Lesbian bishop: 'Remove crosses from church'

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicKnight3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ComplineSanFran said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are there any actions that a supposed Christian church can take that you would object to?
 
zz912 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is the Church of Sweden. The canary is long dead.
 
CatholicKnight3 said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for that CK but I’m pretty sure this woman’s sexuality has literally nothing to do with this story (if we want to discuss whether an openly gay person in a relationship, never mind a woman, can be a bishop, that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s relevant here). Nor as far as I can see, is her, my or anyone’s views about differing merits and demerits of economic structures. (FWIW I broadly agree with you though I wouldn’t call socialism “evil” so much as well-meaningly incompetent).

To be honest to quote that our struggles are not against flesh and blood and then attack people/the media for a homosexual agenda is kind of having one’s cake and eating it. But anyway, that’s not what this is about. It’s again a well-meaning and benign (though rather ridiculous IMO) attempt at addressing the need to practice integration. The fact that this bishop is a lesbian may well mean she has a greater sense of how outcasting people for not belonging to or able to identify with particular sets of values is greatly damaging.
JonNC said:
The last seven years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue contradicts this.

Jon
Click to expand...
Nah. It is (as I say) well-meaning, not ‘trying to get you’. The problem is the occupant to whom you refer is useless, not evil.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
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.
Click to expand...
I realize they don’t- but in all the churches you mentioned(with the exception of maybe the LDS) John 14:6 is clearly taught. I love Good Friday and Love the Catholic mass and Eastern orthodox services by the way.
I should have said where the Cross and John 14:6 is clearly taught.
But the fact that this bishop wants to remove the cross has a deeper meaning than not wanting to display a s symbol. (iconoclasm)
her reasoning is that displaying the cross is offensive to non-Christians and I’ll bet you even money the theology of the cross is not taught in her sermons.
 
ComplineSanFran said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why taking down a cross will make the church more interfaith. Unless you want to cease being a Christian church. To me it’s giving in.
There is a way of being welcoming and respecting other faiths without removing the cross.
 
👍
CatholicKnight3 said:
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.”
Click to expand...
👍
 
SilverAvenger said:
The Church of Sweden is Lutheran my friends. And this Bishop’s stance is classic of Protestants who suffer pressure from muslims, which in the nordic countries is evergrowing specialy now with the swam of “refugees” who arrive to europe and start making demands. And if people refuse, they are seen as bigots.

But don’t worry. There are lots of people who will oppose her on this.
Click to expand...
Luther would be rolling over in his grave for this.
 
JonNC said:
The last seven years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue contradicts this.

Jon
Click to expand...
I actually ran into someone while I was working who said when all is said and done, Obama will go down as the greatest president in history. It was all I could do to keep from laughing and stay professional, and just say: “you might be right ma’am.”

I think she was probably a Lutheran. 😉
 
JonNC said:
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
Click to expand...
👍
 
Vanny said:
Luther would be rolling over in his grave for this.
Click to expand...
Luther, Chemnitz, Krauth, Gerhard, Walther, Piepkorn, Pieper,

maybe even Melanchthon :D.

A veritable 8.5 on the Richter from all the Lutherans spinning in their graves.

Jon
 
Duane1966 said:
I actually ran into someone while I was working who said when all is said and done, Obama will go down as the greatest president in history. It was all I could do to keep from laughing and stay professional, and just say: “you might be right ma’am.”

I think she was probably a Lutheran. 😉
Click to expand...
Sad. I was going to guess it was Putin or Ayatollah Khamenei. 😃 :eek:

Jon
 
Would I be acting dramatical if I was to say, I feel the bride of Jesus Christ is being raped of her dignity? Because I do feel she is.This is not whatChrist would have wanted.
Our Father
Hail Mary
 
I am confused.

Is there precedance for this in other countries? Does the Church Of England accommodate Muslims within her churches and cathedrals? Is it not possible to build a small mosque, or provide a prayer space for Muslim sailors apart from the church? Do Muslim sailors accept the authority of a female bishop (let alone a lesbian female bishop)?

Or is there another motive behind this and Muslim sailors are simply an excuse? It seems this bishop may prefer to belong to a Unitarian type church which does not require pesky things such as creeds, crosses, or even a belief in Jesus Christ.

Just how “Lutheran” is this church?
 
Catholic_farmer said:
I am confused.

Is there precedance for this in other countries? Does the Church Of England accommodate Muslims within her churches and cathedrals? Is it not possible to build a small mosque, or provide a prayer space for Muslim sailors apart from the church? Do Muslim sailors accept the authority of a female bishop (let alone a lesbian female bishop)?

Or is there another motive behind this and Muslim sailors are simply an excuse? It seems this bishop may prefer to belong to a Unitarian type church which does not require pesky things such as creeds, crosses, or even a belief in Jesus Christ.

Just how “Lutheran” is this church?
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder about the church of Sweden…
 
Catholic_farmer said:
Or is there another motive behind this and Muslim sailors are simply an excuse? It seems this bishop may prefer to belong to a Unitarian type church which does not require pesky things such as creeds, crosses, or even a belief in Jesus Christ.

Just how “Lutheran” is this church?
Click to expand...
This “bishop” already belongs to a Unitarian-type church. The Church of Sweden is still home to many true Lutherans, but is itself less “Lutheran” than the Roman Catholic Church.

Lutheran churches worldwide have been detaching themselves from communion with that body, especially in Africa, where two of the largest Lutheran bodies in the world have either officially broken fellowship with the Church of Sweden and its sister churches, or sense and are preparing to do so de facto**de jure.

Of course, there are American bodies, like the WELS and LCMS that have never had total fellowship with the Church of Sweden, not even when they were still back in Old Prussia. The reason being that Sweden never quite completed the Lutheran Reformation; its bishops tacitly accepted the Augsburg Confession, but that document can be interpreted as compatible with Roman Catholicism (see Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts on the topic), or misconstrued as Calvinistic. It requires the context of the Book of Concord, which the Church of Sweden never considered binding. In short, they were never really that Lutheran to begin with.
 
It is always interesting to me to see these individuals go around in bishop’s vestments with a crosier. To where are they leading their sheep? Nowhere good, I’m afraid.
 
Thank you for that explanation. The story makes more sense now. What a shame that the official church in Sweden has strayed so far away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top