Lesbian bishop: 'Remove crosses from church'

[MacBP]

I think that many Muslims would (or at least should) be offended people think they are so bigoted and intolerant that the mere reminder of other faiths existing is offensive. I wonder if this particular bishop of the CoS gets offended when she sees a Star of David or a Minaret? I think most of us would agree that it would be intolerant at best if an individual were to be offended at the presence of a visible Jewish person. Would we believe that it is good for that individual to be accommodated? Almost certainly not. Why, then, should we be ammodate individuals who have that attitude towards Christianity? Is it any less discriminatory because Christians are the target.

A lot of the progress, liberal establishment seems to believe that the only way to peace, understanding and tolerance is to pretend that any differences we have either don’t matter or don’t exist. The problem is that this is a false tolerance at best. People do differ. People do have very different beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality and right and wrong.Instead of pretending that these differences don’t exist, we need to be need to be able to acknowledge differences where they occur and still appreciate the underlying humanity of the person underneath.

Why is it that some of the most intolerant people you know are probably self-described progressive liberals? Once they there are differences they can’t ignore (such as with social conservatives) they don’t know what to do, and default to intolerance. That’s why attempts at ecumenism that deny one’s identity are ultimately bound to fail.

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Uncalled for , even though lesbians are supposed to be barred from the priesthood are from being bishops .

Unfortunately, the church if Sweden forgot that marriage is for a man and woman only .

Well it is more than that. The behavior itself is an abomination. That is not wrong to call sin by its name. To then wrap it up as Christianity is even worse.

Whenever I see concerted efforts by the godless and anti-christs to remove images of the Truth, it tells me those images like crucifixes etc are truly something the devil hates. Or else he would not make such efforts to tear them.down.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I noticed something crazy from last night. Notifications of new posts to thread via Email show the late night post is not there.

Is that what you mean?
Missing Posts?

Mary.

Maybe those kooky end-of-the-world-predictors were right on date but wrong on “what”… the original post was “annihilated” on 10/7…

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Well it is more than that. The behavior itself is an abomination. That is not wrong to call sin by its name. To then wrap it up as Christianity is even worse.

Whenever I see concerted efforts by the godless and anti-christs to remove images of the Truth, it tells me those images like crucifixes etc are truly something the devil hates. Or else he would not make such efforts to tear them.down.

I agree that homosexuality is a sin , and the church is supposed to give the gospel , then help them overcome the sin , not encourage it , it is sad and sickening that this " bishop " wants to remove crosses.

 

[Duane1966]

I have wondered why CAF pulls whole threads instead of the offending post?

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t know. The original thread is gone entirely. I wonder if there was a technical issue? Problematic threads usually get closed, not deleted, right?

No, they get deleted.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Isn’t this thread about a Bishop in Sweden who wants to make a Seafarer’s church more of a chapel for all faiths?

 

[Murmurs]

I think that many Muslims would (or at least should) be offended people think they are so bigoted and intolerant that the mere reminder of other faiths existing is offensive. I wonder if this particular bishop of the CoS gets offended when she sees a Star of David or a Minaret? I think most of us would agree that it would be intolerant at best if an individual were to be offended at the presence of a visible Jewish person. Would we believe that it is good for that individual to be accommodated? Almost certainly not. Why, then, should we be ammodate individuals who have that attitude towards Christianity? Is it any less discriminatory because Christians are the target.

A lot of the progress, liberal establishment seems to believe that the only way to peace, understanding and tolerance is to pretend that any differences we have either don’t matter or don’t exist. The problem is that this is a false tolerance at best. People do differ. People do have very different beliefs about the ultimate nature of reality and right and wrong.Instead of pretending that these differences don’t exist, we need to be need to be able to acknowledge differences where they occur and still appreciate the underlying humanity of the person underneath.

Why is it that some of the most intolerant people you know are probably self-described progressive liberals? Once they there are differences they can’t ignore (such as with social conservatives) they don’t know what to do, and default to intolerance. That’s why attempts at ecumenism that deny one’s identity are ultimately bound to fail.

Yes

I do also repeat though, that we consider how we would react if an Islamic cleric somewhere opened up a mosque in his care for a local Christian minority to use if they wished.

I think perhaps we forget that Sweden is a radically different place than either the US where I assume most posters here live, or the UK, where I live, and in the context of Swedish culture it might be a lot less bizarre than it seems to us. I would not stoop to assigning stereotypes but I imagine there is more laid-back-ness even in religious matters (hence I suppose a female openly-homosexual bishop…) than we are used to.

 

[zz912]

I think that many Muslims would (or at least should) be offended people think they are so bigoted and intolerant that the mere reminder of other faiths existing is offensive.

For many it is offensive to see Christian or Jewish symbols. Many will tolerate them, until Muslims are the majority in society and will suppress them.

 

[Murmurs]

For many it is offensive to see Christian or Jewish symbols. Many will tolerate them, until Muslims are the majority in society and will suppress them.

Some people always assume the worse.

“Muslims will suppress us once they can.”

“The Government is always out to get us”

“Trump will win the nomination”

It turns out usually that the worst doesn’t happen, really.

 

[Vanny]

I won’t go to any church where the cross is not displayed and taught in it’s theology.
We need the Cross of Christ. This is not anything against any other faith.
The Bible clearly teaches that no one can come to God except through Jesus.
Period. This should be taught and displayed in any church calling itself Christian.

 

[JonNC]

Some people always assume the worse.

“Muslims will suppress us once they can.”

“The Government is always out to get us”

“Trump will win the nomination”

It turns out usually that the worst doesn’t happen, really.

The last seven years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue contradicts this.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I won’t go to any church where the cross is not displayed and taught in it’s theology.
We need the Cross of Christ. This is not anything against any other faith.
The Bible clearly teaches that no one can come to God except through Jesus.
Period. This should be taught and displayed in any church calling itself Christian.

Think of the hymnody we would have to jettison if she expanded this nonsense to hymns.
In particular:

“Lift High the Cross, the love of Christ proclaim…”

The lady would have us change it to
“Tear down the cross, the love of Christ obscure”

I wonder how she interprets Matthew:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

Jon

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I won’t go to any church where the cross is not displayed and taught in it’s theology.
We need the Cross of Christ. This is not anything against any other faith.
The Bible clearly teaches that no one can come to God except through Jesus.
Period. This should be taught and displayed in any church calling itself Christian.

There are actually a number of churches that do not display the cross. The Roman Catholic Church is very focused on crosses and Good Friday, whereas some branches do not do anything for Good Friday. It is a matter of traditions, really. Many of the reformed churches took away symbols of RC practice and the cross went with it. It has nothing to do with believing or not believing in Jesus.

Churches of Christ, LDS, Seventh Day Adventists, non-denominational mega churches, some Orthodox Presbyterians, Quakers, some Pentecostal churches… Not all and not every church building, but as a rule, no crosses.

 

[JonNC]

There are actually a number of churches that do not display the cross. The Roman Catholic Church is very focused on crosses and Good Friday, whereas some branches do not do anything for Good Friday. It is a matter of traditions, really. Many of the reformed churches took away symbols of RC practice and the cross went with it. It has nothing to do with believing or not believing in Jesus.

Churches of Christ, LDS, Seventh Day Adventists, non-denominational mega churches, some Orthodox Presbyterians, Quakers, some Pentecostal churches… Not all and not every church building, but as a rule, no crosses.

Not one of these claims to be Lutheran. Lutheranism is not iconoclastic.
The churches you mentioned, by and large, are acting out of their iconoclasm.
That is not the case with Bishop Brunne, as far as I can tell.

Jon

 

[CatholicKnight3]

Some people always assume the worse.

“Muslims will suppress us once they can.”

“The Government is always out to get us”

“Trump will win the nomination”

It turns out usually that the worst doesn’t happen, really.

Ephesians 6:12
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

---

I believe there is a reason for that. Let me put it another way. There is a system that is being perpetuated on the public and it is being sold as a type of utopia. It seduces the ignorant uses narrative that clearly pushes an insidious agenda.

Socialism is that notion and it is an evil endeavor. The greater glory of God is what life is all about, for those wondering what life is all about. The GREATER GLORY of GOD manifests itself through the death and resurrection of the Lord and the redemption of fallen man.

That GREATER GLORY of GOD is directly dependent on the FREE WILL of man. With out FREE WILL there is NO GLORY, let alone the GREATER GLORY. While we all agree that the poor and down trodden need to be “fought for” it is imperative that redistribution of wealth is not forced on the public. I can show clear examples of how the rich become far more powerful and the government becomes tyrannical in EVERY CASE where socialism is the principality.

Now, having said that, and back to the topic of the thread. It is rather clear that this notion of homosexuality is being forced (trying to be forced) into THE CHURCH. No, this “church” that this lesbian “Bishop” is not THE Church.

Every time I see these types of stories where THE CHURCH is being linked to HOMOSEXUALITY by the MEDIA (do we all agree what dark forces controls that?) and how the tide of acceptance of the ABOMINATION shifts I keep on thinking of this verse.

Mark 13:14
“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong–let the reader understand–then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

 

[theropod]

Pretty sure this story is about a “bishop” who made a suggestion about some chapel not under her jurisdiction in which the priest who runs the place declined the idea.

That’s about it.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Not one of these claims to be Lutheran. Lutheranism is not iconoclastic.
The churches you mentioned, by and large, are acting out of their iconoclasm.
That is not the case with Bishop Brunne, as far as I can tell.

Jon

Jon, I totally agree with you. I was responding to Vanny who could not conceive of a church without a cross.

In the case of the Lutheran Bishop in Sweden, of course she is considering taking down the cross for completely different reasons than iconoclasm. My understanding is that in this one instance, she wants to make the Seafarer’s sanctuary more interfaith. I can see her position. Sweden is becoming more multicultural. If you value hospitality to people of other faiths - providing a ‘place of prayer for all people’ - then one reasonable way to do that is to take down a dominant symbol, especially if that symbol is distressing.

Grace Cathedral here in San Francisco has an AIDS chapel.They have created space for people of every faith who wish to reflect on those who have died of the disease. They chose to go two ways - one, to make the focus of the chapel the Keith Haring altarpiece, which is beautifully poignant. Two, to use multi faith symbols along the side walls. My guess is that they could just as easily dismissed those symbols.

Both places of worship are Christian, and that won’t be changed by the absence of one symbol. Both have been consecrated to God, and hopefully open hospitality will only enhance that.

 

[zz912]

Pretty sure this story is about a “bishop” who made a suggestion about some chapel not under her jurisdiction in which the priest who runs the place declined the idea.

That’s about it.

It’s more than that. It is like the canary in the mine, which signals even more danger coming. A supposed Christian leader who publicly calls for removal of Christian symbols is a symptom of a serious decay in the Christian world.

 

[zz912]

Grace Cathedral here in San Francisco has an AIDS chapel.They have created space for people of every faith who wish to reflect on those who have died of the disease. They chose to go two ways - one, to make the focus of the chapel the Keith Haring altarpiece, which is beautifully poignant. Two, to use multi faith symbols along the side walls. My guess is that they could just as easily dismissed those symbols.

Both places of worship are Christian, and that won’t be changed by the absence of one symbol. Both have been consecrated to God, and hopefully open hospitality will only enhance that.

All they are promoting is indifferentism.