The "Ever Present Threats" of the Anglican Church

[J.D.]

Hm. It's been a while.

Thoughts on this blog article (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/07/16/bishop-gene-robinson-reflects-on-ever-present-threats/) from Reuters?

[Daniel]

Hm. It's been a while.

Thoughts on this blog article (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/07/16/bishop-gene-robinson-reflects-on-ever-present-threats/) from Reuters?

The interview, that is.

Ii heard Robinson speak at St. Lukes in the Fields (NYC) two years ago, before this matter started to boil over. He was simple, eloquent and direct in his homily. He expressed some optimisim then. And two things stand out to me in this all too short interview: his physical posture and his pain. From the pictures taken, the man looks like he's been beaten upon. The man I saw stood tall. This man- the one in the pictures- seems weighed down, which breaks my heart. And his optimism seems to have greatly diminished.

He may not be a martyr, but that is what the African church has asked him to sign up for, despite his own desires and gifts.

Can you imagine being the focal point of such anger, ignorance and vicious speech? That is a lot to bear!

We often think of getting guidance from those who lead us, but in this case, I feel as though it is the membership of the church which must come to the aid of Robinson. To hold him in theirs prayers, their hugs, actions, words and deeds.

The man must not be allowed to be ground-under by a bunch of fear-mongering men.

Mat God bless his Soul!

[FatherAlbert]

My dear brothers and sisters,

Thanks, Daniel, for pointing out how Gene is carrying a big burden for the good of all of us. He knew this before he consented to elevation to the episcopacy. He also predicted that his becoming a bishop would wreak havoc with the Anglican Communion, possibly causing a schism. Nonetheless, the people of New Hampshire saw in him the shepherd that they could follow without reservation. He is one of the most authentic (transparent) human beings of modern times. He listens to and acts upon that little voice that is the Spirit of God with conviction and without looking back.

Please do pray for him and for us all that we may put aside all those foolish ideas and historical beliefs that don't serve but to divide and create chaos in today's world. We all should read about Jesus and how he lived, as well as the others who came before and after teaching us how to live and love one another: Buddha, Ghandi, King, Day, Romero, Joan of Arc, Gallileo, and so many others. They followed their hearts as they were led by the Truth and toward the Truth. All transparent, authentic people who suffered for their steadfastness to their dream of creating a better world and a more gentle, loving world for all the brothers and sisters.

Don't give up the dream! Don't allow Gene or any of the brave ones to drown in the hate and bigotry of the powerful minority. Lead on, Gene; lead on to victory over the evil of this world that we may all know what Love is all about.

Love and Blessings,
Albert

[J.D.]

"Robinson, a divorced father of two, has received death threats and wore a bulletproof vest at his consecration back in 2003." -REUTERS (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/07/16/bishop-gene-robinson-reflects-on-ever-present-threats/)

"Gene enjoys entertaining and cooking, gardening, music and theatre. He is the father of two grown daughters and the proud grandfather of two granddaughters."-EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF NH (http://www.nhepiscopal.org/bishop/bishop.html)

I find this particular issue an interesting one in Bishop Robinson's life. After recognizing and accepting his sexuality, he went through a divorce that left behind two children. Ironically, this seems to signify two major issues within the Episcopal Church currently; divorce and equality.

But this brings up an interesting point of discussion; is this path the best path taken in situations similar to that of Bishop Robinson's? Are there consequences for divorce? Is there a special exception to his specific situation, and if so, where is it base? How does this play into the qualifications of Church leadership illustrated in Timothy and Titus?

What do you guys think?

[Daniel]

I find this particular issue an interesting one in Bishop Robinson's life. After recognizing and accepting his sexuality, he went through a divorce that left behind two children. Ironically, this seems to signify two major issues within the Episcopal Church currently; divorce and equality.

But this brings up an interesting point of discussion; is this path the best path taken in situations similar to that of Bishop Robinson's? Are there consequences for divorce? Is there a special exception to his specific situation, and if so, where is it base? How does this play into the qualifications of Church leadership illustrated in Timothy and Titus?

What do you guys think?

I think it is a gross generalization to assume that he 'left behind' his children. From what I have read, the man has an amicable relationship with his former wife, which, one could rationally posit, includes his children. Of course, I am open to information which contradicts this perception. Do you have any?

As it is, the words 'left behind' suggest abandonment, which is harldy what one expects of a Christian man, much less a Bishop and leader of the church.

In that sense, I find your suggestion very troubling.

Straight people get divorced all the time, and they are not generally thought of as abandoning their children. As such, there are most often arrangements made in court to assure that the needs of children are attended to. Joint custoday etc. Does that mean that children are not impacted by divorce? Or course not. But what would you prefer? That the man stay in a relationship where his wife's happiness and that of his children is compromised for many years? Just whom would that serve in the end? Are you suggesting that gay men should stay married if they have children no matter what?

[J.D.]

As it is, the words 'left behind' suggest abandonment, which is harldy what one expects of a Christian man, much less a Bishop and leader of the church.

In that sense, I find your suggestion very troubling.

Apologies. I meant that only in the sense of a parent no longer completely fullfilling the role of a husband and father in the family, as the process of any divorce inherently includes.

Does that mean that children are not impacted by divorce? Or course not. But what would you prefer? That the man stay in a relationship where his wife's happiness and that of his children is compromised for many years? Just whom would that serve in the end? Are you suggesting that gay men should stay married if they have children no matter what?

I only desired to ask a few questions, that was all. I am not sure how successful any kind of dialogue there will be if my questions are seen as statements or debate briefs.

In the same regard, it would create a greater more understandable line of communication if I were able to intake the basic responses of everyone here, rather than have to disseminate the responder's position from questions posed.

Back to the topic; I am only curious as to whether the act of Bishop Robinson's divorce is being greatly overlooked in this particular situation. Clearly, this is a largely unprecedent situation, as gay religious clergy have only recentely been accepted in contemporary culture. For this reason I brought the question up.

[Daniel]

Apologies. I meant that only in the sense of a parent no longer completely fullfilling the role of a husband and father in the family, as the process of any divorce inherently includes.

Apology accepted.

I only desired to ask a few questions, that was all. I am not sure how successful any kind of dialogue there will be if my questions are seen as statements or debate briefs.

Fair enough. But as in any forum. You put the post out there, and this is a public forum. You don't get to contol either the dialouge or the responses.

In the same regard, it would create a greater more understandable line of communication if I were able to intake the basic responses of everyone here, rather than have to disseminate the responder's position from questions posed.

Oh...you don't like being called on your ill thought choice of words. Sorry. That's not an option here. Everything is fair game. Again- it's a public forum. What I hear you saying- though I may be getting things completely wrong- is that you don't want ot deal with responses that are challenging. Nes pas?

Back to the topic; I am only curious as to whether the act of Bishop Robinson's divorce is being greatly overlooked in this particular situation. Clearly, this is a largely unprecedent situation, as gay religious clergy have only recentely been accepted in contemporary culture. For this reason I brought the question up.

Ok back to topic.

Sounds like you have a problem with divorce, but are afraid to come out and say it.

How about I be direct for the sake of actual dialogue and brevity. Let's not be theoretical about matters:

Do you have a problem with Robinson divorcing his wife? And if you do. Why?

Please explain your reasoning.

[keltic63]

I must admit, that in reading the question/statement, that I felt I was being attacked and judged. I am a gay man, who was in a straight marriage, and I have 3 children.

I did not abandon them. I did not "leave them behind." In order for me to respond to the post, I would have to look past the judgment inherent in the wording. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and I think I'd have some trouble responding in a civil way.

[J.D.]

Hm.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. If I may clarify, I do not look more negatively upon a gay man or woman going through the process of a divorce any more that I would view a straight man or woman.

However, in both situations, a divorce did actualize. I would be just as inclined to question a clergy men of his pastoral fullfillment if he were straight; I simply found this particular issue to be of significance and relevance to the group.

I was simply curious to see how others viewed the consequences of these actions, or even the existence of any such consequences, as there generally would be for other individuals striving for church leadership positions.

[Matt Algren]

From what I've heard and read, Bishop Robinson's divorce was a superb example of how divorces should be recognized in the church even when one partner isn't gay.

[J.D.]

"From what I've heard and read, Bishop Robinson's divorce was a superb example of how divorces should be recognized in the church even when one partner isn't gay."

Ah, I see.

I suppose I'm not familiar enough with the situation to recognize the details; what were some of the positives mentioned?

[nmwolfboy]

i second Matt's opinion. My understanding is that +Gene never hid the reality of his same-sex attraction from Boo (his former wife). When it became apparent to the both of them that his SSA was a reality that wasn't going to change, they mutually came to a very mature decision to release each other from their marriage vows.

They openly shared their commitment to raising their children jointly, with much apparent cooperation and mutual support. Seems to me that they took the best path possible in their situation, and neither of their children was left behind. So far as leadership, the honesty with which +Gene lived out his marriage with Boo, the way they decided to release each other from their vows, and their shared commitment to their children seem to model the best example of divorce that i've ever seen.

When +Gene was consecrated, Boo was present and received the sacrament of Eucharist from him. She has publicly stated that she did so to show her support for +Gene.

Perhaps i'm not understanding your question/point, J.D. i also would disagree that divorce is a major issue within the Episcopal Church.

If i'm totally missing your point(s), J.D., please help me to understand what you're trying to say.

Pax, :dove:
scott

[Matt Algren]

Ah, I see.

I suppose I'm not familiar enough with the situation to recognize the details; what were some of the positives mentioned?
From this article (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/july-dec03/episcopalian_8-1.html), published before his election:

We ended our marriage in church. We took a priest with us to the judge's chambers, for the final divorce decree; we went back to his church, and then returned our wedding rings to each other as a symbol of the vows that we no longer held each other to. My wife was remarried, already remarried before I ever met my partner. Seriously, I think it would be marvelous if more divorcing couples took that approach, though I understand that it isn't always possible.

As far as their children are concerned, Bishop Robinson's now adult daughter is quoted in the same article.

Gene Robinson is a good man, a good priest, a good husband and partner and good father.

That's my mom's story and here's mine. Divorce is never a good time but it was through love and dedication that both my sister and I were able to come away with more happy experiences and memories than sad ones.

[J.D.]

i second Matt's opinion. My understanding is that +Gene never hid the reality of his same-sex attraction from Boo (his former wife). When it became apparent to the both of them that his SSA was a reality that wasn't going to change, they mutually came to a very mature decision to release each other from their marriage vows.

They openly shared their commitment to raising their children jointly, with much apparent cooperation and mutual support. Seems to me that they took the best path possible in their situation, and neither of their children was left behind. So far as leadership, the honesty with which +Gene lived out his marriage with Boo, the way they decided to release each other from their vows, and their shared commitment to their children seem to model the best example of divorce that i've ever seen.

Ah. Thanks for the details. I can better understand some of the resonses more now. 'Preciate it.

When +Gene was consecrated, Boo was present and received the sacrament of Eucharist from him. She has publicly stated that she did so to show her support for +Gene.

Perhaps i'm not understanding your question/point, J.D. i also would disagree that divorce is a major issue within the Episcopal Church.

If i'm totally missing your point(s), J.D., please help me to understand what you're trying to say.

Perhaps it isn't fair to pin divorce as an Episcopal issue, as divorce raters are approaching the mid to high 50 percentiles throughout the body of Christ. That comment was more of a passing nugget due to different articles I've read over recent memory.

I suppose it is good that they were able to reach an agreement, and to hold each other in a special form of mutual self-respect. I guess I'm still hung up on "divorce" itself, and the lack of existence of the idea or concept of a "respectable" divorce from the Biblical worldview.

[wmanion]

I understand being hung up on the whole divorce issue myself because of what the scripture said in the new testament regarding divorce. However, the only biblical reason for divorce was adultery on the woman's part and it was said that she was never to marry again. Just like with sexual orientation and the lack of understanding during the time period, divorce was categorized as something wrong and sinful. However, as society has progressed and woman are no longer seen in light of being property which a man can do with whatever he wants, we have come to realize that a woman nor a man should have to remain in a marriage because of neglect or spousal abuse. We have learned that the well-being of children are important and if inside the realms of marriage if the children are being abused by either parent, it is not a situation in which a man nor a woman should remain. By the same principle, if a man or woman is married to someone whom they cannot be the husband or wife that they were intended to be it is unfair and painful for that spouse to remain in that kind of relationship. Over the years, most churches have become more and more tolerant of the fact that sometimes relationships were not meant to be and that divorce is the only answer. It is how this divorce is handled that can either be destructive or constructive for the children. And as parents, we must do what is right by the children first and I think Robinson and his wife did take this into consideration and did not neglect the needs of their children during the process, for which they should be applauded.

Bill

[Daniel]

I guess I'm still hung up on "divorce" itself, and the lack of existence of the idea or concept of a "respectable" divorce from the Biblical worldview.

Even though you chose not to answer my direct question. Much appreciated. Now it's clear how you feel about the matter. And that's a lot easier to deal with.

Do you have also have a problem with gay persons? Do you take issue with gay people because of the 8 clobber passages in the bible? Sorry to be so frank, but your posts lead me to think that your rather conservative in your views.

Curious minds want to know.

I think a little perspective is needed here. If one were to follow the social norms contained within the bible, men should be able to marry as many wives as they like.

Jesus had some harsh things to say about divorce as I recall. But not a word about gay persons. ;)

[J.D.]

Even though you chose not to answer my direct question. Much appreciated.

I'm truly sorry; I honestly missed your question. Certainly, I would be more than willing to answer it if you would kindly restate your aforementioned inquiry. :)

Do you have also have a problem with gay persons? Do you take issue with gay people because of the 8 clobber passages in the bible?

Curious minds want to know.

A little agressive, no? I suppose I have stepped into it. It's interesting a conversation regarding divorce can be so quickly dissipated into same old-same old.

As for the lack of things being mentioned in the bible. Well. There are many things it does and does not talk about, the absence of which doesn't mean that those things should be condemned. And I think a little perspective is needed here. If one were to follow the social norms contained within the bible, men should be able to marry as many wives as they like.

Would you think that is a good idea?

First off, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here originally. Divorced is discussed in both the old and new testament, along with marriage and the underlying principles. I wouldn't assume to group divorce into the "indirect" statements from Scripture.

Also, I belive you might be taking the Word a tad out of context. While there are certainly cases of multi-marriage Biblical figures, this clearly was not the intent of our Maker nor to the benefit of the participants. Situations such as Abram, David, Solomon, and others reveal dissapointing consequences to this decision...where as the initial marriage creation was requisite of two individuals. Give man time enough, and he will destroy what the Lord has so beautifully created.

Never mind the litany of scriptures that speak to the marrying of one wife (1 Tim 3, Titus 1, Matt 19:4, I Cor 7, Rom 7:3-4, Eph 5:22). I don't think that's overly-complex to theolgically comprehend.

[Daniel]

A little agressive, no? I suppose I have stepped into it. It's interesting a conversation regarding divorce can be so quickly dissipated into same old-same old.

I prefer to think of myself as direct. At no point did I make a judgment about your character or person. Just want to know what your beliefs are- plain and simple.

First off, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here originally. Divorced is discussed in both the old and new testament, along with marriage and the underlying principles. I wouldn't assume to group divorce into the "indirect" statements from Scripture.

Then I saw tell you. You have a beef with Robinson's divorce. Got that. Divorce in general to be exact, that is, if I am reading you correctly.

Also, I belive you might be taking the Word a tad out of context. While there are certainly cases of multi-marriage Biblical figures, this clearly was not the intent of our Maker nor to the benefit of the participants. Situations such as Abram, David, Solomon, and others reveal dissapointing consequences to this decision...where as the initial marriage creation was requisite of two individuals. Give man time enough, and he will destroy what the Lord has so beautifully created.

Really? And how do you know that? Looks to me that you are being pretty choosey in what you life to accept and reject. If it was good enough for Abraham, why isn't it good enough for us today? I mean. Did God suddenly change his mind?

Sorry. I don't think I'm being out of context at all. Marriage as we know it (please go google the history of marriage) didn't even exist until after the church got into the business in the middle ages. Before that, women and children were seen as property. And in some places in the world, they still are.

And I find your use of the word "Word" a fundamentalist notion, as though the bible is some fixed object which cannot be questioned. I find this to be an very harmful view. Why? Because, often, that very same 'Word' becomes a hammer in the hands of those who fear those who are different from themselves.

Never mind the litany of scriptures that speak to the marrying of one wife (1 Tim 3, Titus 1, Matt 19:4, I Cor 7, Rom 7:3-4, Eph 5:22). I don't think that's overly-complex to theolgically comprehend.

I can find verses to back slave owing too. That's proves nothing but the bias' of the the person quoting the scripture in question.

I think they call is proof-texting. I'm not saying that marriage is a good or a bad thing. What I am endeavoring to communicate is that I get the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that you have very traditional views about marriage and divorce which are not exactly in line with history. Your personal view of you think God says? Sure. Got that. But let''s not mistake your views for something they aren't: Truth. And by Truth, I mean a view of matters which is comprehensive- that is fully informed. And while I don't mean to assert that I am totally informed, I am self-aware enough to know when I don't know something. And to frank sir, I don't get the impression that you question yourself very much. If you did, you might see gay people differently. And I hope that is why you are here actually.

[J.D.]

On a side note: do you no longer wish to ask the question I inadvertently dodged previously?

"Then I saw tell you. You have beef with Robinson's divorce. Got that. Divorce in general to be exact, that is, if I am reading you correctly."

That is correct...sort of.

I brought up Bishop Robinson's divorce as a sub-topic to the blog article, with the main issue considering his seemingly overlooked divorced a church leader, despite that being a key issue in Scripture that specifically speaks to the position of Church leadership and authority

Without sounding like a modern day Ezekiel, I believe the Word of God "has a beef" with divorce; it's not simply my personal take on it. I'm sure you're familiar with scripture in the Pauline epistles or more directly in Malachi that speak to the issue, and understand why I would say that.

"Really. And how do you know that? Looks to me that you are being pretty choosey in what you life to accept and reject. If it was good enough for Abraham, why isn't it good enough for us today? I mean. Did God suddenly change his mind?"

Hm. I believe I mentioned the Old Testament individuals - in fact, several of the prominent ones - that were married to more than one wife. I also stated, rather clearly, that there were negative consequences in those situations.

Abraham's lack of faith created a people that to this day rails against his people. David's lack of self-control and family problems lead to the eventual of downfall of the united Israeli kingdom, through the reign of Solomon...husband of countless wives and partner to numerous concubines.

"Sorry. I don't think I'm being out of context at all. Marriage as we know it (please go google the history of marriage) didn't even exist until after the church got into the business in the middle ages. Before that, women and children were seen as property. And in some places in the world, they still are."

See, here is where the Bible is so powerful! The teachings of the word were so ground-breaking in the contemporary culture. Look at how Paul commands husbands to love their wives as their selves (which, of course, is rooted in the example of Christ to the church) in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. Despite the culture surrounding the early Church, Paul challenged believers to revert back to old-school marriage; two people becoming one (Gen 1). It's an amazing thing!

"I can find verses to back slave owing too. That's proves nothing but the bias' of the the person quoting the scripture in question. I think they call is proof-texting."

I would be interested in viewing these verses you've mentioned that state a command or acceptance of owning slaves as clearly stated as "the man shall be a husband of one wife," similar to what it says in Timothy or Titus.

There are inumerous contextual quetsions to be considered and hopefully answered when dealing with any Biblical issue, but when one sees a consistent pattern throughout Scripture regarding a topic, such as this, then their ought to be consideration as to whether the verses truly are being taken out of context.

[Daniel]

On a side note: do you no longer wish to ask the question I inadvertently dodged previously?

Surprise me......

Without sounding like a modern day Ezekiel, I believe the Word of God "has a beef" with divorce; it's not simply my personal take on it. I'm sure you're familiar with scripture in the Pauline epistles or more directly in Malachi that speak to the issue, and understand why I would say that.

You mean you don't want to condemn those who are divorced, but feel that you must because you have a scriptual mandate to do so? How very charitable of you!

Know what I love? That more than half the so-called Christians screaming about gay marriage are divorced! Amazing.

Hm. I believe I mentioned the Old Testament individuals - in fact, several of the prominent ones - that were married to more than one wife. I also stated, rather clearly, that there were negative consequences in those situations.

Abraham's lack of faith created a people that to this day rails against his people. David's lack of self-control and family problems lead to the eventual of downfall of the united Israeli kingdom, through the reign of Solomon...husband of countless wives and partner to numerous concubines.

And so what? Big deal as far as I am concerned. Your scenario fits in with your conservative view, but that doesn't really say much. All you are doing is drawing moral conclusions based on modern evangelical notions.

See, here is where the Bible is so powerful! The teachings of the word were so ground-breaking in the contemporary culture. Look at how Paul commands husbands to love their wives as their selves (which, of course, is rooted in the example of Christ to the church) in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. Despite the culture surrounding the early Church, Paul challenged believers to revert back to old-school marriage; two people becoming one (Gen 1). It's an amazing thing!

Oh please! There are other ethical systems that are just as old, if not older, that have as much 'groundbreaking' ideas. One has only to look at Buddhism or Hinduism for instance. The bible doesn't have a radical lock on ideas about marriage and ethics. As as stated before, the actual institution of marriage as we know it came much later. I think you are confusing spiritual and ethical principles with societal norms. They are not the same thing. But then, it is very common for evangelicals to want to Christianize everything in sight.

I would be interested in viewing these verses you've mentioned that state a command or acceptance of owning slaves as clearly stated as "the man shall be a husband of one wife," similar to what it says in Timothy or Titus.

It took me all of two seconds to google the verses.;)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

There are inumerous contextual quetsions to be considered and hopefully answered when dealing with any Biblical issue, but when one sees a consistent pattern throughout Scripture regarding a topic, such as this, then their ought to be consideration as to whether the verses truly are being taken out of context.

Oh...context...that's everything. I certainly agree. If one understands context, then one starts to see that the clobber passages aren't what conservatives make them out to be. :)

[keltic63]

It's the middle of the night. I'm up checking on my son. I decided to look in on things here in the forums.

I'm disturbed by the direction of this thread. I've read through it from the beginning, and I get the distinct feeling, an uneasiness, that bread crumbs are being laid out along a path. A logical trap is being created: if you believe a to be true, and b to be true as well, then by necessity, c must be true. It's been a while since I've recalled the formal training in logic:

A=B
B=C
then A=C

so here's where I'm going with this: the Bible says divorce is bad. the Bible is totally true. so when the Bible says gays are bad, it must be totally true.

J.D. is this what you wish to say here?

[andrewlittle]

I'm disturbed by the direction of this thread. I've read through it from the beginning, and I get the distinct feeling, an uneasiness, that bread crumbs are being laid out along a path.
I second the concern about bread crumbs, but not about the logic. I am concerned about a pattern of illogic.

A logical trap is being created: if you believe a to be true, and b to be true as well, then by necessity, c must be true. It's been a while since I've recalled the formal training in logic:

A=B
B=C
then A=C

so here's where I'm going with this: the Bible says divorce is bad. the Bible is totally true. so when the Bible says gays are bad, it must be totally true.

J.D. is this what you wish to say here?
Surely not! That little logical trail would produce something like:
The Bible says divorce is bad. A=true.
The Bible is totally true. Illogical statement because there is no substantiation. This would require a logical argument of its own to establish the truth of the assumption. Invariably this results is a circular illogic like: The Bible is God's word. We know this to be true because the Bible says it is God's word. We know that God's word is true because it is from God and God would not lie. We know this because the Bible says so. There is no way to assert the trueness of the Bible without resorting to the evidence within the Bible, which is not logically sound.

[Daniel]

I second the concern about bread crumbs, but not about the logic. I am concerned about a pattern of illogic.


Surely not! That little logical trail would produce something like:
The Bible says divorce is bad. A=true.
The Bible is totally true. Illogical statement because there is no substantiation. This would require a logical argument of its own to establish the truth of the assumption. Invariably this results is a circular illogic like: The Bible is God's word. We know this to be true because the Bible says it is God's word. We know that God's word is true because it is from God and God would not lie. We know this because the Bible says so. There is no way to assert the trueness of the Bible without resorting to the evidence within the Bible, which is not logically sound.

I am always a bit flummoxed when I encounter this line of thinking- my biological family still thinks thus. I love them, but I could relate some real conversation-stopper moments when this kind of thinking raises its head.

It makes for a kind of absolutism where one feels as though one is talking to a brick wall. Honest conversation is extreemly difficult under these circumstances: how can you disagree with God? Ergo- you can't really disagree with a conservative. They have all the answers, at least, based on their world view. And sadly, there is precious little room for gay people in that view. If they exist at all, they do so as corrupted heterosexuals as well being worthy of hellfire and damnation.

Guess the dissonance between those who have a stake in absolutism and those who don't is one thing behind the schism that is forminig in the Anglican Church.

The matter of Robinson's divorce? I hope it's not an opening gambit in a game of condemnation. If so, I'm not playing.

As I see it, Jesus' life was about Radical Love. He spent his time with those who were looked down upon. And who is looked down upon today?

Gay people!

The Carpenter is with us here!

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Somewhere along the line J.D. referred to "Biblical worldview."

My question: Is there really such a thing as "Biblical worldview" apart from the ideology of modern Fundamentalists?

"Worldview," it seems to me, is a kind of "post-modern" concept. Implicitly it acknowledges that there is no one who has a corner on the "Truth"--we can only approach truth from the reference points of our various worldviews. None of us has the "right" or "privilege" to declare our worldview to be the absolute truth.

I'm not arguing for what is called "moral relativism" here. Just that as we struggle for answers to moral questions we recognize that we can only approach these issues from various points of view.

We can see the way that Gene Robinson handled his divorce as admirable and we can see the way Newt Gingrich handled his as not so admirable. J.D.'s point of view may be that they are just the same--so much the worse for J.D's "Biblical worldview" in that case.

I'd describe my "worldview" as informed by the Social Gospel, Liberation Theology and Progressive Christianity. These are all worldviews grounded in the Bible, but they surely differ from the so-called "Biblical worldview" that modern Fundamentalists propose.

As a Progressive Christian I believe we must be open to the insights of all the world's Religions, because our own insights are limited by our own cultural background. If this is "heresy" -- so be it!

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

As a Progressive Christian I believe we must be open to the insights of all the world's Religions, because our own insights are limited by our own cultural background. If this is "heresy" -- so be it!

Count me in as one who has endeavored- in his own humble-stumble way- to embody your statement above. Which is why I joke that I am openly gay but a closeted Buddhist. Well. Actually, not closeted anymore.

Being open. To me, that's what it's all about.

[scott snedeker]

So a claim to have a special relationship with a diety sharing the omniscience and privy to "The Biblical Worldview" might be explained in the following link"

http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/DDGrandiose%20Type.htm

[FatherAlbert]

Hello to all,

I'm confused about how we got away from Bishop Robinson's position in the Anglican Communion and all the biblical stuff about divorce and such. If we really want to understand Gene Robinson, we need to read about him and also read things that he has written. We absolutely must know his personal history. I am not going to divulge privileged information, but anyone who tries to connect Gene's marriage, divorce, and relationship with his wife and daughters and granddaughters to his coming out as a gay man and subsequently marrying his partner of more than twenty years is barking up the wrong tree. Don't go there!

Please don't judge until you have a handle on the situation; and then, don't judge because that's not our job as humans.

Daniel, I think I am a Buddhist and a follower of Jesus at the same time. Is that OK? I sometimes think I'm hanging out there with only myself to talk to. As I've said before, I'm great with questions, but not so good with answers to much of anything. I'm still working on that piece about "thinking outside the box." Maybe I've jumped outside the box already. Whatever! Too much thinking makes me nuts!

Love in Christ and Benedict and Buddha and all the great ones who came before,
Albert

[Daniel]

Hello to all,

I'm confused about how we got away from Bishop Robinson's position in the Anglican Communion and all the biblical stuff about divorce and such. If we really want to understand Gene Robinson, we need to read about him and also read things that he has written. We absolutely must know his personal history. I am not going to divulge privileged information, but anyone who tries to connect Gene's marriage, divorce, and relationship with his wife and daughters and granddaughters to his coming out as a gay man and subsequently marrying his partner of more than twenty years is barking up the wrong tree. Don't go there!

To know that man is to know the person. Thank you for steering this thread back to that direction.

Please don't judge until you have a handle on the situation; and then, don't judge because that's not our job as humans.

Now that's something to remember! Only thing that troubles me is when humans start asserting what 'God' thinks and then acting on his behalf, and I'm not talking about the Golden Rule! ;)

Daniel, I think I am a Buddhist and a follower of Jesus at the same time. Is that OK? I sometimes think I'm hanging out there with only myself to talk to. As I've said before, I'm great with questions, but not so good with answers to much of anything. I'm still working on that piece about "thinking outside the box." Maybe I've jumped outside the box already. Whatever! Too much thinking makes me nuts!

It is more than Ok, at least with me. Your description of yourself is me. You are not alone my brother. I endeavor to follow the Carpenter and have also learned, and experienced much, in Buddhist meditation practice. Do I experience a conflict? No! Rather, I feel that I have a better means to understand the faith I was born into. It's like learning French: in the process, one learns English a great deal better!

And as it is, to give just one example, many Catholic monastics have been practicing Zazen (a form of Zen Buddhist meditation) since the 60's. Hello! It's a very vibrant cross-cultural world out there! They even dreamed up- I could be wrong about this- the concept of "Centering Prayer' because of this influence. In any case, the actual activity of Zazen and Centering Prayer is not much, if any, different.

Love in Christ and Benedict and Buddha and all the great ones who came before,
Albert

May all the Enlightened Beings Shine Upon You!

[lda]

Hi,
I believe it was Albert who mentioned serving Christ and being a practicing Buddhist. My thought on this is this idea is like an oil and water mixture-the two can't mix. Here is a quote from a famous Buddhist:
Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen master, says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth." May I bring emphasis to the "not absolute truth".

Now, if we examine the words of Jesus, he says a conflicting statement when he says, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6" Clearly, Jesus believes in absolute truth, when he uses The, and goes as far to say He is that absolute truth.

You'll find many more differences like this if you weigh them against each other. Buddhism is going to permit you to test the waters with many ideologies-Jesus does not. You can participate in many other religions simultaneously, and their doctrines leave room for it-But not true Christianity. There is One Way to the Fellowship with the Father in Heaven according to Jesus-And He is That way.

[wmanion]

Hi,
I believe it was Albert who mentioned serving Christ and being a practicing Buddhist. My thought on this is this idea is like an oil and water mixture-the two can't mix. Here is a quote from a famous Buddhist:
Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen master, says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth." May I bring emphasis to the "not absolute truth".



Hi Ida,
This is a very interesting quote. However, don't you think since he was a Zen Master that he was also talking about the "doctrine, theology, or ideology" including Buddhist ones, that he could also have been including or have easily included "Christian," ones? The Bible itself is rooted in a lot of old religious thought that is not based on a lot of absolute truth. This is a very debatable subject. If god uses the principles of Buddhism to bring a person closer to a loving and understanding relationship of who he is, which to me points to "unconditional love." Who are we to judge this relationship? I do believe when the Bereans were instructed to search the scriptures daily to find whatsoever was true...it was so they could separate the view of man to what God is really about. Why would someone be instructed to search the scriptures for truth if it was automatically determined that everything in the scripture was "absolute truth." I believe God has the power to reveal himself through Christ or any other means that he chooses. I also believe over the centuries he has done this. Many cultures have worshiped God in the his creation...nature itself. They never even had the opportunity to hear about a man born named "Jesus." Do you actually think that God sent all people to hell that never had the opportunity to even give a chance to accept Christ since he seems to be the only way?

Bill

[Daniel]

Hi,
I believe it was Albert who mentioned serving Christ and being a practicing Buddhist. My thought on this is this idea is like an oil and water mixture-the two can't mix. Here is a quote from a famous Buddhist:
Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Zen master, says "Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Buddhist systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth." May I bring emphasis to the "not absolute truth".

Now, if we examine the words of Jesus, he says a conflicting statement when he says, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6" Clearly, Jesus believes in absolute truth, when he uses The, and goes as far to say He is that absolute truth.

You'll find many more differences like this if you weigh them against each other. Buddhism is going to permit you to test the waters with many ideologies-Jesus does not. You can participate in many other religions simultaneously, and their doctrines leave room for it-But not true Christianity. There is One Way to the Fellowship with the Father in Heaven according to Jesus-And He is That way.


I'm really sorry that you see things is such black and white terms Ida. For starters, Buddhism is not an ideology any more than Christianity is an ideology. And your assertion about absolute truth being the property of Christianity only shows to this reader that you seem to be only comfortable with intellectual and narrow belief rather than the actual practice of love and compassion, which is central to both the teachings of Christ and the Buddha.

It's the first time while I have been on this board that I have encountered what amounted to intolerance for how I observe my faith. Yes. I grew up penecostal and now practice Buddhist meditation. I follow the teachings and example of Christ and the Buddha and find no contradiction.

The vast majority of Buddhists that I know have no issue with Christians or Christianity, while curiously, it has been my observation that the more evangelical the 'Christian', the more one encounters the criticism you are leveling.

Now. I ask you. What's wrong with that picture?

[scott snedeker]

Hi,
I believe it was Albert who mentioned serving Christ and being a practicing Buddhist. My thought on this is this idea is like an oil and water mixture-the two can't mix. .

I think they mix inseparably. Two of the keystone meditations taught in Buddhism are Forgiveness and Loving-kindness to all living beings.

Sounds awfully familiar Doesn't it? These lessons are common to Buddha, Christ and my core spiritual paradigm as well.

I am a Druidic Pagan who embraces the teachings of Christ and Buddha. Why not just one paradigm? Because my spirit thrives with the Connection with the Forest Spirit, an essence that arises from nature as well as the wisdom of these two men. Part of my soul comes from this wild and innocent primaeval force while part connects with loving-kindness, forgiveness and awareness. It's all good for my soul!

Druids believe that all organic life is sentient and connected. We humans sense this connection as love. Sexual love-making is the most intense connection with the Forest Spirit. We pagans naturally do it alot as it is The Goddess's design that we share this joy and connection. It's fun to be a pagan!

Christ saw the capacity for love in everyone. He knew that each human being is blessed with this treasure. He was one of the most connected of humans to this essence of life. Unconditional love is Christ's most significant message IMO. He was a genious of awarenesss of human love.

Buddha developed awarness of this also 500 years before Christ. Buddhism is the most introspective of the spiritual paradigms that I have studied. Buddhism is also the gentlest spiritual paradigm I have encountered.

Many "true" Christians tend to follow rules and conditions. They believe that they are rewarded with a salvation that is depenendent on strict adherence to metaphysical beliefs based on the translation of biblical text by English scholars in 1638.

This seems to me to be often used as justification for some very nasty behavior. It is the least introspective of the spiritual paradigms that I have studied. I think these two qualities distract many from the most significant of Christ's messages which often makes "true" Christianity appear very un-Christ like to me.

[nmwolfboy]

As interesting as i find the rabbit holes this discussion has delved into, i'd like to return to discussing thoughts about the subject of the article that originally started this thread (http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/07/16/bishop-gene-robinson-reflects-on-ever-present-threats/).

+Gene said something in his July GQ magazine interview (http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_6948) that i find very germane to his presence in Canterbury right now. He said:
“You know, Jesus was always in trouble. And I think it’s an indictment of us as Christians that I wear this around my neck”—his cross—“and police don’t follow me wherever I go. I tell my clergy that if they’re not in trouble, they’re not preaching the Gospel.”

Amen, brother. Amen.

Pax et bonum,
scott

[tdogg]

I find it interesting that as I read through this thread, JD disappears and Ida appears. Perhaps we are being thrown breadcrumbs and maybe it's a trap. Certainly, we here on the forums have all been there and succumbed to that. It's late and I think I'll opt out of entering into the off-topic discussion, other than to say that as someone who was raised a Christian and probably identifies as Christian more than any other spiritual label - I do believe that as Christians we can gain much spiritually and mentally from learning of other theological/spiritual beliefs. Religion is organized by man, spiritualism is what is between you and your God. If that's based on a sound foundation and in good shape, learning about other types of spirituality shouldn't harm your faith. It can only provide to strengthen it.

JD, if you are truly interested in learning more about Bishop Robinson, may I suggest that you do the research and reading yourself - start with viewing the documentary For The Bible Tells Me So. Then continue your research by reading Bishop Robinson's book (don't have the title off hand, anyone else?). I think you'll find it to be quite interesting, informative and will help you understand that which you are asking about. Gene Robinson is a genuine example of Christ's love in action - we can all learn much by learning more about Bishop Robinson's life. Happy watching and reading!

[Daniel]

, if you are truly interested in learning more about Bishop Robinson, may I suggest that you do the research and reading yourself - start with viewing the documentary For The Bible Tells Me So. Then continue your research by reading Bishop Robinson's book (don't have the title off hand, anyone else?). I think you'll find it to be quite interesting, informative and will help you understand that which you are asking about. Gene Robinson is a genuine example of Christ's love in action - we can all learn much by learning more about Bishop Robinson's life. Happy watching and reading!


Here is Gene's latest book: In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God

http://www.amazon.com/Eye-Storm-Swept-Center-God/dp/1596270888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216635036&sr=1-1

[J.D.]

Wow. Quite a few responses over the weekend.

I suppose the first course of action would be to dispell any fears of my leading you down a bread crumb-laden path towards some sort of trap. You give me too much credit ;)

I question the benefit of attempting to answer or discuss the concept of a Biblical worldview. One mistake I may have made in conversating with this particular forum group was to assume I would be given the light of day, at least initially, despite my differing viewpoint.

I would say, however, that the example of Christ is an interesting one worth observing. Christ based what he said from the Hebrew scriptures, and quoted them as absolute fact. You can find examples of that in his temptations, his teachings, and prophecies regarding his life/death/resurrection. Rather than pick and choose the aspects of Jesus' character, I would presume that we ought to look at his entire time on Earth and understand his mission in that way.

In regards to mixing faiths; I would say that the words of Christ are pretty exclusive in that particular aspect. I can also see why it would be easy to confuse the matter when one focuses solely on the practical aspects of the teachings of Christ. If he is a mere man, and a liar at that, then logic would say to follow his teachings. But if one recognizes his divinity, then one would also desire greatly to see the spiritual significance behind the words he spoke and the teachings he demonstrated and lectured.

Oh, and thank you for the literature, also. I look forward to getting into some of the reading and acquiring a better understanding of Bishop Robinson.

On a side note: I would only ask that you respect my ability to display and illustrate my opinion, as I do yours, and not jump to wild conclusions nor draw crazy accusations from my statements. Makes for better conversation :)

[Steven E. Webster]

I would say, however, that the example of Christ is an interesting one worth observing. Christ based what he said from the Hebrew scriptures, and quoted them as absolute fact.

There you go again, J.D.---introducing a modern Fundamentalist piece of ideology--i.e. "absolute fact" --as though this represents the way that the historical Jesus actually used the Hebrew Scriptures. You aren't going to get agreement on that from this Bible scholar, and alot of scholars more worthy than I.

Of course, using the Bible as evidence to prove the so-called "abosolute facts" of the Bible is completely circular reasoning, if it can be called reasoning at all.

You are, of course, entitled to be a Fundamentalist. Just don't expect us to give you a free pass on any of your so-called "Biblical Worldview" ideas in these forums.

[This is an edit to my initial post--I want to clarify that I view the Bible primarily as a literary creation and not as a book of "absolute facts." I believe that ancient people (including Jesus) also understood the Bible as a literary creation. The concern to assert "absolute facts" from the Bible is a modern invention by Fundamentalists reacting against the European Enlightenment and modern science.]

Steven Webster

[keltic63]

Wow. Quite a few responses over the weekend.

I suppose the first course of action would be to dispell any fears of my leading you down a bread crumb-laden path towards some sort of trap. You give me too much credit ;)

I question the benefit of attempting to answer or discuss the concept of a Biblical worldview. One mistake I may have made in conversating with this particular forum group was to assume I would be given the light of day, at least initially, despite my differing viewpoint.

I would say, however, that the example of Christ is an interesting one worth observing. Christ based what he said from the Hebrew scriptures, and quoted them as absolute fact. You can find examples of that in his temptations, his teachings, and prophecies regarding his life/death/resurrection. Rather than pick and choose the aspects of Jesus' character, I would presume that we ought to look at his entire time on Earth and understand his mission in that way.

In regards to mixing faiths; I would say that the words of Christ are pretty exclusive in that particular aspect. I can also see why it would be easy to confuse the matter when one focuses solely on the practical aspects of the teachings of Christ. If he is a mere man, and a liar at that, then logic would say to follow his teachings. But if one recognizes his divinity, then one would also desire greatly to see the spiritual significance behind the words he spoke and the teachings he demonstrated and lectured.

Oh, and thank you for the literature, also. I look forward to getting into some of the reading and acquiring a better understanding of Bishop Robinson.

On a side note: I would only ask that you respect my ability to display and illustrate my opinion, as I do yours, and not jump to wild conclusions nor draw crazy accusations from my statements. Makes for better conversation :)

One thing that you are missing here, JD, is the fact that this is an online community. Many of us are friends in 3D, not just avatars on a computer monitor. I took a look at your earlier posts. I've discovered that you haven't introduced yourself to this community. We really encourage new members to start off with a "hello, my name is...." thread in which the new member gives some sort of introduction and some relevant background information.

In addition, questioning you on your opinions and statements, is not censoring you. We ask about the things you are saying so that we can understand you and your opinions better. This is indeed conversation. I've noticed that you have a tendency to back out of these conversations because you feel overwhelmed by the number of responses. In reality, you are the one who drops the conversation, leaving the rest of us to speculate about your motives, and the direction you wish the conversation to go.

If you're worried about saying something that will be censored/edited/moderated, then I suggest you read the forum guidelines, which you agreed to when you signed up for membership here.

[J.D.]

In addition, questioning you on your opinions and statements, is not censoring you. We ask about the things you are saying so that we can understand you and your opinions better. This is indeed conversation. I've noticed that you have a tendency to back out of these conversations because you feel overwhelmed by the number of responses. In reality, you are the one who drops the conversation, leaving the rest of us to speculate about your motives, and the direction you wish the conversation to go.

Excellent. That is all that I can ask for. I could hardly expect, nor do I really desire for a chorus of agreement with my thoughts here on the board. Just so long as the presumptions don't start flying through cyberspace, we'll be able to communicate just fine :)


There you go again, J.D.---introducing a modern Fundamentalist piece of ideology--i.e. "absolute fact" --as though this represents the way that the historical Jesus actually used the Hebrew Scriptures.

I believe that ancient people (including Jesus) also understood the Bible as a literary creation.
Steven Webster

Well, Steven, I would inquire to know why you hold to this viewpoint? In the times where Jesus directly quotes scripture, why is it that you believe he hold a non-literal view of what it is saying? Thanks for taking the time to clarify :)

[scott snedeker]

When posting an opinion, as we have discussed in the past, it seems to be received better when you claim ownership of the opinion posted.

For example:

"All organic life is sentient and connected."
VS

"We Druids believe all organic life is sentient and connect."

I think this is particularly important when an opinion may be unpopular on the forum.

I think it also helps color the poster which makes him/her more interesting and attractive.

So when writing an opinion you might look back at your post and insert in front of your statements:

"I think..."

"I Have little doubt that..."

"I believe that...."

"Inerrantists like me maintain..."

"Pagans like me feel...."

I think that we can have more fun this way:p:cool::lol:

[Daniel]

From the NYTimes today.


Anglican Bishops Meet in Canterbury

CANTERBURY, England — As he passed through the heavy wooden doors of this city’s ancient cathedral behind a procession of 650 other Anglican bishops and archbishops on Sunday, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, appeared taut and ill at ease. It was as if keeping a church with an estimated 80 million followers around the world from breaking apart over the issue of gay priests and bishops was proving almost too heavy a burden.

In a whipping wind that caught the tail of his golden-threaded miter, Archbishop Williams, as he entered the cathedral, was crossing a threshold in Anglican history. From a stone seat close by the spot where a 12th-century archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas à Becket, was murdered by Norman knights seeking to end the archbishop’s defiance of King Henry II, Archbishop Williams led a Eucharist marking the formal opening of a gathering that many in the church have described as a make-or-break moment.

The gathering, the Lambeth Conference, takes place once every 10 years. This year’s meeting, centered on two weeks of debate that begin Monday, is taking place only a few weeks after a group of bishops from the church’s traditionalist and evangelical wings, meeting in Jerusalem, founded a new group, the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, that many in the church regard as posing the gravest threat of a schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion since Anglicanism was born in King Henry VIII’s 16th-century break with Rome.

The group in Jerusalem claimed to have the allegiance of 300 Anglican bishops and archbishops, many from Africa, and vowed to step up its battle with church liberals, especially in the United States, over the issue of gay priests that has nearly paralyzed the Communion in recent years. Equally threatening to the continued existence of a unified Communion, the new group challenged the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury to speak for Anglicans worldwide, and followed up the Jerusalem gathering by effectively boycotting the Lambeth meeting.

At the procession on Sunday, the extent of the boycott was clear, with at least 220 absentees among the 880 bishops and archbishops invited. Equally stark was the absence of the bishop who more than any other has come to embody all that traditionalists and evangelicals abhor in the church’s liberal wing: Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire. In 2003, he became the first openly declared gay priest to become an Anglican bishop, touching off the bitter dispute that culminated in the meeting in Jerusalem in June.

Archbishop Williams, seeking to avoid open confrontation between liberals and traditionalists at Lambeth, withheld an invitation from Bishop Robinson. That put the American in a small group of Anglican bishops denied a place at the Canterbury meeting and, incongruously, on a list of unwanted people that includes a Nolbert Kunonga, a disgraced prelate who was ousted last year from his position as bishop of Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital, because of his unwavering support for President Robert Mugabe during the country’s slide into chronic poverty and violence.

Despite the snub to Bishop Robinson, a large group of American bishops, including Katharine Jefferts Schori, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the United States, are attending. So, too, in his way, is Bishop Robinson, who has attracted widespread attention in the news media here since arriving in Britain 10 days ago. On Sunday, he attended an “alternative” open-air Eucharist that gay and lesbian groups held in St. Stephen’s Park, in a leafy residential area of Canterbury with a view across the city to the cathedral spires.

About 200 worshipers, including many of the American bishops who attended the earlier Eucharist at the cathedral, held a service before a roughly carpentered wooden cross, then lingered over a picnic. Bishop Robinson, surrounded by well-wishers, declined to give interviews, apparently keen to let only his presence speak. In a radio interview with the BBC last week, he said he had not come to England to disrupt the Lambeth Conference but rather to make the case for gay men and lesbians in the clergy in as civil a manner as possible.

“Let’s be clear,” he said. “I am not planning to storm into the pulpit to take the microphone away from the archbishop. I’m not trying to attend meetings to which I am not invited.”

The remainder of the article- which is substantive- can be found here.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/world/europe/21anglican.html?ref=world

[Matt Algren]

When posting an opinion, as we have discussed in the past, it seems to be received better when you claim ownership of the opinion posted.I've always taken the opposite tack. That is, that I'm giving my opinion should be assumed, by dint of my typing it, but when I'm stating FACT, I tend to say so and sometimes try to include a link, depending on how controversial the discussion.

Regardless, if it's unclear, a differentiation should be made clear to the reader.

-----------

For those following the comments section of the original article, we just got a great example of the relationship between gay rights and rights for African Americans. With one word change, you can almost step back in time by 50 years.

[nmwolfboy]

Yesterday during a press meeting at the Lambeth Conference, the Primate of the Episcopal Church of Sudan, Archbishop Daniel Deng Bul, called upon Bishop Gene to resign. You can read an account of his statements here (http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_99260_ENG_HTM.htm).

If the current tempest in the Anglican teapot interests you, i recommend you also read Bishop Gene's reflections (http://canterburytalesfromthefringe.blogspot.com/2008/07/god-is-good-all-time.html) on the past couple of days at Lambeth.

-scott

[u-dog]

what a brave and faithful man! God Bless him!

[Daniel]

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/07/sudanese-archbi.html

The Utube video contained in the link above is quite interesting.


Sudanese Archbishop Demands Gay Bishop Gene Robinson Resign

Archbishop of Sudan Daniel Deng called for the resignation of gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson at a news conference yesterday, saying it's the only way to avoid a schism in the Church.

Said Deng: "Gene Robinson has to be away from the Anglican world and be a normal Christian. If he is, as he always says, a Christian, he should resign for the sake of the church."

Deng said that God did not make a mistake in creating Adam and Eve and would have created two Adams if he had wanted that.

Deng has not spoken with Robinson directly. Said the Sudanese bishop: "I have nothing to say to him."

Following Deng's statement, the Right Rev Jack Iker, Bishop of Forth Worth, called on those who believe in Gene Robinson to leave the conference:

Said Iker:

"Those Bishops who stand in solidarity with Gene Robinson should withdraw themselves from further participation in the Lambeth Conference. Having failed in several attempts to include Gene in the Conference, his supporters should themselves feel a sense of rejection from the Conference itself. Integrity and honesty would dictate that they should stand with Gene — excluded from full participation in the Lambeth Conference. Is this all talk, or is it backed up by action?"

25% of the world's Anglican bishops have boycotted the Lambeth Conference because of the Episcopal church's ordination of Robinson. Robinson is in Canterbury, England holding events on the fringes of the Lambeth conference. Earlier this month, he was heckled while giving a sermon by a protester branding him a "heretic."

And they will know we are Christians by our love.

Isn't that how the lyric goes? What a sad display of bullying by RR Icker.

[nmwolfboy]

<thread bump!>

My dear friends - here's the link to Bishop Gene Robinson's current video blog, The Gene Pool (http://lambethgenepool.blogspot.com/). Good stuff!

Pax, :dove:
scott

[Matt Algren]

<thread bump!>

My dear friends - here's the link to Bishop Gene Robinson's current video blog, The Gene Pool (http://lambethgenepool.blogspot.com/). Good stuff!

Pax, :dove:
scott
I'm still arguing with a bigot in the comments on that article.

[FatherAlbert]

Dear Friends,

I've been remiss in posting, but I have been on the move for a week or more and am just getting settled in our temporary home (3 months). It took me five days of driving from Naples, FL to Billerica, MA where we are staying until the end of October. Barbara's (my wife) parents are still living on their own nearby and we spend at least three months visiting and supporting them (emotionally and physically) because they will no longer travel to us. They are 93 and 91 years old. I think Barbara's father would have done a better job of driving North than I did and I'm only 66.

Now, to the topic at hand. I'm receiving numerous communications from all sides of the aisle these days. From where I stand, the problem lies with the interpretation of the documents we refer to as Sacred Scripture, the Bible, the Word of God, etc. I believe that these writings are important for our understanding of Christianity, but they are historical and culturally locked writings. We need to read them from that perspective. The writings were finished more than two centuries ago, but God still speaks to us in the present. We need to listen. I am not preaching to the choir; I am speaking to myself as I write and reflect. Thanks to so many, especially Daniel, I am growing and changing every day and hopefully will continue to do so until my work is complete.

As far as following the Buddhist tradition as a Christian, I base my conviction on the writing of a great man (in my opinion) Thich Nhat Hanh. I have read and reread his wonderful book, Living Buddha, Living Christ. I find much comfort and reinforcement of my personal approach to Christianity from opening up to the challenges presented by millennia of human experience and differing ideas of "God."

I'm a little off the topic of the Anglican problem (all politics, in my opinion). However, I am very hurt to think that the leaders of those who follow Christ are so certain that their truth is the only truth, and the rest of us are traveling on the wrong path. Again, Daniel, thanks for the reminder: "They will know we are Christians by our love!" Where is the love in all this nonsense?

Keep up the posts! They are tremendously powerful as we search to learn how to love one another without judgment.

Love and blessings,
Albert