US Church Ready For Anal?

[melendipity]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3120171.stm


Robinson has caused controversy within the US Anglican Church
The Anglican Church in America has voted to confirm the appointment of an openly gay bishop.

The Episcopal Church's House of Deputies - composed of clergy and lay people - decided by a substantial majority that the Reverend Canon Gene Robinson of New Hampshire can serve as a bishop.

There will be one final vote in the House of Bishops on Monday, but BBC correspondent Jane Little says it is likely this vote will also be in favour of Mr Robinson.

The selection has brought heavy fire from conservatives at home and religious leaders in the developing world, including parts of Asia and Africa, where Anglicans tend to be more traditionalist.
I can do more for gay and lesbian folk in the Church by being a good bishop than by being the gay bishop



I am two minds about this. I see the hypocrisy of the christian churches rearing their collective ugly head's again...................yet someones sexuality is their own damn business. You dont have to be heterosexual to do the right thing by humanity.

This topic interests me, no end, yet i cant post in a more appropriate part of the bressler site. Me been heavily monitored and all by JB, cause i is evil. But its an interesting discussion topic. Thanks!

[JBMoney]

I helped you out with a more interesting title...

[JDub]

LOL! I wouldn't send out the invitations for the Anglican Rainbow Cookout just yet...

Vote on first gay bishop delayed (http://www.msnbc.com/news/947847.asp?vts=080420031435&cp1=1)

MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 4 — Episcopal bishops indefinitely postponed their vote Monday on whether to approve the church’s first openly gay elected bishop while last-minute allegations of inappropriate conduct are investigated.

THE ADVANCEMENT OF the Rev. V. Gene Robinson to bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire had been approved Sunday by the church’s House of Deputies, a legislative body composed of clergy and lay people, setting the stage for Monday’s final vote by the 106-member House of Bishops.
Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold postponed the final vote Monday afternoon, saying in a statement that he had appointed the bishop of Western Massachusetts, the Rev. Gordon B. Scruton, to investigate “questions [that] have been raised and brought to my attention regarding the bishop elect.”
Griswold said nothing about the nature of the allegations, but James Solheim, director of the church-run Episcopal News Service, told MSNBC TV that Griswold received an e-mail message Sunday alleging that Robinson had engaged in inappropriate “touching a few years ago.”
Solhem did not elaborate, but Reuters said it had obtained a copy of an e-mail message that was sent to Bishop Thomas Ely of Vermont from a man identified as David Lewis, accusing Robinson of being a “skirt-chaser” who fondled him two years ago.
“My personal experience with him is he does not maintain appropriate boundaries with men. I believe this is an alarming weakness of character that alone makes Gene unsuitable for the office of bishop,” said the note, which was dated Sunday.
Solheim said that about the same time on Sunday, discussion began circulating among church officials questioning whether pornography had appeared on Outright.org, a secular Web site Robinson has been affiliated with in the past.
The Web site offers support information for gay and lesbian youth in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. It does not appear to carry any material that could be described as pornographic, but it does include links to other Web sites, including one that features profanity on its home page and another that can direct users to sexually explicit material.

Supporters of Robinson in New Hampshire said the accusations left them flabbergasted.
The Rev. David Jones, rector of St. Paul’s Church in Concord and co-chairman of the search committee that reviewed Robinson’s background, told The Associated Press that all candidates for bishop underwent an extensive check.
“If any of this proved true I would be stunned,” Jones said. “To me it sounds like dirty politics. This is so close to the end that I don’t know.”
The Rev. R. Cassius L. Webb of St. Luke’s Church in Charlestown and Union Church in Claremont called the announcement “a desperate delaying tactic. It’s one of those things where sometimes people in the church think they’re doing God’s will and will do strange things.
“I cannot imagine that there’s anything in it,” Webb said.
Michael Hopkins, another supporter of Robinson, told reporters that he was disappointed but hoped the eleventh-hour accusation would not derail Robinson’s installation, which was already uncertain.
Informal surveys of the bishops had indicated that Robinson would be ratified and that as many as a quarter of the bishops would walk out or otherwise protest his advancement.
Like-minded bishops in the worldwide Anglican Communion have said they, too, would consider severing ties with the U.S. church over Robinson. A large exodus of conservatives could weaken the denomination and spark a bitter fight over parish property and funds.
Gay rights loom large on U.S. agenda

The Anglican Communion is made up of 38 largely autonomous provinces, ostensibly led by the Church of England. In Britain, a similar controversy triggered a decision by a gay bishop-elect, Canon Jeffrey John, to withdraw his name last month.
In an interview Monday on NBC’s “Today” show before the allegations arose, Robinson pleaded with conservatives to rethink their stance.
“There is no need in the world for us to split over this,” he said. “I want those folks in my church.”
But he also said that if the conservatives do splinter the church, they would be replaced by people who gravitate to a church that embraced gays.
“What they fail to realize ... we’re going to be having a lot of people come into our church because of that,” he said.
Many church liberals have said the threat has been exaggerated and note that many conservatives had pledged to break ties before over such issues as ordaining women but did not follow through.
If there is a split, it ultimately would be up to the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to decide which groups within the Anglican Communion were to remain affiliated.
“The archbishop has said he is open to two provinces,” said Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, a conservative. “He said he did not see that the American church could go much longer without two provinces.”

‘A TRAGIC DECISION’
In Sunday’s vote, the House of Deputies voted by delegation, with 128 delegations voting yes and 63 voting no. The votes of 25 delegations were not counted because their members were divided.
The American Anglican Council, which represents conservative bishops and parishes, said it was “deeply grieved” by the results.
“It is a tragic decision that leads the Episcopal Church to the brink of shattering the Anglican Communion,” the council said in a statement. Episcopalians form the U.S. branch of the 77-million-member communion.

Robinson, 56, a divorced father of two, has lived with his partner, Mark Andrew, for 13 years. If he is eventually confirmed at this week’s Episcopal General Convention, it will have an impact far beyond his diocese. Bishops who believe gay sex is a sin contend that allowing him to serve is a tacit endorsement of ordaining homosexuals.
Robinson was elected by his diocese in June, but the church requires that a majority of convention delegates ratify his election. It is rare for the General Convention to reject a diocese’s choice of bishop.
The vote by the House of Deputies, representing dioceses nationwide, came after about an hour of emotional but polite debate.
Bonnie Anderson, a parishioner from the Diocese of Michigan, said deputies should not be swayed by warnings about a potential split in the church.
“You may be afraid — afraid of schism and afraid it will hurt your church budget. Don’t be afraid,” she said. “The power behind you and within you is far greater than the resistance before you.”
George Marshall, a parishioner from the Diocese of Albany, N.Y., said confirming Robinson would send a damaging message that Episcopalians are guided by shifting cultural attitudes, not by Scripture.
“It will prove once again that our church doesn’t have the confidence to proclaim the Gospel,” Marshall said. “Do not do this thing.”

PRAYER BEFORE VOTE
A chaplain led the deputies in prayer before their vote. The president of the legislative body had asked them to remain quiet when the results were announced, and they complied.
Robinson has served as assistant to the retiring New Hampshire bishop. He has repeatedly rejected calls from opponents to withdraw his candidacy to prevent a breakup of the church, as a gay clergyman in England did recently.
A final vote in favor of Robinson could build momentum for approving blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples, Episcopalians on both sides of the issue say. A decision on the proposed ceremony is expected later in the meeting, which runs through Friday.

[melendipity]

Originally posted by JBMoney
I helped you out with a more interesting title...

gee, thanks heaps JB.........:rolleyes:

Damn hypocrisy of the churches :mad:

[micron]

Originally posted by melendipity
gee, thanks heaps JB.........:rolleyes:

Damn hypocrisy of the churches :mad:
Churches may well be hypocritical but the bible isn't.Its very clear that the message is love your fellow man but not in an anal way.I cannnot understand why homosexuals would want to join a religion (or stay in one) that is fundamentally against their life choice.:confused:

[JBMoney]

Many folks would say that Priests who are supporting, or attempting to serve as, gay Episcopal priests, AFTER COMMITING THEMSELVES to following god's word/will per the principles of this particular church, are the ones that have been hypocritical.

hypocritical
adj : professing feelings or virtues one does not have;

They may feel this has nothing to do with what the majority of people feel is the right, 'fashionable', or nice thing to do. They may feel it's actually important to follow the long-held principles of their organization, and keep the covenant one makes when joining its priesthood (not altering the terms of the deal afterward).

[Pistol Pete]

Damn JB, you just described the Democatic Party :laugh:

[Kimmy]

What if the gay priest was celibate? Would it be any different than having a single, straight man as a priest?

God loves us all... but the world doesn't. The world looks for anything to point their fingers at... anything that seems to prove how wrong 'the church' is. An openly gay priest will be pointed out.. but so will not allowing an openly gay priest.

[JBMoney]

This isn't necessarily just a religious issue, but an organizational one. We see more groups every day having to sell out, or pay off, special interests groups (or their lawyers) just to stay in business, even when those special interests are diametrically opposed.

If I was the national director for PETA (and let's assume that PETA has held the same principles as dear for a few hundred years) and I found out that my Alaskan field director was out clubbing seals every weekend... he's fired.

No second thoughts.

He doesn't have a high enough respect for the principles of our organization (and we're not even talking about the responsibility for hundreds of thousands of immortal souls).

I would certainly not propose to the Board of Directors that we promote him to a position of higher authority, so as to increase our outreach to hunting enthusiasts. He's toast.

Maybe I'd tell him to find an organization specifically for vegetarian seal hunters or something.

[JBMoney]

Also, I believe the question in this matter is a promotion, not a dismissal.

Just to clarify.

[melendipity]

I agree, its an ethical and moral issue here.

You cant deliver a message with one hand, and than take it away, with the other.

It just doesnt work like that.

The Bible is the central guiding tool here............if these priests are going to keep continually referring back to the bible, in issues of morality and values, than for christs sakes, live it.

But, like JB has mentioned here, its one of mega bucks as well.

[melendipity]

cop this :scary: you may have been right JDub



MINNEAPOLIS Aug. 4 —Episcopal leaders delayed a vote Monday on whether to confirm the church's first openly gay bishop after allegations involving "touching" and "pornography" emerged against the clergyman, a church spokesman said.

Jim Solheim, the Episcopal spokesman, would not elaborate on the allegations against the Rev. V. Gene Robinson.

Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold was expected to make a statement later Monday, Solheim said.

Robinson's spokesman Mike Barwell said he would comment only after Griswold released his statement.

Robinson needs approval from delegates to the church's General Convention to become bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. His candidacy drew intense opposition from conservatives, who said they would consider breaking away from the church if he was confirmed.

Robinson, a 56-year-old divorced father of two, has been attending the convention with his daughter and partner of 13 years, Mark Andrew.



Damn this story is getting worse.

All i can see is power and sex. :(

[micron]

Originally posted by Kimmy
What if the gay priest was celibate? Would it be any different than having a single, straight man as a priest?



The bible doesn't condem being homosexual,nor should any church based on the bible.
There are a number of problems with a homosexual minister engaged in a sexual relationship.This doesn't fit with the bibles model for sexual relations ie within a marriage.There is also the problem of Leviticus which is very clear that there is to be no poofin'.
Under the banner of Christian churches anyone who finds he is homosexual should be receiving counselling to try to solve the problem.They certainly are not candidates for ministry.

This may be homophobic and politically incorrect but that is the religion you can't just take the bits you want.:)

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by Kimmy
What if the gay priest was celibate? Would it be any different than having a single, straight man as a priest?

Yes. One has to take the whole Bible in context. If everyone took only one line out of the Bible, then no coherent doctrine could be taken out of it.

The Bible is clear that homosexuality is wrong. That doesn't mean you bash the guy, but neither doesn't it mean you let a practicing homosexual in the pulpit. The same thing goes for straight priests if they are doing something.

Remember Jimmy Swaggert (sp?)? There was nothing wrong with him being a preacher per se, but he was using prostitutes. The church heirarchy revoked is right to preach for a number of years and put him on probation. It wasn't him they were rejecting; it was his behavior and they gave him a chance to repent. At that point Swaggert left the church feeling it was unjustified to discipline him. So it's not just homosexuals that should or are taken aside for their breaking of church doctrine.

Also there is a difference in the fact that chastity is a denominational requirement; whereas, the prohibition on sodomy is a biblical requirement.

So the celebacy thing only matters in Catholic type churches. The real crux doctrinally is whether somebody is admitting they are living a life in direct conflict with Biblical commands when they are supposed to be teaching others how to be obedient to Biblical commands.

[JBMoney]

I would point out, again, that this guy isn't being kicked out of the church or kept from preaching.

The whole controversy revolves around whether he should be promoted to BISHOP, basically a leadership position not just over his church congregation, but over other reverends.

So, it's not just a matter of 'your qualified to perform works in the service of a church congregation' but 'your qualified to provide guidance and serve as an example to other reverends for an entire region'.

He becomes ' the authority', and if it's ok for the leadership then it's ok for everyone.

[melendipity]

And this is it. The essential code of practice of the priesthood, be it catholic or other christian, is to follow the bottom line messages of the bible. You put an openly gay bishop in the church hierachy, you virtually open up Pandora's box.

Its like a lawyer who openly professes to breaking the code of confidentiality, and becomes the city's DA. *shrugs* doesnt work.

Its an ethical and moral stance.

Let him be gay, who gives really, but not as a bishop. Its just hypocrisy at it worse. Its insulting actually. The guy had a family. Sounds to me like he wants all his eggs (excuse the pun) in one basket. :mad:

[cuda]

You are so going to hell! :scary:

[gopsdragon]

Asian Leaders Condemn Bishop Appointment
Wed Aug 6, 7:45 AM ET

By MARY LONGMORE, Associated Press Writer

SYDNEY, Australia - An Anglican leader warned Wednesday that Asia's bishops might consider cutting their ties with the U.S. Episcopalian Church over its appointment of its first openly gay bishop.

Other Anglican bishops said the election of Rev. Gene V. Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire could hurt the church, but differed on whether it would create a schism.

"Practicing homosexuality is culturally and legally not acceptable here," said Bishop Dr. Lim Cheng Ean, the leader of the Anglican Church of West Malaysia.

Lim said Southeast Asian Anglican bishops may discuss cutting ties with the U.S. church at a meeting next week, because of Robinson's appointment.

"We will be having a meeting of the bishops of the province next week. We may discuss this then and a decision may be taken then," he said.

There are four Southeast Asian dioceses — Kuching, Singapore, West Malaysia and Sabah.

In Australia, conservative Sydney Archbishop Peter Jensen said the new gay bishop would not be welcome in his diocese and urged opponents in the United States to fight the decision by withholding contributions to church coffers.

"It impacts on all of us because when a branch of the church does this, its teachings become compromised."

He said the decision was the start of a "loosening of ties" within the Anglican communion.

John Dayal, vice president of All India Catholics Union, also slammed the decision to confirm Robinson's election.

"The election of a gay bishop is a blatant aggravation of societal norms, and in India it certainly will not be acceptable," Dayal said.

But the head of Australia's Anglican Church, Primate Peter Carnley rejected fears the decision could tear apart the Anglican community.

"I don't think it's a communion-breaking issue," said Carnley, who is considered a liberal in Australia's Anglican community.

Carnley said Robinson's appointment was likely to have a negative impact, but hoped it would spur a moral debate on homosexuality in Australia rather than a schism.

"It's an issue upon which we are divided but it's not the kind of issue that would cause us to turn out back on our Lord's teachings," Carnley told The Associated Press.

American conservatives and like-minded bishops overseas who represent millions of parishioners have said confirming Robinson would force them to consider breaking away from the church.

The Rev. Peter Jensen, a conservative Anglican archbishop in Sydney, said the decision was catastrophic for the church.

He said the new gay bishop would not be welcome in the Sydney diocese and urged opponents in the United States to fight the decision by withholding contributions to church coffers.

"For the first time, a branch of our Anglican church has knowingly appointed a person to this senior position who lives in breach of the Bible," he said. "It impacts on all of us because when a branch of the church does this, its teachings become compromised."

Melbourne's conservative Archbishop Peter Watson refused to comment on the decision, referring to an earlier statement on Robinson's pending election where he said the American church "has turned its back on our unity and must bear responsibility for the pain and disunity that will be felt throughout the Communion."

The Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million members, is the U.S. branch of the 77 million-member global Anglican Communion, which has been debating the role of gays for decades.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030806/ap_on_re_au_an/gay_bishop_world_4

[melendipity]

cool gops thanks.

I still cant wrap my head around this concept. The guy should never have been allowed into an area of authority, its just damn hypocritical.

I can see Pandora's Box opening up and wide.

:scary:

;)

Next the Bishops will want the freedom to f*** beached whales.

[micron]

Originally posted by melendipity

Next the Bishops will want the freedom to f*** beached whales.
Jonah got into a whale.:)

[JBMoney]

I think this is a big step forward.

I mean, heck, why shouldn't atheists, muslims, jews and what have you be allowed to become Episcopal reverands and eventually Bishops?

Becoming an Episcopalian 'father' should have nothing to do with actually <b>believing</b> in the teachings of Christ and principles of your church, just that you know what they are (for reference purposes).

This could bring new hope and opportunities for unemployed teachers everywhere. A couple reads through that Bible thing, passing a few pop quizzes, and they should just set you up with your own 'flock'. One big happy classroom without any of those moral hangups to follow you home.

All this using the clergy to set an example to folks of how Christ wanted us to live, and living up to your commitments is malarkey.

Who needs it.

[melendipity]

Because human nature is such that we need some form of guideline to fall back on. The Bible for the churches is like a Policy and Procedures Manual. A continuum of belief, faith and value system.

It is scattered thought to me.

You have one Bishop professing his/her ideology from the pulpit, and then across town, you have another Bishop professing another.

Sure progression of the species demands change. But this is different. This is subtle. I just cant wrap my head around the hypocrisy of it.

[cuda]

The church is all about hypocrisy. There I said it. :nolike:

[Barb101]

The church is all about hypocrisy. There I said it. :nolike:

Yeah! :D :p

[micron]

Originally posted by cuda
The church is all about hypocrisy. There I said it. :nolike:
Which perticular church you referrin to boy?:mad:

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by JBMoney
Becoming an Episcopalian 'father' should have nothing to do with actually <b>believing</b> in the teachings of Christ

Here goes a Scotch-Irish moment of political incorrectness-

Let me point out that the Episcopalian church never was about the teachings of Christ; it was a front church intended to wrest control of Scotland from the Presbyterian church :mad: because the king couldn't control the Presbyterys but could control a small group of bishops.

It comes as no surprise that the Episcopalians are now considered Anglicans because that's all they were all along. A church of the King rather than of Christ. :mad:

[gopsdragon]

Episcopal Vote Allows Blessings of Gay Unions
Thu Aug 7, 1:00 AM ET Add Top Stories - washingtonpost.com to My Yahoo!

By Alan Cooperman, Washington Post Staff Writer

MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 6 -- A day after approving the election of an openly gay bishop, Episcopal Church leaders today passed a watered-down resolution giving dioceses the option of blessing same-sex unions.

The church's House of Bishops approved the measure by an overwhelming voice vote after removing language that had called for developing a nationwide official liturgy for same-sex commitment ceremonies.

The compromise was intended to avoid exacerbating deep strains in the church after a tumultuous vote Tuesday to confirm the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as a bishop in New Hampshire. It is expected to receive final approval Thursday in the House of Deputies, the other chamber in the church's bicameral legislature.

Gay rights advocates hailed the measure as a victory. "We have a significant move forward in the church toward the honoring and celebrating of same-sex relationships," said the Rev. Michael Hopkins of Glenn Dale, Md., president of the gay church group Integrity.

Opponents said the bishops exercised some restraint but are nonetheless violating the traditional Christian teaching on marriage.

"They passed a local option, and a local option translates into anything goes," said the Rev. David C. Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council, a group devoted to biblical orthodoxy. "Of course yesterday they voted to break 2,000 years of biblical faith and mores, and we're just beginning to grapple with the fallout from that." Some delegates to the church's General Convention here wore ashes on their foreheads and others walked out of today's legislative sessions to protest the confirmation of Robinson, 56, who has lived in a committed relationship with another man for 13 years.

The Episcopal Church's public wrestling over Robinson's election and same-sex unions comes against the backdrop of a national debate over gay marriage, which is shaping up as a potential issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. President Bush (news - web sites) has said he is looking for ways to "codify" that marriage should only be "between a man and a woman," while most of the leading Democratic candidates have endorsed civil unions that would give gay couples most or all of the legal benefits of marriage.

Episcopal leaders have taken pains to maintain decorum in their internal deliberations and to avoid claiming that they are setting an agenda for the nation. But they clearly feel themselves in the national spotlight.

With 2.3 million members, "we are a flea on the American religious landscape, and yet we always seem to attract more attention than we deserve," Bishop Edward Little of Indiana said. "Maybe that's because we're that funny bridge between Protestantism and Catholicism, and maybe it's because, for better or worse, we do all of our business in public."

In recent years, almost every mainline Protestant denomination also has been torn over ordaining gay clergy and performing commitment ceremonies for gay couples. The United Methodist Church, for example, has removed two ministers after church trials for performing same-sex blessings in violation of its rules. But Methodist ministers still flout the rules in several states, particularly California, where 80 Methodist ministers blessed a lesbian couple with impunity in 1999.

The Episcopal Church's compromise on same-sex blessings, worked out by a committee headed by the Rev. Frank Wade, rector of St. Alban's Church in Washington, would officially sanction a practice that is widespread in the church.

"We recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same-sex unions," it said.

Same-sex blessings have been performed unofficially in about two-thirds of the 110 U.S. dioceses, including Washington. But the bishops in only three dioceses -- Delaware, Kansas and New Hampshire -- have formally sanctioned them.

The Rev. Susan Russell, executive director of Claiming the Blessing, a group that has been pushing for an official liturgy for blessing gay couples, said the change is more than merely approving the status quo. "A bishop now will have national permission to allow blessings in his or her diocese, which has not been the case before," she said.

To many delegates here, however, the resolution was just fuel on the fire of their disappointment over Robinson's confirmation.

Almost all of the 835 members of the convention's House of Deputies stood and applauded politely for Robinson this morning, a day after he was cleared of last-minute allegations and confirmed as the first openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion, a family of 38 churches descended from the Church of England.

With the chairman's permission, however, one deputy read a vociferous protest, repeating a call made by 19 bishops Tuesday for intervention by the archbishop of Canterbury, the communion's spiritual leader, and the heads of its member churches.

"We believe this is a profound misstep contrary to the word of God and the traditions of the church Catholic," said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a theologian from South Carolina. "But understand this clearly: We are not leaving the church. It is rather the church that has left the historic faith and has fractured the Anglican Communion, for whose restoration we pledge our faithful and loving efforts."

About 30 deputies stood behind Harmon as he read the statement, and half a dozen others knelt in prayer. A few bishops, priests and lay people also walked out of the convention today to protest Robinson's confirmation, but most said they will be back, and none said they are leaving the church.

The Rev. Ian T. Douglas, a deputy who teaches at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., said the "fact that the protests were dignified and measured should not obscure the deep pain" they reflect.

"We are Episcopalians, right. We show our emotions in the ceremonies and pageantry of our worship," he said. "We don't stomp our feet, holler and run."



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=2&u=/washpost/20030807/ts_washpost/a25954_2003aug6

[strangeboy]

Originally posted by micron
I cannnot understand why homosexuals would want to join a religion (or stay in one) that is fundamentally against their life choice.:confused:


I am agreeing with you more now :OOPS: .... I still think its kind of a good thing for those gay people who are religious and need the church's approval to accept who they are.... and atleast the church isnt doing it just to get the pink dollar (or are they?:scary:)..... gay priests arent going to get me believing though.... im catholic so I think I will be waiting a while anyways :D

[cuda]

Originally posted by micron
Which perticular church you referrin to boy?:mad:


Does it matter? :D

[JDub]

Originally posted by gopsdragon
A church of the King rather than of Christ. :mad:

Every church is man-made. :confused: What's the difference?

[evereno]

Originally posted by JDub
Every church is man-made. :confused: What's the difference?

Wow what an issue to respond to the firt time back in Bresslerville. But, I could not resist the temptation to address the question/quip.

While Gops is referring specifically the structural development of the Episcopal "church" from political dissidence and conflict with the English Monarch. There is is a difference between man-mde "church" and "The Church." "The Church" is all bodies of believers. I would agree in part with you JDub that churches may be man-made, but the body of believers is the actual Church. As such, there is a difference.

[JDub]

Originally posted by evereno
Wow what an issue to respond to the firt time back in Bresslerville. But, I could not resist the temptation to address the question/quip.

While Gops is referring specifically the structural development of the Episcopal "church" from political dissidence and conflict with the English Monarch. There is is a difference between man-mde "church" and "The Church." "The Church" is all bodies of believers. I would agree in part with you JDub that churches may be man-made, but the body of believers is the actual Church. As such, there is a difference.

How do you figure there's a difference? A church (established by a man) is different in what way from "The Church", made up of a body of men? They are all human constructs for worship. They are all guided by the whims of man. The only difference is the man whose whims guide that particular church. Should the Episcopal Church be considered any different because it was borne out of Henry's desire for divorce and control of the North? What about the Protestant movement as a whole? Didn't that have something to do with the Inquisition? :rolleyes:

I specifically didn't understand gops drawing the line between the church being "of the King" and "of Christ". It seems to me all churches are this way for their own particular reasons.

[evereno]

From Gops usage it appears that he was focusing on the political start of the Episcopal church. His use of the "of the King" was referring to the King of England, rather than the "of Christ" for Christians the "Son of God" where the "church" as an institution finds its origins and foundation. At least this is my interepretation of Gops meaning. For complete accuracy, I will let Gops fill in any misunderstanding or errors in my perceptions.

As for my differentiation between "churches" and the "Church" it is based on a view that the Church is the total body of believers, not any man-made religious institution, whether it is Episcopal, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Baptist, you name it. That is all.

[melendipity]

Originally posted by JDub
How do you figure there's a difference? A church (established by a man) is different in what way from "The Church", made up of a body of men? They are all human constructs for worship. They are all guided by the whims of man. The only difference is the man whose whims guide that particular church. Should the Episcopal Church be considered any different because it was borne out of Henry's desire for divorce and control of the North? What about the Protestant movement as a whole? Didn't that have something to do with the Inquisition? :rolleyes:

I specifically didn't understand gops drawing the line between the church being "of the King" and "of Christ". It seems to me all churches are this way for their own particular reasons.

Yah! Couldnt agree more.

This latest little bit of ingenuity by the powerbrokers of the this church, is also a repeat of history - where is Santayana's quote now. hmmph! :mad:

Henry, wanted to get his rocks off with sexy Annie Boleyn, so off he sends his henchmen to Rome, and bye bye Catherine of Aragon.

And, i see huge parallels with this latest appointment of this new Gay bishop. Its hypocrisy, and its evil hypocrisy. Because this man is supposed to be role modelling the teachings of his bible - bah humbug, and yet wants to hump whales.

Hypocrisy :mad:

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by JDub
I specifically didn't understand gops drawing the line between the church being "of the King" and "of Christ". It seems to me all churches are this way for their own particular reasons.

Man! Leave for a while and all hell breaks loose.:laugh:

This is what I meant-

The presumption for years has been that a church premises itself on the teachings of Christ. The invention of the Episcopal church was for political purposes. The Anglican church was because the King wanted divorce and broke off of the Catholic church. England had a top down government in which the King controlled all. He had problems dictating certain decisions in Scotland because Presbyterians had bottom up government. The national Presbytery could never make decisions UNLESS FIRST GIVEN PERMISSION by the local Presybteries, which in turn had to be given permission by the individual churches within the Presbyteries. This problem of Presbyterianism meant the King could not rig the decisions of the church because he could not fix the vote in every single church and then move up the ladder to guarantee the National Presbytery would always act as a lackey for the "divine right" monarch.

To fix this problem of not being able to fix the vote, the King tried to replace Presbyterianism with a top down structure (Episcopalianism) so he could appoint the bishops and have a lackey church. The Scottish Episcopal church was created for a purely political purpose with no pretense whatsoever of serving the purposes of God.

Regardless of how one feels about the validity of Christianity or its different denominations, most have been founded because those people believed they were following the word of God. In the case of the formation of Scottish Episcopalian Church, there was no such pretense.

e.g.-Martin Luther never intended to create Lutheranism. He was only trying to show the Catholic church that it had strayed from the Bible and was making its own decisions under the auspices of Christianity and the practice needed to be stopped. When the Catholic Church refused, Lutheranism was born. Regardless of whether one agrees with Luther or not, no one can argue anything else than the fact that Luther believed he was serving God. He still wanted to be a Catholic but knew he must attempt to serve God and not man. He had to challenge himself to live the life of Christ. Calvin did the same thing with Congregationalism and Presbyterianism.

So, "the church" is the body of believers who have ATTEMPTED to live the life Christ regardless of denomination. However, the Episcopal church was never premised on the life Christ; it was premised on wresting political control of a country from its inhabitants.

P.S. - No, the inquisition is not a result of the reformation; Spain was Catholic not Protestant.

[JDub]

Thanks for the clarification. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by gopsdragon
P.S. - No, the inquisition is not a result of the reformation; Spain was Catholic not Protestant.

I, in fact, meant the reverse. ;)

"The first inquisitors worked in central Europe (Germany, northern Italy, eastern France). Later centers of the Inquisition were established in the Mediterranean regions, especially southern France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. The tribunal was used in England to suppress the Lollards (followers of the 14th-century reformer John Wycliffe). Queen Mary I of England (r. 1553-58) used the tribunal in her effort to reverse the Protestant Reformation."

[cuda]

Inquisition, more hipocrisy. Thou shall not kill, wasn't that one of them there commandments?

Crusades, Witch hunts, Pope giving the Bush the thumbs up...

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by cuda
Inquisition, more hipocrisy. Thou shall not kill, wasn't that one of them there commandments?

Actually no. This idea has come from people who take things out of context or simply translate things incorrectly. In the modern day, liberals within the church (particularly the Catholic church) have changed this commandment to Thou shalt not Kill. The commandment is clearly Thou shalt not murder and in the Hebrew there is a clear difference between murdering and killing.

In fact, nobody could seriously be a Christian and believe the Bible prohibits killing. God is supposed to be sinless yet God commands killing on numerous occasions. It's no wonder people think Christianity is so contradictory when men in the church change the Bible to fit their political views and then people see the Bible dictates something else.

This is where it frustrates me to be included in the group called Christians. Logically one can look at the Christian doctrine and see that God is supposed to be sinless and perfect and then turn around and see that God would be full of sin if on the one hand he said killing was a sin and then on the other hand commanded people to sin by killing. I'm sure Eddy, JDub, and most people on this board can see that logically it's something that doesn't work. I just can't figure out why Christians can't see that the logic does not follow and somethings got to give.

There are only two options for those who believe the Bible says thou shalt not kill is a commandment (1) God is a sinner (2) liberal churches have perverted the 10 commandments to fit there own views.

[melendipity]

There are 186 versions of the Bible - take ya pick ;) and interpret them how you will ;) so as to control the masses.

This topic is now becoming anally retentive for me :rolleyes:

[cuda]

Originally posted by gopsdragon
Actually no. This idea has come from people who take things out of context or simply translate things incorrectly. In the modern day, liberals within the church (particularly the Catholic church) have changed this commandment to Thou shalt not Kill. The commandment is clearly Thou shalt not murder and in the Hebrew there is a clear difference between murdering and killing.

See last reply.


Originally posted by gopsdragon
In fact, nobody could seriously be a Christian and believe the Bible prohibits killing. God is supposed to be sinless yet God commands killing on numerous occasions. It's no wonder people think Christianity is so contradictory when men in the church change the Bible to fit their political views and then people see the Bible dictates something else.

This is where it frustrates me to be included in the group called Christians. Logically one can look at the Christian doctrine and see that God is supposed to be sinless and perfect and then turn around and see that God would be full of sin if on the one hand he said killing was a sin and then on the other hand commanded people to sin by killing. I'm sure Eddy, JDub, and most people on this board can see that logically it's something that doesn't work. I just can't figure out why Christians can't see that the logic does not follow and somethings got to give.

This is the part where abortion comes to play. Why wouldn't this be one of those things that have to give?


Originally posted by gopsdragon
There are only two options for those who believe the Bible says thou shalt not kill is a commandment (1) God is a sinner (2) liberal churches have perverted the 10 commandments to fit there own views.

Which Ten Commandments? (yeah, I'm setting you up here. :rolleyes: )



*No I don't hate Christians and Christianity. I was brought up Roman Catholic to unconditionally accept this stuff getting crammed into me untill I got fed up and started to question it.

[gopsdragon]

Originally posted by cuda
This is the part where abortion comes to play. Why wouldn't this be one of those things that have to give?
By Hebrew standards abortion would clearly be murder and not killing.




Originally posted by cuda
Which Ten Commandments? (yeah, I'm setting you up here. :rolleyes: )
The ones given to Moses and with as funny as I think Mel Brooks is I don't believe Moses said "I give you the 15 *crash* the 10, the 10 commandments.


Originally posted by cuda
*No I don't hate Christians and Christianity. I was brought up Roman Catholic to unconditionally accept this stuff getting crammed into me untill I got fed up and started to question it.

Well that's the thing that's disturbing. Now because of apparent contradictions you've come to distrust it. In the end, many Christians are doing more to damage the validity and common sense of Christianity than any Atheists could hope to do. On many occasions Christians set themselves up to fail.

What I can't figure out is if you really believe it, and really believe people's souls are on the line, and it really is for eternity, why set yourself up for failure?

[melendipity]

Originally posted by gopsdragon


On many occasions Christians set themselves up to fail.

[gopsdragon]

:laugh: :laugh:

[melendipity]

Yeppers, we are our own worst enemy most of the time.

:scary:

Imagine what Jesus Christ would think, if he came back now. :rolleyes: He would think what a bunch of dicks, with all these rituals, all this real estate, all these political power games, all these massive churches.............blah blah. He was just a simple man, doing simple good deeds in a simple part of Jerusalem.

:confused:

[Pistol Pete]

Mel, I think you're right on all accounts, except for the "simple deeds", part. Raising people from the dead and feeding thousands with a few fish is not very simple, unless you're a mom with a teenager who brings his friends to dinner. However, He would recognize our modern world as the same as His. All those things you just mentioned were the same then, as now. Only the faces have changed.

Although, the Pharisees didn't have cable TV and websites to sock it to the people. ;)

[melendipity]

It blows my brains sometimes Pete. The man would be sickened at the hola balloo created after his death 2,000 years ago. :confused:

Feeding many mouths on a scrap of food, is an artform in itself.

[gopsdragon]

Conservative Episcopalians Meet on Gays
By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer

DALLAS - Standing and singing together, 2,600 conservative Episcopalians began an emotional meeting Tuesday where they will discuss how to fight their denomination's liberal steps on homosexuality — with the possibility of a church split in the air.

The gathering started with a crowd of clergy and lay people packed into a hotel ballroom and belting out the old hymn "Stand Up, Stand Up, for Jesus, Ye Soldiers of the Cross."

The meeting, which concludes Thursday, was originally planned as a strategy session for a few hundred leaders. But it mushroomed as conservatives reacted against two actions at the Episcopal Church's midsummer convention: confirmation of a gay bishop living with his partner, and a vote to recognize — though not endorse or condemn — that bishops are allowing blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples.

The presence in Dallas of 45 of the church's 300 bishops underscored the gravity of the situation.

"We have two to three weeks to see the future of the Episcopal Church in America," said the Rev. David Roseberry, whose 4,000-member Christ Church in suburban Plano organized the event.

He referred not only to the Dallas meeting but, more importantly, an Oct. 15-16 emergency summit in London for leaders of the international Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch.

That session involves the Anglicans' spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and the 37 other heads of world Anglican branches. Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold of the Episcopal Church also is a member of that group and defends the decisions reached this summer in Minneapolis.

The American Anglican Council, sponsor of the Dallas meeting, says that U.S. conservatives are loyal to Anglican beliefs and the Christian tradition, so it's the Episcopal Church majority that has broken away into schism.

Griswold had tried to send four observers to the meeting but they were turned away. Bruce Mason, a council spokesman, said observers were not allowed at the meeting and registration was limited to those who signed the organization's statement of faith, called "A Place to Stand."

Founded in 1996, the AAC has emerged as the most important conservative Episcopal caucus. It reports a mailing list of 50,000 and support from about 500 congregations and 50 bishops. Spokesman Bruce Mason said "we probably represent a minority within the Episcopal Church but are part of the vast majority worldwide."

Jim Naughton, spokesman for the Diocese of Washington, D.C., and part of that liberal majority, estimates that, at most, 14 percent of the 2.3 million Episcopalians favor traditionalist protests.

Any Episcopal split would presumably be the biggest in the United States since 1976, when 100,000 members quit the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod. The Episcopal Church also suffered 1970s walkouts, over women priests and revisions in liturgy, but they were minor by comparison.

The meeting's major action will be a petition to the London summit that's likely to ask the world leaders to provide special bishops to minister to conservatives within liberal U.S. dioceses, instead of their regular bishops.

The petition could also repeat an idea approved by recent conventions of the Fort Worth and Pittsburgh Dioceses, asking the London summit to declare the traditionalists to be the authentic U.S. branch of Anglicanism, in effect suspending or expelling the Episcopal Church.

Whatever emerges, "we need a safe place to be, safe from theological and spiritual harassment, harassment to careers, and danger to our property," said Canon David C. Anderson of Stone Mountain, Ga., AAC president.

He said AAC leaders will be holding a follow-up meeting sometime after the London summit.

A split is implied in such program topics here as "Talking Points for Answering Difficult Questions" and the legalistic "Constitutions, Canons, Pensions, Properties and Jurisdictions."

Who gets church property in a split could be among the toughest problems discussed in Dallas. The most radical position came from the Pittsburgh diocesan convention: a declaration that buildings now belong to each congregation, denying the national denomination's claim to control all property under 1979 legislation.

Said Roseberry: "We are prepared, and preparing, for what God is going to do next."

___

On the Net:

American Anglican Council: http://www.americananglican.org

Episcopal Church (official): http://www.episcopalchurch.org


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=6&u=/ap/20031007/ap_on_re_us/episcopalians_gays

[thudster2000]

Asshole=exit not entry:confused:

[melendipity]

Originally posted by thudster2000
Asshole=exit not entry:confused:

Vagina = exit of uterine waste, and full termed offspring

Thanks gobsie for the update.

A split by the look of it.

C'est le vie.

Progress :)

[jillamanda]

:rolleyes: Vagina = exit of uterine waste, and full termed offspring

...but the full termed offspring have to get in there somehow, and anyway, most of us enjoy it.....

[jillamanda]

:confused: .....and how do the premature ones get out?

[gopsdragon]

Does anybody know why Episcopals call their leaders primates? Also got me wondering what the lay people are called.

Conservatives Challenge Episcopal Church on Gays
2 hours, 17 minutes ago
By Sarah Tippit

DALLAS (Reuters) - Conservatives in the U.S. Episcopal Church on Thursday repudiated church leaders for approving an openly gay bishop and issued a "Call to Action" it said may be the first step toward a permanent church schism.

The dispute within the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church of the United States of America followed the election of a gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire and the church's approval of same-sex unions.

A meeting in Dallas attended by 2,700 conservative members of the U.S. church, including 46 bishops and more than 800 clergy, agreed on the "Call to Action" which condemned the church leadership.

It called on conservative congregations throughout America to redirect funds away from the American denomination and urged international Anglican primates -- or spiritual leaders -- to help conservatives formulate a new Anglican structure.

The Episcopalian Church is one of the body of churches that worship in the tradition of the Church of England.

"This initiative is a call for the leadership of the Episcopal Church to repent and reverse the unbiblical and schismatic actions of General Convention," said the Rev. David Anderson, president of the American Anglican Council, a group representing the conservative wing of the church.

"You are now standing at the fulcrum of history. Press hard. ... Maximum leverage always occurs before the stick breaks," Anderson told the cheering crowd after the two day meeting here.

Conservatives believe that homosexuality is uniformly condemned in the Bible and therefore the Episcopal Church in its votes abandoned 2000 years of Christian tradition.

The church voted at its convention last August to approve as bishop-elect of New Hampshire the Rev. Gene Robinson, a 56-year-old gay priest who is divorced and the father of two daughters.

The convention also approved a resolution acknowledging that gay unions were being conducted throughout America with the approval of some bishops.


MESSAGE TO LONDON

Anderson said he intended to take the Call for Action to an emergency meeting on Oct. 15 in London called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to discuss with other international church leaders the U.S. church's decisions.

Anderson said the document represented a plea to primates to address what is now an "informal" realignment within the Anglican Communion that could be the first step toward a permanent schism.

"We're asking primates not only to intervene but to discipline those bishops who by their actions departed from biblical faith and order," said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina and an American Anglican Council member.

"It's painful to see a church rent like this," said The Rev. Russell Griffin on Florida after signing the paper.

Following the signing, during which some priests wept and placed their hands over their hearts, the group sang a rousing rendition of the hymn "Oh God Our Help In Ages Past."

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopalian Church, Frank Griswold, said in a statement issued to reporters after the meeting ended that he was deeply concerned with the "inflammatory rhetoric" and "ultimatums" issued by the group.

"In such a climate, mutual pursuit of ways to build up rather than tear down is made more difficult and the vast deposit of faith upon which we all agree is obscured," said Griswold, who did not attend the meeting.

He added, however, that he took "very seriously," the group's grief and anger and would seek "as best we can to stand with them." (additional reporting by Jon Herskovitz)


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031009/us_nm/religion_episcopal_dc_6

[micron]

In Russia recently a Russian Orthodox Priest married two homosexuals so the church was demolished as local churchmen believed it had been defiled.
At the end of the day if the politics of a church deviate the interpretation irreconcilably from the congregation,the congregation will revolt.
As liberal politics collide with traditional religion, leadership is required to maintain what the church is built on.That is what holds the congregation to it.
You can force radical social views on the population at the govt level but you can't rationalise these changes to Christian doctrine, right or wrong.It doesn't stand up.