Comments (158)

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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".

Well stated, Stephen.

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.

"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'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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

nice work, fuji!

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

50 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong

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

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.

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.

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.

An article to ponder:

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

Think about it.

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.

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 ?

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.

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?

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!

Whoops! Meant to write "follow suite."

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.

"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!"

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

"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!

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

Jesus accepted the old testament as holy scripture.

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.

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

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

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"?

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.

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 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.

"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.

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.

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