Splinter Episcopalians: Giving Gravitas to Trivia

Can someone explain to me what the difference between Epicopalianism and Unitarian Universalist now? Having thrown out all the age old social restrictions of Christianity, why not just ditch the rest of the hocus pocus that everyone's still clinging to for whatever reason?

Dear FARNAZ2 :

"If Jesus were gay, why would that be a problem for you?"

My comment was not about the gayness or lack thereof of Jesus, but how ludicrous and flimsy this SGM nonsense is. Sorry you were taken in. Read up on it bit more if you have time to waste.

"BTW., the letter is still a matter of discussion and controversy."

A UFO-ology conspiracy theory level discussion, not a serious one. Even the Smith claimed that the supposed SGM he saw was written no earlier than the A.D. 1800s. Jenkins drove a stake through its heart with the discovery of the 1940 novel by J.H. Hunter called "The Mystery of Mar Saba" with this as a plot. Intentional or not, this is a bad joke.

So run along and get a better troll. :-)

Next topic?

Thomas Jefferson has been labeled a ‘deist’ by many historians, but this answer may have sacrificed accuracy in its attempt to achieve simplicity.

Jefferson had issues with Christianity. He did believe in many of its teachings and he appeared to believe that Jesus was a nice man, full of goodness and wisdom. But Thomas Jefferson did not believe in miracles. He did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He did not believe in the Virgin Birth. He did not believe that Jesus turned water into wine, nor that he fed 5000 from only a handful of fish and a couple loaves of bread.

So in order to correct the ‘errors’ contained within scripture, Thomas Jefferson wrote a new version of the New Testament, one in which all the miracles were removed and Jesus was no more God than Buddha or any other enlightened man. The Jeffersonian Bible is still in print today for those of you who want to read it.

When it comes to theology, Bishop Spong and many other leaders within the Episcopal Church, appear to be entirely Jeffersonian in their beliefs. Bishop Spong, according to his published works, does not believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. Bishop Spong does not believe in the Virgin Birth. He is not alone in these beliefs.

The Episcopal leadership will tell you that the split is entirely about homosexuality (or sexuality). This is not true. This split is about Jesus Christ and who he is. Because if Jesus Christ was just a really just and kind man, then we are free to pick and choose, like Jefferson, what parts of his teachings we want to follow. Our personal Christianity becomes those parts of the overall Christianity that we agree with.

But is Jesus Christ is God, then his teachings are not just suggestions. We do not get to pick and choose those parts that suit us and ignore whatever offends us personally. If Jesus Christ is God then we are not smarter than he is.

The gay community will tell you love is good, and because they feel a love for someone of their own gender that God has blessed this love. If love is all we are talking about, then you may be right. But when it comes to sex, the scriptures say God does not favor homosexuality any more than He does any other form of non-marital sex. Non marital sex, regardless of who your partner is, falls under the category of adultery.

So let’s not make this split about homophobia. You belittle your audience John when you do. The orthodox members of the Episcopal Church have doubts that you or your friends in the House of Bishops know God’s will better than Matthew, Mark, Luke or John did. That’s what the split is about.

Is it trivia for the Episcopal Church to elevate an adulterer who also led a double life up to the level of a bishop just so someone can make a political statement? Come on. If the man had been a single gay person who didn't lie, wasn't a hypocrite, and had led an otherwise exemplary life, I happen to think that most Episcopalians would have acquiesced to his elevation to bishop without feeling like they wanted to leave the church. What's next, making bishops out of pedophiles or polygamists; they're God's children too, along with liars and hypocrites, so why not throw the rest of Christian doctrine out of the window at the same time? The leaders of the Episcopal Church in America have lost their collective minds and the only thing that will end this is for the laity of the church to cut the feet out from underneath these people to rid the demonination of these idiots. The people didn't leave the Episcopal church; their leadership did.

What a nasty and demeaning man you are, Bishop Spong. There is little Christianity in your commentary.

THEMODERATE:

If Jesus were gay, why would that be a problem for you?

BTW., the letter is still a matter of discussion and controversy.

Sodomy has always had a particular stench.
Always had, and always will.
The filth inherent in the plundering of the anal cavity being most wretched.
But by all means continue to proclaim its merits.
Is it any wonder that the offensive smell would drive people away?

Farnaz,

"According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed..."

Really Farnaz...

So Jesus resurrected that boy to corn-hole him? Well, at least he wasn't a necrophiliac, eh?

BTW, the "manuscript" was hand written into the sown in end-pages of an 18th century A.D. printing of a book first authored in 1646 A.D. The whole thing closely follows the cheesy 1940 novel by J.H. Hunter called "The Mystery of Mar Saba". Now that's a real proof of a second-century letter of Clement suggesting that JC was gay if I ever saw one.

Then again, this was clearly predicted by the Da Vinci Code, and certain alien abduction victims seem corroborate it in their less lucid moments after encounters with UFOs.

LOL

Yes Arminius, apparently, as far as we know, the speed of light (electro-magnetic radiation and its related higher energy cousins) is a universal constant, that is always measured the same, from all perspectives, and points of view, no matter how the measuring defice may be moving, and no matter how the radiation source may be moving; the measurement always comes out the same.

He's a wise and good man John Shelby Spong. Imagine growing up in the segregated south, being raised in a fundamentalist and racist home, and still being able to see the injustice of racism, segregation, homophobia and misogyny. All in one lifetime. Impressive.

Paganplace,

This time last year, I was telling Rev. Elliot he was 'Evil Santa' (he *was* porting that beard in his thuumbnails, after all) for blaming a Jew as a 'party pooper' for getting beaten for brazenly not pretending to be Christian on a subway.

Altogether unsurprising as I note on Willie's thread. Have asked him to comment. I like to hear the Christians explain things. Like the way they stole the Tanakh and then explained it to us.

Like Said said, the foundational colonialist gesture.

Paganplace,

You are engaged? That brings this Christian much joy. I wish you all the best, and a lot of luck. And, if it does not offend you, I will pray too.

As for absolutes. Leaving out God, my absolute absolute, let me list three:

1. Death
2. Murphey's Law
3. The Speed of Light in a Vacuum

...actually, I'm not so sure about #3.

BTW, you might want to check out 'The End of War'. The song is stunning.

And, Arminius, a blessed Solstice. Fitting enough that the day Christian Identity people are fighting over is actually something Pagans celebrate by the actual world, where possible.

I'll thank Wapo for not makng the topic of conversation etirely about O'Reilly and Rush's imaginary 'War on Christnmas,' again this year.

This time last year, I was telling Rev. Elliot he was 'Evil Santa' (he *was* porting that beard in his thuumbnails, after all) for blaming a Jew as a 'party pooper' for getting beaten for brazenly not pretending to be Christian on a subway.

The 'war on PP's marriage' goes on, though.

Yeah. Sweetie and I are formally-engaged, now. Some say it's about 'sex acts.' Gods. Christians may call it 'mutual masturbation' if that's all they ever know and can only think about penises or whatever.

Nothing so banal.

Except in which state can we have a handfasting without both sweetie being screwed in her career, and me not getting health care or any legal rights to what we build together that any relative waving a Bible can't claim.

'Definitions of marriage.'

You claim you want these things as holy absolutes, ...till trying to live by another's standards gets inconvenent, and the lawyers come out.

Then you project your issues on people who know what an oath is, and know what it's like to live by one, even if all agencies of power are against you.

So.

Let's put it this way, Christians.

If the government feels empowered by a minority to keep me or my dear one from being able to keep our oaths to each other, ...What makes you think you're free?

Conditional freedom isn't freedom. It's just changing the landscaping. :)

According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

Yeah, Paganplace, we all think "that way", perhaps too often. An easy trap to fall into, especially in anger.

Yes, try to see the good in people - this is one of my rules of life, and after 65 years I'm rather fair at it, I like to believe. If the good in a person outweighs the bad, at least by some decent margin, than there could be friendship there. Cooperation. Dialog. The path to peace? Gotta start somewhere.

"I am thankfully aware that you do not think that way."

Actually, I kind of do, or at least know people are *led* that way. And that it's something that must constantly-be accounted for.

It's just I also know there's *better* in people, even in the most-screwed-up of situations.

Some say their Jesus is a magic talisman against all ills. Regardless of the cries of those they hurt.

But there's better even in him.

No pride, no shame, no hate, no blame. People really wanna live that way, no God or demigod that's a friend of humanity could be very bad.

All-encompassing *surrogates and excuses,* well.

Known by fruits, capiche?

"Like how I say about evolution, ....some don't want to hear we're primates cause they're terrified of noticing the resemblance."

Imagine how the other primates must feel!

Good post, Paganplace.

Yeah, the herd mentality. Group Think. One can view it in any conservative church, sheep bleating to the tune of a controlling bastard in the pulpit. Walk into a liberal Episcopal church, yer gonna find a bunch of goats that can get joyfully unruly without warning. Our priests are guides, not authority figures. We are there to celebrate our beliefs, not submit to them.

Sex, at its best, is transcendent. In the joining can be something far beyond just two individuals, however good or bad they might be at the techniques. Otherwise it is, at best, healthy exercise, and, at worst, simple joyless mating, and, alas, for too many males, a power trip.

I think what really pisses me off on these blogs is the continual argument of the Black Horse: That is a Horse. It is Black. Therefore, all Horses are Black. Ergo: Dobson is a Christian. He is a controlling power mad idiot. Therefore....

Guilt by association.

I am thankfully aware that you do not think that way.

Eh, Arminius, lots of Christian people are good neighbors. The more collective and 'flockey' it gets, the more things seem to get unpleasant for the rest of us, a lot of the time. :)

Metaphors we live by are *important.* I think everyone has a sense they have some implacable power over them, or with them: and most people with this inkling are going to try and defend an idea that their metaphors are really absolute and for the good and everything, cause it's a little scary to think, for theist and atheist alike, that such power exists and isn't easily-controlled or necessarily in good hands as long as someone uses the very phenomenon to claim authority by such associations.

Don't write em off such that someone else gets to rule you by them. :)

Poets and real clergy and shamans and the like have a sense, at least of the depth of these things, while being human, too.

Sociopaths will *use* them without hardly batting an eyelash. They play on people's desires to not-know they can be manipulated, in so many ways.

Like how I say about evolution, ....some don't want to hear we're primates cause they're terrified of noticing the resemblance.

Aggressive and controlling systems themselves, though, have 'evolved' to *use* our instincts, and ennoble the idea we can't see or interact with them, ...that's why the strident irrational absolutism, as well as the constant struggle against a human nature that really ain't so bad if you pay attention to it and live in it with a good heart.

Example right here, from CCNL:

""Gay sexual activity with or without permanent "unions" is biologically and physically mutual masturbation. It is impossibe to call it "marriage sex" because it fails the biological and physical test criteria required.""

Spoken like someone who truly hasn't experienced sex, except maybe *as* using a woman as a more-interesting plastic baggie full of lotion or whatever.

Spoken like someone who lets *definitions* get between himself and human contact.

Spoken like someone who gets his idea of sex and love and human intimacy from a book.

Spoken like someone who doesn't know. Hasn't felt, doesn't care.

Spoken like someone who heard and believed that a) Masturbation is the same thing as sex, and b) That it's bad, unless pregnancy might result.

Why?

Someone said we're livestock.

And some believed it.

Hi, Paganplace,

Well, we Christians ain't perfect, but some of us could make pretty comfortable neighbors. The flock thing is a metaphor, for the most part; it certainly is in my church, discussion - even disagreement - is actually encouraged. Unlike many other 'churches'.

Yeah, those wolves wearing wool are all over the place. Plenty in the churches - the Episcopal ones seem to have migrated elsewhere, thank God. But one also finds them on Wall Street, in corporate board rooms, and especially in politics.

(And by that I mean I don't think much of the self-styled shepherds, but I can still smell a wolf in the fold like a fart in an elevator. :) )

"OK, as to us uppity Christians. Too many of us forget that line in St Francis' prayer - 'We must forgive in order to be forgiven'. The fundies usually spew forth that stupid phrase, 'Love the sinner, hate the sin'. Crap. A wolf hiding in sheep's clothing. Utter hypocrisy."

Well, Arminius, hard as it is to dispute such a *fittingly* double-edged metaphor, I think much of the problem *is* about that centrality of the 'sheep' metaphor in the whole structure of organized Christianity. That's what they call everyone.

They try to put *everyone* in sheep's clothing, then wonder why people don't quite act like herd animals, and keep getting the wool pulled over their eyes, too. :)

I like to think of myself as a renegade sheep-dog.

Straight up. :)

CNNL said:

"Gay sexual activity with or without permanent "unions" is biologically and physically mutual masturbation. It is impossibe to call it "marriage sex" because it fails the biological and physical test criteria required."

A couple of criticisms: what test are you talking about? I know of no such test that is required for marriage candidates to prove that their sexual desire and interests are "normal." Were you aksed to take such a test when you were married? Was it reviewed and discussed in the wedding ceremony?

Isn't this really just all in your head? The sex practices that you are talking about are your assumptions, in general, about what gay people may do in, general. But if you have a specific gay person in mind, with a name and a social security number, then you don't really know anything specific about that person; you would have to guess, or ask, or give them a test; you might then judge them to pass or to fail. It would be you giving the test, and you alone judging whether they have passed or not, because outside of your own mind, no such test exists, and no one anywhere is ever asked to submit to it.

My other problem with your comment is your reference to the "marriage sex." I have never heard of this before; I think you just made it up; that is fine; it's a free country; create and invent whatever you like to support your argument, but, it is not a very credible way to argue. When gay people ask that they be allowed to legally marry, I do not ever hear them say anything about marriage sex, and that they would like to engage in marriage sex. It is just a non-sense term that never comes up.

You are over-thinking this whole thing. Being gay is actually no big deal. It is actually almost next to nothing. It is not complicated, or troublesome, nor weird, nor anything off-beat or abnormal; remember, when you refer to "gay people," the key word is not "gay;" the key word is "people." I suspect that your real problem is with people. It is people like you and religious homophobes that have exagerated sexual orientation; being gay is not a big deal; being mistreated and ostracized, for being gay, is.

I figure one of the reasons that you are having such a hard time with this subject is because you have bought into many of the untrue sterotypes about gay people that Conservative Religionists (your favorite people) have propogated. When you must keep track of all the many false sterotypes, and make then square with reality and with each other, then it can be quite a task. Oh, what a tangled web we weave ... if you follow my drift.

In a way, though, I would like to thank you. Because your misguided remarks provide a forum for me to respond, with a more realistic and true account of the subject. There is so much ignorance around on this subject that I like to take the time to set the record straight.

"If gays want to join in a monogamous relationship, call it what it is, monogamous mutual masturbation. It is by definition not marriage."

What, by "definition," is marriage?

"Can post menopausal women be married?
Can women who can't have children be married?
Can heterosexual couples who have no children be married?
Can old men past the point of being fathers be married?
Are couples not ready to have children married?"

Yes, of course because they have the biological tools (although not always working perfectly) to do so even though the "marriage" move/act will in most of the cases noted above not result in procreation.

If gays want to join in a monogamous relationship, call it what it is, monogamous mutual masturbation. It is by definition not marriage.

CCNL,

We go to that synagogue, but only occasionally, because we aren't very observant. Also, it is not a sfardic synagogue, but that is another story. There isn't any near where we live.

The rabbi, who is gay, is also extremely earnest. I can't think of a better word. Much closer to us geographically is a very well-known rabbi, someone with whose thinking you're familiar.

But he's slick, you see, and much, much too "white," in his soul. He is a "liberal." Ick. Or as my brilliant father would put it a livingroom liberal (not to be confused with limousine liberal) She's as naive as he is, as naive as hell, but she's not slick and she's not a livingroom type. She's busy learning and teaching. She like us does not come from privelge, and being around it makes her nervous.

The upshot? You see, in her temple, people of all races, sexualities, couples, families, single people, and my nine-year-old, a smart and smart-assed kid, who listens to her in wonder, plagues her with impossible questions after services when everyone else wants to speak to her and she answers the kid, emails her afterwards to elaborate on points she thinks need clarification.

That's why we go to her synagogue. Not because she's gay.

This has nothing to do with gay marriage, just an afterthought.

CCNL,

About "mutual masturbation." I think there may be a couple of things about gay sexualities with which you are unfamiliar. I'm not talking about practices. I'm talking about sexualities.

CCNL,

I have to say I don't entirely understand this point:

Is it sinful? No, but it is not marriage. And of course, most heterosexuals can and do do all the "turn me on" moves but they always have that one move that gays cannot do, the "marriage" move.

First of all, heterosexuals don't necessarily use anal and oral sex to prepare themselves for missionary work, unless they are feeling randy. Some just do the anal or oral thing and call it a night (or day). They do other things, too, but I don't want to shock you.

Second, it is true that many married couples don't have children, and not necessarily due to infertility. There are people who marry with the understanding that neither partner wants a child. Period.

I recently went to a talk entitled "Childfree Marriages." (I confess although I understood that "Childfree" was a response to "Childless," I would have preferred a different title.) My daughter is an interesting person and I don't want to be free of her (most of the time, anyway).

AT all events, I could have sworn that you didn't oppose gay marriage. What harm could it do you?
I do think you are a bit loony, rigid, reactionary, etc., but I hold on to the hope/belief that humanity and goodness are in there somewhere.

CCNL:

"Gay sexual activity with or without permanent "unions" is biologically and physically mutual masturbation."

Can post menopausal women be married?
Can women who can't have children be married?
Can heterosexual couples who have no children be married?
Can old men past the point of being fathers be married?
Are couples not ready to have children married?

Farnaz,

I am sure the island chef went to the Conservative synagogue.

With respect to your gay-gal rabbi:

Gay sexual activity with or without permanent "unions" is biologically and physically mutual masturbation. It is impossibe to call it "marriage sex" because it fails the biological and physical test criteria required.

Is it sinful? No, but it is not marriage. And of course, most heterosexuals can and do do all the "turn me on" moves but they always have that one move that gays cannot do, the "marriage" move.

CCNL:

There is a joke that you probably won't be able to enjoy because you are a bit of a lunatic, but, nevertheless, here it is.

A group of people find themselves on a desert island and notice that there are two synagogues and nothing else. They conclude there must be people around somewhere, so they set out hoping to rescue them and bring them home.

Finally, after much searching, they find a man cooking his dinner over an open fire. After greetings, etc., the strangers point to the tall synagogues, asking, "What's that?"

"Oh," said the islander proudly. "That's the synagogue I go to."

"Then what's that other one?"

"That," he said, "is the synagogue I don't go to."

Does this include the historical and theological mess of Judaism??

Of course. The difference is in Judaism's plurality. So, you will find few if any among the Orthodox who will accept the current secular understanding of what it means to be gay. However, Conservative Egalitarians, Reformed, and Reconstructionists do--all of them. We occasionally go to services at one synagogue because the rabbi is brilliant and we enjoy her droshes. She's openly gay and would marry her companion were she legally able to do so.

Reconstructionists do not accept a traditional view of the deity. Many are what most would consider atheists.

I'm not head over heals in love with Jewish Renewal, but I have to agree with R. Waskow's recent post. Torah, Talmud breathe. We don't think in terms of "schisms."

We know that when you get two Jews in a room you'll get two hundred thousand opinions--on anything.

Hmmm, Farnaz noted: "Bottom line. Each religion needs to clean up its own mess, the mess in it house. It needs to define what morality and immorality mean, and IMO, homosexuality doesn't figure in the definition of either."

Does this include the historical and theological mess of Judaism??

Fitz4,

YOU: What’s interesting (and sad) is that a major Episcopalian voice stands up & no one will defend him.

ME: Deal with it, see below.

YOU: There seems to be Atheists and homosexuals who want to beat their drum, but no faithful Anglicans who want to defend the Christian Faith.

ME: So I'm an atheist and a homosexual for being inclusive, and loving all of God's children? Say what?

YOU: Can a once esteemed faith really take such an obvious nose dive into obscurity?

ME: Not a chance. We are moving into the future. Those who withdraw are moving backwards into time.

YOU: Were is the theological or Scriptural grounding that nourishes serious Episcopalian minds.?

ME: Check out the Gospels, the heart and soul of true Christianity. The teachings of our risen Lord. All else in the bible is either commentary, supporting documentation, history, legend, myth, nonsense, or garbage.

What’s interesting (and sad) is that a major Episcopalian voice stands up & no one will defend him.

There seems to be Atheists and homosexuals who want to beat their drum, but no faithful Anglicans who want to defend the Christian Faith.

Can a once esteemed faith really take such an obvious nose dive into obscurity?

Were is the theological or Scriptural grounding that nourishes serious Episcopalian minds.?

The "No Resurrection" conclusion goes way beyond the conclusions of Bishop Spong, the Jesus Seminar and most of the exegetes listed at
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

For example, from the class notes of a graduate theology class at a large Catholic university:

"Heaven is a Spirit state (no physical bodies present)

Christ's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death.

Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Fitz says "people are fleeing to Rome." That's very funny, given the events of recent years.

Bottom line. Each religion needs to clean up its own mess, the mess in it house. It needs to define what morality and immorality mean, and IMO, homosexuality doesn't figure in the definition of either.

There are some other issues the Episcopalians need to take up, and they most certainly do figure in such discussions. You, Mr. Spong, even you, have a house to clean.

And in England, well, the Episcopalian leadership has left a great deal to be desired, morally speaking.

People who have a problem with gays can try to colonize the Pacific or the moon. Time to move on.

Paganplace, well met again,

It is a constant source of bewilderment and stress to me that my religion has so many that believe that everything is cast in stone. As the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, "Everything flows". Meaning, life is a dynamic, including all of humanity, all governments, all religions, all art forms, all technologies. Like it or not, things change, hopefully for the better. Any effort by some demented group, be it the Bush/Rove attempt at a single party government, or the Taliban imposing stone-age laws, or the communists imposing a non-working system, these will be doomed to failure. Take away the dynamic, you've got stagnation, and eventual rot.

OK, as to us uppity Christians. Too many of us forget that line in St Francis' prayer - 'We must forgive in order to be forgiven'. The fundies usually spew forth that stupid phrase, 'Love the sinner, hate the sin'. Crap. A wolf hiding in sheep's clothing. Utter hypocrisy.

Hi, Arminius..

Yeah, you'd really think someone who believed in the Christian world and was the *good guys* would be *overjoyed* when word got out that like a tenth of the world isn't doomed, damned, and deranged 'God-haters' or whatever.

Instead, it seems they defend living in that perceptual scape at all costs, and like their entire world depended on it... Usually those costs are to someone else, of course.

And completely uncalled-for, of course.

Now, admitting an error is always hard, but I thought you were the 'getting forgiven' guys, right? :)

,

Hi, Paganplace,

You seem to be veering perilously close to the truth here.... not the first time for you.

I mean, really, if the whole thing implodes every time a new fact comes along....

Frankly, if I were Anglican or Episcopalian, I'd probably be like, 'You're arguing for the cosmic importance of some continuity of fellowship and splitting off cause you don't think we're *obsessed enough with gay people?* If you're not going to take this seriously, get out before we throw you out."

Then again, I'm not Pagan by accident, either. :)

"His conclusions about there being no Trinity and no Resurrection agree with a large number of contemporary NT and historical Jesus exegetes."

That is because the guy simply has plagiarized the heretical "Jesus Seminar" folks.

Does Bishop Spong have the gay-gene defect??

His conclusions about there being no Trinity and no Resurrection agree with a large number of contemporary NT and historical Jesus exegetes.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

fitz4- what's your definition of Christianity? the kind that only agrees with you even if it inflicts pain on fellow human beings? Even if it denies them the same rights and privileges you enjoy as an American taxpayer? Even if it means you are practicing discrimination, in violation of the Constitution?

Fitz,

Actually, I used the 95% in reference to the Episcopal Church here in America. You may be right about the total Anglican Community, but I don't know how the rank and file feel about it. We only hear the opinions of the bishops.

As far as I can tell, my diocese here in Atlanta seems to be quite united in siding with the majority of others in America - we're staying put. I'm sorry that your diocese is in turmoil.

“if the majority disagrees, then why have 95% of us stayed? “

I don’t know were you getting these numbers. You simply can’t gauge these things by % of actual Churches formally under alternative oversight.

My own local Episcopal diocese is torn asunder. People are fleeing to Rome. To Episcopal Church’s still under the local bishop but under conservative pastors, and plain not going to Church and withholding donations.

If percentages are the game then Anglicanism is the clear “winner” with 95% of the followers. Episcopalians are the “loser’s” with a Chuch in dramatic decline.

Leaders like Spong don’t believe in the Trinity or the Resurrection or the Divinity of Christ. Leaders like this have led Episcopalians to this impasse. This is simply not Christianity.

Sparrow,

You make an excellent point about my church: if the majority disagrees, then why have 95% of us stayed? Thanks! Poor jayham simply can't grasp the facts.

Pseudo is really something else, isn't he? Fantastic stuff.

Pseudo,

I am stunned by your verse. You are incredible. Absolutely beautiful, and so, so true!

Pseudo- beautifully said!

"The leadership of the Episcopal Church in its arrogance did not consider the opinions of a large segment of its people. It does not matter whether those people are mistaken in their views."- jayham

so jayham, if the Episcopal church had a majority of people who thought slavery was fine, the leaders should just go along with it? Your use of the word "opinion" is the crux of the matter. Opinion and right are 2 very different things. If the Germans had refused to go along with the "opinion" Hitler and his armies, there would have been no concentration camps, and they would have been heroes.

so it matters very much if people are mistaken. the tyranny of the masses is one of the things our government tries to protect us from. It's what made this country great and a beacon to others. These days we seem to have forgotten all of this. the bishops did what was right- they stood up to prejudice and discrimination. They're heroes. It seems they answered to a higher authority than the "opinion" of a small-minded and biased "majority."

BTW- if that were truly so, it would be a majority of Episcopalians leaving the church- but they haven't.

Of Schism Dawning

Does God really care if some are a bit queer
If they care for each other, and hold their loves dear?

For was it not Jesus himself who did say
Just love one another, be known in this way?

How can they think Jesus calls them to hate
And think he walked among us our sins to abate?

Just go read the Gospels to find what they say
'bout the people among us who may be so gay

Methinks you will find not a word or a trace
'bout this weighty issue, or that they lack Grace

The leadership of the Episcopal Church in its arrogance did not consider the opinions of a large segment of its people. It does not matter whether those people are mistaken in their views.

The Episcopal church only exists because it respects consensus and condones vagueness; look at the Thirty Nine Articles to demonstrate that. Here the leadership defined clearly what it believed and split the church.

Not my kind of leaders.

If I were Episcopalian or any type of orthodox Christian/Catholic/Evangelical, I would be more concerned about the historic and theological flaws and errors in my religion. Correction of these errors will crush the foundations of said religions.

Great Christian, Financial Crisis, and Shopping Justice Poet, Pseudo,

I've missed you terribly and have been dreadfully at a loss. Could you work in the eight-month-pregnant shopper also stepped upon in the Walmart Shopping (and killing) spree? I think she and the baby are okay, thankfully.

With admiration,
Farnaz

And now for something completely different...

Black Friday Mourning

The prices were hung by the entrance with care
The restive crowd hoped would soon open there

'Twas Black Friday Morning, and all through the line
The crowd of two-thousand dreamed of sales divine

But this year was different from those of the past
For the bankers had taken their money and gas

The shoppers had loaded their plastic with debts
But visions of flat screens still danced in their heads

There he stood in the doorway to eke out a living
As they crushed in upon him just after Thanksgiving

All lined up awaiting his call to ingress
They swarmed in with great force to shop to excess

And as he lay gasping his last labored breath
The shoppers they taunted while he came to death

He drew his last breath on the floor in between
A sadly cramped row the cheap vending machines

The loss to his family is just beyond measure
And all just to gain some small flat-screen treasures

Had Old Nick flown over that Black Friday night
He might just have passed by dismayed at the sight

Is this guy still talking? Mr Spong wrote a book on how the church must change or die. But Mr Spong's change imposed on the poor diocese of Newark resulted in catastrophic loss. Why does anyone pay attention to this sad apostate? How ironic that he chooses to shoot his evil darts at Bishops Duncan, Schofield, and Iker, all of which inspire love and dedication...and growth.

He simply dredges up effete arguments that have been disposed of many times. Science, he says, proves that homosexuality is not a choice. The poor old man knows nothing of science. A tendency towards homosexuality is perhaps genetic. But the decision to act on those is, of course, a choice. And this is entirely irrelevant to whether the church should bless it. The tendency towards alcoholism is much more firmly established. Does the church of Spong need to bless drunkenness?

Poor sad lonely man. His abstracted, cold and distant deity offers no comfort. Funny how no one wants to follow him into that self imposed hell.

Followup - it's precisely these comments: "OT Freaks" that expose the lie behind "inclusiveness." The fact is that the minute the Spong/Righter supporters took the reins, they went to work forcing out the more orthodox views. They resorted to yelling and name calling at national meetings. In college, I fought to include gays in the military. I have fought AGAINST legal bans on gay marriage. But when I so much as raise my hand to question how 2% of the Anglican Communion can dictate terms to the 75% who repudiated their views - I had angry, spiteful people in my face calling me names. Never mind my concerns about "ugly Americans" or problems with church policy on theological review. I was a "homophobe" and got fingers in my face. I didn't leave because of one gay bishop. I left because his supporters turned into attack dogs and forgot everything moderates like me had done to support them. So the perception that the Episcopal Church has room for both views is a lie cooked up once the schism started to heat up.

Spong?! They chose Spong to talk about this? Well for the love of Mike - let's bring Rev. Phelps in from Westboro to write a response. I mean, if we're going to choose the most extremist voices for this blog - include both sides.

Here is a quote from a famous Catholic convert from Anglicanism:(Something some of Episcopalianism’s best mind are now doing because of the reasoning of the Spong's of this world)

G.K. Chesterton explaining the seeming paradox that people who don't see the use of a social institution should not be allowed to reform it.

Here's the quote:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, chap. 4 (1929).

Here is a quote from a famous Catholic convert from Anglicanism:(Something some of Episcopalianism’s best mind are now doing because of the reasoning of the Spong's of this world)

G.K. Chesterton explaining the seeming paradox that people who don't see the use of a social institution should not be allowed to reform it.

Here's the quote:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, chap. 4 (1929).

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

Here is a quote from a famous Catholic convert from Anglicanism:(Something some of Episcopalianism’s best mind are now doing because of the reasoning of the Spong's of this world)

G.K. Chesterton explaining the seeming paradox that people who don't see the use of a social institution should not be allowed to reform it. Here's the quote:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic, chap. 4 (1929).

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

If they hate gays so much, then why don't they just become Baptists?

Hi, Sparrow,

Yes, the Church will not be harmed by the departure of a bunch of OT freaks. More harm is being done over the arguments about who owns the actual buildings - this seems to be going in favor of those leaving.

arminius- then those who are leaving aren't really episcopalian at heart. It's like separating the wheat and the chaff. You can be conservative without being repressive or close-minded or biased. the big regret is that those who splinter off join like-minded individuals and become more insular and rigid in their thinking.Something we can ill afford in this day and age.

As an Episcopalian, I am grieved at the schism. We have a long tradition of allowing different viewpoints, and encourage discussion about our faith and religion in general. Sparrow is correct, our gay bishop was a strong statement of our belief in inclusiveness and acceptance. And I cannot imagine a church without women as priests.

CCNL -

Yes, we are a minority religion in America, perhaps 2.2 million of us. But we have had a rather strong effect on this country - 11 of our presidents were Episcopalian.

You are correct that it is our quarrel, and will have few effects on others.

1.8 % of the adult population in the USA is Episcopalian/Anglican. Considering this small percentage, should their internal disputes be of any concern especially since said disputes do not pose any physical danger to anyone???

fitz4-
If the institution of marriage in this day and age was only about procreation, then there are millions of men and women- and I am one- who being medically unable to have children, would be prohibited from marrying. I, for one, refuse to let religion or society marginalize me for that. The obsession with sex and children as the basis for marriage underlines the real reason straight people have so mucked up the institution of marriage- and all without help from gays.

Without the understanding that marriage is as much about the union of two people in a (hopefully) loving and mutually beneficial relationship, it undermines the entire institution. This is not the fault of gay people. If anything, gays want the positive benefits of marriage- the things that strengthen the institution, not destroy it.

When Rev. Fauntroy said:"There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. " he put the blame for marital problems in the wrong place.

The sexual revolution never claimed children do not need parents, it fought the degradation of women, and denial of rights- it was the political and social context, of saying a woman is a capable as a man. Marriage is not solely about procreation- not in real life, where people create homes and families that are not traditional.

And look at children and how they are raised. Ever meet a victim of familial child abuse? Traditional marriage bears the burden of responsibility for the huge amount of damaged children in the world today. You think this is the best way for it to operate? You think there is no room for improvement? with a whole world full of grief and pain, from children raised in traditional marriage, how on earth do you think gay marriage can do any more damage to what traditional marriage has done to itself?

My ex left because I was unable to give him children. what do you think that says about the sacrament of marriage? I have a friend whose father would beat her mother and once picked my friend up and threw her into a dresser. My niece was committed to a mental institution for children at 10 because her mother so screwed her up. (thankfully she was helped and today lives a good life in a committed lesbian relationship that has stood the test of time for over 20 years.)

My cousin, who had a miserable childhood thanks to an overbearing father, who was an adulterer, is also in a wonderful gay relationship with the same man for over 25 years.

Traditional marriage? It needs redefinition badly.

Fitz,

"Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage."

I am sorry to tell you, but marriage is a legal right and only a religious sacrament. You are not legally married if all you do is go to church and have preacher perform a ceremony. You need a marriage license for legal marriage and that, my Dear, is a secular document that bestows all the rights and obligations which come with marriage.

The religious part if all "fluff" for whatever deity you believe in. So, I would say Walter Fauntroy had it wrong. Marriage is already deinstitutionalized, denuded, and privatized.

sparrow4

This is not about homosexuality - It is about the all important institution of marriage.

There can be no dispute that a society fully committed to the well-being of children would not condone a cultural trend that causes 71 percent of African-American, 50 percent of Hispanic and 28 percent of white babies —- those born out of wedlock —- to enter life disadvantaged

We cannot redefine societies most important social institution for gay "inclusion"

This Christian said it best I believe...

"Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue; it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship. Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing, denuding and privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution: There are no differences between men and women that matter, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family forms adults choose are all equally good for children. What happens in my heart is that I know the difference. Don't confuse my people, who have been the victims of deliberate family destruction, by giving them another definition of marriage."

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC

Fitz,
Thank you so much for that really interesting quote from a scientist. Of course, the fact that homosexuality is biological doesn't prove that is moral. Humans define morality. We know from the studies conducted by Dr. Mustanski et al. that sexuality is genetic, but even if it wasn't genetic that would not necessarily make it immoral.

If you are so keen to discuss science, you should consider what science has to say about the probability of the Trinity and the resurrected Christ.

fitz4- did you even read what he wrote? He based it on societal change. And as far as your quote, so what? People are who they are. Who they choose to love is not your business. Considering we let straight murderers, rapists and child abusers marry, yet shriek in horror should gays want to, I would have to say our priorities are royally screwed up. the sacrament of marriage is inclusive enough to include the most heinous people so long as they are straight. what does that say?

Last I heard Spong did not even believe in the trinity or a resurrected Christ.

Now he chimes in to support the renegade Episcopalian hierarchy against the scope of scripture tradition and reason represented by the much wider Anglican Communion?

He bases all this in “science” but cares little to discuss said “science”.

Even prominent, homosexualist researchers of congenital causation factors for homosexuality have acknowledged:

"Despite common assertions to the contrary, evidence for biological causation does not have clear moral, legal, or policy consequences. To assume that it does logically requires the belief that some behavior is non-biologically caused. We believe that this assumption is irrational because … all behavioral differences will on some level be attributable to differences in brain structure or process. Thus, no clear conclusions about the morality of a behavior can be made from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behavior is biologically caused…. Any genes found to be involved in determining sexual orientation will likely only confer a predisposition rather than definitively cause homosexuality or heterosexuality."

Brian S. Mustanski and J. Michael Bailey, “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18:4 [2003]: 432)

Bishop Spong is right. It's not unusual for someone to need to take a heroic stand and bring change. It won't be a popular stance, but it was the right one. That heroic stance was electing a gay bishop.

Extremists and arch conservatives never want to change. why do you think civil rights was such a battle? It ultimately isn't just about change, it's also about power. There will always be people who need to look down on someone else for whatever reason. They think it gives them power and they jump through hoops to justify it.

For thousands of years law has evolved and changed to accommodate the changes in society. Of all the issues to become religious hysterics over, homosexuality is a poor choice. If only that indignant, self-righteous rage against gays could be put to real good I would understand.

But to expect the Episcopalian church to continue to abide prejudice and unfairness because a small, venal group desires it, diminishes the entire church. Let them split off- otherwise they are a poison to the rest.

From Wikipedia:

"The Church of England considers itself to be both Catholic and Reformed: [4]

It is 'Catholic' in that it views itself as a part of the universal church of Christ in unbroken continuity with the early apostolic and later mediæval church. This is expressed in its strong emphasis on the teachings of the early Church Fathers, in particular as formalised in the Apostolic, Nicene and Athanasian."

Based on the above, the conservative Episcopalians are true to the definition. It is the liberal wing therefore that is in violation of Episcopalian foundations.

Of course, these foundations as with the foundations of all Christian sects to include Catholicism, are littered with basic historical and theological errors and flaws. Elimination of said flaws and errors would easily crush Christianity as we know it today.

Let's see - who strategically decided to time the New Hampshire election for a bishop to happen so that the entire General Convention of The Episcopal Church would have to vote on his election, knowing full well that the Canon to the Ordinary of New Hampshire (who had been groomed for the job) would be elected?

We are not talking about theology in The Episcopal Church. Every Anglican "instrument of unity" warned The Episcopal Church not to consecrate a gay man living in a non-celibate relationship with another man until there was a consensus in the communion to proceed forward - this included the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, as well as the Episcopal Church House of Bishop's own Theological group that had been tasked with recommending whether it was time to go forward on this revolutionary action. That group, as well as the council of the Anglican primates, and the leadership of the Church of England another provinces from around the world strongly advised The Episcopal Church to wait - but that fell on deaf ears.

No, this was not a theological or a pastoral decision - it was a political one, as Bishop Spong illustrates in his post. That decision has caused, to quote the Windsor Report, to tear the fabric of the Anglican Communion apart. And this retired bishop has the audacity to be upset that the national newspapers are reporting on it? That was the intention all along! They just lost control of the story - and now The Episcopal Church has brought schism (just as General Convention was warned) to the Anglican Communion.

Very sad.