Anglican schism seems imminent...

[Masquerouge]

Eh. As I said in the Aids plot thread, Africans are screwed

 

[Flak]

The idea that a western church must conform to the ideals of the African[/] churches seems fundamentally disturbing to me. Probably would be better if the African churches left rather than the Episcopalian.

Whatever. I am an American Episcopalian. If the American Episcopalians decide to break the church up and for their own Traditionalist church where sexuality is not celebrated, then I will immediately join that church. I don't really care what Africa does.

 

[Elrohir]

So he sins.. don't the straight Bishops sin too? What's the difference?

Oh I'm sure they do - but I wouldn't support having a straight bishop either who openly sinned and was unrepentant. The issue is not whether they have sinned in the past, or even whether they will sin in the future - it's what kind of example they are setting. It's one thing for a bishop to say "I have sinned, but with the help of God I will conquer this sin and commit this sin no more". It's quite another to say "Yeah, so God says that's a sin, but I disagree, so I'm going to do it anyway!" The first is a good position to have, the second is disgraceful. If there was a straight bishop picking up hookers after church on Sunday, I would be just as incensed.

No, but I imagine that you enjoy a slice of ham, now and again, don't sell your daughters into slavery or stone your children if they get a little uppity? My point is that there seems to beat the very least a grey area.

Those are ceremonial and dietary laws, not moral laws.

Look, we don't have to follow anything in the OT because it is said in the OT. However, many of the things which were said in the OT were moral truths (IE, it's wrong to kill your neighbor because you want his cow/ferrari/whatever) and thus hold true throughout time for all human beings. NOT because it is in the OT, but because it is wrong and God has told us "This is wrong. DON'T. DO. IT." There ceremonial and societal laws were a matter of ceremonial uncleanliness - note that you didn't have to sacrifice a goat or bird or whatever if you touched a dead animal you found rotting, or some other social taboo, you were just ceremonially unclean for a day or so. That's the difference.

Again, there seems to be a smidge of a grey area, since I don't think Jesus gave us a clear definition of 'sexual immorality' either. And doesn't Paul, in the same verse that he decries homosexuality, also say that 'fornicators' will also not get into heaven? (Corinthians 9:6). I guess what I am trying to say is that whether or not you beleive that homosexuality is a sin as defined by scripture, there is still enough of a grey area to allow for debate (unlike something like loving your neighbour, or not stealing), and thuss a nultitude of views. If the church splits over this issue, so be it, but I get a little irked when people start pointing thier fingers and yelling "HEATHEN!" at the Episcopalians too

That's like saying there's a gray area over whether it's wrong to steal someone's identity and use their credit to buy yourself a plasma screen TV, because Jesus never explicitly said "Take not thy neighbors social security number to use for thine own benefit". Jesus was an Orthodox Jew who knew the OT laws quite well - if he was going to change the status quo, he would have said so specifically. He specifically stated that many of the rules the pharisees has made were wrong, like the ceremonial washing of hands. He NEVER stated that any act which was morally wrong before he died would be acceptable later, and he NEVER gave any indication that his definition of sexual morality was any different from the standard God gave to the Israelites earlier in history. Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law, not destroy it - does it make sense, then, that when he said sexual immorality is wrong, that he really meant a different standard of what was sexually immoral than the Jewish law? There's no reason to believe that Jesus was approving or accepting of homosexual acts, period.

If you don't want to say the Bible holds absolute moral authority, then fine. But let's not have any of this "Well, maybe we can just ignore this part, and make it say what we want it to say" nonsense. It just doesn't work.

 

[warpus]

Oh I'm sure they do - but I wouldn't support having a straight bishop either who openly sinned and was unrepentant. The issue is not whether they have sinned in the past, or even whether they will sin in the future - it's what kind of example they are setting. It's one thing for a bishop to say "I have sinned, but with the help of God I will conquer this sin and commit this sin no more". It's quite another to say "Yeah, so God says that's a sin, but I disagree, so I'm going to do it anyway!" The first is a good position to have, the second is disgraceful. If there was a straight bishop picking up hookers after church on Sunday, I would be just as incensed.

I'm sure a lot of the straight Bishops sin without repenting - we just don't hear about it.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm sure a lot of the straight Bishops sin without repenting - we just don't hear about it.

I'm sure they do, just like I'm sure there are plenty of police officers who speed without cause.

Does that mean we should let people get away with breaking the rules when we know that they have, just because there are inevitably going to be a few who sneak beneath the radar? Do we throw out the rules for everyone because we can't make sure everyone follow them? Do you want to live in a society (Or be a member of any organization or religion) that has the attitude of "To hell with it, you guys can do anything you want. We can't make sure everyone obeys the rules all the time, so we just won't enforce them at all."

I don't.

 

[warpus]

That all makes sense, but everyone is a sinner, right?

The cop example doesn't work, because not all cops break laws.

 

[Elrohir]

That all makes sense, but everyone is a sinner, right?

The cop example doesn't work, because not all cops break laws.

Everyone is a sinner, sure - but we are all supposed to repent of our sins and do our best not to repeat them. Leaders especially must be held to a higher standard because of the influence they wield. The problem isn't that there are church leaders who have sinned, as if we made never sinning a requirement, we wouldn't have any leaders. The problem is that they refuse to acknowledge that they are sinning, and are proud of their sinful actions.

It's like a city mayor announcing that he smokes pot, and then saying "Can't touch this!". He's effectively giving the finger to the government he is supposed to serve, and to the people he was elected to serve. Breaking the law is bad, but it is compounded and made much worse by publicly announcing it and being proud of it. In our civil society, there are rules that must be respected if you want to hold elected office, and we hold our elected officials to keep them. Why is it so strange if a religious society or organization has its own rules, and finds it absurd that its leaders openly flaunt the basic rules of the organization, and expect to get away with it? They're supposed to uphold the rules, and serve the people, not break the rules and do whatever they want. That shows a gross contempt for the people they are supposed to serve, and for the rules of the organization and society they are in charge of, and the Giver of those rules. (In the case of a town mayor, that would be the local electorate - in the case of a bishop, that's God Himself.)


Note: I'm not opposed to the ordination of celibate ministers/bishops who say that they are attracted to members of the same sex. I don't think that attraction itself is a sin. But I do expect church leaders to be held to a standard higher than that of a lay person, and I think it is absurd to claim to be a Christian who believes in the word of the Bible, but openly flaunt its rules from a position of authority.

 

[warpus]

Ok, you've logically defeated every single devil's advocate argument I threw at you...

but.. what if they don't think it's a sin?

 

[Elrohir]

Ok, you've logically defeated every single devil's advocate argument I threw at you...

but.. what if they don't think it's a sin?

Then they should go start their own religion. The liberal Episcopalians may be the majority in America, but they're in the minority when you consider the Anglican church as a whole. If they don't want to stay part of the official Anglican church, then fine - but they shouldn't have the option of completely disregarding fundamental rules of the Christian religion and the Anglican church with impunity.

 

[Flak]

Then they should go start their own religion. The liberal Episcopalians may be the majority in America, but they're in the minority when you consider the Anglican church as a whole. If they don't want to stay part of the official Anglican church, then fine - but they shouldn't have the option of completely disregarding fundamental rules of the Christian religion and the Anglican church with impunity.

Exactly. I do question that they are the majority in my church, but whether they are or not, let them have their homosexual communion and leave the rest of us out of it.

 

[IglooDame]

As the Anglicans themselves would still be heeding the Pope but for a previous schism, I think there's a certain amount of historical precedent for following the path that one thinks God has indicated.

 

[MayNilad Man]

I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, but I have to wonder if the clergy actually discuss such issues among themselves? The way the article paints it, looks like the Africans are just being stubborn.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

They must have trouble getting all the bishops in the same spot for discussion what with the "only move diagonally" rule, or has that been un-nerfed in a patch yet?