"It's time we took the Bible back," said Bishop Robinson...

[SeenAndUnseen]

"It's time we took the Bible back," said Bishop Robinson. "It's time we took our faith back and stopped having to apologize for being Christian or Jewish or Muslim without having to explain, 'No, we're not that kind of a Jew, we're not that kind of a Christian.'"


The press conference will be held during the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA. During the event, Joe Solmonese and Harry Knox will bring greetings on behalf of the national LGBT movement, and Rev. Susan Russell will speak on behalf of all volunteers, activists and donors at Integrity USA.

The above is from this news article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060613/pl_usnw/bishop_gene_robinson__gay_rights_leaders_to_reject_discrimination__urge_full_inclusion_in_episcopal_church104_xml

What do you think of your bishop's statement? How do you feel about a bishop using the General Convention to push alternative lifestyle issues instead of focusing on Jesus?

[Colabomb]

"It's time we took the Bible back," said Bishop Robinson. "It's time we took our faith back and stopped having to apologize for being Christian or Jewish or Muslim without having to explain, 'No, we're not that kind of a Jew, we're not that kind of a Christian.'"


The press conference will be held during the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA. During the event, Joe Solmonese and Harry Knox will bring greetings on behalf of the national LGBT movement, and Rev. Susan Russell will speak on behalf of all volunteers, activists and donors at Integrity USA.

The above is from this news article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060613/pl_usnw/bishop_gene_robinson__gay_rights_leaders_to_reject_discrimination__urge_full_inclusion_in_episcopal_church104_xml

What do you think of your bishop's statement? How do you feel about a bishop using the General Convention to push alternative lifestyle issues instead of focusing on Jesus?
I think that Ecusa is making a grave mistake.

The Scriptures are against Homosexuality, thus so am I.

[gtsecc]

Scriptures are against unnatural sex.
If you are gay, natural sex may be different than mainstream.

The Church's interpretation of this is more specifically against homosexual behavior.

Evangelicals, with their own personal Jesus, are free to read the Bible however they are moved by the spirit. Thus, they have no grounds to complain about differing interpretations.

[gtsecc]

19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

[Colabomb]

Scriptures are against unnatural sex.
If you are gay, natural sex may be different than mainstream.

The Church's interpretation of this is more specifically against homosexual behavior.

Evangelicals, with their own personal Jesus, are free to read the Bible however they are moved by the spirit. Thus, they have no grounds to complain about differing interpretations.
First of All, I am not an Evangelical, I am broad. (Yes I have claimed to be evangelical in the past, but I am not so sure that was true, I feel drawn to a more Catholic faith everyday, though I am still confused on many things)

Secondly, You are huge on Church Tradition. You cannot hold to Church Tradition and support Homosexuality at the same time. You have to give up one or the other.

[Colabomb]

19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
Get off your high horse, this is not the topic of the thread.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Wicked bishops, such as these, are an insult to the dignity of the Christian Religion.
Support of the homosexual lifestyle violates Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Where is our stool now? Has ECUSA got a back up theology?

[gtsecc]

First of All, I am not an Evangelical, I am broad. (Yes I have claimed to be evangelical in the past, but I am not so sure that was true, I feel drawn to a more Catholic faith everyday, though I am still confused on many things)

Secondly, You are huge on Church Tradition. You cannot hold to Church Tradition and support Homosexuality at the same time. You have to give up one or the other.
I didn't direct the post at you.
Really I didn't.

I never claimed which side I supported, only that evangelicals can't complain too much about someone's personal interpretation of scripture.

[gtsecc]

Get off your high horse, this is not the topic of the thread.

I was merely taking the Bible back, as the Bishop and thread topic asked of us. :hug:

[karen freeinchristman]

I never claimed which side I supported, only that evangelicals can't complain too much about someone's personal interpretation of scripture.

I think you are confusing evangelicals with liberals. No?

[karen freeinchristman]

Scriptures are against unnatural sex.
If you are gay, natural sex may be different than mainstream.

The Church's interpretation of this is more specifically against homosexual behavior.


Oh, aye? Tell me more!

[gtsecc]

I think you are confusing evangelicals with liberals. No?
Evangelicals are liberals. No?
One can be either Catholic, with a traditional belief supported by 2,000 years of the faith, or a liberal.

No need to split hairs is there? :holy:

[gtsecc]

Oh, aye? Tell me more!

http://home.aol.com/DrSwiney/bennett.html

[gtsecc]

Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Cantebury, theologian and scholar, agrees that this is more of a correct evaluation of the Pauline passage. Paul does not condemn homosexuals. He condemns heterosexuals who attempt to mimic homosexual behaviors.

[karen freeinchristman]

Evangelicals are liberals. No?
I don't think so.

[gtsecc]

I don't think so.
Well, neither are Catholic, are they.
I really find it a quibble to discern between non-catholic views - one goes back to 1885, the other to 1960 -ok, so what. Which view goes back to 33 AD. :thumbsup:

[karen freeinchristman]

Well, neither are Catholic, are they.
I really find it a quibble to discern between non-catholic views - one goes back to 1885, the other to 1960 -ok, so what. Which view goes back to 33 AD. :thumbsup:

:doh:

[AngCath]

the whole thing is simple in my opinion: sexual relations are confined to couples who are married. marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman.

[RadixLecti]

Which view goes back to 33 AD. :thumbsup:

That would be the view that ALL homosexual acts are sins regardless of the perpetrator. You can't stand strongly on the side of church tradition and believe anything else. Anything else is not the faith that has been handed down for 2000 years.

[Finella]

It's the dreaded forbidden topic again.







Oh, well.





I applaud the statement quoted in the OP made by +Robinson. And I think it is necessary to make such statements because we still have, even in the Anglican Communion, Christians telling other Christians that they are not Christian or they are not Christian "enough", all the while non-Christians are seeing only the strictest, most literalist kinds of Christians in the media and in churches. We are not a homogenous group, and we must remember that ourselves while letting the world know that this is the case.

Perhaps we can't do both simultaneously, however. I guess that's why we're in this quagmire in the ECUSA now. We can't admit that large numbers of us in the same denomination have different opinions and beliefs, arrived at through honest and vigilant study and prayer.

gtsecc, we are a far more complex group than evangelical or catholic or liberal or conservative. You know that. There's infinite permutations of all stripes in this fantastic denomination of ours.

And I will not tolerate the Anglican Communion becoming a homogenized denomination of one form of theological thought. That's my absolutism, right there.

So God bless +Robinson. And God bless anyone at GC who dares to open our eyes to the reality of the practice of Anglicanism in the US, while also helping us revel in its diverse beauty.

[karen freeinchristman]

How do you feel about a bishop using the General Convention to push alternative lifestyle issues instead of focusing on Jesus?
How do you know this isn't an issue in which Jesus is involved? I know you cannot debate here, but I do feel that posting an OP like this is really not on for someone who is not Anglican. Your viewpoint is from the magisterium.

[Colabomb]

I didn't direct the post at you.
Really I didn't.

I never claimed which side I supported, only that evangelicals can't complain too much about someone's personal interpretation of scripture.
Then I humbly apologize.

Forgive me brother.

[Colabomb]

It's the dreaded forbidden topic again.







Oh, well.





I applaud the statement quoted in the OP made by +Robinson. And I think it is necessary to make such statements because we still have, even in the Anglican Communion, Christians telling other Christians that they are not Christian or they are not Christian "enough", all the while non-Christians are seeing only the strictest, most literalist kinds of Christians in the media and in churches. We are not a homogenous group, and we must remember that ourselves while letting the world know that this is the case.

Perhaps we can't do both simultaneously, however. I guess that's why we're in this quagmire in the ECUSA now. We can't admit that large numbers of us in the same denomination have different opinions and beliefs, arrived at through honest and vigilant study and prayer.

gtsecc, we are a far more complex group than evangelical or catholic or liberal or conservative. You know that. There's infinite permutations of all stripes in this fantastic denomination of ours.

And I will not tolerate the Anglican Communion becoming a homogenized denomination of one form of theological thought. That's my absolutism, right there.

So God bless +Robinson. And God bless anyone at GC who dares to open our eyes to the reality of the practice of Anglicanism in the US, while also helping us revel in its diverse beauty.
You don't understand. We can't "Co -exist". We can't.

The Orthodox in ECUSA are being told "We respect your beliefs, but we are going to force our new belief on your Ancient beliefs anyway. We are going to hijack your church. Yeah, if you leave however you are Breaking the faith and making Jesus cry."

[higgs2]

You don't understand. We can't "Co -exist". We can't.

The Orthodox in ECUSA are being told "We respect your beliefs, but we are going to force our new belief on your Ancient beliefs anyway. We are going to hijack your church. Yeah, if you leave however you are Breaking the faith and making Jesus cry."
Have you returned to ECUSA? :clap: :)

[Colabomb]

Have you returned to ECUSA? :clap: :)
You make a point.

However as an Anglican, this does effect me nonetheless.

To be honest, not many orthodox could back my claim as they have all been driven out.

[DeoJuvante]

How do you know this isn't an issue in which Jesus is involved? I know you cannot debate here, but I do feel that posting an OP like this is really not on for someone who is not Anglican. Your viewpoint is from the magisterium.
I think the OP is just trying to make problems...

[ebia]

I fail to see what good can possibly come from this thread.

[blessedsuffering]

Im thinking of converting to Anglicanism after years of self-hatred in the RCC and if the ECUSA abandons it's current path then I truly will be despondent along with, I'm sure, many others who are searching for an accepting congregation. It's almost like all Christian denominations are reverting and although this lightens the hearts of all conservatives it just turns every homosexual or questioning Christian's post-service time into a good cry and a lost feeling. If the ECUSA abandons it's opening up to homosexuals to more than reversion therapy and prayer circles for "healing" than I don't know what I'll do...the one holy and apostolic catholic church will have no wing that opens up to gay christians. I hope the American Anglicans keep on their track while still worshiping the old Catholic style so that we can prove that the church truly is timeless and for all times. If not I really don't know what I'll do...

[SeenAndUnseen]

Brothers and sisters, I hope that you know I meant no harm in posting the original question. As someone who tried to embrace the Anglican faith for a time, I find these divisive issues heart breaking and I greatly sympathize with the thousands of sides involved in the chaos of rampant disunity in the Anglican church(es).

I honestly just wanted to know what most of the Anglicans here thought of Robinson's latest statement strictly as it pertains to the purpose and content of this year's pivotal convention. I was not trying to fan the flames of controversy, and as you can see I am not here to represent the Magisterium or to speak for it or even to spew out canned Catholic responses. I am merely listening.

[Finella]

You don't understand. We can't "Co -exist". We can't.

The Orthodox in ECUSA are being told "We respect your beliefs, but we are going to force our new belief on your Ancient beliefs anyway. We are going to hijack your church. Yeah, if you leave however you are Breaking the faith and making Jesus cry."

I don't think that's the case at all. Have your traditionalist church if you want, I really don't mind. In fact, I think we need it. That was the point of my post. We are not Anglican without you, any more than we are not Anglican without the homosexual members of our community.

I do not "force" my views on you, if anyone it is the traditionalist/conservative/literalist Anglicans who are trying to force their views onto me, telling me that I'm NOT a good Christian or a good Anglican for believing as I do. I never make such statements to those who differ from me in their views. I converse, I debate, but I do not make such accusations.

The fact is we HAVE coexisted in such ways for a long, long time. It's just now that it's out in the open.

[Naomi4Christ]

"It's time we took the Bible back," said Bishop Robinson. "It's time we took our faith back and stopped having to apologize for being Christian or Jewish or Muslim without having to explain, 'No, we're not that kind of a Jew, we're not that kind of a Christian.'"


The press conference will be held during the General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA. During the event, Joe Solmonese and Harry Knox will bring greetings on behalf of the national LGBT movement, and Rev. Susan Russell will speak on behalf of all volunteers, activists and donors at Integrity USA.

The above is from this news article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20060613/pl_usnw/bishop_gene_robinson__gay_rights_leaders_to_reject_discrimination__urge_full_inclusion_in_episcopal_church104_xml

What do you think of your bishop's statement? How do you feel about a bishop using the General Convention to push alternative lifestyle issues instead of focusing on Jesus?

I think that if he gave this speech to the whole synod, then it is baiting the entire Anglican Communion and hastening a split. I don't have a problem with it being part of a break-out group.

He's right that we shouldn't have to apologise for being Christian. Not sure what he means about taking the bible back. Does he mean that it should be sent back because it is irrelevent and untrue, or sent back for a rewrite?

[ebia]

Not sure what he means about taking the bible back. Does he mean that it should be sent back because it is irrelevent and untrue, or sent back for a rewrite?
Neither. He means we should reclaim it for what it really stands for, rather than what it is portrayed as standing for.

[Naomi4Christ]

Neither. He means we should reclaim it for what it really stands for, rather than what it is portrayed as standing for.

Then I would agree with him on that one. :)

[ContraMundum]

What Bp Robinson is saying in effect is that the Bible should be kept out of the hands of people who actually believe what it says, instead, it should be in the hands of the liberal "elite intelligentia", in their ivory towers and tenured university positions. He is saying that the Bible belongs to people who agree with him. He believes in a "church" where the heirarchy (eg. him) can pontificate doctrine to those lower down the ladder. This elite "scholarship" has always tried to control information, especially Biblical information.

Real scholars, on the other hand, are trying to get the Bible into the hands of men and women, who, armed with their God-given common sense can see by its words that Bp Robinson is wrong on many points.

The Bible belongs in the hands of all people, everywhere.

I say to B. Robinson- let the people read the Word of God for themselves and judge accordingly. (I know this would scare the people who are on his side though.)

[Simon_Templar]

I don't think that's the case at all. Have your traditionalist church if you want, I really don't mind. In fact, I think we need it. That was the point of my post. We are not Anglican without you, any more than we are not Anglican without the homosexual members of our community.

I do not "force" my views on you, if anyone it is the traditionalist/conservative/literalist Anglicans who are trying to force their views onto me, telling me that I'm NOT a good Christian or a good Anglican for believing as I do. I never make such statements to those who differ from me in their views. I converse, I debate, but I do not make such accusations.

The fact is we HAVE coexisted in such ways for a long, long time. It's just now that it's out in the open.

Its not that simple. You may not want to force your views on him, or me, or anyone, but the liberal leadership of the church do. They are basicly trying to edge the conservatives out of having any real say in matters so that they can carry on their social crusade. (this of course is made all that much easier by the fact that so many conservatives have already jumped ship).

I don't fault them for that, because if I, or most other conservatives were in the majority, I would do the same thing. I believe that the bible and its teachings should be enforced upon the church.

The primary difference between conservatives and liberals in this area simply comes down to what each side believes should be enforced upon the church. (and by enforced I mean made the standard of teaching and moral discipline in the church)

My response to the statements of the OP is that He is free to take back his bible (or they are free to take back theirs), and I'll stand by mine. Though I"m not really sure who their taking their bible back from because I sure don't have it.

Their bible is a changing, chameleon text, blown whatever way the wind of social philosophy shifts. It effectively means nothing, because it means whatever they want it to mean. It is a mirror in which they look, and only ever see themselves.

My bible is unchanging, and sure. It is truth. It is a plumbline by which I measure myself, and see myself for what I am. It is also a blueprint by which I am made new.

[Aymn27]

. double

[Aymn27]

You don't understand. We can't "Co -exist". We can't.

The Orthodox in ECUSA are being told "We respect your beliefs, but we are going to force our new belief on your Ancient beliefs anyway. We are going to hijack your church. Yeah, if you leave however you are Breaking the faith and making Jesus cry."
Cola -
Fear not my friend..have you read Bshp. Wright's letter to the GC delegates and bishops - scorching to say the least.

The fancy half-talk and muddled yapping is not going to cut it - the primates and the rest of the AC know the game and they're not going to play it.

Basically +Wright said the ECUSA must be clear in the words and must assent to and address the WR or they will be seen as cutting themselves off from the AC. The resolutions, as they currently stand, unless they are amended with clear language and reference to Windsor - will not suffice. That's it. Period.

Link to his letter (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4221).

[Colabomb]

Im thinking of converting to Anglicanism after years of self-hatred in the RCC and if the ECUSA abandons it's current path then I truly will be despondent along with, I'm sure, many others who are searching for an accepting congregation. It's almost like all Christian denominations are reverting and although this lightens the hearts of all conservatives it just turns every homosexual or questioning Christian's post-service time into a good cry and a lost feeling. If the ECUSA abandons it's opening up to homosexuals to more than reversion therapy and prayer circles for "healing" than I don't know what I'll do...the one holy and apostolic catholic church will have no wing that opens up to gay christians. I hope the American Anglicans keep on their track while still worshiping the old Catholic style so that we can prove that the church truly is timeless and for all times. If not I really don't know what I'll do...
Dear friend,

Please understand it is not our goal to drive you away from the Church. We (The Traditionalists) welcome homosexuals and non-Christians to Church. We pray that even more would come than do.

However, we are doing what we believe God is calling us to do. Although we love Homosexuals, we believe it is indeed sinful, and that it is not to be accepted in the Church as anything but.

Let's put it in a different light.

Should we tell liars that it is acceptable to lie, in fear of turning them away.

[gtsecc]

That would be the view that ALL homosexual acts are sins regardless of the perpetrator. You can't stand strongly on the side of church tradition and believe anything else. Anything else is not the faith that has been handed down for 2000 years.
I never said what I believe intentionally.

My point is that evangelicals who get bent out of shape by liberals, often fail to see that they are fundamentally the same - each guided to knew understanding by their own personal interpretation.

[Colabomb]

I don't think that's the case at all. Have your traditionalist church if you want, I really don't mind. In fact, I think we need it. That was the point of my post. We are not Anglican without you, any more than we are not Anglican without the homosexual members of our community.

I do not "force" my views on you, if anyone it is the traditionalist/conservative/literalist Anglicans who are trying to force their views onto me, telling me that I'm NOT a good Christian or a good Anglican for believing as I do. I never make such statements to those who differ from me in their views. I converse, I debate, but I do not make such accusations.

The fact is we HAVE coexisted in such ways for a long, long time. It's just now that it's out in the open.
No offense finella. But our beliefs were there first. It was decided over the years that something new needed to be done. It is not as if the Church was liberal and we came in and changed everything on you.

Secondly, the conservatives cannot exist any longer in ECUSA, as they are being told "We respect your beliefs, but we are going to continue to do things contrary to them. Now, sit in your pew and pretend nothing wrong is happening, and we'll get along fine."

But, as I am not a member of ECUSA, perhaps I should back off of this particular debate (concerning ECUSA specifically, I will still post on Robinson's Comment)

[Mysterium_Fidei]

What Bp Robinson is saying in effect is that the Bible should be kept out of the hands of people who actually believe what it says, instead, it should be in the hands of the liberal "elite intelligentia", in their ivory towers and tenured university positions. He is saying that the Bible belongs to people who agree with him. He believes in a "church" where the heirarchy (eg. him) can pontificate doctrine to those lower down the ladder. This elite "scholarship" has always tried to control information, especially Biblical information.

Real scholars, on the other hand, are trying to get the Bible into the hands of men and women, who, armed with their God-given common sense can see by its words that Bp Robinson is wrong on many points.

The Bible belongs in the hands of all people, everywhere.

I say to B. Robinson- let the people read the Word of God for themselves and judge accordingly. (I know this would scare the people who are on his side though.)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ContraMundum again.

[higgs2]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ContraMundum again.
What does your rector have to say about this issue?

[TomUK]

I applaud the statement quoted in the OP made by +Robinson. And I think it is necessary to make such statements because we still have, even in the Anglican Communion, Christians telling other Christians that they are not Christian or they are not Christian "enough", all the while non-Christians are seeing only the strictest, most literalist kinds of Christians in the media and in churches.

I don't think that is what Robinson is saying however. If he said something to effect of "the bible is our shared heritage and we must work to ensure that Christians everywhere realise there isn't just one interpretation of the bible." If he said something along those sentiments then i would accept it.
What he actually said however was "it's time to take the bible back" which to me is far more aggressive and seems to be in essence saying that the only correct interpretation of the bible is his.

[higgs2]

I don't think that is what Robinson is saying however. If he said something to effect of "the bible is our shared heritage and we must work to ensure that Christians everywhere realise there isn't just one interpretation of the bible." If he said something along those sentiments then i would accept it.
What he actually said however was "it's time to take the bible back" which to me is far more aggressive and seems to be in essence saying that the only correct interpretation of the bible is his.
Okay, I see your point. One thing that is difficult is that we have two paragraphs and no or very little context around them. I would have liked to see the phrase more like you put it, but I also don't feel like I have the full picture of what was said before and after the comments.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I’m ready for ECUSA to take a stand. It’s stressing to the point of despair to wait year after year while certain bishops dodge giving answers to the homosexual controversy with morally relative doublespeak. Whether we give the appropriate apology for our illicit actions, or even if we decide to walk apart, I think anything would be better than this lukewarm puddle we find ourselves in.

I am ashamed of ECUSA for the consecration of Gene Robinson. I feel that the glorification of a non-celibate homosexual lifestyle is a serious breach of established Christian morality. I have had to sacrifice my conscience on numerous occasions in the hope that our church might repent. I am praying for all those present at the General Convention, I am praying for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ (none of which are enemies, but beloved friends!)

At this point there is little more any of us can do but pray and hope. I have said before that this is a sign of a malignant tumor which is devouring ECUSA; I believe that to be true.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

What does your rector have to say about this issue?

I've attempted to present my concerns before, but he isn't exactly interested in talking about them. He actively dodges talking to me about my religious problems.

The again, he's a retired supply priest. Who knows?

[Finella]

I'm sure this thread will be shut down shortly. It's a shame, because clearly the topic has become representative of the conflicts that have been pulling Anglicanism in different directions for centuries.

No offense, Colabomb, but the founding of the C of E was a form of reformation. We can go back and forth on this all you want, but Anglicanism has always had this tension between reform and tradition, liberal and conservative. Always. If you want a pure church, a church with everyone agreeing on the same theological principles, it never will be in the Anglican churches. This is a good thing, as I keep saying.

Naturally, if you can't tolerate the range of differences in opinion this is not the church for you. I don't mean to say, "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen," I'm just saying that this denomination requires tolerance and willingness to learn from people different than you. If that is not what you seek in your church community, then be aware of that and find what you need.

[AngCath]

Secondly, the conservatives cannot exist any longer in ECUSA, as they are being told "We respect your beliefs, but we are going to continue to do things contrary to them. Now, sit in your pew and pretend nothing wrong is happening, and we'll get along fine."

Conservatives, like myself, can exist in ECUSA. More than ever, it is time for us to revive the Faith and take the Church back.

[pmcleanj]

Closed for staff review