What is it with Anglicans/Episcopals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jay29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jay29

Guest
****What is it with these people? I can’t believe some of the beliefs of Gene Robinson. He is off his rocker. If I was part of the Anglican Communion, I would be begging Rome to let me in! :eek:

Anglican Acceptance of both Abortion and Sanctity of Life will Allow the Creation of a Gay Church: Gene Robinson

By Hilary White
LONDON, May 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Anglican Church is the perfect vehicle for creating a new “gay” Christianity by virtue of the fact that it is the only church that accepts the logical contradiction of asserting both the sanctity of human life and the existence of a right to abortion.
Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, whose ordination to the episcopate has precipitated the ongoing schism between traditionally Christian Anglicans and its ultra-liberal, secularized branches, is in London to talk about his vision for the homosexual future of the Anglican Church. He was visiting and promoting his cause in preparation for the upcoming Lambeth Conference in July.
He told an admiring audience in Putney, in southwest London, that Anglicanism is uniquely suited to the establishment of the contradiction of homosexual Christianity. “The Anglican tradition is uniquely capable of holding two seemingly contradictory ideas together. Its position on abortion, for example is that all human life is sacred. And, that no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Both are true,” he said.
The logical principle of non-contradiction, a basic philosophical concept identified by Aristotle, is defined as the idea that two opposed things cannot both be true. Aristotle put it that, “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” It is not possible, for example, for a person to both be in a room and not in a room at the same time. This principle is regarded by philosophers as one of the three first principles of rational thought, without which no assertion of any truth is possible.
Many Christian philosophers have noted that the moral chaos in western societies has stemmed from the 20th century’s abandonment of this principle as the guiding force of politics and religion.
Robinson is a long-time supporter of abortion. In 2005, he addressed Planned Parenthood’s fifth annual prayer breakfast in Washington. He said then that the only way to defend the pro-abortion mindset is to reach out religiously, saying, “Our defense against religious people has to be a religious defense. … We must use people of faith to counter the faith-based arguments against us.”
He told Planned Parenthood, “We have to take back those Scriptures.”
He spoke of “the need to teach people about nuance, about holding things in tension, that this can be true and that can be true, and somewhere between is the right answer. It’s a very adult way of living, you know. What an unimaginative God it would be if God only put one meaning in any verse of Scripture."
In his talk in London and in a later interview with the Spectator’s Theo Hobson, Robinson laid out the precepts of gay Christianity in which homosexuals, as an oppressed minority, are more capable of Christian charity than heterosexuals.
To lend biblical credence to his assertions, Robinson cited a passage in John’s Gospel in which Jesus tells his disciples they were not ready for all of Christian teaching. Robinson asserts that the acceptance of homosexuality was part of the teaching that the Holy Spirit was to give the Church later.
He said that the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the churches “is all ultimately about is patriarchy — the beginning of the end of it. The strength of the resistance tells us we’re on to something.”
His book, “In the Eye of the Storm”, reiterates the homosexual lobby movement’s doctrine that homosexuality is the equivalent of race or sex. He said it gives him a “little window into some of what it must be like to be a woman, or a person of colour, or a person in a wheelchair — and countless other categories the dominant culture has controlled, diminished and oppressed”. This naturally leads to a greater capacity for “Christian empathy”.
“Just as surely as Jesus called to his friend Lazarus to ‘Come out!’ of his tomb, Jesus called me to come out of my tomb of guilt and shame, to accept and love that part of me that he already accepted and loved.”
The Exodus story, he said, is “one of the greatest coming-out stories in the history of the world”.
He admitted that it is possible for heterosexuals to sympathize with the oppressed, saying, “It’s not impossible, but it’s harder.”

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051611.html
 
**
To lend biblical credence to his assertions, Robinson cited a passage in John’s Gospel in which Jesus tells his disciples they were not ready for all of Christian teaching. Robinson asserts that the acceptance of homosexuality was part of the teaching that the Holy Spirit was to give the Church later. **
 
I don’t know about Mr. Robinson, but I’m certain that the Bible teaches that homosexual acts are sinful.

Mr. Robinson and those who support his brand of theology in the Anglican Churuch is the very reason why my Anglican DH is seriously looking into converting to the Catholic Church. (please pray for him).
 
Grace & Peace!

To be fair, this article is not being particularly truthful, nor particularly intelligent. None of +Robinson’s remarks indicate that he wants to start a gay church, for instance.

Re: the Bishop’s discussion of abortion, I wish he had not engaged in it, but the idea of recognizing two contrary principles simultaneously is not as absurd as the author of the article seems to suggest. Theology offers us many–that God is incomprehensible, yet we know him through revelation. That Jesus is both God and Man. That Mother Mary is a virgin and a mother. What +Robinson is appearing to articulate is not that he is both for and against abortion simultaneously, but that religion teaches the sanctity of life and that our democratic system must necessarily protect a woman’s right to have control over her own body if we are to live in a free society. (Let it be said that I am not a supporter of abortion.)

Re: the taking back scriptures comment, it’s unfortunate he said this in this context. But the broader meaning of the comment is that scripture is being appropriated for political purposes and those purposes are alienating people from the gospel–indeed, we must take back the scriptures from the demagogues. Unfortunately, +Robinson does not seem to want to admit that he himself could easily be classed in the demagogue category. That does not mean, however, that his statement is less true in a broad sense.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
nitpick: the proper term is “Episcopalians”

I always thought “Episco-pals” would be a good cartoon, though. 😉
 
So… it is the gospel according to Gene???

Honestly… Where does one get the idea that changing scripture is a good idea?? I distinctively recall scripture specifically talking about abominations to God’s gift of sexuality and correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t there specific commandments on Leviticus about killing an unborn child either intentionally or unintentionally???
 
****What is it with these people? I can’t believe some of the beliefs of Gene Robinson. He is off his rocker. If I was part of the Anglican Communion, I would be begging Rome to let me in! ****:eek:

Anglican Acceptance of both Abortion and Sanctity of Life will Allow the Creation of a Gay Church: Gene Robinson

By Hilary White
LONDON, May 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Anglican Church is the perfect vehicle for creating a new “gay” Christianity by virtue of the fact that it is the only church that accepts the logical contradiction of asserting both the sanctity of human life and the existence of a right to abortion.
Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, whose ordination to the episcopate has precipitated the ongoing schism between traditionally Christian Anglicans and its ultra-liberal, secularized branches, is in London to talk about his vision for the homosexual future of the Anglican Church. He was visiting and promoting his cause in preparation for the upcoming Lambeth Conference in July.
He told an admiring audience in Putney, in southwest London, that Anglicanism is uniquely suited to the establishment of the contradiction of homosexual Christianity. “The Anglican tradition is uniquely capable of holding two seemingly contradictory ideas together. Its position on abortion, for example is that all human life is sacred. And, that no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Both are true,” he said.
The logical principle of non-contradiction, a basic philosophical concept identified by Aristotle, is defined as the idea that two opposed things cannot both be true. Aristotle put it that, “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.” It is not possible, for example, for a person to both be in a room and not in a room at the same time. This principle is regarded by philosophers as one of the three first principles of rational thought, without which no assertion of any truth is possible.
Many Christian philosophers have noted that the moral chaos in western societies has stemmed from the 20th century’s abandonment of this principle as the guiding force of politics and religion.
Robinson is a long-time supporter of abortion. In 2005, he addressed Planned Parenthood’s fifth annual prayer breakfast in Washington. He said then that the only way to defend the pro-abortion mindset is to reach out religiously, saying, “Our defense against religious people has to be a religious defense. … We must use people of faith to counter the faith-based arguments against us.”
He told Planned Parenthood, “We have to take back those Scriptures.”
He spoke of “the need to teach people about nuance, about holding things in tension, that this can be true and that can be true, and somewhere between is the right answer. It’s a very adult way of living, you know. What an unimaginative God it would be if God only put one meaning in any verse of Scripture."
In his talk in London and in a later interview with the Spectator’s Theo Hobson, Robinson laid out the precepts of gay Christianity in which homosexuals, as an oppressed minority, are more capable of Christian charity than heterosexuals.
To lend biblical credence to his assertions, Robinson cited a passage in John’s Gospel in which Jesus tells his disciples they were not ready for all of Christian teaching. Robinson asserts that the acceptance of homosexuality was part of the teaching that the Holy Spirit was to give the Church later.
He said that the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the churches “is all ultimately about is patriarchy — the beginning of the end of it. The strength of the resistance tells us we’re on to something.”
His book, “In the Eye of the Storm”, reiterates the homosexual lobby movement’s doctrine that homosexuality is the equivalent of race or sex. He said it gives him a “little window into some of what it must be like to be a woman, or a person of colour, or a person in a wheelchair — and countless other categories the dominant culture has controlled, diminished and oppressed”. This naturally leads to a greater capacity for “Christian empathy”.
“Just as surely as Jesus called to his friend Lazarus to ‘Come out!’ of his tomb, Jesus called me to come out of my tomb of guilt and shame, to accept and love that part of me that he already accepted and loved.”
The Exodus story, he said, is “one of the greatest coming-out stories in the history of the world”.
He admitted that it is possible for heterosexuals to sympathize with the oppressed, saying, “It’s not impossible, but it’s harder.”

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08051611.html
What is it with Catholics?? Maybe the RC should be spending more time on their own problems. I don’t hear them making retrobutions to all the males that were abused sexually; instead they go picking fights with other denoms. over homosexuality. How hypocritical. FYI orthodox Anglicans completely disagree and distance themselves from Episcopalians who accept such behavior, so obviously you didn’t know what you were talking about when you started this thread. This is so very disrespectful to those who can see how much of a fool you are making of yourself. Very unfortunate.
 
So… it is the gospel according to Gene???

Honestly… Where does one get the idea that changing scripture is a good idea?? I distinctively recall scripture specifically talking about abominations to God’s gift of sexuality and correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t there specific commandments on Leviticus about killing an unborn child either intentionally or unintentionally???

**There are passages commanding or forbidding a lot of things, but no one bothers with all of them. Jesus forbade the use of oaths, as did James: very few Christians in any Church do; & the CC certainly doesn’t. The CC used to observe the prohibition on usury - how many Christians do so now ? **​

2. Abomination in the OT does not always have a moral connotation - it does to us, but that’s beside the point. From Leviticus we have these:
  • Lev 7:18 If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering is eaten on the third day, he who offers it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to him; it shall be an abomination, and he who eats of it shall bear his iniquity.
  • Lev 7:21 And if any one touches an unclean thing, whether the uncleanness of man or an unclean beast or any unclean abomination, and then eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the LORD’s peace offerings, that person shall be cut off from his people."
  • Lev 11:10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you.
  • Lev 11:11 They shall remain an abomination to you; of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall have in abomination.
  • Lev 11:12 Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to you.
  • Lev 11:13 "And these you shall have in abomination among the birds, they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the osprey, Lev 11:20 "All winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you.
  • Lev 11:23 But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you.
  • Lev 11:41 "Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten.
  • Lev 11:42 Whatever goes on its belly, and whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet, all the swarming things that swarm upon the earth, you shall not eat; for they are an abomination.
  • Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
  • Lev 19:7 If it is eaten at all on the third day, it is an abomination; it will not be accepted,
  • Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
    More abominations here:
  • [http://cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=abomination&t=RSV (http://cf.blb.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=abomination&t=RSV)
    The word is used for too many things for its use in Lev. 18.22 & 20.13 to be as convincing as people sometimes think - that the OT calls X “abomination” proves too much, because if the word were by itself proof that homosexuality is forbidden, it would follow from 11.12 that eating shellfish or crab is no less truly sinful.
3. A further point: on what principle do Christians treat 11.12 as without force, while treating 18.22 & 20.13 as retaining their force ? There needs to be a principle that validates this differing treatment of different parts of the same book in this way; for the book contains no indication of any difference in obligation between these commands. If there is no such principle, it will seem that people are not listening to the Bible, but are using it selectively to control behaviours of which they do not approve. And that is not a good way to use the B****ible. 😦
 

Anglican Acceptance of both Abortion and Sanctity of Life will Allow the Creation of a Gay Church: Gene Robinson****
Anglicans do not accept Abortion!
By Hilary White
LONDON, May 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Anglican Church is the perfect vehicle for creating a new “gay” Christianity by virtue of the fact that it is the only church that accepts the logical contradiction of asserting both the sanctity of human life and the existence of a right to abortion.
I do not know of any Anglican who aggrees with him. He and his episcopalians have totally lost the plot!
Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson, whose ordination to the episcopate has precipitated the ongoing schism between traditionally Christian Anglicans and its ultra-liberal, secularized branches, is in London to talk about his vision for the homosexual future of the Anglican Church. He was visiting and promoting his cause in preparation for the upcoming Lambeth Conference in July.
When he and his friends should be excomunicated.
He told an admiring audience in Putney, in southwest London, that Anglicanism is uniquely suited to the establishment of the contradiction of homosexual Christianity. “The Anglican tradition is uniquely capable of holding two seemingly contradictory ideas together. Its position on abortion, for example is that all human life is sacred. And, that no one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Both are true,” he said.
This is sick!

The guy needs to return to Christ.
 
How can they do that? How can Anglicans ex-communicate?:confused:
That is the problem.

The main problem the Anglican Communion has is The Church of England. As The Church of England is The English state Church secular politicians get involved. The objective of it being a state church was that the state would protect it but the reality is the state oppresses it. Disestablishment is the answer.

So before ECUSA can be sorted out the CofE needs to be disestablished. I am a member of The Church of England and a disestablishmentarian.

Some Anglican in England want disestablishment to be reunited with Rome others to be united with The Lutherans and others like me who believe in seperation of church and state.

At the moment ECUSA can’t be excommunicated because at that point Brittish politicians (who agree with ECUSA’s unbiblical agenda) make a big fuss.

The arch bishop of Canterbury was selected by Tony Blair when everyone knew Tony Blair was a Roman Catholic in everything but name. The whole thing is barmy! Because the archbishop of Canterbury is selected by secular authority I don’t think he has any authority himself.
 
I used to be Anglican, and even considered Religious life with the Anglican Franciscans, but I crossed the Tiber this Easter.

The Church of England has massive problems with authority. The Bishop Robinson issue is just the most extreme example of this. Those on the conservative right of the Anglican communion, such as the Archbishop of Nigeria, who described homosexuals as worse than dogs, are hardly any better.

The Anglicans used to stand on the threefold ground of reason, revelation and tradition as their basis of faith. This was an honourable and progressive expression of Christian faith. It seems they’ve thrown out all three.

Sadly, I do think the Bishop Robinson issue is an instance of not heeding Jesus’ warning “woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”. When Rev Jeffrey John, a man who had once had a committed homosexual relationship, but had been living celebately for the past 20 years in obedience to the church’s teaching, was nominated as a bishop in England, there was an outcry from the conservative Evangelical wing of the C of E, and he was leaned on not to accept the appointment. A few months later, to ‘score points’ off the conservative opposition, the liberal Anglicans in America elected Gene Robinson, a divorced man with an active gay lifestyle, to be a bishop! Unbelievable.
 
I used to be Anglican, and even considered Religious life with the Anglican Franciscans, but I crossed the Tiber this Easter.

The Church of England has massive problems with authority. The Bishop Robinson issue is just the most extreme example of this. Those on the conservative right of the Anglican communion, such as the Archbishop of Nigeria, who described homosexuals as worse than dogs, are hardly any better.

The Anglicans used to stand on the threefold ground of reason, revelation and tradition as their basis of faith. This was an honourable and progressive expression of Christian faith. It seems they’ve thrown out all three.

Sadly, I do think the Bishop Robinson issue is an instance of not heeding Jesus’ warning “woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites, you strain out a gnat and swallow a camel”. When Rev Jeffrey John, a man who had once had a committed homosexual relationship, but had been living celebately for the past 20 years in obedience to the church’s teaching, was nominated as a bishop in England, there was an outcry from the conservative Evangelical wing of the C of E, and he was leaned on not to accept the appointment. A few months later, to ‘score points’ off the conservative opposition, the liberal Anglicans in America elected Gene Robinson, a divorced man with an active gay lifestyle, to be a bishop! Unbelievable.

**True, ****the C of E has problems - but are they really any worse than those in (say) the RCC ? The problems are different in each Church, but that tells one nothing about how serious they are. If anything, Rome seems to find it impossible to admit its problems - that doesn’t make them any less real, or any less harmful. The C of E, for all its many faults, is at least not incapable of admitting them; & TM, that is one of its greatest strengths: maybe its greatest. **​

The C of E has been very sick before, & has had all sorts of features in its life without which it might have been far better off. But it has always recovered; so although it would be totally wrong to take its recovery for granted, it is premature to suppose that its present declining state is terminal. Besides, God can do things through His servants’ weakness that He does not do when they are strong; & He cannot be anticipated.

**It is conceivable that the C of E has been in terminal decline since [insert *terminus a quo] - but that could be said of any Church. Maybe the CC is more affected by a form of “prosperity theology” than it realises :eek: ; because many of the criticisms made of the C of E on these fora seem to presuppose that God’s favour to the C of E must result in its evident well-being, so that if it lacks the latter, it must also lack the former. **
 

**True, **the C of E has problems - but are they really any worse than those in (say) the RCC ? The problems are different in each Church, but that tells one nothing about how serious they are. If anything, Rome seems to find it impossible to admit its problems - that doesn’t make them any less real, or any less harmful. The C of E, for all its many faults, is at least not incapable of admitting them; & TM, that is one of its greatest strengths: maybe its greatest.​

The C of E has been very sick before, & has had all sorts of features in its life without which it might have been far better off. But it has always recovered; so although it would be totally wrong to take its recovery for granted, it is premature to suppose that its present declining state is terminal. Besides, God can do things through His servants’ weakness that He does not do when they are strong; & He cannot be anticipated.

*It is conceivable that the C of E has been in terminal decline since [insert terminus a quo] - but that could be said of any Church. Maybe the CC is more affected by a form of “prosperity theology” than it realises :eek: ; because many of the criticisms made of the C of E on these fora seem to presuppose that God’s favour to the C of E must result in its evident well-being, so that if it lacks the latter, it must also lack the former.
Okay Gottle, exactly what do you believe? The RC, the C of E? I find it curious that one who claims to be Catholic is defending a spin off of the Catholic Church. Now if you were defending those who believe in their church whatever it may be, I wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable reading your posts. You seem well educated. What are you trying to teach?
 
Okay Gottle, exactly what do you believe? The RC, the C of E? I find it curious that one who claims to be Catholic is defending a spin off of the Catholic Church. Now if you were defending those who believe in their church whatever it may be, I wouldn’t feel so uncomfortable reading your posts. You seem well educated. What are you trying to teach?

**I’m not trying to “teach” anything. AFAIK I said nothing wrong in that post, & certainly wasn’t aware that being RC obliged one to agree with other Catholics who disparage the C of E. How does being Catholic require one to be against the C of E, & never to defend it ? It could show us a thing or two about being Christian - we might learn a lo****t from other Churches, Anglicanism included. To see some threads here, one might imagine that there was nothing to Anglicanism except for its well-publicised woes. **​

**Besides, it is ****simply the truth that God is no respecter of persons - so it is not likely that He will be a respecter of Churches. If we are arrogant toward others, how does that accomplish the mission of the Church 😦 ? A humble atheist may be a far better servant ****of God, even though ****unknowingly, ****than a Catholic puffed with contempt for all those “outside” the Church. Having the Catholic name will **only increase our guilt, & so, our condemnation, if we have not the virtues Christians should have. And those virtues are found among others than Catholics.

BTW, that penultimate sentence says no
** more than Newman said in one of his sermons - here: **

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top