Episcopal Church Chooses to "Walk Apart" from Anglican Communion

ccnl1

Just curious, does "your bible" contain anything besides the two covers?

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

justmo08

You wrote, "Yes, love the sinner but hate the sin AND don't condone it."

Are you God? Are you the one that All Power and Authority has been given to? If you think something is a sin, then don't do it.

You also wrote, "If you are a true disciple of Christ, you don't just love indiscriminately but also live out and proclaim the truth in Scriptures."

You should love unconditionally and the TRUTH is that Jesus is the Saviour of the World, as in "I have come not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved", it is either "saved" or it isn't.

"Father forgive them", does not say "some of them".

God is not the loser, the partial winner that so many, sad to say, are rooting for, as in the lame, "as long as I get to the 'good place'".

Question, something to think about: Say that one were to kick the bucket and woke up in heaven and it is beyond, way beyond, anything that one could imagine, in the 'good sense', and this one happened to look 'down' and saw their mother or their father, their sister or their brother, their husband or their wife, their son or their daughter or their best friend in hell or spiritual death, how "heavenly" would that be?

God cares for ALL of His Creation and God is a Being of Pure Love, as I have said a 'tie' is unacceptable, God's Plan will come to Fruition which God has had since before Creation and is unfolding before our very eyes.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

What some NT and historic Jesus experts concluded about Matt 22:39 i.e. "Love thy neighbor as yourself".

"Samuel T. Lachs

Lachs [Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, 280f] notes that the form cited in Mark begins with the traditional opening phrase of the Shema ("Hear, O Israel ..."). This may reflect the influence of Jewish devotional practices, since none of the other versions have that form.

He comments further as follows:
The combination of Deut. 6.4 and Lev. 19.18 is already found in the Test. of Iss. 5.2 and in the Test. of Dan. 5.3. It is reasonable to assume that this combination was commonplace in rabbinic teachings, since it combines the love of God with the love of man."

"Gerd Luedemann

Luedemann [Jesus, 85f] suggests that Mark was handing on the tradition he had received without any significant change, but he sees the two fold summary of the law as a reductionist and anti-cultic development from the early Christian community, rather than as a saying of Jesus:

The historical yield of the tradition is nil, since it is firmly rooted in the community and is to be derived from its needs. This community has detached itself from the temple cult and justifies this with reference to 'Jesus.' Moreover at another point Jesus gives a completely new definition of the term neighbour (see on Luke 10.30-37)."

"John Dominic Crossan

Item: 201
Stratum: II (60-80 CE)
Attestation: Double
Historicity: not said by the historic Jesus

"David Flusser

Flusser [Jesus, 89f] comments:
Jesus' saying about the double commandment of love was clearly coined before his time. ... both verses from the Bible (Deut. 6:5 and Lev, 19:18) begin with the same word. It was typical of rabbinic scholarship to see similarly phrased passages from the Bible as connected in content also. "

It therefore appears if Jesus did say Matt 22:19, it was something he learned from OT oral presentations.

On the other hand, John 1:17, is a single attestation, i.e. it appears only in John and no other gospel or epistle or non-scriptural reference, making it historically questionable as something the simple preacher man would have done or said.

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb488.html

BTW, when Jesus commanded His followers to "love your neighbors as yourself..." that didn't mean love sin - homosexuality or otherwise. Yes, love the sinner but hate the sin AND don't condone it.

"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17) Jesus was not just a proponent of some kind of global tolerance, but he also reaffirmed the Old Testament/Scriptures and confronted sin. If you are a true disciple of Christ, you don't just love indiscriminately but also live out and proclaim the truth in Scriptures.

The U.S. Episcopalian Church is giving in to the culture. So…when the culture says abortion/infanticide is okay, adultery is okay, divorce is okay, etc. etc (what next?) – are you going to say it’s okay too? The Bible tells its followers to be like “salt and light” in this earth -- to not conform to the patterns of this world, but to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind”; but sadly that’s what some churches are doing. By conforming to the patterns of the world, they’re not only losing membership but also ironically losing relevancy in a world that desperately needs “salt and light.” In the end, why read or believe the Bible anyway - or call yourself a follower of Christ when what you're doing looks nothing like what He and the 12 apostles taught? May as well be a cult or club for liberals and call it your own 'religion'.

When confronted with a choice between the teachings of Jesus and archaic church doctrine, it is encouraging to see the TEC choose the teachings of Jesus.

They couldn't have chosen a worse time.

The recession hit the Episcopal Church has caused a big blow on the denomination. Half of the parishes have an attendance of 70 or less. Many of these parishes were living off income from endowments - funds that have dramatically decreased in value. These parishes, many of them with older buildings and high maintenance costs, then are asking these few parishioners to make up the difference. So what to do? Offend a great deal of them by charging forward with a "prophetic vision" that a great deal of the laity don't share. Really stupid.

Thus, we have half of the parishes in the denomination in a very precarious state. We could see a lot of these going from "getting by" with 60-70 to non-viable and closed.

http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb167.html

"Love one another as I have loved you" was not uttered by the simple preacher man aka Jesus but was added to the gospels by Matthew to again embellish the life of said preacher.

I suppose that Jesus's command to "Love one another as I have loved you" is just too simple for some people to understand.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

NT Wright's main consideration is not the truth concerning whether LGBT people are fully accepted by God as they are -- a truth easily discovered by actually getting to know LGBT Christians who are serious about their faith and living in the Spirit. No - Wright's concern is for the maintenance of the Anglican Communion at all cost. As a gay man who has been ravaged by the teachings and beliefs of fundamentalist Christians in the USA, I am proud to call TEC home as it stands for the truth. For all his NT knowledge, this man has sadly missed part of the trajectory of the good news of Jesus: a much more radical inclusion of all people than he is comfortable with, and an end to the misuse of mis-interpreted Scripture to justify bias against people, in this case sexual minorities.

When Anglican and Episcopalian priests began fleeing to Roman Catholicism in response to the ordination of women, I wondered what their wives and daughters made of a theological commitment less interested in the centralization of power than in the genitalia of the priest.

Now it seems that some of the Communion are more interested in what one does or doesn't do with those genitalia than with larger issues of belief in the nature of the godhead and the manner in which we are to worship.

It is no surprise that conventional churches are growing fastest in regions of the world where societies and laws treat women and 'others' with sinful disdain. Fertile ground, indeed.

agapn9
well put! love the siner hate the sin!

What would Jesus do? Jesus, and if you every read the New testament you would know this, embraced the sinner but condemned the sin.

The issue here is about some people wanting the Anglican hierarchy to embrace, overlook, and call normal the abnormal: homosexuality.

Embrace the sin so that the sinner doesn't have to embrace repentance.
Forgiveness without repentance - how sweet.

Christ defined lawful marriage between man and woman to be the proper and exclusive place for human sexual activity.

Jesus did not excuse fornication, he condemned divorce and re-marriage.

Then why would he say homosexuality was ok? He wouldn't.

To jitl:

The Hugenots? They are gone; these violent heretical people were put down many centuries ago. They committed unspeakable crimes against Catholics; same as they cousins in England who murdered about 3,000 priests, monks, and nuns in the 16th century, let alone the total plundering and destruction of the Church and her properties, which they later "assigned" to their parsons and gospelers. A fresh look at history now and then doesn't hurt.

The Episcopal Church's problem is that its members became too educated to believe in superstitious nonsense.

The Anglican Communion's problem is that it's big in places like Nigeria that aren't.

Dantefigueroa:
Your "Holy Church" slaughtered my Huguenot ancestors for believing the Biblical truth that salvation is by God's grace and not by works -- and certainly not given, or sold, by a human being.
-------------------------------------------
i agree.. "your holy church" what or who is the CHURCH? Jesus said it best! were two or more are gathered to gether in MY name there I AM!!
it is NOT a building..or a religion but christians coming together in HIS name!!!

"Let us stop lobbing Bible verses at each other." So said the former Archbishop of Canterbury at the General Convention in Philadelphia in the 1990s. Then it was about ordination of women and their election as bishops. Now it is about OPENLY gay and lesbian people. Enough already.

As a woman who came to the Episcopal Church in college, who still marvels at the language of the Prayer Book and the commitment of men and women of faith to the spirit and tradition of the church,
I'm convinced that our energies need to be directed at helping those wounded by life, the outcast and the lonely than trying to decide who has the right to hold the Keys to the Kingdom or the diocesan office.

TEC is courdus becuse of fear that they may not be welcmed into society but yet they are blocked from regulare society from the regulare beltway which is a distinct atvange the Anglican Church in North America which ist upholding what the bible has to say, & by the way the bible is kinder than Evelution is on Homo-Sexuality "surviver of the fittest" anyone remember that quoate from Charles Darwin. This says all Gays and lesbians should have died out But yet the bible states God even wants to help change them out of thier sin ,and squaller [ROMANNS 1, JOHN 3:16-19] check it out it might help to understand all anglican point's of view which all have valid point's but one acctually beleives we all have failed and serriously need assistance and only one can help "theman in the glory" Jesus Christ

as it were all the PECUSA + ACNA are at odd with both having at a parkt something valid but I must make it very clear Homosexuality is exprssley abhorent by the Word of God and Health Science the life-style isn't a life-style, but acctually a grousome death-style caused by slow and staedy bad, horrible descisions and in that no Gay or Lesbian should ever hold office even in a progressive church and my point is supported by research thats found on webMD

The CDC is probably the only source of accurate abortion statistics and they gave up reporting these gruesome numbers a few years ago. The numbers from 1970-2004 can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm#fig1 .

The availability of OTC Plan B pills and the "without prescription" RU486 pills via the internet now makes it impossible to get accurate abortion statistics now and in the future. (And yes there are those who consider Plan B pills as not being abortifacients.)

The CDC however still reports STD statistics and from the data it is easy to see there is still too much "inter and outer-coursing" going on.

Once again:

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

The Episcopal Church is a haven for a lot of converts and a tax exempt version of the Peace Corp in religious drag. I don't care if they ordain apes BUT make them pay taxes for this idiotic entertainment. Face it - the Episcopal Church once had some class now its a refuge for the National Organization of Women in a third career. Run --- especially if you're gay - from all this Christer slop!!!

Rob-Roy asked: "Liberals call themselves "progressives." Can anyone look around and really say we are making progress?"

Depends on your point of view.

Rob-Roy: "Abortion rates climbing (and second and third abortions commonplace)"

Wrong. The total number of abortions has dropped over the last two decades, from nearly 1.6 million in 1984 to 1.2 million in 2004.

Rob-Roy: "cohabitation".

Didn't I hear Rush was living with a woman 27 years his junior? Maybe not since I haven't heard any right wing conservatives complaining about it.

Rob-Roy: "children born out of wedlock."

Randall Terry's kids? Palin's?

Rob-Roy: "hooking up"

John Eigsin, Mark Sanford?

Rob-Roy: "going bare"

Hmmm, not sure what you're describing here.

Rob-Roy: "sex in bathrooms".

Larry Craig?

Rob-Roy: "And who suffers the most? Women and children".

Right, so avoid conservative republicans and marry a liberal democrat and raise your kids right and have a happy and long marriage. That's why they are called progressive after all.

David, David, David,

Episcopaleans have not been independent since the revolution. For many multiples of decades they have stated that they are "in union" with the the greater Anglican Communion, doing such things as sending voting representatives to the Lambeth Conference, adhering to the tenants of the Book of Prayer, etc. You couldn't be further from the truth. Only, now have they chosen to be independent.

Best Wishes,
Warren

Warren

Nicky, Nicky, Nicky,

Piffle, pish-tush, blah blah, yada yada...
We Episcopalians have been independent since the Revolution. We like you but we do what we think is best.
Forget everything else, this has never been about anything other than whether gays should be considered as genuine, 100% human beings. We Episcopalians say yes.
The rest is your problem. Let us know if we can help you.

Best wishes,

David

Episcopalians - Catholic-Lite for the upper class.

Bishop Wright,

Perhaps you should be more concerned with Sweden, which is closer to Durham than the U.S.:

New Stockholm bishop is a lesbian

STOCKHOLM.
The Stockholm diocese of the Church of Sweden elected an open lesbian,
the Rev. Eva Brunne, as bishop May 26.

Brunne, 55, is in a registered partnership with the Rev. Gunilla Lindén and they have a 3-year-old son.

Brunne received 413 votes against 365 for her challenger, the Rev. Hans Ulfvebrand. The electors are clergy members and an equal number of lay people.

Brunne is believed to be the first openly lesbian bishop in the world.

The Church of Sweden is Lutheran and counts 76 percent of the population as members, although only about 2 percent of them regularly attend services

And Sally, if Jesus said I need to keep the Jewish purity laws, I would. If He says I don't, I won't. Simple as that.

Does the incarnation of God in the form of Jesus change things? That would probably be a yes. Can He release me from purity laws? Yes. Can a resolution of the apostate Episcopal once-church which is thoroughly infiltrated with anti-Christians change our obligations as Christians? No. Should we let depraved individuals like Otis Charles be deciding morality? Another no.

Just reading some of the blogs. They amended a resolution so as to not refer to Jesus as "He". What a sad joke, the Episcopal denomination has become.

I'm delighted, as a straight cradle Episcopalian, about the coming acceptance of openly gay (though celibate or monogamous) clergy. It's about time, and if it does lead to schism, then I will follow whichever group is the more accepting, regardless of what it calls itself. God made *all* of us, and I cannot accept that He created an entire class of people who are not permitted to live life fully. He does not make mistakes in His creation, so He must have a purpose for gays and lesbians, even if we mere mortals refuse to see that. And if a same-sex orientation were truly of no use to humanity, surely evolution would have reduced or eliminated it by now.

So Rob-Roy, you don't like it when us "liberals" bring up the various old laws that Christianity abandoned like dietary restrictions, etc. Nonetheless, they're still there, in the Bible, the Word of God, and we ignore them now. And then there's divorce, which both Jesus and Paul discuss, and which is clearly considered sinful. Somehow we've managed to get past that, and most Christians -- not just Episcopalians -- accept it. Good grief, 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and only the Catholic Church still dogmatically refuses to acknowledge it and even many Catholics ignore that teaching.

Society evolves, like it or not. Slavery has been in and out of practice, and is now pretty universally regarded as wrong, despite the fact that God accepted and thus condoned it. Women were considered incapable and were disallowed from many roles, including any role in church leadership, but somehow we've gotten past that. Many if not most mainstream Christian denominations (except Catholicism, again) will now permit women to take an active role in worship if not become priests, despite the fact that Jesus said nothing about permitting women to do so. Homosexuality was openly accepted in some societies -- perhaps not Christian, but again, God made those people too. Especially now that there is more evidence that homosexuality is at least in part, if not in toto, an inborn trait, society is more and more accepting of gays and lesbians being permitted to live their lives as openly as anyone, including worshipping fully with the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else.

JHBPM981: "And historically, the Roman Church has had many homosexual clergy - and they still do. These Priests are caring and loving individuals who are doing God's work as they go about their daily lives. But the big difference here is that they are Celibate." Surely, in light of ALL the revelations about pedophile priests, you jest.

Rob-Roy, you are cherry-picking Scripture to make your point. Let's look at the following verse:

"And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people." Leviticus 20:18 (KJV)

How is that not about sexual immorality? It's about a sex act that is identified as highly immoral ("both of them shall be cut off from among their people"); what else could sexual immorality mean?

I completely agree about the hypocrisy of divorce. It is shameful that the Episcopal denomination's has a bishop that is twice divorced and thrice married. Beyond scandalous. And Otis Charles, the retired but still in good standing bishop of Utah, between him and his "husband" they have five previous marriages. Utterly depraved. Note that both men voted for the resolution.

Sexual relations during menstruation:

"If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean."

"Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening."

As I said, Christians were released from purity laws by JESUS. However, we are not released from "evil thoughts, murder, adultery, SEXUAL IMMORALITY, theft, false testimony, slander." And of course, Jesus ups the ante. If we our angry, we violate the murder injunction. If we look on a woman with lust, we commit adultery.

Liberals call themselves "progressives." Can anyone look around and really say we are making progress? Abortion rates climbing (and second and third abortions commonplace), cohabitation, children born out of wedlock, "hooking up", "going bare", sex in bathrooms... And who suffers the most? Women and children.

What I haven't seen addressed is why TEC should care what the Anglican Communion thinks. What has the Communion done for us? What we've done for them is send them money--lots of money. According to an NYT article in 2007, the Episcopal Church bankrolls at least one-third of the Anglican Communion's operations. It's so typical of American foreign aid that the recipients take our money then spit in our faces. Enough! Let's see how far the Bishop of Nigeria would get without good ol' American dollars that he has done nothing to earn.

Yes, the NT condemns sexual immorality, but if that incorporates the OT laws on homosexuality, then it must also incorporate the OT laws on sex during menstruation. There is no Biblical basis for saying that one is still in effect, while the other is just an outmoded "purity" law; the Bible plainly identifies both as sexually immoral. Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why we have to follow the Bible on homosexuality but are free to ignore it on divorce.

The last of the Ten Commandments is:

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

That means that it is God’s position that no man or no woman should have sex outside of marriage. This rule applies to all people and is not intended to single out gays or lesbians. And yes, this rule is perhaps the least popular and most ignored of the ten in modern society.

A gay person who commits adultery hurts only himself or his consenting partner should something go wrong. But in heterosexual coupling lays the power to create life. Marriage exists to protect the babies that may result from sexual intercourse. Without this potential to create life, there is no need for the institution of marriage.

But now the Episcopal Church claims the right to ignore one of the Ten Commandments and still claim it that it follows God. The sin is not being gay. The sin is adultery. Tell the gay bishop to keep his pecker in his pants and the conservatives will not have a Biblical leg to stand on.

My, my, my, Rob-Roy tries to preempt debate by saying some parts of his holy scripture are off limits to discussion. It seems only he is allowed to decide which particular words of the Bible are purely ceremonial—that it, offering no actual direction to morals and behavior but apparently only present for the entertainment value—and which are mandatory and Must Be Obeyed.

A simple fact—organized religions direct what their followers must believe, usually documenting the tenets of that belief as doctrine. Most say their doctrine is divinely inspired from ancient, inherited sacred texts. In actual practice, however, it can be observed that church doctrine is always based far more on interpretation—varying opinions of what sect leaders would prefer the text to mean—than on the words of texts themselves

Periodically, every religion goes through a episodes of controversy as its leaders inevitably start to disagree about the appropriate rigidity of interpretation—loose, literal, or (most often) somewhere in between. When leaders begin to differ on this judgment (either of the literal meaning of the texts themselves, or of the appropriate degree of flexibility of interpretation), the result is schism, and a resulting new religion—as worldwide Episcopalians/Anglicans are currently demonstrating.

The pending Episcopalian schism is largely based on views of whether or not it should adapt to society’s evolution on how it views homosexuality, just as it adapted to society’s changing views first of slavery, then of the role of women (and that last is still an issue with many conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians).

Perhaps the worldwide Anglican community may eventually sort itself out and reach an accommodation similar to Judaism, within who’s four major branches— “Reform” (home of the so-called Secular Jew), “Conservative” (actually, liberal), “Orthodox” (conservative), and “Ultra Orthodox” (fundamentalist)—nearly all Jews can find a home.

Although important to Episcopalians, it’s pretty meaningless to society as a whole if one more Christian sect joins the thousands already out there.

I guess is okay for homosexual bishops to be engaged in homosexual relationships as long as they aren't monogamous. I personally have met a current Episcopal bishop who cruises gay bars in his diocesan city. I also knew another Episcopal bishop who regularly met with his gay friends for "card games." But Bishop Robinson is monogamous and remains so, and the PECUSA is now in schism with the Anglican communion because of it.

I've always suspected that those who rant the loudest about homosexuality are, deep in their hearts, fearful that they may, indeed, have "homosexual tendencies." For it is fear and ignorance that breed hatred, and the Archbishop's screed is nothing more than hatred couched in the words of a major guilt trip.

Hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind when a servant of Jesus forgets that the gospel is not one of judgment but of love. Sir, for the next year, try preaching on the Sermon on the Mount.

The "shellfish" argument or its variations: mixed fibers or menstruating females, etc.?

The liberals simply have no integrity. They trot this out, it gets repudiated, they trot it out again.

Christians don't follow Jewish purity laws. Why? Because Jesus said, "But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean."

Now, homosexuality, like murder adultery, etc, was not a purity issue. The penalty was stoning. But what did he say next? I'll tell you: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, SEXUAL IMMORALITY, theft, false testimony, slander."

As Bishop Tom writes, there is no credible Biblical scholar who would say that a first century rabbi (e.g., Jesus) who would not have included homosexuality in sexual immorality. In this statement, He was upholding standard Judaeo-Christian sexual ethic: sexual relations are reserved for marriage and marriage is for male and female.

So, yes, in this blanket affirmation of Judaic sexual ethic, Jesus did talk about homosexuality.

But will the phonies be bringing up the shellfish argument again tomorrow? You bet.

Strongerthandirt, the mysterious young man wearing a white garment appears at least once more in the standard edition of Mark's gospel, in the account of Jesus' arrest in the Garden.

If anyone wants to read about the possibility that Jesus himself was gay, I'd recommend one of the many articles on Morton Smith's discovery of an alleged gospel fragment. Here's one place to start. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090126/grafton/single

Let us start with some basics:

From Wikipedia:

"No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental.

Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

And from physics and biology, heterosexual sex is called intercourse. Homosexual sex is called outercourse or as many would call it, "mutual masturbation". (Said words should not be offensive to anyone since they are common terms as shown by a quick Google or Bing search.)

And the NT says nothing about gay sex? Au Contraire!!! Thou shalt Not Commit Adultery and Thou Shall Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife/Husband/Partner with the corollary of Thou Shalt Not Fornicate pertain not only to heterosexual couples but also homosexual couples. This probably is no concern to non-Christians or non-Jews but it should be a major concern to those religious types that believe in the teachings of the OT, NT, the Commandments and all of its corollaries.

So we have a Christian God who supposedly created all of us to include homosexuals. Said God is therefore responsible for the defective gene/mind-set that causes homosexuality. One might conclude from this that the Christian God would therefore approve same-sex marriages since that is the only sin-free state where any type of couple-sex can be performed.

Cfoote1, when a woman in your household is having her period, do you lock her up so she doesn't pollute the entire household and everyone in it? Just wondering.

Bible, Bible, Bible...when will intelligent people everywhere yank their brains from between the covers of their holy books and think for themselves?

Bishop Wright: "Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition."

Sigh. As so often with fundamentalists (of whatever denomination or sect), the vehemence of this claim is inversely proportional to its grounding in Scripture.

While Jesus did indeed denounce adultery and divorce, there is no evidence he ever said a word about premarital sex--much less homosexuality.

Perhaps, as the good bishop implies, that's because all his listeners "knew" what his views were and shared them. Yet even the most cursory reading of the four gospels reveals that Christ's own disciples repeatedly misinterpreted His teachings concerning His mission.

So, at a minimum, there is plenty of room to doubt the existence of any "meeting of the minds" on what Jesus did NOT say. And that fact SHOULD give pause to anyone who seeks to dictate doctrine on such intensely personal matters, rather than trusting believers to make up their own minds and hearts.

Ah, all you haters, your days of influence are numbered.

Cfoot1,

There are many instances in the bible where God does not permit divorce, for example:

Matthew 19:6 (NIV): "So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

and

Malachi 2:16 (NIV): 'I hate divorce,' says the Lord God of Israel, 'and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,' says the Lord Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith."

So if the Anglican church split off from Rome SPECIFICALLY to allow divorce, don't your words also apply to the Anglican church itself:
"Jesus loves us all. Yes he does but he hates sin, and instructs us to remove ourselves from it. Congregations beware of letting these come in your midst"

The bible also says in Dueteronomy 25:5-6 "If brothers dwell together,ad one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family; her husband's brother shall go to her bed, and take her as her wife, and perfor the duties of a husband's brother to her"

It also says "Slaves obey your master".

I highly doubt that you would casually bring up slavery or forced sexual relations at this day in age.

Don't cherry pick "moral authority" from the bible when it's laws can also be barbaric and completey out of step with the 21 Century world.

Communista -- actually, we don't all live in free societies. Go to Nigeria, for instance, where sodomy is currently a crime punishable by (I believe) 14-years inprisonment and where the Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola has publically backed legislation that would also criminalize same-sex relationships and even association among gays and lesbians (e.g., political groups, perhaps even bars). You can read all about it here (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5054) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Akinola).

Gee maybe you all should go back and read the Levital and even Mosiac Law. Its all spelled out very well. Homosexuality is a sin and here is why..

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

In this one sentence all the laws of sexual morality, which apply to all the B’nai Adom (Sons of Adam) are explained. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, therefore incest is forbidden. It goes on to say; and shall cleave unto his wife, his wife and not someone else’s wife so adultery is forbidden along with sodomy since it is his wife he is clinging to not his boyfriend. And finally, and they shall be one flesh, meaning a) bestiality is forbidden since man and beast are not one flesh – but man and woman are and b) this relationship is a marriage since the man and woman become one new family thus forbidding extra-marital relations. Given that these laws of sexual morality are given to all mankind, they cannot be dismissed as applying solely to Israel. True, some particulars of the Torat HaMishpocha (Laws of the Family) and Torat Niddah (Laws of Purity) only apply to Jews, the basic mores of the Law applies to all mankind.
While God's grace forgives the sinner the church (any church) can not allow known sin (homosexuality) to enter in and say its OK. Jesus loves us all. Yes he does but he hates sin, and instructs us to remove ourselves from it. Congregations beware of letting these come in your midst

The American Revolution was a good thing.

This second American (Episcopal) Revolution is also a good thing.

In Concord, Massachusetts, at the site of the famous battle on April 19, 1775 which set off the first American Revolution, there is a large stone marker with this inscription:

Grave of British Soldiers
"They came three thousand miles, and died,
To keep the Past upon its throne:
Unheard, beyond the ocean tide,
Their English mother made her moan."

Now we have Anglican clerics suffering the same ignominious fate. Their voices are coming three thousand miles and dying out, to keep the homophobic Past upon its throne.

This new American Episcopal Revolution will also win out, Henry VIII will just have to turn over in his grave, and the world will be a better place.

Thanks be to God!

"What a load of twaddle. Are you delusional, insane, or just a fool? Do you live on the planet Earth? There is plenty of war and hunger to go around, and you can test the veracity of this comment by taking a trip outside your community."
Posted by: garrafa10

Are you serious? Do you realize that in 1AD war was the norm, not the exception? Jesus lived under an occupation as did most of Europe. The Chinese were in constant war as was all of today's Central and South America. Death due to starvation was as real as death due to bacterial disease back then. Where is the widespread war, hunger and disease today? Are you seriously saying things are no better today? I never said it was abolished but its a heck of a lot better today than back then.

The Anglican church was founded to move away from the doctrinaire views of one individual or even a set of individuals in the church hierarchy. So, in keeping with that spirit, I say to the Anglicans who want to force a schism - if that's what you want, so be it. TEC prefers unity. But if you don't, you know what, *we don't need you.* You're already irrelevant.

I would like to shout "Bravo! Well done!" to the Episcopal church. Jesus taught us love. He taught us to love thy neighbor as thyself. This is the most Christ-like move I have ever seen a Christian sect do.

"InTheMiddle wrote:
Your "Holy Church" slaughtered my Huguenot ancestors for believing the Biblical truth that salvation is by God's grace and not by works -- and certainly not given, or sold, by a human being.

Oh, and not to belabor the point, your Holy Church harbored and protected countless pedophiles, giving them ample opportunity to prey on young children."

I thought Coligny cut a rather smashing figure flying through the window in Paris. Tell me, how is your direct pipeline to God working? Do you use ATT or Verizon?

"bevjims1 wrote: Look at it as just another reformation. Society on the whole is moving much closer to Jesus' worldview with little war, hunger needs being met mostly, governments not oppressing peoples as much, human rights a global topic, etc."

What a load of twaddle. Are you delusional, insane, or just a fool? Do you live on the planet Earth? There is plenty of war and hunger to go around, and you can test the veracity of this comment by taking a trip outside your community.

Penetrating men's bodily integrity is not in harmony with the moral law, not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Posted by: abu_ibrahim

Sounds very much like:
"I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."
Gen. Jack D. Ripper (Dr. Strangelove)

Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to the Bishop's argument if I didn't remember what was said when the church almost split about the ordination of women. The same diocese that have split off, or are screaming, now are the ones that threatened to split off, or were screaming, then. The same British bishops were babbling on about what Jesus intended, and what is right and traditional.

Indeed, as an 11 year old girl raised from the cradle in the Episcopal church, studying for my confirmation, I remember hearing a "debate" about this issue on public television. "Women," said some old white man in a purple shirt, "are an unfit vessel of the spirit." I sat there with my fists clenched and wondered how we were good enough to clean his chalices, but not good enough to bless the wine that goes in them.

And yet, I don't think that you would hear a British bishop today saying that women are an unfit vessel. Would you? Do you think that they still believe it, the old warhorses who are still alive from that debate 30 years ago?

My point is this: the Anglican church should be a lot more careful about saying that various groups are inherently unfit for a full role in the church.

Jesus hung out with the people that ordinary Jews thought worthy of stoning. Those considered the most sinful and unclean were his chosen flock. On the other hand, he saved his rage and condemnation for those who made their living being holier than thou and torturing normal people with stupid rules. The bible-thumping evangelicals of the day, the Pharisees, were his least favorite people - not based on anything innate about them, but about their disdain for anyone "lesser" as a child of God worthy of love. If I love someone, I respect them and afford them a chance to serve as they believe they are called. Period.

Sounds to me like certain conservatives are trying to blame 'liberals and homosexuals' for what their own bigotry 'will make them do' if someone else doesn't enforce their bigotries for them.

It sounds to me like some Anglicans and Episcopals have a conflict of conscience on a certain issue, and it's certain homophobes who've been clamoring for years for 'our way or the highway.'

I don't particularly care either way, but I doubt if I were Episcopalian that I'd want to participate weekly in a church preoccupied with excluding anyone not obsessed with dehumanizing gay people. Seems kind of... not spiritual to me.

But that's just how it looks from outside.

Many people don't know or don't realize that during the beggining of the Christian Church the Roman world they were living in was filled with Gays and Lesbians. This practice was acceptable. The message that this was wrong and against God was a message being preached by a minority, namely Jews and Christians. The Apostle Paul was stoned and beaten for saying things that were not popular. He was eventually killed for his faith. Yet the church grew, and people listened to this unpopular message knowing they could meet the same fate.

Here we are 2 thousand years later still debating about the same thing. I know Paul saw Jesus and it was He who allowed Paul to raise people from the dead and perform awesome miracles. Jesus said take up your cross and follow me. The bottom line is if the people who knew and met Jesus said Homosexuality was wrong, then it is wrong. Jesus said to them who's ever sins you forgive are forgiven and who's ever sins you retain are retained.

THIS REPORT JUST CAME IN FROM REUTERS!

JERUSALEM – Israeli soldiers who fought in last winter's Gaza War say the military used Palestinians as human shields, improperly fired incendiary white phosphorous shells over civilian areas and used overwhelming firepower that caused needless deaths and destruction, according to a report released Wednesday.

The testimonies were by far the strongest allegations to come from war veterans that the army used excessive force during the three-week offensive and echoed claims already leveled by Palestinian and human rights groups. The military rebutted the report, saying the accounts were anonymous and impossible to verify.

The accounts of 26 war veterans were collected by Breaking the Silence, an organization of Israeli army reservists critical of their country's treatment of Palestinians. They described demolishing buildings, vandalizing homes and using more than essential firepower, given the relatively light resistance they encountered. One said the army needlessly used white phosphorous, a masking agent that can cause severe burns, for smokescreens. Others said regulations for opening fire were vague, and that soldiers were expected to do whatever was necessary to protect themselves.

Hmmm....THIS IS THE BEHAVIOR OF THE SO-CALLED MORAL ARMY OF THE WORLD

Several Episcopal churches broke from the "Communion" when both the 1979 Book of Common Prayer was released and when women were welcomed into the priesthood. This latest change won't push me away from the church and parish I love.

Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote this in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

«How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust».

The key word here is, «degrades». Our most precious physical possession as human beings is our bodily integrity. Only the ost urgent circumstances, such as the need for a surgical operation or the necessity for embryos to grow inside their mothers' wombs, justifies the disruption of our bodily integrity. Therefore, any relationship in which a man gives up his bodily integrity, or penetrates the bodily integrity of another man, degrades human personality.

This is independent of scripture, whether Old Testament, New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon, or Science and Health (with key to the scriptures). Penetrating men's bodily integrity is not in harmony with the moral law, not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Don't do it. Don't encourage such relationships by blessing them. Don't glorify the degradation of human personality by appointing invaders of men's bodily integrity to positions of authority in your church.

Ravitchn, you put your finger on one of the ironies of the (so-called) orthodox position. There are gay priests and bishops in both Roman and Anglican Catholic churches. There have been for centuries. Everyone knows there have been. Until fairly recently, there wasn't a great hue and cry to root them out and expel them and that only applies to the Roman church. What troubles these people most, apparently, is not gay priests or bishops, it's gay priests or bishops who won't lie about it.

Refresh my recollection, what is the Biblical view of telling lies?

As a Catholic, I'm amused to hear Protestants fret over schism. This controversy is particularly risible, because Henry VIII split the Anglicans from Rome to gain more freedom in his sexual relations.

Theologically, I agree with the Episcopal church in this dispute, but I don't take theological disputes seriously enough to leave my native church over them. If the Anglicans can't abide Episcopal teaching, though, I don't know why they're worried about schism.

"Plenty of Roman Catholic bishops, probably a majority, are gay but no one asks and no one tells. Don't ask, don't tell would be a good policy for the Episcopal Church as well."
Posted by: ravitchn

Truth should never be required to be hidden in a church. Never. If you can deal with closeted gays then you have proven you can deal with gays. It also identifies the problem is not with gay people but those who change their view of them once their gayness is known.

Plenty of Roman Catholic bishops, probably a majority, are gay but no one asks and no one tells. Don't ask, don't tell would be a good policy for the Episcopal Church as well.

GAMiller 1, I am glad that you have found a spiritual home even though you would deny me one.

Comunista, the Anglican Communion doesn't have "fundamental tenets"; it isn't set up that way; it doesn't impose doctrine on its communicants. If you need that kind of faith organization, try the Romans.

Personally, I don't care whether the Communion wants the Episcopal Church or not and my own personal inclination is in the direction of not propping up one of the last vestiges of British Imperialism. That being said, I repeat, the Episcopal Church isn't leaving, but some people want to force us out.

A few years ago the tolerant tact of the American Episcopal Church appeared to be crippling it towards ultimate oblivion. But time passes quickly and an older generation's prejudices are quickly giving ground to the younger generation's lack thereof. Not all Churches will come to recognize homosexual marriage, let alone women in the Clergy, but they will represent only conservative orders. The real test for liberal orders is to focus on the Gospels, through compassion and community works.

"Leave my Episcopal Church alone!!!"
Posted by: panamajack

I thought it was God's church. And doctorwhom above made a very good point, the Anglican church broke off in order to allow divorce and remarriage, something not allowed in the new testament. The irony is pretty clear.

Look at it as just another reformation. Society on the whole is moving much closer to Jesus' worldview with little war, hunger needs being met mostly, governments not oppressing peoples as much, human rights a global topic, etc. Life is not as cheap as it use to be. Jesus would see an improvement, his lessons learned well, until he sees that people were denying gays the right to be part of His church just because they were gay.

The archbishop of Canterbury walks in the darkness of previous centuries. The TEC is a schism moving towards the light. Unfortunately, the Anglican Church in Africa is more of a voodoo, primitive, superstitious lot, filled with hatred, intolerance and bigotry. Overall these divisions/schisms are very good for the world. The more you divide Christianity the more watered down and ineffective it becomes. With the 20,000 plus Christian sects in America, the only agreement within is on who to elect next election...laughter. Otherwise, they engage in a lot of pizzing on each other's interpretations of the Bible...this is VERY good...laughter

It appears that a break in the communion is inevitable. The southern cone will never be able to catch up with the western world on this issue, for a number of reasons they are simply too far behind in their thinking on this and as long as the Communion continues to pander to them we will continue to grow apart.
N.T. Wright is simply supporting the ABC on this. As conservative as Bishop Wright is he cannot believe in his heart that the writing is not already on the wall. England, all of western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others will move toward inclusion. The question will be who will join the ECUSA early rather than, shamefully, late.

There are plenty of churches within the wider Christian community that follow Paul's teachings about homosexuals (and some of them also follow Paul's teachings about women, for the truly doctrinaire.) TEC is unique in my experience of Christian communions for its ability to combine the traditions of worship and faith with a true respect for the moral convictions of its members. To say "I feel this way and so I must act this way" is to be immature and uncontrolled. But to say "I feel that this way is right, so I must follow that feeling" is to acknowledge that we are each our own moral arbiter. Very few churches are willing to permit their membership's own spiritual experiences to dictate its theological path. This may strike some as a recipe for chaos, but if God truly guides his children to righteousness, it ought instead be a movement towards a more godly church.

If it were only homosexuals who wanted the freedom to enjoy sexual relationships without sacrificing the ability to serve in the ministry, there wouldn't be a break with the rest of the Communion. What is acting on TEC is the moral conviction of its straight congregants, who feel in their souls that it is wrong to deny full fellowship to those whom God has made on a different mold. There are few enough places for us conscientious objectors to worship; I am grateful that TEC remains one of them. When it comes down to a conflict between the writings of Paul or the words in Deuteronomy and my own conscience, there is only one right choice.

Remember that the Anglican church was founded on the right to divorce and remarry, which the New Testament also forbids. The Bible has never been offered on a cafeteria plan; if you don't believe all of it, you have no basis for insisting that other people follow the parts that you like.

1. I get that Jesus was a fan of man + woman marriage. I do not see where He says that all other relationships are excluded as not being valuable, meaningful, human, etc.
2. How is the position of the ECUSA on this more social and cultural than the position of those who have and will split off and their African supporters? Isn't it about how you read the Bible, not about Bible or no Bible? Look at the locations and histories of those who have walked away and try to tell me that their cultural and social contexts haven't influenced their positions.
3. Is the church the body of Christ or is it the rules, not about life and our relationship to God, but about itself and its organization? There are divorced clergy and celibate clergy without spouses. These are not in man + woman marriages either.
ON the topic of culture, and broadening the geography a little - The ECUSA prides itself on being inclusive. This comes from a necessity of being the church of an empire that had to make friends wherever the British navy landed, and recognizing that we are all one in the body of Christ. Was the history in Africa different - one of conversion? And as a consequence, that culture has an understanding that people can and should be brought into the fold by coercion and threats?

Bishop Wright's commentary on yesterday's votes by the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church are more political than Christian, but of course his is a political appointment.

What I find heartening about these votes by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church is that they end the immoral compromise of the previous convention: don't ask, don't tell.

Many of the Episcopal Church's most prominent and effective bishops have been homosexual, but their ministries were not flawed or sinful. Their examples have shown that homosexual orientation or activities are not intrinsically sinful, but that sin arises out of faithlessness or infidelity, just as it does with heterosexuals. It is well-nigh time to be wisely reflective about the relation between cultural history and theology, to maintain the purity of faith over against the merely cultural and historical associations of 1st century Palestine. Such was Jesus' message to his fellow Jews. Such is the Episcopal Church's message to contemporary Christians.

As a straight, married, cradle-Episcopalian I am thrilled that my church is taking this important stand. If the churches in developing countries, where the opposition to the full and equal treatment of women and members of the LGBT community is mainly located and where ignorance and illiteracy are widespread, wish to remain in the dark ages in their beliefs that is tragic. We, on the other hand, do not have to subscribe to such non-Christian positions. Asking ourselves today, "What would Jesus do?" on these issues provides a clear answer, grounded in the New Testament: love our neighbors as ourselves, and to care for the least amongst us. Sadly, in most places around the world women count as the latter, as do gays and lesbians - who every day fear for their own safety from those who would injure or destroy them.

I applaud the Episcopal Church of the USA.
Once more it has made me proud to be an Episcopalian. Gay rights are human rights.
It is that simple.

The episcopalian church I've attended has become a claque of bible thumpers.

Jesus stands at their kitchen tables, drives in their cars, ignites every thought in their brain washed brains.

No intelligen being could stomach that.

Episcopalians used to be moderate to
lberal, highly educated, generations old
devoted members. That group has left long ago in disgust.

This move might make that kind of person
think again. There are lots of screaming bible thumpers, few of the more thoughtful .

If the Anglican church is so concerned about adherence to Biblical principles, why aren't they advocating for the reinstatement of polygamy, slavery, and animal sacrifices? If they can accept that times change, and these once-common practices are no longer acceptable, then snapping back to Biblical literalism in the case of homosexuality is inconsistent. The great eternal principles have to do with loving one's neighbor and being honest in one's dealings. The rest is just a reflection of one's time and culture.

JG6544 - Why do you as a GLBT Episcopalian speak for those of us who are straight? For some of us, attending church where the Word of God is taught and adhered to is more important than catering to your GLBT agenda in order not to lose communicants (more of them, should I say) and in addition to gain even more members from the GLBT population. I left the church long ago in order to attend a church which speaks out AGAINST sinful acts, among which homosexuality and lesbianism are counted.

Stupid reasoning #23: "Homosexuality is not a 'choice', it is hardwired. Devotion to faith is driven by indoctrination, choice and an inner desire. That a few ignorant people in the Communion want to ban what is natural..."

There is nothing "natural" about being faithful to one woman, either. There is nothing natural about turning the other cheek or loving your enemies.

Rather Paul says rather explicitly, "For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members."

And the gay activist, Peter Tatchell, dispenses with the puerile, "I was born gay, I can't help it."

Gays and Lesbians DO want to change the tenets of the Episcopal Church. It's a classic example of "I want what I want when I want it and to hell with everyone else!". If they want a "religion" that agrees with their view, let them go elsewhere. Better still, they can form their own. Leave my Episcopal Church alone!!!

there's someting missing here.

The African Anglican Bishops and priests include a few who support the government imprisonment of Gays and Lesbians.
Why isn't that mentioned in the discussion?

Talk about an anti-Jesus view

JHBPM981 - Your position, which is also the position of the Catholic church, has no basis in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is a distinction made between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts. The reason is simple - the modern insight into sexuality that posits the (undeniable) fact of innate sexual orientation was unknown in ancient times. The distinction you make also lands you at odds, it seems to me, with the concept of original sin since it necessarily implies that some people (gays in this case) BY THEIR VERY NATURE are more inclined to sinfulness than others. There's no basis for this in any traditional Christian theology that I've ever heard of.

JG6544- if you don't want to leave the Communion, why do you support changing fundamental tenets (and yes, they are)? You can't have it both ways. But the good news is there are many churches/communions/fellowships in our day and age that gladly support these different tenets.

So why force the issue within the Communion? People like Wright aren't doing anything of the sort.

The author of this piece is not truthful - something one might expect a bit more of from a Bishop. Reading the full article, he fails to identify the standard by which all are judged, gay or straight - that they must be faithful to a monogamous relationship. He unites two different arguments - that of monogamy and that of homosexuality, to essentially say that homosexuals do not maintain such relationships, that they are found only within the heterosexual community. Of course he is wrong, and has constructed a fabrication in order to demonize homosexuals.

In the vote, the TEC simply acknowleged what had become apparent - that attempting to palcate both sides with a truce satisfied no one. Conservatives wouldn't be satisfied unless homosexuals were kicked out of ministry entirely, and liberals wouldn't be satisfied unless homosexuals were granted full rights. Most churches have already made their choices, with those adamantly opposed to the ordaination of gays already having pulled out of the TEC. Conservatives, particuarly, are more interested in what they regard as "purity of doctrine" than in keeping the family together. Although this is not a matter central to faith in any communion, for those on the conservative end, every matter of belief seems to be an occasion over which it is appropriate to fracture the church.

Let's be very clear about this. GLBT Episcopalians don't want to leave the Communion. Straight Episcopalians don't want to leave the Communion. The Episcopal Church doesn't want to leave the Communion. People like Mr. Wright want to force us out of the Communion. If they do and if there is a schism, the fault is theirs, not ours.

I have read with sadness of the schism within the Episcopal Church, and while I am well aware of the historic and Biblical admonitions regarding homosexual acts, I have to say that this is an area that is as old as Christianity itself. To me the answer is quite obvious. Celibacy - the renouncing of the homosexual actions is the historic answer. Let's face it, historically, the Roman Church has had many homosexual clergy - and they still do. These Priests are caring and loving individuals who are doing God's work as they go about their daily lives. But the big difference here is that they are Celibate. To me, Bishop Robinson of NH can be as "Gay" as he wants, but to be in the position of Bishop while actively participating in homosexual activites is wrong. This is what caused me to leave the Episcopal Church. If he were to publically declare and practice celibacy, this would make all the difference as the issue would be settled. I do believe that God does not condemm homosexual individuals - only the acts. As I say, it is too bad that this issue has come to the point that it has.

The Church is supposed to be about God, not about politics. The US Episcopal Church has been grinding political axes for as long as I can remember, and as a result I have been attending a Presbyterian Church for the last 24 years. I would like to practice the "Faith of Our Fathers", but I actually consider that immoral based on the Church's perverse focus on sexual politics.

I thought the author made an eloquent explanation on Christian moral ethics -- the Bible does not support any other arrangement than heterosexual monagamy. At what point does the moral relativism exhibited in this vote get twisted to include adult/child, parent/child, sibling/sibling, human/animal relations as rights? And what does this expansion of the playing field for sin in the name of "justice" portend for protecting innocence?

The Bible says that we are to approach God with "the eyes of a child", and St. Augustine said that there is not just one Anti-Christ, but many. Anytime we promote sin, we destroy innocence, in effect damning others. We are not playing God, but Satan.

No doubt the Council will point to its vote as an indication of legitimacy, but what this argument overlooks is the attrition in the Episcopal Church over the past two decades. Consider how many of these "lapsed Episcopalians" are actually people who have been disenfranchised from the Church (or should I say "excommunicated") because of wrong theology?

There are 86,400 seconds in a day, a human being is composed of billions of cells, each having 23 chromosomes and nearly 100,000 genes, put together in hundreds of systems, all guided by thought. Why do some people try to say that with all the permutations and combinations of these elements that are possible, they "can't help" being gay? Get your mind off your glands, people. Start working for causes that really matter, and stop robbing the rest of us (children and adults alike) of our innocence. Stop saying to the rest of us "damn you".

The Anglican Church was founded via a schism. It will fold the same way.

The following will put the final nails into the coffin: (for those eyes that have not seen)

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, homosexual priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams, the Great “Babs” et al, founders of Christian-based religions or combination religions also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals, homosexual hierarchy/priests, and atonement theology
-

The Anglican Communion is not immune to ignorance of humane nature. Homosexuality is not a 'choice', it is hardwired. Devotion to faith is driven by indoctrination, choice and an inner desire. That a few ignorant people in the Communion want to ban what is natural amongst some of the leaders of the Communion reflects an inability, indeed an incompetence of those same leaders to have homosexuals as part of the flock at any level as well.
I side with the tolerant and wise, not with the narrow minded.

How has there not been a schism over divorce, in this Christian church or in any other? Jesus spoke very explicitly and very forcefully about divorce and remarriage, calling it "adultery" in no uncertain terms. Yet most Christian churches, and most Christians, are all too ready to overlook this seemingly unambiguous teaching while focusing on the "sin" of homosexuality and the often obscure (and almost entirely Old Testament) biblical injunctions against it. It's all too clear that many Christians use the bible to rationalize their own prejudices while overlooking those parts they find personally inconvenient.

Schism is sad but perhaps it is Gods will ?

The schism is between bible-centered Christians and those who are social Christians (those who like the caring community more than the theology or teachings).

While many Christians choose to ignore the sins outlined in Bible esp. gay sex in Romans and Corinthians... they fail to remember Christs teachings in Matthew 19:

In response to the Pharisees on divorce, Jesus spoke:

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

The above is the basis of Christian support for traditional marriage.

All this controversy over homosexuality among so many Christian denominations today when Jesus Christ never even bothered to mention the subject. He was certainly aware of it if for no other reason than that He lived in a time and place dominated culturally by the Greeks where it was commonplace and accepted as natural. How could the Son of God Himself have failed to mention that most outrageous sin that so preoccupies his modern day followers, unless, of course, He didn't regard it as important? Either that or He's guilty of a terrible oversight. Was Jesus, the Son of God, fallible then? There's no other possibility beyond these two choices. At any rate, unless people like this bishop accept the absurd premise that same-sex orientation is merely some kind of choice, they're faced with a dilemma. If one's fundamental sexual orientation is a part of one's nature then why are some people, under any and all circumstances, sinful if they act on theirs (homosexuals) while others are not (heterosexuals)? Surely, men like this bishop aren't suggesting the blatantly unethical alternative for gays that they live a life of constant lies and deception by pretending to be what they are not.

I just read the entire column on fulcrum - Bishop Wright is even more off base than I had first thought.

He says: "It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor."

Well, yes DNA markers are a recent development. Science and enlightment have taught us that sexual orientation is determined at birth.

It is also a "recent innovation" to allow menstruating women into the public square.

Calling homosexuality a "lifestyle choice" (which I believe Bishop Wright was implying) is not a big step from denying evolution. I expect a little better from our church leaders.

Dantefigueroa:

Your "Holy Church" slaughtered my Huguenot ancestors for believing the Biblical truth that salvation is by God's grace and not by works -- and certainly not given, or sold, by a human being.

Oh, and not to belabor the point, your Holy Church harbored and protected countless pedophiles, giving them ample opportunity to prey on young children.

Anybody surprised about these developments?
These are the logical consequences of the heretical break of the Protestants from the Holy Church. Just another fruit of the poisonous tree. Let's see what other aberrations these heretics will approve in a few years.

"This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion".

Not so. Canada, Austrailia, and New Zealand also ordain gays - to name a few.

I think homosexuals should be treated fairly. However, those whose major definition of themselves is their sexual orientation set an unusual standard. Therefore, placing homosexuals as leaders and policy-makers obviously creates problems in an Anglican religious setting.
It might be best if a new different wing of the Anglican Church were created where their acceptance would be automatic and non-controversial. That is not what exists now. The present war-- now entering its sixth year, will destroy the church--is that what they really want?

Throwing out all false notions about the (Anglican/Episcopal/whatever) Church 'repressing' or otherwise targeting homosexuals or anyone else in this day and age, because we live in free societies where we are free to believe and act as we so please in our privacy, I find it silly that anyone would dare assert that the Anglican Communion is trying to be hateful or bigoted, let alone relate this to the Inquisition (which takes a good bit of historical ignorance to do so), when we're all free to see the facts plain and simple.

Nowhere has the Anglican Communion been prejudiced against anyone for simply BEING homosexual; this entire issue is squarely about individuals in ACTIVE homosexual relationships, and it doesn't take the Pope, Patriarch of Constantinople, or Archbishop of Canterbury to understand the theological basis for such a stance. It's pretty simple, and doesn't automatically constitute bigotry or hate. This article pretty much walks you through it anyway.

And since we live in free societies and can believe and act as we see fit, there's nothing stopping ANY of us from following whatever religious fellowship we want... so for all these individuals who want to change this Church to fit their beliefs, it would be far more worthwhile to join a church that is more to their beliefs (and they certainly exist), rather than force some schism. I mean, how do you think we ended up with most of the thousands of splinter Protestant denominations in the world?

correcting my statement above, "the Church of England is granted big taxation money by the British state to fund its operations and thus continues to have political and economic motives for its stands"...

I agree with Blugrasses' reference above to the hypocrisies involved in the founding of the Anglican church (he's referring to Henry VIII's creation of the church because the Pope wouldn't grant him his careless divorces for dynastic purposes. Since 3,000 nuns, priests, brothers, and church members were butchered later and church property seized or destroyed as part of this process, it wasn't just a theological matter, but a criminal act).

It should also be pointed out today that the Church of England is granted big taxation money by the British state to fund its operations and thus continues to have political and non-economic motives for its stands, whereas American Episcopal churches have no matter other than conscience to consider in their actions...

Bravo. I commend the Episcopal Church on its progressive thinking and actions. I am straight but think the way gays are treated in this country is a disgrace generated by religious dogma, fear, and ignorance. The stone age mentality discriminating against them is unacceptable and it's high time for equal rights. Thank you, TEC, for stepping into the light and recognizing that we all are human beings who have much to offer.
For those opposed, I suppose you would prefer religious, bigoted criminals over honest and qualified persons who just happen to be gay. Get over it, the Spanish Inquisition ended centuries ago.

Given the founding history of the Anglican Church, the Bishop should perhaps reconsider his sarcasm. He ridicules the Episcopal position as, “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” as "cynical double-think". I mean no disrespect to anyone, but isn't that, in a way, how the Anglican Church itself started? And, if so, then perhaps the schism can be addressed with less rancor.

There will be schism only if people choose to make it. No one is forcing anyone to leave the Episcopal Church; people are doing it of their own free will. While their leaving is a grievous thing without question, if their price for staying is denying the full inclusion of all of God's children, that price is too high.

The headline is not trueful. In a news world that likes black/white we don't get truth. If one reads the resolution carefully, what it says is that TEC has a great desire to remain in and strongly support the Anglican Communion. That being said, the Anglican Communion is a group of national churches that do act indepedantly. TEC has chosen to remain true to itself inspite of pressure from places in Africa that have archbishop working with governments to imprison gay and lesbian persons. What would Jesus do? I am proud of TEC for not only letting the broader world know it is a church for all people because it trually believes God's grace is for all while at the same time affirming its connection with the wider Anglican Communion. If they want to push TEC out it says as much about them as it does TEC. At this point I am worried alot more about GBT folks in Africa who are beaten and killed daily in part because of Anglican Archbishops who would like TEC out of the Communion. TEC has stood on its princepals.