First lesbian bishop to be consecrated by Anglican church in America

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gerry_Hunter said:
No need to read past page 8, where it says:

For almost forty years, members of the Episcopal Church
have discerned holiness in same-sex relationships and,
have come to support the blessing of such unions and the
ordination or consecration of persons in those unions.
Christian congregations have sought to celebrate and bless
same-sex unions because these exclusive, life-long, unions
of fidelity and care for each other have been experienced
as holy.

This sets up experience, not Divine Revelation, not the teaching authority of the Church, or anything else, as the determiner of what is Holy. By that criterion, what is to stop any form of “relationship” from being declared as “holy,” if some people make noise to the effect that it is?

It speaks volumes about the state of The Episcopal Church that it would label this as “theology.” Chuck that apple into the compost, forthwith.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
What is spooky is the document reads like Hitler’s “Mien Kampf” where he tells the world what he is going to do and nobody believes that he will do it until he starts to implement the plans. Maybe those who are believers should read the document and know how to defeat the Jezebel spirit that has infected the church.
episcopalchurch.org/documents/ToSetOurHopeOnChrist.pdf
 
Padrej said:
Statement 12 reads

As to believing a statement exists for explaining their theology in ordaining homosexuals: HMMMM Not written. Spoken yes. When Edmund Browning was Presiding Bishop and wanted to make Jane Dixon Suffragan Bishop of Washington DC there was a point in the service where he asks if there is any notable crime or impediment come forward. There were over 150 objectors. The cannon law of the church requires that the ordination STOP and that all of those objections be heard and settled BEFORE any further action be taken. After the last objector came forth his words were something to the effect of, “I know all of the objections and I am going to proceed anyhow.” Her first act as bishop (Jane Dixon) was to ordain to the diaconate a practicing lesbian whose great “claim to fame” was to wanted to be a single mom so she found 3 men to donate sperm and impregnated herself with a turkey baster. This is what the Episcopal church was holding up as NORMAL Christian behavior for members of the clergy. So to answer the question it is not written to my knowledge but spoken and in action.

Let me say to the readers of this if you find this offensive that I am sorry but I have toned this down a great deal in details and tried to keep it rated G or at least PG. This is a painful subject for me to discuss as it involved a church that I was heavily involved with at the time.
Click to expand...
Padrej
I do not find it offensive. I find it saddening. Saddening that those who are protestant that do favor the ordination of women have this kind of example to see as a blight to the ones who do feel that they are truly called to ministry in the Protestant churches. These kind of persons have no more business than the man in the moon being in the ministry. I do not feel it is right for our church, but I am not Protestant, I am Catholic.
 
40.png
nhylan:
What was it that was being said in post 318?
 
Padrej said:
What is spooky is the document reads like Hitler’s “Mien Kampf” where he tells the world what he is going to do and nobody believes that he will do it until he starts to implement the plans. Maybe those who are believers should read the document and know how to defeat the Jezebel spirit that has infected the church.
episcopalchurch.org/documents/ToSetOurHopeOnChrist.pdf
Click to expand...
Is it any wonder, still, for you that you were not ordained? You are calling sincere members of your own denomination Hitlerites and Jezebels?
 
larkin31 said:
Is it any wonder, still, for you that you were not ordained? You are calling sincere members of your own denomination Hitlerites and Jezebels?
Click to expand...
Funny the Bible uses the term Jezebel to describe people as well so it appears you do not know what you speak about. I did not see him uses the word “Hitlerite” either, **only the the document read like **“Mien Kampf” by Adolf Hitler who told everybody what he would do ahead of time. That is all Padrej EVER said. You should be ashamed for putting words into his mouth that never were said.
Padrej Was ordained and he is a bishop. The personal attacks like this are not called for.
 
FrJohnB said:
Funny the Bible uses the term Jezebel to describe people as well so it appears you do not know what you speak about. I did not see him uses the word “Hitlerite” either, **only the the document read like **“Mien Kampf” by Adolf Hitler who told everybody what he would do ahead of time. That is all Padrej EVER said. You should be ashamed for putting words into his mouth that never were said.
Padrej Was ordained and he is a bishop. The personal attacks like this are not called for.
Click to expand...
If Larkin31 had read carefully the posts in question he would have realized this and if he would have read my profile he would have known that I am ordained as well. I will agree the personal attack was not needed but then to Larkin31’s credit maybe he did not read the post carefully to get the gist of what I was saying and that no name calling was done and that I called nobody a Hitlerite. Having a Spirit of Jezebel of mentioned in the Bible so I cannot see where this is a problem either. In Larkin31’s credit to give benefit of doubt he is listed as agnostic so this would be an area where there could be some lack of knowledge so he would be coming at it from a purely political point of view and not the spiritual side. So I can see how this might look offensive to him.
 
Padrej said:
If Larkin31 had read carefully the posts in question he would have realized this and if he would have read my profile he would have known that I am ordained as well. I will agree the personal attack was not needed but then to Larkin31’s credit maybe he did not read the post carefully to get the gist of what I was saying and that no name calling was done and that I called nobody a Hitlerite. Having a Spirit of Jezebel of mentioned in the Bible so I cannot see where this is a problem either. In Larkin31’s credit to give benefit of doubt he is listed as agnostic so this would be an area where there could be some lack of knowledge so he would be coming at it from a purely political point of view and not the spiritual side. So I can see how this might look offensive to him.
Click to expand...
If you folks are denying the smear that you made (by association) of members (or leaders) of the Episcopal Church by stating that that document was like “Mein Kampf” and that the “spirit of Jezebel” was in that church, then I am incredulous.

There is no need to try to explain away my irritation as ignorance. I know the art of the smear when I see it. We all do.
 
FrJohnB said:
Funny the Bible uses the term Jezebel to describe people as well so it appears you do not know what you speak about. I did not see him uses the word “Hitlerite” either, **only the the document read like **“Mien Kampf” by Adolf Hitler who told everybody what he would do ahead of time. That is all Padrej EVER said. You should be ashamed for putting words into his mouth that never were said.
Padrej Was ordained and he is a bishop. The personal attacks like this are not called for.
Click to expand...
He wrote that he was denied ordination because he was not a black woman and was not gay. Turns out he was ordained? Interesting.
 
larkin31 said:
He wrote that he was denied ordination because he was not a black woman and was not gay. Turns out he was ordained? Interesting.
Click to expand...
His being ordained, and his episcopal lines, were discussed in another place, at another time.

GKC
 
GKC said:
His being ordained, and his episcopal lines, were discussed in another place, at another time.

GKC
Click to expand...
A simple check of Padrej’s profile would have proven he was ordained. Even if Larkin31 had paid attention to the post where he spoke about the higher up he got in the process should have given him a clue. If you are first denied in one area doe not always mean that you are denied in another.
 
larkin31 said:
He wrote that he was denied ordination because he was not a black woman and was not gay. Turns out he was ordained? Interesting.
Click to expand...
Why didn’t you check the profile instead of going off half cocked.
 
larkin31 said:
If you folks are denying the smear that you made (by association) of members (or leaders) of the Episcopal Church by stating that that document was like “Mein Kampf” and that the “spirit of Jezebel” was in that church, then I am incredulous.

There is no need to try to explain away my irritation as ignorance. I know the art of the smear when I see it. We all do.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you just admit that you do not like the fact that Padrej pointed out the fact that the Episcopal church is not inclusive, and wants to exclude those who hold traditional values, and has political motives. He has well pointed those things out as he is an insider. You who are admittedly an agnostic and no part of a church dare to judge him for speaking the truth as he sees it. If he feels that the ordination of a lesbian bishop is wrong as do I why does that make us or any of our ilk bad people. We Just happen to believe in the TRUTH of what Gods word says and what the church has spoken for centuries on the matter. The link Padrej posted was MOST REVEALING on the process to get the homosexual agenda pushed through on how it it very political and NOT anywhere near being a theological issue. Please tell me, if you will how it is theological if you can by scripture and church tradition and church fathers.
 
FrJohnB said:
Why don’t you just admit that you do not like the fact that Padrej pointed out the fact that the Episcopal church is not inclusive, and wants to exclude those who hold traditional values, and has political motives…
Click to expand...
Why are you telling me what I think? Is this a form of ministry? Are you ordained?

I won’t “admit” what you write here because it is NOT TRUE. Would you have me make a false confession? I fully see and acknowledge that the Episcopal Church is going through a period of struggle and self-definition. I don’t care which side of the debate wins the battle of ownership of the word “inclusive.” From my point of view, it is all argument over piddling details, and I do not mind at all that you or anyone else here is not happy with the changes going on in TEC. I feel badly for everyone involved, but I have no care at all about what Padrej wrote about the politics of the situation. My only point was my incredulity over his claim that he was openly told that he could not be ordained because he was neither a black woman nor gay.

So, as I say, don’t ask me to admit what is not what I think or feel.
 
larkin31 said:
Why are you telling me what I think? Is this a form of ministry? Are you ordained?

I won’t “admit” what you write here because it is NOT TRUE. Would you have me make a false confession? I fully see and acknowledge that the Episcopal Church is going through a period of struggle and self-definition. I don’t care which side of the debate wins the battle of ownership of the word “inclusive.” From my point of view, it is all argument over piddling details, and I do not mind at all that you or anyone else here is not happy with the changes going on in TEC. I feel badly for everyone involved, but I have no care at all about what Padrej wrote about the politics of the situation. My only point was my incredulity over his claim that he was openly told that he could not be ordained because he was neither a black woman nor gay.

So, as I say, don’t ask me to admit what is not what I think or feel.
Click to expand...
Look Larkin,
Why do you just do everyone here a favor and admit your dirty secret… Your the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams aren’t you? Yup that’s right, your the Archbishop of the 3rd largest christian denomination on the planet and you love gay people and revel in some of your communicants flaunting of church rules. God forbid you focus on the love and tolerance parts of Christianity and not on the “don’t let women talk etc etc” aspects of it. I know it, you know it and everyone here knows it. Your just a guy with a big all anglo-fro and big bushy eyebrows. Now, I hope we can move on and focus on whats really important here. How can we further ignore, alienate, and butcher any eccumenism this board ever had by plugging our ears and screaming “Not true not true!!!” at the top of our lungs?
 
nhylan said:
Google " to set our hope on christ." At this point id give you the link but I’m on my droid.
Click to expand...
So I read Part 1, and part II that was supposed to set out their theological reasoning.

There seem to be three main points:
  1. They feel that homosexual relationships are holy in the same way heterosexual ones are.
  2. They feel the main, and maybe only, purpose of marriage is companionship, with remedy for sin a far second. Procreation is optional.
  3. They use a Biblical argument using Paul and the position of Gentiles in the early Church. They equate the gentiles to homosexuals in our situation, though there is no real argument that this is an appropriate comparison.
So, number one really is barely an argument, let alone a theological one.

Number two is a statement about marriage, but not an argument. As a statement, it is out of line with a classic Anglican understanding, though it is probably what most people in society really think.

Number three is supposed to be an argument from scripture, but as I noted does not really manage to argue convincingly that gentiles and homosexuals are equivalent. The one effort to do this is to say that in the past people did not realize that homosexuality had a biological component, which is not the case and really rather naive.

There is no real attempt to address Tradition.

There is no attempt at all to address the problem of ordaining people who are sexually active outside of marriage, and it seems to be implied that is what is expected.

There is no proper theological argument that discusses the basics - what are men and women? What is sex? What is marriage? One that does more than work from scripture without addressing the metaphysical foundations for their thoughts.

And it actually argues that we cannot expect gay people to be celibate since we don’t expect heterosexual people to.

It is hard to take this document seriously as more than an example of shallow and inadaquate theological method, and ****-poor, jargon heavy writing.
 
Bluegoat said:
So I read Part 1, and part II that was supposed to set out their theological reasoning.

There seem to be three main points:
  1. They feel that homosexual relationships are holy in the same way heterosexual ones are.
  2. They feel the main, and maybe only, purpose of marriage is companionship, with remedy for sin a far second. Procreation is optional.
  3. They use a Biblical argument using Paul and the position of Gentiles in the early Church. They equate the gentiles to homosexuals in our situation, though there is no real argument that this is an appropriate comparison.
So, number one really is barely an argument, let alone a theological one.

Number two is a statement about marriage, but not an argument. As a statement, it is out of line with a classic Anglican understanding, though it is probably what most people in society really think.

Number three is supposed to be an argument from scripture, but as I noted does not really manage to argue convincingly that gentiles and homosexuals are equivalent. The one effort to do this is to say that in the past people did not realize that homosexuality had a biological component, which is not the case and really rather naive.

There is no real attempt to address Tradition.

There is no attempt at all to address the problem of ordaining people who are sexually active outside of marriage, and it seems to be implied that is what is expected.

There is no proper theological argument that discusses the basics - what are men and women? What is sex? What is marriage? One that does more than work from scripture without addressing the metaphysical foundations for their thoughts.

And it actually argues that we cannot expect gay people to be celibate since we don’t expect heterosexual people to.

It is hard to take this document seriously as more than an example of shallow and inadaquate theological method, and ****-poor, jargon heavy writing.
Click to expand...
I agree. Two things jumped out at me:
  1. To summarize paragraph 2.7) One major matter of the early church was how to include the Gentiles. Gentiles would not have to take on all Jewish laws but just the ones they consider immoral. My question: Who decides what is moral?
  2. To summarize paragraphs
    2.21a) We don’t follow some of Leviticus, so we are not require to follow any of it.
    2.21b Even though St. Paul condemns homosexual sex in Roman 1:26-27, he is still a first century Jew who believes in Leviticus, see 2.21a. Because Paul said you judge for yourself whether women should cover their head in prayer, he must think we should judge for ourselves on homosexual sex. We should not judge peoples actions because that is God’s role. MY question: With this logic, why not just throw the Bible away and do whatever we want?
Seems like more of an excuse than a position.
 
nhylan said:
you forgot the “I think” or " I believe" before your sentence. The theology behind having only men be priests is shaky at best.
Click to expand...
yes i totally agree! i keep thinking back on all the Jewish priestesses in the o.t. there was----- and there was---- oh and lets not forget to mention high priestess ********* she was awesome:thumbsup: and the apostles. there was apostelette … yep real shaky. especially when we throw Church tradition in there. it really becomes shaky.😉
 
benidict said:
yes i totally agree! i keep thinking back on all the Jewish priestesses in the o.t. there was----- and there was---- oh and lets not forget to mention high priestess ********* she was awesome:thumbsup: and the apostles. there was apostelette … yep real shaky. especially when we throw Church tradition in there. it really becomes shaky.😉
Click to expand...
Yes, well I hear that the plumbers and electricians are getting all up in arms, because just as God discriminated against women by not calling any to his priesthood, he discriminated against them by having a carpenter as a foster father to his son.

It’s just amazing what comes to pass when people put human ideas ahead of patterns of divine revelation.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top