is that the Anglican church was formed to be the Via Media or middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism. This has necessarily given it a history of rifts and compromise. In 1662 1750 priests left the C of E (all there was at time) for protests that included among other things having to finish up the wine at the table instead of being able to take it home. In 1989 the Episcopal church ordained its first female bishop; now the Presiding Bishop is a woman. But listen to the uproar over the Pope's comments that Rowan might officially sanction female enthronement. Left out of the uproar over Gene Robinson's election is exactly that: it was an election by the parishes and priests that he serves. ("Diocesan rights" vs States Rights anyone?) It was not the PB going up to New Hampshire and saying, "Say, what do y'all think about getting a gay guy for the next purple shirt." No one has told Pittsburgh or Abujah do go and do likewise. The difficult thing today is that it's hard to tell if that sound is one of a few tents striking or the entire big tent collapsing. As for my own mortal soul, I am much more worried that I may be judged in the End by Matthew's Seven Mercies than I may be examined on the 7 bazillion laws of Leviticus. Apparently that's not WWJD, it's what he actually said he would do.

What a lot of comments on sex and how few on schism! The truly sad part of the current disagreements is that the Anglican church was formed to be the Via Media or middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism. This has necessarily given it a history of rifts and compromise. In 1662 1750 priests left the C of E (all there was at time) for protests that included among other things having to finish up the wine at the table instead of being able to take it home. In 1989 the Episcopal church ordained its first female bishop; now the Presiding Bishop is a woman. But listen to the uproar over the Pope's comments that Rowan might officially sanction female enthronement. Left out of the uproar over Gene Robinson's election is exactly that: it was an election by the parishes and priests that he serves. ("Diocesan rights" vs States Rights anyone?) It was not the PB going up to New Hampshire and saying, "Say, what do y'all think about getting a gay guy for the next purple shirt." No one has told Pittsburgh or Abujah do go and do likewise. The difficult thing today is that it's hard to tell if that sound is one of a few tents striking or the entire big tent collapsing. As for my own mortal soul, I am much more worried that I may be judged in the End by Matthew's Seven Mercies than I may be examined on the 7 bazillion laws of Leviticus. Apparently that's not WWJD, it's what he actually said he would do.

Fuji: Find gay and lesbian Christians and speak with them; listen to our lives and how we know what we know. Read weird, whacky, liberal theologians like John Shelby Spong and Desmond Tutu and others (including Gene Robinson) who are smart enough to question scripture and not simply swallow it like a bitter pill unquestioningly taken.

-- Weird. I've never thought of scripture as a bitter pill but as a liberating and challenging call to God. Emphasis on challenging. As I wrote earlier, that's why I'm glad Christ is so forgiving.

So you, I assume, are gay. So what? Get on with your life. Just don't tell me that homosexual activity is A-OK with God anymore than looking at porn, or serial marriage, or pride or sloth or gluttony, or beating a dog or your wife is. And sure, there are degrees of sin. I don't think homosexuality is that high on the list, personally. But I'm not God. I leave the judging to him. To you, I only say that you can't convince me gay sex is not sinful, even if you were born a gay man. How great a sin or its consequences is up to theologians and ultimately -- God. Better for you and me to shut our mouths and try to live the most charitable and sin-free lives we can. And leave the rest to God

"liberal theologians like John Shelby Spong and Desmond Tutu and others (including Gene Robinson) who are smart enough to question scripture and not simply swallow it like a bitter pill unquestioningly taken."

You obviously know nothing of Augustine, Aquinas, Merton, St. Thomas More, and any number of Doctors of the Church.

You endorse the revision of liberal theologians because they fit your script - not because they contain truthful interpretations of the Gospels...

What a lot of comments on sex and how few on schism! The truly sad part of the current disagreements is that the Anglican church was formed to be the Via Media or middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism. This has necessarily given it a history of rifts and compromise. In 1662 1750 priests left the C of E (all there was at time) for protests that included among other things having to finish up the wine at the table instead of being able to take it home. In 1989 the Episcopal church ordained its first female bishop; now the Presiding Bishop is a woman. But listen to the uproar over the Pope's comments that Rowan might officially sanction female enthronement. Left out of the uproar over Gene Robinson's election is exactly that: it was an election by the parishes and priests that he serves. ("Diocesan rights" vs States Rights anyone?) It was not the PB going up to New Hampshire and saying, "Say, what do y'all think about getting a gay guy for the next purple shirt." No one has told Pittsburgh or Abujah do go and do likewise. The difficult thing today is that it's hard to tell if that sound is one of a few tents striking or the entire big tent collapsing. As for my own mortal soul, I am much more worried that I may be judged in the End by Matthew's Seven Mercies than I may be examined on the 7 bazillion laws of Leviticus. Apparently that's not WWJD, it's what he actually said he would do.

Hey guys are we talking about the same church, which came out of the loins of henry the eighth? This church born out lust of an english monarch who was rejected by the another corrupt church because spanish king paid off the pope better than henry, is the arbiter of human morals? Come on give me a break the folks who belong to C of E should really be laughed out of town just like the Alchemists would today. This church which is made for nothing else but to enable one man's debauchery should not even exist in 21st century. A church born out of the most lecherous of reasons should cease to exist. The subscribers of the church should be told of its origins time and time again and shame them and ridicule them for their immature belief system. This is not freedom of religion, this freedom to be imbecilic. While you may have right to it, does not mean I do not have right to ridicule you.

Good God! One gay man is ordained a bishop and the mighty Anglican church comes crashing down. All this talk of schism and renegade sects and spouting nonsense from the Bible makes me wonder how the church would deal with a REAL moral crisis. Can we really take it seriously as a religion for our times? Is it not rather a stale, ossified establishment more suitable for a people who lived two hundred years ago?

Anonymous:
"liberal theologians like John Shelby Spong and Desmond Tutu and others (including Gene Robinson) who are smart enough to question scripture and not simply swallow it like a bitter pill unquestioningly taken."

You obviously know nothing of Augustine, Aquinas, Merton, St. Thomas More, and any number of Doctors of the Church.

HEAR HEAR. Also, Jerome, Teresa of Avila, and the Little Flower, God bless her.

speed123:
Sex (marriage) = love = children = community = peace = continuity = God. Divorcing the "unitive" from the "procreative" aspects of sex = societal disaster.

I'm glad you're going to work hard to stop old, infertile people from marrying. Those retirees getting married, divorcing the "unitive" from the "procreative", those old folks are just tearing society apart!!!

Show me the societal disaster stemming from the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, California, and European countries. More loving committed couples is a terrible thing if they can't breed, isn't it?

Christ: "Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall never prevail."

That rock is Peter and that Church that has NEVER failed is the Catholic Church.

2000+ years...out lasting all empires, armies, revolutions and princes.

All are welcome to this bastion of Faith - the Church that Christ established.

While you may have right to it, does not mean I do not have right to ridicule you.

-- Why not? I ridicule secularists all the time. The only way to tolerate secularists is to sigh and shake your head in good-natured reproof. Silly little secularists.

“All are welcome to this bastion of Faith - the Church that Christ established.“

Bastion of faith? More like a bastion of corruption and filth.

For your information: the Pope is "First among Equals" with regard to Catholic Bishops.

For your information: the Pope is "First among Equals" with regard to Catholic Bishops.

the following from Julia
Victoria,
Your friend who is a celibate gay priest has no quarrel with the church. He is living and serving faithfully.
Now, can you picture your friend showcasing his lover and, instead of visiting the sick and comforting the dying, going out on frequent worldwide tours to promote himself and a book he wrote about being an active homosexual? This man, V. Gene Robinson, is far more interested in self-promotion and gay activism than he is in serving the people who chose him to be their bishop. He promised to be a faithful bishop who happens to be gay instead of "the gay bishop." It didn't take him long to break that promise.
---------------------------------

Julia, Christianity is about widening the circles of inclusion. No one would dispute that slavery is evil. However scripture including New Testament passages clearly refrain from condemning it. Truth is constantly being revealed, even scriptural truth. It is not a dead icon. If you think that being a gay bishop "going out on worldwide tours to promote himself" is self serving, why don't you try it? He has faced death threats, been spat upon, had insult after insult screamed at him, emailed to him, mailed to him.. and you think he has taken an easy way out.
I have attended gatherings with more gay catholic clergy (including bishops), all of whom were clearly gay, (and I might add acting the role quite effectively), than I can count on all my fingers and toes. Jesus had really serious problems with only one group. No, not prostitutes, not gays of whom he said nothing, not the tax collectors, or those guilty of adultery. Oddly, he had problems with the religious authorities of his time. He accused them of hypocrisy. That they had turned a religion of love and acceptance into one of excessive legalism that prevented God's people from being God's people. Interesting isn't it. The religious authorities accused God of being a blasphemer. In other words, God was not religious enough. They eventually put him to death. Meditate on that. I'm so happy you're thrilled with the Catholic clergy. I see a much more realistic side of that group. Robinson is incredibly brave. As for his enemies, they are self absorbed, self serving, and well.. basically more of what we've had for thousands of years.

"Show me the societal disaster stemming from the legalization of gay marriage"

Europe, with a negative and unsustainable population-growth rate, would be example number one...

Gay marriage, however, is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to the negative impact of extreme secularism on society.

the following from Julia
Victoria,
Your friend who is a celibate gay priest has no quarrel with the church. He is living and serving faithfully.
Now, can you picture your friend showcasing his lover and, instead of visiting the sick and comforting the dying, going out on frequent worldwide tours to promote himself and a book he wrote about being an active homosexual? This man, V. Gene Robinson, is far more interested in self-promotion and gay activism than he is in serving the people who chose him to be their bishop. He promised to be a faithful bishop who happens to be gay instead of "the gay bishop." It didn't take him long to break that promise.
---------------------------------

Julia, Christianity is about widening the circles of inclusion. No one would dispute that slavery is evil. However scripture including New Testament passages clearly refrain from condemning it. Truth is constantly being revealed, even scriptural truth. It is not a dead icon. If you think that being a gay bishop "going out on worldwide tours to promote himself" is self serving, why don't you try it? He has faced death threats, been spat upon, had insult after insult screamed at him, emailed to him, mailed to him.. and you think he has taken an easy way out.
I have attended gatherings with more gay catholic clergy (including bishops), all of whom were clearly gay, (and I might add acting the role quite effectively), than I can count on all my fingers and toes. Jesus had really serious problems with only one group. No, not prostitutes, not gays of whom he said nothing, not the tax collectors, or those guilty of adultery. Oddly, he had problems with the religious authorities of his time. He accused them of hypocrisy. That they had turned a religion of love and acceptance into one of excessive legalism that prevented God's people from being God's people. Interesting isn't it. The religious authorities accused God of being a blasphemer. In other words, God was not religious enough. They eventually put him to death. Meditate on that. I'm so happy you're thrilled with the Catholic clergy. I see a much more realistic side of that group. Robinson is incredibly brave. As for his enemies, they are self absorbed, self serving, and well.. basically more of what we've had for thousands of years.

Fuji:
Dont just mouth off. rebut what i wrote in there. Is there any factual error in my post? Dont we ridicule if someone were to profess to be an Alchemist? Why shouldn't we ridicule the members of C of E who think it is an institute that dispenses moral teachings. Is it because it comes in the garb of religion? And why is religion not open to ridicule, all other philosophical constructs are. Religion is the stupidest thing man has ever created, and the only stupidest thing they cling to, all others they generally dispense with.

I think it interesting that most of the comments posted herein pertain to the question of homosexuality rather than to the issue of schism within a Christian church. Since the ordination of homosexual priests and the consecration of homosexual bishops is not a new phenomenon in the Church, I am curious as to the reasons why potential schism over this issue should be occuring at this time in the life of the Church. I personally have known two homosexual bishops in the PECUSA prior to the consecration of Bishop Robinson, one of whom is still the diocesan. Why did these consecrations not lead to the threat of schism? And I also wonder if those who are threatening to leave the Anglican communion are not as sinful (believing themselves to be God rather than accepting their humanity) as those they accuse of commiting the (supposed) sin of homosexuality. Those who sit in judgment of their fellow persons will be judged -- according to the words of the Christ.

I think it interesting that most of the comments posted herein pertain to the question of homosexuality rather than to the issue of schism within a Christian church. Since the ordination of homosexual priests and the consecration of homosexual bishops is not a new phenomenon in the Church, I am curious as to the reasons why potential schism over this issue should be occuring at this time in the life of the Church. I personally have known two homosexual bishops in the PECUSA prior to the consecration of Bishop Robinson, one of whom is still the diocesan. Why did these consecrations not lead to the threat of schism? And I also wonder if those who are threatening to leave the Anglican communion are not as sinful (believing themselves to be God rather than accepting their humanity) as those they accuse of commiting the (supposed) sin of homosexuality. Those who sit in judgment of their fellow persons will be judged -- according to the words of the Christ.

"Bastion of faith? More like a bastion of corruption and filth."

Right...all of those Catholic hospitals, orphanages, shelters, schools, and the largest charity relief organization in the world are "corrupt and filthy"

Sounds like you are projecting...

the following from Julia
Victoria,
Your friend who is a celibate gay priest has no quarrel with the church. He is living and serving faithfully.
Now, can you picture your friend showcasing his lover and, instead of visiting the sick and comforting the dying, going out on frequent worldwide tours to promote himself and a book he wrote about being an active homosexual? This man, V. Gene Robinson, is far more interested in self-promotion and gay activism than he is in serving the people who chose him to be their bishop. He promised to be a faithful bishop who happens to be gay instead of "the gay bishop." It didn't take him long to break that promise.
---------------------------------

Julia, Christianity is about widening the circles of inclusion. No one would dispute that slavery is evil. However scripture including New Testament passages clearly refrain from condemning it. Truth is constantly being revealed, even scriptural truth. It is not a dead icon. If you think that being a gay bishop "going out on worldwide tours to promote himself" is self serving, why don't you try it? He has faced death threats, been spat upon, had insult after insult screamed at him, emailed to him, mailed to him.. and you think he has taken an easy way out.
I have attended gatherings with more gay catholic clergy (including bishops), all of whom were clearly gay, (and I might add acting the role quite effectively), than I can count on all my fingers and toes. Jesus had really serious problems with only one group. No, not prostitutes, not gays of whom he said nothing, not the tax collectors, or those guilty of adultery. Oddly, he had problems with the religious authorities of his time. He accused them of hypocrisy. That they had turned a religion of love and acceptance into one of excessive legalism that prevented God's people from being God's people. Interesting isn't it. The religious authorities accused God of being a blasphemer. In other words, God was not religious enough. They eventually put him to death. Meditate on that. I'm so happy you're thrilled with the Catholic clergy. I see a much more realistic side of that group. Robinson is incredibly brave. As for his enemies, they are self absorbed, self serving, and well.. basically more of what we've had for thousands of years.

All the Church (Catholic at least) demands from married couples is an openness to fertility. In other words, the possibility.

Dwwd,

WOW! I wish I had written that. Well done. We see through a glass darkly, and the word of God is still evolving. Not much is cast in stone, except God's love.

>

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

DW,

Your call for acceptance of sin that was condemned by all Prophets is absurd.

Christ did speak of the condemned city of Sodom and said that He was here, not to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it.

Homosexuality is not compatible with transcendence as it is focused on pleasure and self-fulfillment rather than on obedience to God.

Call it what you will; however, it is not to be associated with the transcendent message of Christ and the fulfillment of the Word of God.

Posted on July 15, 2008 17:36

Secular:
Fuji:
Dont just mouth off. rebut what i wrote in there. Is there any factual error in my post? Dont we ridicule if someone were to profess to be an Alchemist? Why shouldn't we ridicule the members of C of E who think it is an institute that dispenses moral teachings. Is it because it comes in the garb of religion? And why is religion not open to ridicule, all other philosophical constructs are. Religion is the stupidest thing man has ever created, and the only stupidest thing they cling to, all others they generally dispense with.

-- Whew, for a moment there, I thought you were giong to make some overreaching judgment calls, but instead, you make moderate statements like "Religion is the stupidest thing man has ever created."

Just where in the Gospels does it say anything about Jesus, who consorted with the outcasts, the lepers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, where does it say that he condemned the homosexual?

Where does it say that Christianity is a exclusive and not inclusive way of life?

Exclusivity based on what you do with your genitalia and with whom is somewhat beside the point. Your love is the thing. Love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself. Doesn't say anything about your recreation.

Billy,

He called outcasts to him - those who excepted the Word of God.....Not those who flagrently defied the call to obedience.

Actions count! i.e. "do NOT sin again."

Homosexuals ARE accepted by Christ and the Church; however, they (like all members) MUST REPENT and abandon their sinful and worldly ways.

Homosexuals are no exception to the rest of us -- we all must repent before Christ...

What do you not understand???

speed123:
"Show me the societal disaster stemming from the legalization of gay marriage" Europe, with a negative and unsustainable population-growth rate, would be example number one... Gay marriage, however, is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to the negative impact of extreme secularism on society.

You forgot to refute the part about letting old, infertile people marry. I'm waiting...

Negative population growth will happen, whether we do it preemptively with birth control or whether we leave it to fate by continuing to overburden our planet. I'd rather control population with pills and condoms than with fire, flood, and famine, wouldn't you?

Negative population growth in Europe predates gay marriage. They're not related.

I agree that secularism is dry and empty. We are happiest when we seek the divine in every present moment. That doesn't mean I will rush to embrace a state religion.

Perhaps we should have a state religion in America. After a period of horrible puritanical oppression, it will probably settle down into a nice ceremonial irrelevance, as it has in Europe, leaving people free to practice as they see fit.

Is this a power grab by the African prelates? I rather think that the American Episcopalians should go it alone and establish a church based on the principles Elizabeth I sponsored -- freedom of conscience. If the American church wants to consecrate gay clergy and gay bishops, they ought to be able to. Those dioceses that want to secede ought to be allowed to -- after giving up their churches, which are owned by the American Episocpal church.

I would be disposed to respect a clergy person who is in a long-term committed relationship with a partner of either gender as a sign of maturity.

Is this a power grab by the African prelates? I rather think that the American Episcopalians should go it alone and establish a church based on the principles Elizabeth I sponsored -- freedom of conscience. If the American church wants to consecrate gay clergy and gay bishops, they ought to be able to. Those dioceses that want to secede ought to be allowed to -- after giving up their churches, which are owned by the American Episocpal church.

I would be disposed to respect a clergy person who is in a long-term committed relationship with a partner of either gender as a sign of maturity.

Sexual activity CAN be a virtue only as it follows the sacrament of marriage. This sacrament, seen as a sign of the love uniting Christ and the Church, establishes between the spouses a permanent and exclusive bond, sealed by God.

Sexual activity outside of marriage is a sin.

Women priests:
The consecration of the Bread of Life is performed by the priest "en Persona Christi" which means that it is Christ himself who prepares the offering. Christ was a male, not a female.

"For one, when a major religious organization breaks apart, it is very difficult to put back together, even when there's the will to do it.... Not a good advertisement for the faith."

Not a good advertisement for the faith?? If your faith is in a "religious organization" it's bound to fail. Faith should be based on Christ alone. He is the rock on whom the church was built. He will never fail you; human organizations will.

Billy, where did Jesus condemn child molesters? did He have to specifically condemn everything.
He said to follow the Law but not those pertaining to ritual cleanliness, which were not dogma.
the fact is - you cant be a practicing homo according to the Christian bible and you dont get to decide it means something else.
are we all sinners - you bet.
do we all get to change the bible to pretend we are not sinners? definitely NOT!
Jesus accepted sinners but said "Go and sin no more." He did not say you are forgiven so go out and do it again.

The African "primates" are nothing more than homophobes -- and homophobia is at least as vicious a "sin" as racism.

I hope that the true Episcopalians will stand up for enlightened English values and let Akinola and his ilk go back to eating one another (NOT in the civilized way!).

The name Peter (Petros) a masculine noun means small rock or stone. In Mt. 16:18 is the first time it is used saying “I will build my church”, a future event when the Spirit is sent and the body of Christ is formed. Jesus said “ I say unto you ,you are Peter (Petros) and upon this Rock (Petra feminine noun meaning a massive rock) I will build my church.” First we see who the rock is, second we see it is Jesus building the church not Peter. it is Jesus who states I will build my church, he protects it and gives increase to it. When we think about a foundation for a building it needs to be reliable, this comes through testing. There is only one who the Bible speaks as the rock that cannot be moved, that is Christ. All one has to do is look at Peter and we find he was moved numerous times showing he cannot be the foundation of the Church. The church is built upon the rock, Christ.

The vile African "primates" (their term) are nothing but homophobes -- and homophobia is as revolting and affronting in 2008 as racism was in 1963.

Let the Bishop Peter Akinola (who wants to put Gay people in jail) and his ilk go back to eating each other -- and I don't mean in the civilized sense!

The vile African "primates" (their term) are nothing but homophobes -- and homophobia is as revolting and affronting in 2008 as racism was in 1963.

Let the Bishop Peter Akinola (who wants to put Gay people in jail) and his ilk go back to eating each other -- and I don't mean in the civilized sense!

Why doesn't the Post cover every hate-filled sermon at the Falls Church and Truro? These ministers would never get away with it if they were attacked Black people instead of Gay people.

Let's rid America of homophobia, the way we rid it of racism. I'll believe something has been accomplished when we have a Gay presidential candidate. Oh, Obama is "half-white"? OK, then -- a proud Bisexual American for President!

OBAMA 2008

Sorry to post so many times! Wasn't sure that my little heresy was getting through the God-Squad filter!

www.robertingersoll.com

"Secondly, Williams is an unusually gifted leader, a theologian of great spiritual depth, compassion and insight. His writings are challenging and penetrating."

You seem to have forgotten Archbishop Williams's inane and destructive idea of amending the common law of England with Sharia law, and his indecipherable and impenetratable writings in support of that concept.

We should go back to the holy gang bangs of the disciples and Jesus. Even Mel couldn't take them all on in male-male partnership!

I think one of the underlying issues that’s often overlooked in this whole talk of schism is the role of womyn in the church. The churches of the Global South (mostly made up of dioceses in Africa and Asia) and the conservatives from the West stand on their strict interpretation of the Bible and refuse to acknowledge the duly elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Right Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori. They don’t miss an opportunity to tie this disrespect to the issue of ordaining LGBT bishops either. When asked why they refuse to take Holy Communion with Bishop Katharine, the African bishops often site the fact that she voted to consecrate the Rev Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. This is an easy out for them and gives them a free pass on discussing the oppression of womyn that these bishops conveniently overlook. They overlook this oppression because they are often the oppressors. Recently as the last Lambeth Conference, these same bishops were chastised by their Western counterparts for bringing multiple wives to England. It seems polygamy is no problem for these bishops. A gay bishop is a much easier target then polygamous bishops. If the bishops that attended the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem recently do indeed intend to break communion with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, they should stop and consider the cost. It’s not African money that is supporting the mission projects in these dioceses, it’s American dollars that are supporting them. Break with the Episcopal Church and these bishops may find their coffers running dangerously low. Break with the Episcopal Church and people will loose valuable, life-giving services. By breaking with the Episcopal Church they may gain what they claim as the moral high ground, but at what cost?

Hey Jeff Wagner: get a grip!

What are womyn, bwt????

Posting again just to say how much I LOVE this thread. Christians arguing over whether their little godling approves of girl-on-girl action is so darn adorable. It's like listening to a pack of comic book nerds fighting over who the toughest superhero is.

These gainsay arguments which Christians are forever engaged with are the exact reason why every Christian I have ever met is spiritually bankrupt.

While I was a Lutheran pastor for over 20 years I was forever starved for some sense of spiritual connection with the universe. The options seemed to be that I was either going to have to become one of the babbler glossalalia types or drink the ecclesiastical Kool Aid of theological confessionalism. Poor choices.

Christianity has lost its sense of true mission and has settled for a debate. It has lost touch with the presence of Christ and the Living Bread of Heaven is a stale little wafer that sticks to the roof of your mouth and has no nourishment whatsoever.

Spiritual teachings, real spiritual teachings, should be like warm bread from the oven - appetizing, satisfying, filling, nourishing, shared, and memorable. What do YOU get when you sit in the pew except debate, self-aggrandizement, guilt, shame, anger. These are the things of Christendom -- the Lambeth Conference withstanding: argument, exclusion, endless posturing and division.

It's either homosexuality, abortion, evolution, women, or some other impossible-to-settle gainsaying.

As Hebrews 5 says, some of you should've become teachers by now. Instead you have to be fed milk instead of whole food. You keep laying the foundations over and over again and no one grows up.

And, by the way, aren't the African bishops doing such a great job helping to contain genocide, epic AIDS infections, starvation, political chaos and so forth that they are able to dally in such vitally important things as trying to control who preaches the gospel and who we can be in love with.

Honestly, Christians. You all - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU -- look like childish fools

Karmic Choirboy, you said,

"Spiritual teachings, real spiritual teachings, should be like warm bread from the oven - appetizing, satisfying, filling, nourishing, shared, and memorable. What do YOU get when you sit in the pew except debate, self-aggrandizement, guilt, shame, anger..."

I am sorry that you have lost this, because I still receive it at my parish. I do not get the guilt, shame, anger, etc, I get joy, community, and the love of God. This is the Episcopal Church at its best. ANY church at its best, I am sure we are not alone.

Arminius

Rev. Robinson is bisexual not gay, as he was able to have sexual relations with a woman, his wife.
According to the medical and scientific literature
he is BISEXUAL. According to the New York Times he is gay. Since 1987 he has been living with and being intimate with Mark Andrew, a man.
About the other event concerning the Muslin Religion and Muslin culture in England, it is important to note that the Muslim Religion is not compatable with democracy, because in demacracy we are all equal under the laws, women eual to men and nonbelievers ( or infedels) equal to believers. Not so according to the Koran

MARK TWAIN & ME: TALE OF AN INTELLECTUAL GOLIATH & THE MISTY-EYED LILLIPUTIAN. 100 years ago the great American contrarian Mark Twain immortalized this condemnation of Religion: "WHAT I HATE ABOUT RELIGION IS ITS BOSSINESS AND ITS ALIGNMENT WITH CORRUPT COMMUNITY VALUES THAT PEOPLE - THOSE STANDING TO PROFIT - INSISTED ON CALLING A HIGHER POWER." He might have been talking about Cardinal Ratzinger, the Nazi descendant who now goes by the pompous title of "pope" and whose residence - the Vatican - engineered the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi-abetting Holocaust blood-letting, War of Cultural Artifacts-looting, Mass Rape of U.S. Boys-under-12-years and [through its allied U.S. right wing religious lunatics] the withholding of millions of dollars in World Health Organization money from African nations who did not foreswore using some of that money to buy condom to prevent HIV/Aids. I never understood the true meaning of Christianity until I came to the United States where pious Christians speak NEVER of love but eternally foam-in-the-mouth with microscopic reasons to hate [and actual hatred of]....black Americans, Gay Americans, non-gun-loving Americans, Mexican Americans, pro-choice Americans, liberal-Americans, French people [minus the crazy ass-kissing President Sarkozy], Iranians, Muslims, China and Chinese people, and anyone who does not support the Guantanao Gulag, Waterboarding Torture, Abu Ghraib Holocaust and World-wide Secret CIA prisons. What more can I say? Look at what the shameful lengths that American Anglicans are reaching in their zeal to force fellow Anglicans to outlaw gay bishops and force women out of the priesthood. IF THIS IS CHRISTIANITY AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY, THEN I AM CONFORTABLE ARRANGING AN OPEN-ENDED MEMBERSHIP IN THE CLUB OF ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS AND PLAIN ORDINARY EVERYDAY HUMANS.

MARK TWAIN & ME: TALE OF AN INTELLECTUAL GOLIATH & THE MISTY-EYED LILLIPUTIAN. 100 years ago the great American contrarian Mark Twain immortalized this condemnation of Religion: "WHAT I HATE ABOUT RELIGION IS ITS BOSSINESS AND ITS ALIGNMENT WITH CORRUPT COMMUNITY VALUES THAT PEOPLE - THOSE STANDING TO PROFIT - INSISTED ON CALLING A HIGHER POWER." He might have been talking about Cardinal Ratzinger, the Nazi descendant who now goes by the pompous title of "pope" and whose residence - the Vatican - engineered the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi-abetting Holocaust blood-letting, War of Cultural Artifacts-looting, Mass Rape of U.S. Boys-under-12-years and [through its allied U.S. right wing religious lunatics] the withholding of millions of dollars in World Health Organization money from African nations who did not foreswore using some of that money to buy condom to prevent HIV/Aids. I never understood the true meaning of Christianity until I came to the United States where pious Christians speak NEVER of love but eternally foam-in-the-mouth with microscopic reasons to hate [and actual hatred of]....black Americans, Gay Americans, non-gun-loving Americans, Mexican Americans, pro-choice Americans, liberal-Americans, French people [minus the crazy ass-kissing President Sarkozy], Iranians, Muslims, China and Chinese people, and anyone who does not support the Guantanao Gulag, Waterboarding Torture, Abu Ghraib Holocaust and World-wide Secret CIA prisons. What more can I say? Look at what the shameful lengths that American Anglicans are reaching in their zeal to force fellow Anglicans to outlaw gay bishops and force women out of the priesthood. IF THIS IS CHRISTIANITY AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY, THEN I AM CONFORTABLE ARRANGING AN OPEN-ENDED MEMBERSHIP IN THE CLUB OF ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS AND PLAIN ORDINARY EVERYDAY HUMANS.

Karmic boy seethes:

"What do YOU get when you sit in the pew except debate, self-aggrandizement, guilt, shame, anger. These are the things of Christendom -- the Lambeth Conference withstanding: argument, exclusion, endless posturing and division.

Honestly, Christians. You all - EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU -- look like childish fools"

I am not acquainted with Lambeth; however, the creedal/Christian notion of guilt, faith and redemption have transformed the world in way you are obviously ignorant of: universal notion of human dignity, empathy for the innocent victim, and transcendence away from material/worldly preoccupations.

While there are many imperfections within Christians (as all people), your post is displays your historical ignorance, bias and juvenile logic.

Therefore, your comment regarding "childish fools" is merely psychological projection.

How ironic.

"Karmic boy again:

"spiritual teachings, real spiritual teachings, should be like warm bread from the oven - appetizing, satisfying, filling, nourishing, shared, and memorable."

Is this a Zagats' review?

The Gospels are "appetizing," they are not a delightfully cooked meal.

The Gospels are for SHOCKING us out of our comfort and self-satisfaction!

Wow, is all I can say....liberal "anything goes" relativism has really done damage to many minds and souls.

Wake up, people...it is not too late.

what arrogance on the part of the "liberals". They show themselves to be what they really are: a bunch of dictators masquerading in "radical sheik". We have heard you for how many years. You are just a bunch of Stalinists who want to paint anyone opposed to your Absolutist point of "deconstructionist" view as homophobic. What a lame argument. go read paglia for heaven's sake.

As a former Episcopalean, I follow this story with some sadness. My fear is that American Episcopaleans sound more and more like high-church Unitarians.

My husband and I joined a Lutheran congregation last year, and enjoy a congregation where we hear the Gospel, not a partisan political message.

The thing is, my husband and I didn't even differ all that much from the politics preached at the local Episcopal church. It's just if we wanted politics, we could stay home and watch the Sunday talking-head shows.

I pray for peace in the Anglican communion and hope that cool heads prevail.

What a bunch of freaks! Remember that you are "reading" (those of you who CAN read) a translation of a translation of a translation, dicked around with by crazed "popes" and politicians throughout history who had to agree or take the red hot poker.

Seriously folks, we're all grown up now and religionism ought to be classified in the same realm as tooth-fairyism.

Grow up America! There isn't any "God" and there isn't any tooth fairy. Can we please go on like adults? Or must we genuflect to the Nigerian "primates"?

God made gays too!!! They have a purpose just like the rest of us!!!

Thank you, N. Briggs and dwindc. Two voices of reason in all this bloviation.

I'm an episcopalian. My parents left the southern baptist church because their church wouldn't let black people join. So, as you can guess, they view this as a civil rights issue and think it will all blow over, and that the church is making the right decision.

Here's what a second generation episcopalian thinks. First, this is a big deal. A schism. If churches want break away from the Episcopal church, we ought to let them. No more lawsuits. I understand that the episcopal church probably has a valid claim they can push, but I don't think they should.

But in the end, I'm sticking with the "liberal" view that gays can be ordained priests and bishops and a woman can be head of the Episcopal Church USA. I don't care about politics when it comes to church. I don't want my church to be ahead of the curve on the advancement of civilation. Being a liberal is a political position, not a religous one. I've always kept the two separate. From a religous perspective, I've never viewed the bible as the literal word of God. I don't abide by its views word for word. Like most episcopalians I use my mind. I exercise my own choice. Not as a matter of convenience, as some would argue, but because I've thought about issues and some portions of the bible in making a literal interpretation don't make sense. It would be much more convenient to take the bible on its face, and never exercise my own judgement.

In terms of homosexuality, I know that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and whether it was right or wrong. I know other folks in the bible did, but he did not. Look for gay or homosexual in the letters in red and you won't find it. And I know he provided us a new covenant. I refuse to accept that we are to just take a few portions of Leviticus and a few portions of the letters from Paul (which many scholars think are questionably attributed to him) and reach the conclusion that homosexuality is forbidden or is a sin. I think it could go either way. There's certainly other species of animals that have homosexuals. Which suggests to me that it at least is not unnatural, even if you argue that it is sinful.

Furthermore, even if you think homosexuality is a sin, let's be serious. Do you never commit sin? Of course you do, and so do I. I don't understand why a preacher would choose to commit any given sunday to the "evils" of homosexuality when people are dying of starvation, people are murdering, people are robbing, people are dying, and people are not being charitable. There are so many positive messages from the bible, why focus on the negative?

As for women, I believe that the male authors of the bible pushed women out of power to protect themselves, and I think it is sad that 2000 years later we still would abide by their antiquated beliefs. Mary Magdalen and Mary were critically important people in the bible, and to decide that only men can be priests because of the developments after Christ died is absurd to me. It is a fiction created by the church to protect its own power.

For anyone out there who thinks we should interpret the bible literally, what are you thinking? The important lessons in the bible are not literal, they are allegorical. Taking the bible literally, is like taking an Aesop's fable literally. There was not really a crown and a pitcher.

Jesus accepted the old testament as holy scripture.

Almost as entertaining as Catholic infighting. I'm sure Jesus is very proud.

"As for women, I believe that the male authors of the bible pushed women out of power to protect themselves, and I think it is sad that 2000 years later we still would abide by their antiquated beliefs. Mary Magdalen and Mary were critically important people in the bible, and to decide that only men can be priests because of the developments after Christ died is absurd to me. It is a fiction created by the church to protect its own power."

Cliff,

You are very right; this fact was highly researched and brilliantly presented author Dan Brown.

Thank goodness for our media/movies; else we would all probably still be slaves of ignorance and white men!

Regarding homosexuals, the apostle Paul made it very clear in Romans chapter 1 the standards of the Chritian church.

Romans 1:24-32 For this reason God gave them up to the evil desires of their hearts, working shame in their bodies with one another: Because by them the true word of God was changed into that which is false, and they gave worship and honour to the thing which is made, and not to him who made it, to whom be blessing for ever. So be it.
For this reason God gave them up to evil passions, and their women were changing the natural use into one which is unnatural: And in the same way the men gave up the natural use of the woman and were burning in their desire for one another, men doing shame with men, and getting in their bodies the right reward of their evil-doing.
And because they had not the mind to keep God in their knowledge, God gave them up to an evil mind, to do those things which are not right; Being full of all wrongdoing, evil, desire for the goods of others, hate, envy, putting to death, fighting, deceit, cruel ways, evil talk, and false statements about others; Hated by God, full of pride, without respect, full of loud talk, given to evil inventions, not honouring father or mother, Without knowledge, not true to their undertakings, unkind, having no mercy Who, though they have knowledge of the law of God, that the fate of those who do these things is death, not only go on doing these things themselves, but give approval to those who do them.

Kind of sounds old testament, but Paul was very clear homosexuality was not Christian. The Bible is the standard for Christianity.

What some seem to forget is that being a christian involved going BEYOND the law covenent to the spirit of the law, which is a higher standard. Love is the identifying mark of Christians, but there is no indication Jesus used this to justify homosexuality.

There are without a doubt, people who are gay who do good works, are loving to others and want to have a spiritual life. Unfortunately, they are not Christian, as they fail to keep the minimum standards.

It's also interesting in that celibacy is also not Christian.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 - But the Spirit says clearly that in later times some will be turned away from the faith, giving their minds to spirits of deceit, and the teachings of evil spirits, Through the false ways of men whose words are untrue, whose hearts are burned as with a heated iron; Who keep men from being married and from taking food which God made to be taken with praise by those who have faith and true knowledge. Because everything which God has made is good, and nothing is evil, if it is taken with praise: For it is made holy by the word of God and by prayer.

The one who is facing his tormentors - and straight on (no pun intended) as Christ would have him do - is Bishop Gene Robinson. He is the one who is facing his accusers, apostates who have abandoned their Christ and his moral and ethical teaching.

Christ forgave and told sinners to REPENT for their sins, not FLAUNT them.

It is obvious that Robinson is the fruit (no pun intended) of the Protestant catastrophe...

True Christian Anglicans, abandon ship and swim the Tiber; you will be welcomed!

you would have to be an idiot in this day and age to beleive any of the churches teachings!

think for yourselves instead of what people who want to control you tell you to.

Religion has been used for millenia to control the stupid masses, the church has invented story after story not to forget their greatest fib of all, that being if we dont do as they say we'll all go to hell.

but hey if you want to beleive in the fabricated writings collected by a roman emperor trying to appease the masses against modern science, I guess you cant be reached.

Thinking writes: "It's also interesting in that celibacy is also not Christian."

This poster is obviously evangelical.

So, "Thinking," was Christ both man and God? And, was He celibate?

The answer is yes to both so it is ironic for you to claim that celibacy is not Christian. (it is not Jewish, but it is very Christian)

Next time try utilizing BOTH faith and reason (a very Catholic endeavor)....you are just as bad as the liberals.

"Religion has been used for millenia to control the stupid masses"

Did you think of this gem yourself, Kempy? Or is it from liberal propaganda that you read or saw in the movies - Marx and the opiate of the masses etc...

Come up with an original (and valid) thought and then get back to us...

Talk about "sheep!"

Funny thing is that the "OT" is the Hebrew Bible, and Jews have both gay and female rabbis, not in all branches of course. Maybe Episcopalians follow wuit, should opt out of the medieval drama of "schism" and allow for plurality.

Whoops! Meant to write "follow suite."

If the African Bishops feel so strongly about their anti-woman, anti-gay viewpoints, they should join the Catholic church as it fully supports their bigoted, uneducated and uncivilized positions. There is no need to split the Anglican community over the dissenters who don't embrace the teachings of the church, and who instead embrace the Pope's teachings - head toward Rome. Good riddance!

Sounds like the "American Episcopalian" is engaging in racist and anti-Catholic speech.

How very unPC of you.

PS - the Catholic Church is working overtime to keep the Anglican Union together:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/pope-rides-to-rowans-rescue-868695.html

How about a bit more civility on all sides?

I will refrain from comments on the above comments that display in many case a prejudice against God. In the article the author takes the position that can be expressed as heresy is better than schism. While schism is something to be avoided, it is not worst than heresy. For many years the so called religious left have ignored Scripture and Tradition and taught that Sodomy is not sin. They have gone as far as to call for the blessing of relationship of people engaged in Sodomy. This teaching is not Christian and Holy Scripture calls for the exclusion of such people from the membership. It is the choice of the religious left to the teach that which is opposed to the teaching of God, it is their choice for schism.

Cliff whined the usual liberal nonsense,

"In terms of homosexuality, I know that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and whether it was right or wrong. I know other folks in the bible did, but he did not. Look for gay or homosexual in the letters in red and you won't find it. And I know he provided us a new covenant. I refuse to accept that we are to just take a few portions of Leviticus and a few portions of the letters from Paul (which many scholars think are questionably attributed to him) and reach the conclusion that homosexuality is forbidden or is a sin. I think it could go either way. There's certainly other species of animals that have homosexuals. Which suggests to me that it at least is not unnatural, even if you argue that it is sinful."

Jesus was a Jew talking to Jews. He did not have to repeat the most elementary basics of moral cleanliness to them. He said nothing more about homosexuality than He did about incest, bestiality, or child human sacrifice. When God calls something an abomination, what more is there to be said on the subject for people who take God's rules seriously ?

Something the Washingtonpost columnist may not understand is "principle." For all his lavish praise of the anglican pope, he forgets that this man has not stood up for principle within his own church. he has allowed it to slip into moral quandry and chaos. It's taking the African congregations to muster up the courage to get the sleeping giant to stand up for principle. Trust me, we christians don't look to the washington post for moral guidance but for you to mock us with your islamic-friendly jab in the eye just adds to a much bigger schism which is the secular and religious world. you don't know spiritual things and i know that you are arrogently thinking how narrow minded I am as I write this. but the same way you wrote what I consider trash, I am writing my opinion. you washington post types should stick to what you do best: insulting christians (especially born-again baptists and protestants). that's what you're good at. when you try to be something else you falter.

An article to ponder:

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6262

Think about it.

In the grand scheme of things, we will one day find out if the fundamentalists of our respective churches are right, or the progressives of any religion are proven right. Until then, it is an imperative of the teachings of G-d, that we work to get along with each other, this shows the sensitivity and depth to which we have accepted the teachings of Yeshua, and the rightness of the words,
in John 17:22-23, " I have given them the glory that you have given me, that they may be one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
There is no glory is schism, no glory in the bickering and infighting that has controlled the Churches, since the time of the Anointed One, the Christ. Many people have claimed the right and privilege of revelation, yet in them you see the results of schism and wrong-thinking that has led to war and strife.
Even today, we now see the results of one person's interpretation, of the words of G-d, even though, we cannot truly know if they are the words spoken by Yeshua himself.
Should we not, work together, to find common ground to live the Good News and not fight among ourselves about something so trivial that it causes such strife? If G-d, did not want something to happen, would it not take place? Is G-d not in control of the Church? And if so, are we not raging against the wind and tide? For as humanity, we cannot control the weather and the tide, but have to live with what takes place.
For one side or the other of this contentious and raging debate to say, "I am right and it cannot be any other way," is complete and utter nonsense. We as people need all other people around us to complete the vision of G-d, to work for the betterment of mankind, not the exclusion of someone based upon their sexuality or their skin color. Outward appearances, mean nothing to a person who truly follows the teachings of Christ. For Christ, did not look upon the outward for who a person was, but looked inside and saw the real person, the one created in the image and likeness of G-d, who is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, bond nor free. But Christ is all in all, not looking to the outward for a persons life but looking inward to see if these radical and most influential teachings have taken hold.
This infighting is indicative of nothing more than greed and selfishness, people who have not grown up enough to see that fighting is nothing more than jealousy run rampant.
To all those, who are not attending the Lambeth Conference, to those not invited, and to those who are attending, GROW UP!!!!! Let the light of Christ shine through you, and if you cannot grow up, out of your petty and insignificant doctrinal differences, then accept the fact that you are not who you claim to be and start again at the bottom of the ladder and learn that G-d is love, and there is nothing more important than this.

I know 'J-Catholic' already mentioned this point, but it bears repeating: the Pope is "first among equals", too.

It's an important point to drive home, as many Protestant and certainly Orthodox Christians often seem to have that point lost on them when they try to criticize the papal system (when in reality a number of other denominations have a comparable setup, or in fact virtually the same, as in the case as the Orthodox churches); it's also important for Catholics to recognize too, though... because as rifts are progressively mended with other denominations, it's good to understand how the Pope rightly fits into the picture, especially when theoretically bringing Orthodoxy back into the fold.

Down Under the head of our largest diocese (Sydney) is a leader of the impending schismatics who recently met in Jerusalem. He is to boycott the Lambeth Conference, thereby withdrawing himself from the opportunity to talk with those who hold other views. It is rigidity like this that I feel to deny the spirit of Christ.

To me, the whole point of the Anglican faith, to which I adhere, is to accept two great principles.

First, there are many ways to God, and I can only follow the one that seems right to me.

Secondly, no priest of any religion, my own or otherwise, has the power to come between my conscience and my belief in what God makes me feel to be right.

I do not believe that the sexuality of our priests and bishops is a matter for others than themselves and their consciences.

I treasure the faith and commitment of women in the priesthood and I will welcome them as they advance to be bishops in their own right. Australia now has two, and I look forward to more.

50 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-IP0DE2kTI

I am not a homosexual so I cannot understand what causes homosexuality. I do not know if homosexuality begins at birth or whether it is a developed way of life. I cannot get into the mind of Jesus or God to understand the intent of their teachings.

I do understand myself. I have a deep, unquenched love for all people. I receive some form of love from everyone I meet. This love allows me to see the beauty that is mankind. This love that God allows me to have prevents me from seeing fat, black, white, blind, death, thin, brown eyes, blue eyes and all of the things that distract mankind from being closer to God.

God told us he was going to use parables to confuse mankind. It worked. I allow myself to function simply. I simply accept everyone. I simply believe in God. God bless us all.

I'm an Episcopalian who wished that the good people of New Hampshire had waited a while before selecting a gay bishop. This was basically out of a sense that the time was not ripe, i.e., that there were not enough openly gay priests to make the concept seem commonplace.

New Hampshire didn't consult me, however. We are where we are & we have to live with that. They followed the rules & selected someone who had served honorably as a clergyman. Argument over. Where then is the problem?

If you are going to permit gay priests, or female ones for that matter, you eventually will have gay (or female) bishops. It's that simple.

Equally simple is the fact that churches are supposed to be in the business of accepting people, not of kicking them out, particularly over matters of lawfully exercised sexual morality.

Those members of the Anglican Communion who don't want such people in presiding positions, are free to follow their own path. They should let others do the same.

Posted on July 15, 2008 17:54

Billy:
Just where in the Gospels does it say anything about Jesus, who consorted with the outcasts, the lepers, the tax collectors, the prostitutes, where does it say that he condemned the homosexual?

-- Billy, I totally get that. But I don't think He WANTED people to stay prostitutes. Or collect money unfairly.

Nwa Ogwashi, Nigeria:
MARK TWAIN & ME: TALE OF AN INTELLECTUAL GOLIATH & THE MISTY-EYED LILLIPUTIAN. 100 years ago the great American contrarian Mark Twain immortalized this condemnation of Religion: "WHAT I HATE ABOUT RELIGION IS ITS BOSSINESS AND ITS ALIGNMENT WITH CORRUPT COMMUNITY VALUES THAT PEOPLE - THOSE STANDING TO PROFIT - INSISTED ON CALLING A HIGHER POWER." He might have been talking about Cardinal Ratzinger, the Nazi descendant who now goes by the pompous title of "pope" and whose residence - the Vatican - engineered the Spanish Inquisition, Nazi-abetting Holocaust blood-letting, War of Cultural Artifacts-looting, Mass Rape of U.S. Boys-under-12-years and [through its allied U.S. right wing religious lunatics] the withholding of millions of dollars in World Health Organization money from African nations who did not foreswore using some of that money to buy condom to prevent HIV/Aids. I never understood the true meaning of Christianity until I came to the United States where pious Christians speak NEVER of love but eternally foam-in-the-mouth with microscopic reasons to hate [and actual hatred of]....black Americans, Gay Americans, non-gun-loving Americans, Mexican Americans, pro-choice Americans, liberal-Americans, French people [minus the crazy ass-kissing President Sarkozy], Iranians, Muslims, China and Chinese people, and anyone who does not support the Guantanao Gulag, Waterboarding Torture, Abu Ghraib Holocaust and World-wide Secret CIA prisons. What more can I say? Look at what the shameful lengths that American Anglicans are reaching in their zeal to force fellow Anglicans to outlaw gay bishops and force women out of the priesthood. IF THIS IS CHRISTIANITY AND CHRISTIAN MORALITY, THEN I AM CONFORTABLE ARRANGING AN OPEN-ENDED MEMBERSHIP IN THE CLUB OF ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS AND PLAIN ORDINARY EVERYDAY HUMANS.

-- Dear Nwa,

Greetings, my friend. My name is Fuji, and I am a solicitor for the late Baron von Frankl of Connecticut. In his will, he instructed me that some $25 million of his estate were to be sent to relatives living in and about Nairobi. Because of current banking transaction laws, I cannot transfer all $25 million to Baron von Frankl's account ...

nice work, fuji!

Biblical education time for all you who have never read it.

Jesus condemned sexual immorality. He was a Jew. Sexual immorality in Hebrew Scriptures clearly included homosexuality. It would be laughable from a Biblical standpoint to suggest that Jesus did not include homosexuality under sexual immorality. Furthermore, He endorsed the Genesis account of marriage between one man and one woman.

The Book of Romans, the most complete explanation of the Christian faith, clearly states that homosexuality is not God's intention for men or women and, in fact, is theh result of suppressing the truth about God.

Husein Stevens; get over it. the Baptists lost...
Jesus never condoned homos. And leadership is different from membership...
All the Pope-bashing is evil.

The core problem of the Anglican church and consequently, the Episcopal church in America is that it is part of the establishment - society and government.

I say this as an Episcopal priest who has watched time after time when the Episcopal church is at best a tail light on society, being dragged along while looking back - never a headlight leading and serving.

This lack of courage comes from a love of the position the Anglicans hold in society and the approval that brings. The standard joke is the Episcopal church in America is Democrats leading Republicans in prayer.

Jesus taught that if you cannot let go of the power and position you love, you will never have a free heart, blazing a trail for the rest of us like he did. These things, position, power, recognition, buildings, houses, cars, keys - all own us. There can be no worse prison.

Ever notice that Jesus did not found a religion? He taught about how we should treat each other, loving and taking great risks for each other - even death. He also taught against dogma, society and position. That is why he and his followers were called atheists - they would not bow to public religion, as Paul Simon said: "to the neon gods they made." All the other stuff was added by people creating a public religion. As Seneca said:
"The common folk find religion true - the wise find it false - and the rulers find it useful."

In the words of Isaiah: Who can we send? Who will go for us?

In my view, the Anglicans strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel.

Williams gave a very public - indeed televised - blessing to the civil union of two notoriously cruel adulterers, Charles Prince of Wales and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles, whose adultery destroyed both of their families. They did nothing to dispel the impression left that this was a Christian wedding, although this is banned under their newly lax rules.

What are nice, faithful gay people and women compared with this? And this specimen - Charles -is the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That is something to truly be ashamed of and upset about. The deafening preference for this other topic just goes to show this folderol is all about bigotry.

hey aussi peter

your understanding of the two great principals is way off. you just made that up.
by your standard there is no standard. everything is acceptable. the worst part of your poor understanding is that if you feel it should be a certain way you get to force your position on others.
Jesus may have delt with tax collectors or prostitutes but He never said that they should go on hooking or taking too much in the way of taxes. Jesus did not say "your sins are forgiven, go do it again."
and Jesus condemned adultry which was sex with somene to whom you were not married, which includes men doing men. Jesus also followed scripture, but said we did not have to go along with ritual cleaniness, but the substance of the old testiment was to be followed.
you may want to re-write the bible but you dont get to. want to start your own religion, good for you. enjoy.
sin is sin and we are all sinners but you must understand that Jesus set boundries by accepting that which went before Him, or changing what He felt was wrong. Jesus never said homo sex was acceptable. He did not mention child molestion so does that mean it's ok? not hardly.

I guess that break in the original chirch 500 years ago was not a good thing after all...

I'm a secularist who thinks Christianity is on balance a pretty good religion, although I can't accept it's more supernatural doctrines.

If I was going to become an actual Christian, I'd probably choose the Episcopal church; because it seems pretty reasonable.

Of course, the fact that people like me approve of it is part of the reason the others are schism-ing.

"Gareth Harris: The standard joke is the Episcopal church in America is Democrats leading Republicans in prayer. "

Isn't it also Catholics giving Unitarians communion?

I think it's instructive to look back at church history and realize the profound and indeed radical effect that Christianity had in unseating pagan worship in the world's most powerful empire, the Roman one. From what I understand of history, Roman society was ugly and depraved in many ways. Human beings attended spectacles in which other human beings were savaged and killed in the Colisseum, and apparently it was all very entertaining. Sexual immodesty was extremely common, as was drunkenness. Although to some people, modern Christianity evokes images of prim, uptight, scowling Protestants who eschew any form of pleasure whatsoever, the fact is that Christianity radically transformed the world by offering the notion that human beings had intrinsic worth and were loved by their Creator. Christianity taught that human interactions that were life-giving, kind and supportive were vastly superior to the kind of subjugation, slavery, and abuse common during the Roman Empire's zenith. My view on the Episcopal Church generally is that it has become irrelevant from a theological standpoint, because the emphasis has so joltingly shifted from following Christ and obtaining salvation to being politically correct. To the extent that homiletics in the modern Episcopal church are frequently little more than thinly disguised political screeds against the current presidential administration or diatribes against capitalism, the Episcopal church has given Bible-believing conservatives no choice but to leave. To those who have welcomed the church's openness to gay and female clergy, congratulations. While Anglicanism has continued to decline in the liberal Western churches, the rolls of Anglicans in Africa and Asia are booming. Churches cannot thrive by simply incorporating faddish social trends into their theology. Rather, just as the United States has guiding principles enshrined in a document called the Constitution, Christianity only endures to the extent that its followers remain true to the unfailing word of Holy Scripture.

Well stated, Stephen.

The volume of stupidity, unflinching narrow mindedness, and absolute denial of the history of religion and civilization displayed in this column is incredible! To believe the absolute word of God is available from any and all of the hundreds of versions of the Bible printed today is astounding. To insist that we should not change tradition because it's hundreds of years old is to accept tradition instead of God and humanity.

It's as if some are saying that only marriages performed after the Catholic church defined an approved marriage ritual, under conditions approved by selected believers of today are legitimate and acceptable to God.

My belief is that God wants us to shun any religion and repudiate any minister if they will not shout first, last, and always "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Love your neighbor as you do yourself".

Every Sunday I repeated the confession that "I have followed too much the devices and desires of my own heart." That is the core of Christian faith as it was taught to me my entire life - love and obedience to God comes first. Second is to love my neighbor as myself in a way that he/she will see the goodness of God is part of this and come to an obedience to God. I always accepted that sometimes God asks me not to do certain things. I may not know why, but I don't summarily ignore these restrictions because they're inconvenient. But when I asked how I could be certain that we were making a change in policy based on God's will, and not the "devices and desires of our own heart", I was attacked. I was labeled a "homophobe" and told I was being "hateful" - just for asking! I had concernes because all six of the Instruments of Unity had said that the new teaching was outside the beliefs of the Anglican Church. Even other groups - the Lutherans, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, all maintained that there was no basis to support the new teaching. I didn't question the wisdom of revisiting the teaching, but just the process by which we decided to change the teaching. For this I got a faceful of angry people calling me names and yelling at me. I watched the Bishop of Virginia tease dissident parishes with procedures for discernment and dissention, only to use to throw the process out and use it against them in court. I watched when ECUSA said the Government has no business telling the Church how to conduct their business, and then file volume after volume of lawsuits against the dissenters. They couldn't just let a priest resign, they had to have a trial to bring him up on "presentment." (Much like the middle ages when they dug up corpses for trial.) THIS is "love?" This is "compassion?" No wonder so many people just quit the church and walked away. If the so-called conservatives are bad, the liberals are equally so. I left the Anglican Church completely. When it's all done, they'll be left with decaying buildings and no membership.

Gareth Harris foolishly wrote...

"Ever notice that Jesus did not found a religion?"

What kind of garbage is that ? Jesus created a core hierarchy. The disciples. And he left Peter in charge. And he told them to wait together in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit because "you will be my witnesses, to Judea and Samaria and the whole Earth".

I know you would like to reduce Christianity to an empty "feel good about yourself"-ism, but it is nothing of the sort.

Deep anger among the bishops you say. Lucifer just loves it. Divide and conquer He always says.

The big money still comes in no matter the anger. Lucifer pays well for the souls of the innocent led to him by angry bishops. Some bishops are happy, enough money coming in to meet their faith goals?

Folks,
American Episcopalian writes:

"If the African Bishops feel so strongly about their anti-woman, anti-gay viewpoints, they should join the Catholic church as it fully supports their bigoted, uneducated and uncivilized positions. There is no need to split the Anglican community over the dissenters who don't embrace the teachings of the church, and who instead embrace the Pope's teachings - head toward Rome. Good riddance!"

Africa represents almost half the nominal strength of Anglicanism (38.325 Million in 10 separate churches)! If they are sent out with a "good riddance," the 80 Million member Anglican Communion would instantly be reduced to (at most) a 41.675 Million member communion.

What's more, 26 Million of those are English Anglicans...if there really are 26 Million. Then there are also the non-African conservatives who might leave: there are 3.25 Million in India and another 800,000 in Pakistan, for example. Does anyone think that the Pakistani Anglicans are going to be very pro-gay rights?

Then in at least England, the US and Australia, there are Anglican conservatives who have joined themselves with the Africans. So, in the end, to what size will the ideologically purified Anglican Communion reduce?

Islam, for those how do not know it, is a peaceful religion, and has no relation whatsoever to terrorism act. For those who want to know about Islam, might find these webs of interest to them: www.islam-guide.com or www.islamalways.com . I ask GOD to let all of us, all the world’s inhabitants live in peace and harmony. Thank you.

Islam, for those how do not know it, is a peaceful religion, and has no relation whatsoever to terrorism act. For those who want to know about Islam, might find these webs of interest to them: www.islam-guide.com or www.islamalways.com . I ask GOD to let all of us, all the world’s inhabitants live in peace and harmony. Thank you.

Islam, for those how do not know it, is a peaceful religion, and has no relation whatsoever to terrorism act. For those who want to know about Islam, might find these webs of interest to them: www.islam-guide.com or www.islamalways.com . I ask GOD to let all of us, all the world’s inhabitants live in peace and harmony. Thank you.

Message to side 1: Good for you for defending your interpretation. Keep up the Lord's fight!

Message to side 2: Good for you for defending your interpretation. Keep up the Lord's fight!

Nothing beats a schism.