Schori warns Akinola not to install Minns

[Iosias]

Schori warns Akinola not to install Minns
The Washington Times reported yesterday that Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has confronted Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola with a demand that he not install Truro Church rector Martyn Minns as head of a parallel denomination this weekend.

At the ceremony, scheduled for 1 p.m. Saturday at Hylton Memorial Chapel in Woodbridge, Archbishop Akinola and four other Nigerian bishops will install Bishop Minns as head of the Fairfax-based Convocation of Anglicans in North America. He has headed CANA, in addition to pastoring the 2,300-member Truro, since he was consecrated as a bishop last August in Abuja, Nigeria.

Schori first made her wishes known last week in a request leaked to the New York Times. When that did not produce a response, Bishop Jefferts Schori sent Archbishop Akinola an official letter on Monday. In the letter Schori says:

"Such action would violate the ancient customs of the church, in terms of the sacrosanct boundaries of individual bishops....such action would not help the efforts of reconciliation that are taking place in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion as a whole. Such action would display to the world division and disunity that are not part of the mind of Christ, which we must strive to display to all."

Archbishop Akinola does not have the permission to minister within the geographical boundaries of the Diocese of Virginia, which lost 11 parishes about 9,000 people to CANA last winter.

Bishop Minns called her actions "predictable." "The truth of the matter is we are in a broken relationship right now and the normal things, such as asking a diocesan bishop's permission to minister, aren't working," he said.

The 11 CANA parishes left the diocese in December and January over questions of biblical authority and the 2003 consecration of the homosexual bishop of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson.

Click here (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070502-121917-6654r_page2.htm) for article

(Source: The Washington Times, 02/05/07)

From EV News (http://www.evangelicals.org/index.asp)

[brightmorningstar]

Here is the extraordinarily good reply
http://www.anglican-nig.org/response2KJSmay2007.htm


The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori,
Episcopal Church Center
815 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017, USA

My dear Presiding Bishop:

My attention has been drawn to your letter of April 30th ostensibly written to me but published on the Episcopal News Service website.

In light of the concerns that you raise it might be helpful to be reminded of the actions and decisions that have led to our current predicament.

At the emergency meeting of the primates in October 2003 it was made clear that the proposed actions of the Episcopal Church would “tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues …” Sadly, this proved to be true as many provinces did proceed to declare broken or impaired communion with the Episcopal Church. Since that time the primates have established task forces, held numerous meetings and issued a variety of statements and communiqués but the brokenness remains, our Provinces are divided, and so the usual protocol and permissions are no longer applicable.

You will also recall from our meeting in Dar es Salaam that there was specific discussion about CANA and recognition – expressed in the Communiqué itself – of the important role that it plays in the context of the present division within your Province. CANA was established as a Convocation of the Church of Nigeria, and therefore a constituent part of the Communion, to provide a safe place for those who wish to remain faithful Anglicans but can no longer do so within The Episcopal Church as it is currently being led. The response for your own House of Bishops to the carefully written and unanimously approved Pastoral Scheme in the Communiqué makes it clear that such pastoral protection is even more necessary.

It is my heartfelt desire – and indeed the expressed hope of all the primates of the Communion – that The Episcopal Church will reconsider its actions – and make such special measures no longer necessary. This is the only way forward for full restoration into fellowship with the rest of the Communion. Further, I renew the pledge that I made to your predecessor, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, that the Church of Nigeria will be the first to restore communion on the day that your Province abandons its current unbiblical agenda. Until then we have no other choice than to offer our assistance and oversight to our people and all those who will not compromise the “faith once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=BG&passage=Jude+1%3A3))

You speak in your letter of centuries old custom regarding diocesan boundaries. You are, of course, aware that the particular historical situation to which you make reference was intended to protect the church from false teaching not to prevent those who hold to the traditional teaching of the church from receiving faithful episcopal care. It was also a time when the Church had yet to face into the challenge of different denominational expressions of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I also find it curious that you are appealing to the ancient customs of the church when it is your own Province’s deliberate rejection of the biblical and historic teaching of the Church that has prompted our current crisis.

You mention the call to reconciliation. As you well know this is a call that I wholeheartedly embrace and indeed was a major theme of our time in Tanzania. You will also remember that one of the key elements of our discussion and the resulting Communiqué was the importance of resolving our current differences without resorting to civil law suits. You agreed to this. Yet it is my understanding that you are still continuing your own punitive legal actions against a number of CANA clergy and congregations. I fail to see how this is consistent with your own claim to be working towards reconciliation.

Once again please know that I look forward to the day when this current crisis is behind us and we can all be reunited around our One Lord and only Saviour Jesus the Christ. Until then be assured of my prayers for you and The Episcopal Church.

In Christ,

SIGNED

The Most Revd. Peter J Akinola, CON, DD

Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of all Nigeria.

[PadreEgan]

chalk one up for the good bishop Akinola

[john23237]

Pardon me for asking such a foolish question, but might I inquire just when the commandment "Thou shall not steal" was declared null and void? We shall see just how well the most pious Archbishop of Nigeria, Minns, and their supporters fair when held accountable before a judge, or jury of their peers, here in the Commonweath of Virginia. It is not nice to take property which does not belong to you. Engaging in such behavior while condemning others does seem somewhat questionable.

[brightmorningstar]

Having read Akinola’s letter once again, it occurred to me that Akinola has rather destroyed KJS argument. KJS was warned her same-sex agenda would tear the fabric out of the Communion, and that has happened in her province, not Akinolas.

[Albion]

[quote=AV1611;34454064]Schori warns Akinola not to install Minns
The Washington Times reported yesterday that Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has confronted Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola with a demand that he not install Truro Church rector Martyn Minns as head of a parallel denomination this weekend....

Has anyone told KJS that the two churches are not in communion with each other, meaning that protesting this visit makes no more sense than telling the Pope or the head of any other Christian church body that he has no right to be in the USA on business involving his own church?

[Finella]

Oh, it's all a big $%$@ mess.

Makes a person want to become a buddhist. It seems that the whole point to having bishops is being turned into a circus. A bishop means authority!! So let's make more bishops who believe what we believe so we have authority!

And yeah, I know this works on both (all) sides of the dreaded homosexuality issue.

And so we get hung up on this one thing, and we can see how fragile this structure really is. We can't use it to solve our problems and disagreements. And so ordained offices become cheapened by the bickering.

And so who needs it. What use is it.

[PadreEgan]

Oh, it's all a big $%$@ mess.

Makes a person want to become a buddhist. It seems that the whole point to having bishops is being turned into a circus. A bishop means authority!! So let's make more bishops who believe what we believe so we have authority!

And yeah, I know this works on both (all) sides of the dreaded homosexuality issue.

And so we get hung up on this one thing, and we can see how fragile this structure really is. We can't use it to solve our problems and disagreements. And so ordained offices become cheapened by the bickering.

And so who needs it. What use is it.
while i agree that there are too many bishops, it is a necessity right now. With TEC leaving the Anglican Communion in the Fall there will be a need for leaders of the newly formed Anglican Jurisdiction in the US. So might as well get a head start.

[Finella]

while i agree that there are too many bishops, it is a necessity right now. With TEC leaving the Anglican Communion in the Fall there will be a need for leaders of the newly formed Anglican Jurisdiction in the US. So might as well get a head start.
And the only reason people think TEC is "leaving in the fall" (as if they've been planning this split all along, but that's another debate) is over a bishop. A bishop some people dislike for one personal characteristic of his.

So rather than resolve things we create more bishops to create more authority structures for more denominations and more churches and further splitting the Body. And the authority we thought we had becomes more and more useless and we've forgotten the real message of the Gospel.

Christ is weeping, people.

[higgs2]

Schori warns Akinola not to install Minns
The Washington Times reported yesterday that Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has confronted Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola with a demand that he not install Truro Church rector Martyn Minns as head of a parallel denomination this weekend....

Has anyone told KJS that the two churches are not in communion with each other, meaning that protesting this visit makes no more sense than telling the Pope or the head of any other Christian church body that he has no right to be in the USA on business involving his own church?


Oh my goodness! How nice to see you again! How are you? :wave:

[kiwimac]

Typical of ++Akinola and his arrogance.

[norbie]

And the only reason people think TEC is "leaving in the fall" (as if they've been planning this split all along, but that's another debate) is over a bishop. A bishop some people dislike for one personal characteristic of his.

So rather than resolve things we create more bishops to create more authority structures for more denominations and more churches and further splitting the Body. And the authority we thought we had becomes more and more useless and we've forgotten the real message of the Gospel.

Christ is weeping, people.
I don't know if Christ is still in this at all.
But your comment about to resolve this, there is only ONE way to fix it: if Bishop Robinson comes out and declares that he was blinded, he was wrong, it's against the Bible and speak up against same sex Relations.
There is no other way to solve this Problem.
I think that America has to form an other Church because I am sure there are a lot of People in +Robinsons Diocese who are against his unholy behaviour. In the Catholic Church Bishop Robinson would have long been excommunicated and his Licence revoked. Just my thoughts,
Norbie

[Finella]

I don't know if Christ is still in this at all.
But your comment about to resolve this, there is only ONE way to fix it: if Bishop Robinson comes out and declares that he was blinded, he was wrong, it's against the Bible and speak up against same sex Relations.
There is no other way to solve this Problem.
I think that America has to form an other Church because I am sure there are a lot of People in +Robinsons Diocese who are against his unholy behaviour. In the Catholic Church Bishop Robinson would have long been excommunicated and his Licence revoked. Just my thoughts,
Norbie
I rest my case.





Someone call me when this denomination gets over its prepubescent sexual hangups? I'll be out visiting the UUs or the Quakers or something, having a coffee.

[PadreEgan]

I rest my case.





Someone call me when this denomination gets over its prepubescent sexual hangups? I'll be out visiting the UUs or the Quakers or something, having a coffee.
You see, that is it! Christianity is not supposed to be easy! There are paths and morals that we are to follow. Remember Jesus, remember his journey from the courts to Calvary, remember how, well we cannot even begin to imagine the terror and torture that our Lord went through for us. But people want easy faith. They don't want morals, values, doctrine. They want to go to church to hear that they are going to heaven and to live the rest of the week however they like. Hence we have the UU's.

Jesus speaks of Hell more than Heaven, be prepared!

[higgs2]

You see, that is it! Christianity is not supposed to be easy! There are paths and morals that we are to follow. Remember Jesus, remember his journey from the courts to Calvary, remember how, well we cannot even begin to imagine the terror and torture that our Lord went through for us. But people want easy faith. They don't want morals, values, doctrine. They want to go to church to hear that they are going to heaven and to live the rest of the week however they like. Hence we have the UU's.

Jesus speaks of Hell more than Heaven, be prepared!

the courts to Calvary? :confused: :)

[ChaliceThunder]

You see, that is it! Christianity is not supposed to be easy! There are paths and morals that we are to follow. Remember Jesus, remember his journey from the courts to Calvary, remember how, well we cannot even begin to imagine the terror and torture that our Lord went through for us. But people want easy faith. They don't want morals, values, doctrine. They want to go to church to hear that they are going to heaven and to live the rest of the week however they like. Hence we have the UU's.

Jesus speaks of Hell more than Heaven, be prepared!
Jesus speaks peace more than anything else.

His final earthly words were not of condemnation - but of forgiveness:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

[ChaliceThunder]

[quote=AV1611;34454064]Schori warns Akinola not to install Minns
The Washington Times reported yesterday that Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has confronted Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola with a demand that he not install Truro Church rector Martyn Minns as head of a parallel denomination this weekend....

Has anyone told KJS that the two churches are not in communion with each other, meaning that protesting this visit makes no more sense than telling the Pope or the head of any other Christian church body that he has no right to be in the USA on business involving his own church?
Fine - if you see it that way.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has also asked Akinola to stay home.

Careful folks - the new head of the Anglican Communion might just be the Princely Prelate of Nigeria...and I don't think anyone wants that.

[PadreEgan]

the courts to Calvary? :confused: :)
Pilate to Golgotha

[higgs2]

Pilate to Golgotha

:doh:

Thank you.

:)

[john23237]

You see, that is it! Christianity is not supposed to be easy!... Remember Jesus, remember his journey from the courts to Calvary, remember how, well we cannot even begin to imagine the terror and torture that our Lord went through for us. But people want easy faith.

You are so right! Take, for example, two of the wealthest parishes in the diocese of Virginia, located in our affluent Northern area, filled with parishners who live in large homes, in expensive neighborhoods, have country club membership, and drive to Mass in Mercedes and BMW's, but who's deeply held beliefs would seem to end where their wallets begin. "The journey from the courts to Calvery"? In this case, it is more like the path from Sacs to Brooks Brothers. Why bother to donate money to build a new church when you can just steal one? Never mind that the two churches in question have belonged to the diocese of Virginia for over two hundred years, who wants to take part of their money that was earmarked for a family vacation to Europe this summer and waste it on a silly old church building fund when you can use a perfectly good stolen one? And where, pray tell, is the pious and holy Archbishop of Nigeria on this one? Demanding that Minns et al return what is not theirs? You can wait for a cold snap in the seventh ring of Hades first! The money can be better spent funding his grand designs here in the states.

[ebia]

You see, that is it! Christianity is not supposed to be easy! There are paths and morals that we are to follow. Remember Jesus, remember his journey from the courts to Calvary, remember how, well we cannot even begin to imagine the terror and torture that our Lord went through for us. But people want easy faith. They don't want morals, values, doctrine. They want to go to church to hear that they are going to heaven and to live the rest of the week however they like.
Indeed - they would much rather condemn the supposed sins of a minority group than deal with their own shortcomings. How you think this particularly applies to the supporters of +Gene Robinson defeats me, most of whom leave a transforming faith, and most of whom are hetrosexual.

Jesus speaks of Hell more than Heaven, be prepared!
Is this actually true, or just one of those oft repeated statements?

[Aymn27]

Schori warns Akinola not to install Minns
The Washington Times reported yesterday that Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has confronted Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola with a demand that he not install Truro Church rector Martyn Minns as head of a parallel denomination this weekend.

At the ceremony, scheduled for 1 p.m. Saturday at Hylton Memorial Chapel in Woodbridge, Archbishop Akinola and four other Nigerian bishops will install Bishop Minns as head of the Fairfax-based Convocation of Anglicans in North America. He has headed CANA, in addition to pastoring the 2,300-member Truro, since he was consecrated as a bishop last August in Abuja, Nigeria.

Schori first made her wishes known last week in a request leaked to the New York Times. When that did not produce a response, Bishop Jefferts Schori sent Archbishop Akinola an official letter on Monday. In the letter Schori says:

"Such action would violate the ancient customs of the church, in terms of the sacrosanct boundaries of individual bishops....such action would not help the efforts of reconciliation that are taking place in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion as a whole. Such action would display to the world division and disunity that are not part of the mind of Christ, which we must strive to display to all."

Archbishop Akinola does not have the permission to minister within the geographical boundaries of the Diocese of Virginia, which lost 11 parishes about 9,000 people to CANA last winter.

Bishop Minns called her actions "predictable." "The truth of the matter is we are in a broken relationship right now and the normal things, such as asking a diocesan bishop's permission to minister, aren't working," he said.

The 11 CANA parishes left the diocese in December and January over questions of biblical authority and the 2003 consecration of the homosexual bishop of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson.

Click here (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070502-121917-6654r_page2.htm) for article

(Source: The Washington Times, 02/05/07)

From EV News (http://www.evangelicals.org/index.asp)Surely she must know how utterly ridiculous it is for her to appeal to antiquity...surely...well nevermind..maybe she is...

[Aymn27]

Oh, it's all a big $%$@ mess.

Makes a person want to become a buddhist. It seems that the whole point to having bishops is being turned into a circus. A bishop means authority!! So let's make more bishops who believe what we believe so we have authority!

And yeah, I know this works on both (all) sides of the dreaded homosexuality issue.

And so we get hung up on this one thing, and we can see how fragile this structure really is. We can't use it to solve our problems and disagreements. And so ordained offices become cheapened by the bickering.

And so who needs it. What use is it.The bishop is charged with upholding the doctrine of the church...if they fail to do so, they remain bishops, but are cast out from the corporate Body of Christ....may they repent and return to the fullness of truth! Praise be to God!

[ChaliceThunder]

Surely she must know how utterly ridiculous it is for her to appeal to antiquity...surely...well nevermind..maybe she is...
This is not a very charitable thing to say about our Presiding Bishop. If you have experienced her first-hand, you would quickly realize the foolishness of your comment.

[ChaliceThunder]

The bishop is charged with upholding the doctrine of the church...if they fail to do so, they remain bishops, but are cast out from the corporate Body of Christ....may they repent and return to the fullness of truth! Praise be to God!
Katharine is upholding the doctrine of the church, and she is helping us all to see a new day as well. The picture is so much larger than we all perceive.

[brightmorningstar]

In response the remark as to whether Christ is still in it, I think that is the issue for some in the debate, indeed Akinola has said as much that the TEC has made a too significant departure from the historic apostolic gospel once delivered.

In response to Chalice Thunder's remark, no many do not think KJS is upholding the doctrine of the church, rather that she is destroying some of it.
Furthermore I do not think it is unreasonable to question a bishop's 'appeal' as utterly ridiculous, but I do think it is more unreasonble to accuse a bishop of being arrogant. One is a critism of views and actions the other is a character criticsm... especially after having posted about forgiveness. I think as Christians we are to judge what is right but not judge people

[Albion]

Oh my goodness! How nice to see you again! How are you? :wave:

Hello, my friend. I'm fine and pleased that you remembered me.:)

[Albion]

[quote=ChaliceThunder;34502768][quote=Albion;34492392]

Fine - if you see it that way.

Thanks

The Archbishop of Canterbury has also asked Akinola to stay home.

He wants as little controversy as possible. But notice that he didn't take the absurd position that KJS did in claiming that there was anything procedurally wrong with a bishop showing up to visit members of his own church.

[Albion]

Katharine is upholding the doctrine of the church

And she has every right to uphold the doctrine of her own church (TEC). She oversteps her bounds by telling a different church that its presiding bishop cannot uphold the doctrine of his church and, specifically, not even visit his own church members --not hers, note--without her permission.

Even if one supports KJS and pulls for the TEC in its defiance of most of the rest of the Anglican world, that doesn't make her right in everything she says. She clearly overreacted here and has no grounds to stand on. On other issues, it could be different and Akinola could be the one in the wrong.

[ChaliceThunder]

We are all going to see, in time, that all of us are at the same Table. And we are going to wonder why we had these petty arguments that served more to drive people away than to build up the body of Christ.

[PadreEgan]

gay marriage is one issue, but denying that Christ resurrected? denying Christ even existed? Saying Jesus was a woman? Come on! That is why i am appalled by KJS and many other Episcopal "Christians"

[DeoJuvante]

gay marriage is one issue, but denying that Christ resurrected? denying Christ even existed? Saying Jesus was a woman? Come on! That is why i am appalled by KJS and many other Episcopal "Christians"
Oh, come on. No-one is saying that Christ was a woman.

[kiwimac]

However, the use of feminine language and imagery to describe God has been used since OT times.

[higgs2]

Oh, come on. No-one is saying that Christ was a woman.

I'm not aware that ++KJS and/or many Episcopalians have denied the resurrection and the existance of Jesus either>

[Polycarp1]

I'm not aware that ++KJS and/or many Episcopalians have denied the resurrection and the existance of Jesus either>
Only in the false reports of ViceOnline and other controversialists aimed at fordng the Anglican Communion to march to the tune they play.

After all, if you creatively quote things out of context, it's possible to make the Nicene Creed say "We believe ... God the Father Almighty ... is ... dead and buried." (They're all words in the Creed, in that order.)

[Simon_Templar]

Jesus speaks peace more than anything else.

His final earthly words were not of condemnation - but of forgiveness:

"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Jesus also said "I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. To divide a father from his son, a mother from her daughter..."

Jesus is the prince of peace, but peace is not fellowship with evil. Peace is assurance of victory. Without victory, there is no peace.

The issue of the day is homosexuality, but really thats not the real issue at stake here. It just happens to be the current social issue that is pushing events. Even if homosexuality as an issue some how magically disappeared, it would only be a matter of time, and probably a very very short period of time until a different issue took its place.

What is really at stake here, what all of this really revolves around is truth. One side of the debate has rejected the truth which was revealed and passed down in scripture, and in the church, in favor of their own personal subjective truth.
The other side is clinging to the truth they received.

The real issue is the authority of revealed truth, ie scripture, vs. the changing philosophies and mores of our society.

If you bemoan the division and squabbling, and wonder why we all can't just 'get along' you might as well wonder why elijah and the prophets of Baal didn't just sit down and quit their petty squabbling.
Undoubtedly many think such a comparison is unfair. Baal was a different God, and we all serve and worship the same God. The truth is we don't. The fact that we call him by the same name means nothing.

Do you know what the word baal means in canaanite? it means "Lord". Did you know that the word baal was used in place names that were attributed to the true God and so on? The prophets of Baal, and Elijah used the same words to refer to God. What was really different was what the believed about God, and how they endevoured to serve and worship him.

The fact is that there is an irreperable chasm between what these two groups of people believe about God. Names aside, they do not believe in the same God.

Repeatedly in the OT the children of Israel fell into idolatry and worship of false gods.. and in almost every case, they applied God's names and titles to their false gods. What made them false was the beliefs they held about them, and the worship that they gave to them.

If you think your worship is what you do on sunday and therefore we all worship the same, again, you're fooling yourself. The worship that we participate in every sunday is but a fraction of how we worship God. There always have been, and always will be plenty of people who participate in the sunday service, but do not worship God, or they offer him worship that He does not desire.

Worship is not in forms, and words, it is in spirit, and obedience. We offer up the sacrifice of the eucharist, but obedience is better than sacrifice.

People imagine that because they enjoy a liturgy, or because they felt that the liturgy was beautiful, they therefore have worshipped God. They have forgotten that the heart of man is decietful above all things.

They trust in their 'heart' rather than in God, in truth their heart is their god.

1st John 1:5-6

"5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth."

[ebia]

Jesus also said "I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. To divide a father from his son, a mother from her daughter..."

Jesus is the prince of peace, but peace is not fellowship with evil. Peace is assurance of victory. Without victory, there is no peace.

The issue of the day is homosexuality, but really thats not the real issue at stake here. It just happens to be the current social issue that is pushing events. Even if homosexuality as an issue some how magically disappeared, it would only be a matter of time, and probably a very very short period of time until a different issue took its place.

What is really at stake here, what all of this really revolves around is truth. One side of the debate has rejected the truth which was revealed and passed down in scripture, and in the church, in favor of their own personal subjective truth.
The other side is clinging to the truth they received.

The real issue is the authority of revealed truth, ie scripture, vs. the changing philosophies and mores of our society.

If you bemoan the division and squabbling, and wonder why we all can't just 'get along' you might as well wonder why elijah and the prophets of Baal didn't just sit down and quit their petty squabbling.
Undoubtedly many think such a comparison is unfair. Baal was a different God, and we all serve and worship the same God. The truth is we don't. The fact that we call him by the same name means nothing.

Do you know what the word baal means in canaanite? it means "Lord". Did you know that the word baal was used in place names that were attributed to the true God and so on? The prophets of Baal, and Elijah used the same words to refer to God. What was really different was what the believed about God, and how they endevoured to serve and worship him.

The fact is that there is an irreperable chasm between what these two groups of people believe about God. Names aside, they do not believe in the same God.

Repeatedly in the OT the children of Israel fell into idolatry and worship of false gods.. and in almost every case, they applied God's names and titles to their false gods. What made them false was the beliefs they held about them, and the worship that they gave to them.

If you think your worship is what you do on sunday and therefore we all worship the same, again, you're fooling yourself. The worship that we participate in every sunday is but a fraction of how we worship God. There always have been, and always will be plenty of people who participate in the sunday service, but do not worship God, or they offer him worship that He does not desire.

Worship is not in forms, and words, it is in spirit, and obedience. We offer up the sacrifice of the eucharist, but obedience is better than sacrifice.

People imagine that because they enjoy a liturgy, or because they felt that the liturgy was beautiful, they therefore have worshipped God. They have forgotten that the heart of man is decietful above all things.

They trust in their 'heart' rather than in God, in truth their heart is their god.

1st John 1:5-6

"5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth."
That's the perspective from where you stand. You do realise that the perspective from the other side is almost identical? For instance none of use here think that "because they enjoy a liturgy, or because they felt that the liturgy was beautiful, they therefore have worshipped God" and liberals are no more likely to react that way than conservatives.

In the end we are all trying to interpret God's revelation - we've just come to slightly different conclusions, as people always have. These differences in understanding about how to interpret revelation have always been around, and have resulted in far bigger theological differences, yet we haven't flown off the handle over them to this degree. One is forced to conclude that there is something peculiar about this particular issue.

[Simon_Templar]

That's the perspective from where you stand. You do realise that the perspective from the other side is almost identical? For instance none of use here think that "because they enjoy a liturgy, or because they felt that the liturgy was beautiful, they therefore have worshipped God" and liberals are no more likely to react that way than conservatives.

In the end we are all trying to interpret God's revelation - we've just come to slightly different conclusions, as people always have. These differences in understanding about how to interpret revelation have always been around, and have resulted in far bigger theological differences, yet we haven't flown off the handle over them to this degree. One is forced to conclude that there is something peculiar about this particular issue.
Yes, I understand that the perspective is the same from the other side of the isle. I don't have a problem with that.

Where you are wrong is that in the end we are not all just trying to interpet God's revelation, and we have not just come to slightly different conclusions.

When eastern orthodox and catholics disagree about the exact nature of "original sin" or when Anglicans and Lutherans proposed Consubstantiation instead of transsubstantiation, those were slightly different conclusions...

When a church stands up and says, we must reject what has been revealed in favor of what we ourselves are convinced of, that is an earth shattering tectonic shift of faith. In that moment, you have stopped trying to interpet revelation, and started claiming to be the revealer.

In that moment you have stepped back into the garden, and said to the serpent... yes, I will know for myself what is good and what is evil. I will be as God.

[ebia]

Yes, I understand that the perspective is the same from the other side of the isle. I don't have a problem with that.

Where you are wrong is that in the end we are not all just trying to interpet God's revelation, and we have not just come to slightly different conclusions.

When eastern orthodox and catholics disagree about the exact nature of "original sin" or when Anglicans and Lutherans proposed Consubstantiation instead of transsubstantiation, those were slightly different conclusions...

When a church stands up and says, we must reject what has been revealed in favor of what we ourselves are convinced of, that is an earth shattering tectonic shift of faith. In that moment, you have stopped trying to interpet revelation, and started claiming to be the revealer.
No-one is rejecting something they know has been revealed. What some of are rejecting is what they believe is an incorrect interpretation of what God has revealed. The liberal position isn't "God has revealed homosexuality is sinful and we reject that". It's "Christians have incorrrectly understood that God has revealed .... and we reject that understanding which we beleive to be incorrect". Which is precisely the same as some of the other situations we have alluded to.

In that moment you have stepped back into the garden, and said to the serpent... yes, I will know for myself what is good and what is evil. I will be as God.
That is a gross misrepresentation of what liberals are attempting to do.

[kiwimac]

But it is, I am sure, very convenient because it means that the opinions / beliefs of the 'other side' can simply be sidelined and ignored.

[ebia]

But it is, I am sure, very convenient because it means that the opinions / beliefs of the 'other side' can simply be sidelined and ignored.
Which people on both sides are want to do at times.

We all need to remember that there are many of the opposing view who are also honestly seeking God's will.

To do otherwise not only provides a convenient excuse to right them off, but also ensures they (having been accused of something they know to be untrue) aren't going to listen to you either. We all end up shouting at each other with nobody listening (to anybody else, let alone to God).

[ChaliceThunder]

gay marriage is one issue, but denying that Christ resurrected? denying Christ even existed? Saying Jesus was a woman? Come on! That is why i am appalled by KJS and many other Episcopal "Christians"
You had better check your facts. I seriously hope you are not ascribing these things to our Presiding Bishop.

[PadreEgan]

You had better check your facts. I seriously hope you are not ascribing these things to our Presiding Bishop.
No, not all of these have been stated by KJS, except I do recall a "our mother Jesus" statement from her. The others are things that have been brought up by other "liberal" anglican bishops.

[Polycarp1]

No, not all of these have been stated by KJS, except I do recall a "our mother Jesus" statement from her. The others are things that have been brought up by other "liberal" anglican bishops.
In so many words, post proof -- in context, not a loose sentence with no reference -- or retract.

[Secundulus]

I don't wish to speak for PadreEgan but I will post what I as an ex-ECUSA member and now a member of TAC hear from your Church.

This is from the TEC’s Docese of Newark page. If this is not what your church believes, then why is it posted on your church’s website? Why don't your Bishops repudiate it? Why would you even want to discuss this nonsense unless you look to invent a new, non-christian, religion?

Excerpts posted below. Full text at dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html

1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.

[kiwimac]

Jack Spong's words are posted by his former diocese for the purpose of discussion. They are not a statement of the diocesan beliefs nor yet the catechumenal beliefs of the ECUSA & thus they need no repudiation,

[Secundulus]

This is why repudiation is necessary and has been necessary for decades for things he and others have said. He is a Bishop and as such in a church that embraces apostolic succession he is an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

When he goes so far as to even deny the divinity of Christ, why does this merit any discussion? Do the other apostles agree with him? Or are they simply abdicating their responsibility to uphold the faith?

[kiwimac]

This is why repudiation is necessary and has been necessary for decades for things he and others have said. He is a Bishop and as such in a church that embraces apostolic succession he is an Apostle of Jesus Christ.

When he goes so far as to even deny the divinity of Christ, why does this merit any discussion? Do the other apostles agree with him? Or are they simply abdicating their responsibility to uphold the faith?
He is retired and was retired when he penned the quoted remarks, which BTW he makes clear he raises for purposes of discussion.

[PadreEgan]

"Jack Spong's words are posted by his former diocese for the purpose of discussion. They are not a statement of the diocesan beliefs nor yet the catechumenal beliefs of the ECUSA & thus they need no repudiation,"

While they may not be a statement on behalf of the diocese, when a bishop has such theology, they need to be removed.

[Polycarp1]

You know what, "Padre"? You are not a member of TEC -- in fact, your church unilaterally removed itself from communion with TEC a third of a century ago. You have almost as much right to say what we "should" be doing as a Baptist.

That is not to say you do not have a right to express your views in STR. I've been in the position of feeling someone held that attitude; so has Aaron. It's not a pleasant one, and I don't intend to give off that attitude.

But Anglicans "do" theology by allowing a wide range of dialogue on it, and then working their way to the one right answer through discussion, prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are not a "top-down" hierarchical church, where the Lord's Anointed on Earth promugates doctrine that must be assented to; we're a "bottom-up" church, where orthodox doctrine comes from the consent of the consensus of the membership, guided and taught by the leaders.

And in any case, you've made an accusation against our Primate with no substantiation. In Christian brotherhood, you need to either substantiate it or withdraw it -- it's an insult against all of us who recognize her as the leader of our church.

[Secundulus]

He is retired and was retired when he penned the quoted remarks, which BTW he makes clear he raises for purposes of discussion.
Please cite a reference where Bishop Spong was unconsecrated as an Apostle. If you cannot do so then his retirement from active duty as Bishop of Newark in entirely irrelevant.

[Finella]

::returns from coffee...


... with the campus ministry chaplain::





::feeling much better::



I'll not say any more on the discussion, but I gratefully link to this amazing blog my chaplain pointed me to. It has some very interesting commentary and points to make on the matter of Minns' installation by +Akinola.

http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/

Enjoy.

[PadreEgan]

You know what, "Padre"? You are not a member of TEC -- in fact, your church unilaterally removed itself from communion with TEC a third of a century ago. You have almost as much right to say what we "should" be doing as a Baptist.

That is not to say you do not have a right to express your views in STR. I've been in the position of feeling someone held that attitude; so has Aaron. It's not a pleasant one, and I don't intend to give off that attitude.

But Anglicans "do" theology by allowing a wide range of dialogue on it, and then working their way to the one right answer through discussion, prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are not a "top-down" hierarchical church, where the Lord's Anointed on Earth promugates doctrine that must be assented to; we're a "bottom-up" church, where orthodox doctrine comes from the consent of the consensus of the membership, guided and taught by the leaders.

And in any case, you've made an accusation against our Primate with no substantiation. In Christian brotherhood, you need to either substantiate it or withdraw it -- it's an insult against all of us who recognize her as the leader of our church.
You are correct, I am no longer a member of ECUSA, but I was and I still care for the Anglican Communion.

here is a link about the mother Jesus statement, since you don't believe me:

http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/002008.html

[kiwimac]

Both the OT and the NT use female imagery to talk about God. As a theologian I use such language regularly. Why would it be a problem for the PB?

[higgs2]

Metaphor.

:)

[Albion]

In so many words, post proof -- in context, not a loose sentence with no reference -- or retract.

You must know that these comments were made. If not, you may have forgotten or weren't paying attention. In any case, you can do a search online and satisfy your curiosity, so there's no need for any mock outrage.

Heretical comments like the ones referred to in this thread and made by Anglican bishops no doubt are embarrassing to those whose loyalty is to church institutions above all else, but as a matter of fact, between Bp J-S and Bp Robinson (of the UK), all that was charged has been indeed been said by Anglican bishops. It has also been widely reported on.

[soulsearching1]

You are so right! Take, for example, two of the wealthest parishes in the diocese of Virginia, located in our affluent Northern area, filled with parishners who live in large homes, in expensive neighborhoods, have country club membership, and drive to Mass in Mercedes and BMW's, but who's deeply held beliefs would seem to end where their wallets begin. "The journey from the courts to Calvery"? In this case, it is more like the path from Sacs to Brooks Brothers. Why bother to donate money to build a new church when you can just steal one? Never mind that the two churches in question have belonged to the diocese of Virginia for over two hundred years, who wants to take part of their money that was earmarked for a family vacation to Europe this summer and waste it on a silly old church building fund when you can use a perfectly good stolen one? And where, pray tell, is the pious and holy Archbishop of Nigeria on this one? Demanding that Minns et al return what is not theirs? You can wait for a cold snap in the seventh ring of Hades first! The money can be better spent funding his grand designs here in the states.

As someone who attends one of the churches of which you speak, let me say that not everyone is like that. Certainly, the young people who attend are not! We can't afford to, because the area is too expensive. And I know many of the wealthy families who attend as well, and they are some of the kindest, most generous, Godly people I know. They open their homes to us younger folk all the time, and share what they have. We chose to break away from TEC because KJS is going against the Bible. I have no idea what people think of Martyn Minns or Peter Akinola (although Minns plays a fierce tamborine- though that's a story for another day :-P). But I do know that the people at my church want to attend a church that teaches the Bible, no more, no less.

Secondly, the whole "ownership of property" of our church is sort of up in the air. The building does not technically belong to the diocese. The papers to the buildings are in the names of the trustees, not the Diocese of VA. In fact, the historic building was built before the diocese was even established. So this is going to be a long, messy legal battle. Believe me, if we do end up being able to keep our property, it is going to cost A LOT of money. There will be no stealing involved.

[DeoJuvante]

Please cite a reference where Bishop Spong was unconsecrated as an Apostle. If you cannot do so then his retirement from active duty as Bishop of Newark in entirely irrelevant.
Wow, your theology is certainly novel. Now, I am not against novel theology, per se, but from someone who is taking the positions you are, I do find it a little surprising.

Firstly, a bishop is not an apostle. The bishops are the successors to the apostles. It may be a subtle difference but it seems somewhat ridiculous to refer to a modern bishop as an 'apostle'. Secondly, and much more importantly, how do you propose to 'unconsecrate' a bishop? What about the indelible sacramental character of Holy Orders?

Anyway, Bp Spong makes some valid points, I think. I don't understand why people think we shouldn't continue to explore new ways of interpreting Christian tradition. It's not as though Christian theology has never changed (ok, some people here do seem to insist that it has not, despite all evidence to the contrary).

[Aymn27]

As someone who attends one of the churches of which you speak, let me say that not everyone is like that. Certainly, the young people who attend are not! We can't afford to, because the area is too expensive. And I know many of the wealthy families who attend as well, and they are some of the kindest, most generous, Godly people I know. They open their homes to us younger folk all the time, and share what they have. We chose to break away from TEC because KJS is going against the Bible. I have no idea what people think of Martyn Minns or Peter Akinola (although Minns plays a fierce tamborine- though that's a story for another day :-P). But I do know that the people at my church want to attend a church that teaches the Bible, no more, no less.

Secondly, the whole "ownership of property" of our church is sort of up in the air. The building does not technically belong to the diocese. The papers to the buildings are in the names of the trustees, not the Diocese of VA. In fact, the historic building was built before the diocese was even established. So this is going to be a long, messy legal battle. Believe me, if we do end up being able to keep our property, it is going to cost A LOT of money. There will be no stealing involved.
thank you for the input! it is good to have you here at STR...and know that "some" of us here are interceding for you all - that will of Christ reign supreme - even if it means losing a building!

Keep fighting the good fight!

Peace and all good..aaron

[brightmorningstar]

One Anglican Bishop has already identified two separate and distinctly different religions in the Anglican communion, the historic apostolic faith once delivered and a new fangled 21st century religion.
Lets be honest, our leaders are at loggerheads and I can see why as I think this is the case

[kiwimac]

And that Anglican Bishop would be wrong.

[ChaliceThunder]

You are correct, I am no longer a member of ECUSA, but I was and I still care for the Anglican Communion.

here is a link about the mother Jesus statement, since you don't believe me:

http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/002008.html
Since Jesus, IN HIS OWN WORDS, likens himself to a mother hen, please point out the phrase in Bishop Katharine's sermon that is heretical.

[Albion]

Since Jesus, IN HIS OWN WORDS, likens himself to a mother hen, please point out the phrase in Bishop Katharine's sermon that is heretical.

Hi. I think the point here may be that to address Jesus as being a woman is not an analogy, whereas the comparision to a mother hen is clearly a simile or metaphor. Especially is this so for the reason you emphasized--Jesus' speaking of himself cannot be misunderstood to be a confession that he was, in fact, a chicken instead of whom he was. Gnosticism is a heresy; that was settled in days of the Ancient Church.

[ChaliceThunder]

Hi. I think the point here may be that to address Jesus as being a woman is not an analogy, whereas the comparision to a mother hen is clearly a simile or metaphor. Especially is this so for the reason you emphasized--Jesus' speaking of himself cannot be misunderstood to be a confession that he was, in fact, a chicken instead of whom he was. Gnosticism is a heresy; that was settled in days of the Ancient Church.
Bishop Katharine NEVER intimated that Jesus was a woman. Please read the quote in context:

...That full measure of love, pressed down and overflowing, drives out our idolatrous self-interest. Because that is what fear really is -- it is a reaction, an often unconscious response to something we think is so essential that it takes the place of God. "Oh, that's mine and you can't take it, because I can't live without it" -- whether it's my bank account or theological framework or my sense of being in control. If you threaten my self-definition, I respond with fear. Unless, like Jesus, we can set aside those lesser goods, unless we can make "peace through the blood of the cross.

That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation -- and you and I are His children. If we're going to keep on growing into Christ-images for the world around us, we're going to have to give up fear.

It is EXTREMELY CLEAR that Bishop Katharine is not attempting to change the gender of our Lord, but only to use a beautiful metaphor for HIS love to us. (does anyone here have something against motherhood? Is it not godly or something?)

By the way, the first paragraph, in and of itself, would be good reading for all of you KJS detractors.

[higgs2]

Like or as = simile
To say something "is" something else = metaphor

:)

[gtsecc]

Both the OT and the NT use female imagery to talk about God. As a theologian I use such language regularly. Why would it be a problem for the PB?
As Theologian, you ought to be able to distignuish between God and the 2nd person of the Trinity, who revealed himself to us as a male.

On seeing CT's post, maybe she didn't refer to Christ as mother. I'm not sure.Boy, she sure danced around it if she did not out right change the gender. Not sure.

[DeoJuvante]

As Theologian, you ought to be able to distignuish between God and the 2nd person of the Trinity, who revealed himself to us as a male.

On seeing CT's post, maybe she didn't refer to Christ as mother. I'm not sure.Boy, she sure danced around it if she did not out right change the gender. Not sure.
How do we know that the Second Person of the Trinity has revealed himself as male. Christ was both fully God and fully human, yes? And while his human nature was definitely male, why must me assume that his divine nature is male? To me, I don't see how we can even begin to talk about God in terms of sex. What would it even mean for God to be male or female?

I would have thought that God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is neither male nor female but God. Sure the Son became incarnate in male form but it had to be one or the other and I don't see why his choice of body is particularly important. I mean presumably Jesus (the man) had race, hair colour, etc., but that doesn't mean that God is Jewish, or has black hair or whatever. So, in short, can somebody please explain to me why using feminine imagery to refer to God is any different from using masculine imagery to do likewise?

[gtsecc]

How do we know that the Second Person of the Trinity has revealed himself as male. Christ was both fully God and fully human, yes? And while his human nature was definitely male, why must me assume that his divine nature is male? To me, I don't see how we can even begin to talk about God in terms of sex. What would it even mean for God to be male or female?

I would have thought that God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is neither male nor female but God. Sure the Son became incarnate in male form but it had to be one or the other and I don't see why his choice of body is particularly important. I mean presumably Jesus (the man) had race, hair colour, etc., but that doesn't mean that God is Jewish, or has black hair or whatever. So, in short, can somebody please explain to me why using feminine imagery to refer to God is any different from using masculine imagery to do likewise?
The humanity and divinity are inseperatable. We "aren't allowed" to talk about them that way. That is a formal Heresy 4th Ecumenical Council.

We can use feminine imagery for "God," that is “scriptural” but I can't figure how we can for Christ.

[Aymn27]

The humanity and divinity are inseperatable. We "aren't allowed" to talk about them that way. That is a formal Heresy 4th Ecumenical Council.

We can use feminine imagery for "God," that is “scriptural” but I can't figure how we can for Christ.
We can certainly assume the exact same for the Holy Spirit b/c it was through HIM that Christ was made incarnate in Mary's womb...it is impossible for two females to pro-create - therefore we can assume that the HS is male...

And I don't think it's that hard to see God as the Father either...being He is seperate from His creation (He did not "birth" it into existence and he is not "part" of it) and shares in the same nature as the Son and Spirit - assuming that gender is a portion of one's "nature"

[ChaliceThunder]

We can certainly assume the exact same for the Holy Spirit b/c it was through HIM that Christ was made incarnate in Mary's womb...it is impossible for two females to pro-create - therefore we can assume that the HS is male...

And I don't think it's that hard to see God as the Father either...being He is seperate from His creation (He did not "birth" it into existence and he is not "part" of it) and shares in the same nature as the Son and Spirit - assuming that gender is a portion of one's "nature"

For with God, nothing shall be impossible.

It's funny - because most of the words used to describe the Spirit are feminine, in their original languages.

[Aymn27]

For with God, nothing shall be impossible.

It's funny - because most of the words used to describe the Spirit are feminine, in their original languages.
yes..it is impossible...God cannot creat a four sided triangle - neither can two women procreate...Theology 101...

Also, in dealing with languages - there is absolutely no correlation to gender terms and the discriptor..for instance - a bra, in french, is a masculine word--go figure!

[ChaliceThunder]

yes..it is impossible...God cannot creat a four sided triangle - neither can two women procreate...Theology 101...

Also, in dealing with languages - there is absolutely no correlation to gender terms and the discriptor..for instance - a bra, in french, is a masculine word--go figure!
I try not to limit God with my own limited imagination.

Do so, if you must.

[gtsecc]

If we are going to overlook the incarnation as being possible or impossible, then making the HS a woman is not a logical conclusion. Furthur, HS has never been refered to as a Woman, or a Man either for that matter. We are not supposed to make up new theology and give it the same name, Christianity. We are supposed to take the revealed truth and thank God. Not, add our little twists to it.

[kiwimac]

In Hebrew the 'Ruach Ha Kodesh' is feminine.

[Polycarp1]

"...without body, parts, or passions..." strikes me as making the point, as well as ancient Greek and Latin could do so, that God is neither male nor female, but God. The eternal Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, took on human form, which for good reason in that time and place was male, and used the preferred imagery of God the First Person as Father, also for excellent reason. As the Muslims would say, "the Holy Spirit does not have a penis."

If it pleases you to anthropomorphize God Most High as Zeus-with-a-Yiddish-accent, don't let me stop you; we all have our means of imaging Him. But don't insist on your mental pictures as identical to what the Holy Fathers meant in Council, and to the exclusion of how others find it best to relate to Him.

[kiwimac]

"...without body, parts, or passions..." strikes me as making the point, as well as ancient Greek and Latin could do so, that God is neither male nor female, but God. The eternal Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, took on human form, which for good reason in that time and place was male, and used the preferred imagery of God the First Person as Father, also for excellent reason. As the Muslims would say, "the Holy Spirit does not have a penis."

If it pleases you to anthropomorphize God Most High as Zeus-with-a-Yiddish-accent, don't let me stop you; we all have our means of imaging Him. But don't insist on your mental pictures as identical to what the Holy Fathers meant in Council, and to the exclusion of how others find it best to relate to Him.
Exactly.

All humans anthropomorphise God, because 'anthropos' is the only image we have but to insist that God must conform to GENDER is quite wrong.

We can, quite correctly, refer to God as He, She or It. But we must not insist that how we conceive of God must be how our neighbour does as well.

[Simon_Templar]

No-one is rejecting something they know has been revealed. What some of are rejecting is what they believe is an incorrect interpretation of what God has revealed. The liberal position isn't "God has revealed homosexuality is sinful and we reject that". It's "Christians have incorrrectly understood that God has revealed .... and we reject that understanding which we beleive to be incorrect". Which is precisely the same as some of the other situations we have alluded to.

Actually, when this debate began, most on the "liberal" side started by doing what you are saying.. they took bible passages and the teachings of the church etc, and said "well does this really mean what everyone has thought that it means???"

Now, that tactic is rarely used anymore. I see it occasionally in conversation, but much more often the "liberal" tag line has become "that was the truth then, but revelation of the truth is progressive and God is now revealing through us (ie current society) a new understanding of the truth".

Ironically.. or perhaps not ironically, but interestingly, this again equates well to the garden of eden. Satan always begins his attacks on truth with the same question "Hath God REALLY said this?" Once he gets people to question what was once blatantly clear, then he moves from "Hath God REALLY said this..." to "You will not surely die" (What God said isn't really true).

The situation is no longer one of people saying "does the bible really mean such and such" it is now one of people saying "The bible may have meant that then, but we have learned and grown since then, so what the bible meant is out dated and should be moved on from."

this is because the initial questioning was never legitimate to begin with. It was always clear what was meant. Anyone reading it reasonably objectively would have no doubt about it. The initial questions were used simply to introduce enough doubt to move the issue out of the realm of the bible and the idea of revealed truth, into the realm of subjectivity and progressive 'truth'.



That is a gross misrepresentation of what liberals are attempting to do.

It may be a gross misrepresentation of what liberals are TRYING to do. It is an accurate description of what they ARE DOING.

A quote for you, (I don't know who originally made it) "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The church version of it is "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" (I think that might have been from Chrysostom.. not sure though).

The point is that intention matters little when what you do is evil and serves evil. There are few people who believe that they are evil. The vast majority are decieved about the nature of themselves, and their beliefs, and their actions.

[Simon_Templar]

How do we know that the Second Person of the Trinity has revealed himself as male. Christ was both fully God and fully human, yes? And while his human nature was definitely male, why must me assume that his divine nature is male? To me, I don't see how we can even begin to talk about God in terms of sex. What would it even mean for God to be male or female?

I would have thought that God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is neither male nor female but God. Sure the Son became incarnate in male form but it had to be one or the other and I don't see why his choice of body is particularly important. I mean presumably Jesus (the man) had race, hair colour, etc., but that doesn't mean that God is Jewish, or has black hair or whatever. So, in short, can somebody please explain to me why using feminine imagery to refer to God is any different from using masculine imagery to do likewise?


This is exactly the kind of heretical nonsense that Padre Eagan and others are talking about, this kind of stuff gets said, and then 10 minutes later the same people are playing the offended innocent when their comments are questioned.

Would you have me believe that The PB of the TEC is such a complete IDIOT that she could,as the first female primate, already a controversial figure, in her first official sermon, make numerous allusions to Jesus Christ in feminine terms and really believe that most people aren't going to think she is purposely sending a message?

She is either a moron, or she knew exactly what she was doing and she was purposely constructing her words to send the message she intended. Which would you have me believe?



As to your comments above. How do we know the second person fo the Trinity revealed himself as male... because HE DID?!?!? The fact that he appeared as a man? The point of revelation IS TO MAKE VISIBLE. The fact that God the FATHER has chosen to reveal himself AS the FATHER, and God the SON has chosen to reveal himself as THE SON, as a MAN is part of the revelation. And yes, his race is part fo the revelation as well. He is still a hebrew and he still has whatever hair color he had. You may notice that his hair color, and eye color and such things were not recorded, because they are not important. His gender, his ethnicity etc are all recorded because they were necessary parts of the revelation. They could not have been any other than what they were.

Your comments are only plausible if you start from the view point that the revelation of God in scripture, and in the person of Jesus Christ is flawed and biased by the vessels of transmission, ie the people who wrote the bible. In fact your assessment of the incarnation basicly relegates even that to a rather imperfect revelation.

[Simon_Templar]

Exactly.

All humans anthropomorphise God, because 'anthropos' is the only image we have but to insist that God must conform to GENDER is quite wrong.

We can, quite correctly, refer to God as He, She or It. But we must not insist that how we conceive of God must be how our neighbour does as well.
There is a difference between anthopomorphizing God, such as applying uniquely human passions to God, such as gluttony, lust, weariness, etc. and recognizing the fact that God essentially theomorphized man.

It is not that God is like us, but rather that we are like him.
With this exception. A specific point of the incarnation was that Jesus would be like us, in that he suffered temptations and the chances of life just as we do.

[karen freeinchristman]

It is not that God is like us, but rather that we are like him.
Except those of us who are female, I presume...

[gtsecc]

Except those of us who are female, I presume...
right, God doesn't have a gender chip on his shoulder.

[karen freeinchristman]

right, God doesn't have a gender chip on his shoulder.
:scratch: I don't really get your comment.

[AveMaria]

You know, sometimes the in-fighting on this forum is enough to make athiesm look almost appealing . . .

____ Christ have mercy. (Feel free to add your own metaphorical adjectives for anthopomorphizing purposes).

And frankly, I don't think ++KJS had any more of an agenda using feminine metaphorical language to highlight the nurturing, "stereotypically feminine" aspects of Christ, than other primates have when they use exclusively masculine energy.

[ChaliceThunder]

Except those of us who are female, I presume...
I imagine that your friends and family look at you, karen, and see Christ in your face all the time!

[karen freeinchristman]

I imagine that your friends and family look at you, karen, and see Christ in your face all the time!
Thank you, CT. I do believe the same is true for you, brother. :hug:

[ChaliceThunder]

Thank you, CT. I do believe the same is true for you, brother. :hug:
thank you :blush:

[Finella]

This is exactly the kind of heretical nonsense that Padre Eagan and others are talking about, this kind of stuff gets said, and then 10 minutes later the same people are playing the offended innocent when their comments are questioned.

Would you have me believe that The PB of the TEC is such a complete IDIOT that she could,as the first female primate, already a controversial figure, in her first official sermon, make numerous allusions to Jesus Christ in feminine terms and really believe that most people aren't going to think she is purposely sending a message?

She is either a moron, or she knew exactly what she was doing and she was purposely constructing her words to send the message she intended. Which would you have me believe?



As to your comments above. How do we know the second person fo the Trinity revealed himself as male... because HE DID?!?!? The fact that he appeared as a man? The point of revelation IS TO MAKE VISIBLE. The fact that God the FATHER has chosen to reveal himself AS the FATHER, and God the SON has chosen to reveal himself as THE SON, as a MAN is part of the revelation. And yes, his race is part fo the revelation as well. He is still a hebrew and he still has whatever hair color he had. You may notice that his hair color, and eye color and such things were not recorded, because they are not important. His gender, his ethnicity etc are all recorded because they were necessary parts of the revelation. They could not have been any other than what they were.

Your comments are only plausible if you start from the view point that the revelation of God in scripture, and in the person of Jesus Christ is flawed and biased by the vessels of transmission, ie the people who wrote the bible. In fact your assessment of the incarnation basicly relegates even that to a rather imperfect revelation.
So God made us in HIS image. The FATHER.

::looks at own female body::


Something's wrong....





Sometimes what people say just make me laugh, because I'd weep otherwise. Yes, the holy spirit could have... ::gasp:: feminine qualities as much as male qualities! And God did make a four-sided triangle. We call it a square. What God does and what we understand it to be are not always the same thing.

Um, and how on earth did we get here? Weren't we discussing +Akinola's trespassing into the diocese of VA?

[Polycarp1]

Um, and how on earth did we get here? Weren't we discussing +Akinola's trespassing into the diocese of VA?

Very simply explained. The Rules of Being a Continuing Anglican:

1. The liberals are wrong.
2. To combat the liberals, the end justifies the means.
3. This includes schism, bearing false witness, theft, and conversion of discussion points into canon law whenever convenient.
4. When Jesus said "everyone" he didn't mean women or gays.
5. If in doubt, see rule 1.

To those I offend with this, that's exactly what has happened so far -- deny it how you wish.

[RadixLecti]

Very simply explained. The Rules of Being a Continuing Anglican:

1. The liberals are wrong.
2. To combat the liberals, the end justifies the means.
3. This includes schism, bearing false witness, theft, and conversion of discussion points into canon law whenever convenient.
4. When Jesus said "everyone" he didn't mean women or gays.
5. If in doubt, see rule 1.

To those I offend with this, that's exactly what has happened so far -- deny it how you wish.
I realise that you're frustrated, but your post is making some very harsh generalizations. Not all continuers think alike (although we tend to be conservative) we don't agree on everything. (such as disputing property ownership) Posts that "flame" all continuing anglicans with one broad stroke don't do anyone any good.

[Polycarp1]

Except those of us who are female, I presume...
Like the Most Rev. Jefferts Schori, I think I've been quoted out of context! :D

[Aymn27]

I realise that you're frustrated, but your post is making some very harsh generalizations. Not all continuers think alike (although we tend to be conservative) we don't agree on everything. (such as disputing property ownership) Posts that "flame" all continuing anglicans with one broad stroke don't do anyone any good.
hey bro...how have you been? You moved to Dallas yet?

[RadixLecti]

hey bro...how have you been? You moved to Dallas yet?
:wave: Pretty soon.

[Polycarp1]

I realise that you're frustrated, but your post is making some very harsh generalizations. Not all continuers think alike (although we tend to be conservative) we don't agree on everything. (such as disputing property ownership) Posts that "flame" all continuing anglicans with one broad stroke don't do anyone any good.
I suppose you're right, especially as our side seems to be the one devoted to upholding the commandments like "Return good for evil." But it gets very frustrating attempting to do what Christ commands while sneers like "two separate and distinctly different religions in the Anglican communion, the historic apostolic faith once delivered and a new fangled 21st century religion" get bandied around, and no continuer calls his fellow to task. (By the way, that implication that liberal Anglicans follow a different religion does constitute a severe violation of CF rules, Bright Morning Star, but I didn't report it as such. Just so you're aware of it.)

[DeoJuvante]

Look, it is meaningless to describe God as though He were male or female. He's not an animal, he's God. Just because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary does not imply that the Holy Spirit is male... it is not as though a sexual act somehow took place between them (she is the VIRGIN Mary, after all). It was possible not because the Holy Spirit is male but because the Holy Spirit is God.

[RadixLecti]

Look, it is meaningless to describe God as though He were male or female. He's not an animal, he's God. Just because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary does not imply that the Holy Spirit is male... it is not as though a sexual act somehow took place between them (she is the VIRGIN Mary, after all). It was possible not because the Holy Spirit is male but because the Holy Spirit is God.


whoa...

I agree with Saepius...:swoon:

:D

[Aymn27]

Look, it is meaningless to describe God as though He were male or female. He's not an animal, he's God. Just because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary does not imply that the Holy Spirit is male... it is not as though a sexual act somehow took place between them (she is the VIRGIN Mary, after all). It was possible not because the Holy Spirit is male but because the Holy Spirit is God.
(Hey glenn - here's a little Kreeft in your honor!)

From The Handbook of Christian Apologetics:
The Jewish revelation was distinctive in its exclusively masculine pronoun because it was distinctive in its theology of the divine transcendence. That seems to be the main point of the masculine imagery. As a man comes into a woman from without to make her pregnant, so God creates the universe from without rather than birthing it from within and impregnates our souls with grace or supernatural life from without. As a woman cannot impregnate herself, so the universe cannot create itself, nor can the soul redeem itself. Surely there is an inherent connection between these two radically distinctive features of the...biblical religions...: their unique view of a transcendent God creating nature out of nothing and their refusal to call God “she” despite the fact that Scripture ascribes to him feminine attributes like compassionate nursing (Is. 49:15), motherly comfort (Is. 66:13) and carrying an infant (Is. 46:3). The masculine pronoun safeguards (1) the transcendence of God against the illusion that nature is born from God as a mother rather than created and (2) the grace of God against the illusion that we can somehow save ourselves—two illusions ubiquitous and inevitable in the history of religion (1994, p. 98, emp. in orig.).

[Aymn27]

entire text of this article can be found here (http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/162):

From an authoritative standpoint, as Singleton pointed out earlier, God is referred to hundreds of times throughout Scripture by masculine names and masculine pronouns—but never is given a feminine name or referred to by feminine pronouns. Thomas Rees, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, addressed the matter of God as the ultimate authority figure when he wrote that “the essential nature of God, and His relation to men, is best expressed by the attitude and relation of a father to his children; but God is Father in an infinitely higher and more perfect degree than any man” (1955, 2:1261). K.C. Moser, in his book, Attributes of God, stated emphatically that “this manner of referring to God is significant” (1964, p. 12). Indeed it is. While those who were involved in the false religions that surrounded the Jews worshipped a myriad of non-existent gods and goddesses, the Israelites worshipped “Jehovah the true God, the living God, an everlasting King” (Jeremiah 10:10; cf. “the true and living God,” 1 Thessalonians 1:9, NLB; “the only God,” John 5:44). Or, as Spencer, et al. put it in their book, The Goddess Revival: “The Judeo-Christian God, unlike the gods and goddesses of pagans new and old, exists above the limitations of gender” (1995, p. 48). It is an “authority” matter—not a “gender” matter.
But must we refer to God via masculine terms? The question has nothing to do with what we would like to do, but instead with what God tells us to do. C.S. Lewis addressed this point in his book, God in the Dock:
Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.... Since God is in fact not a biological being and has no sex, what can it matter whether we say He or She, Father or Mother, Son or Daughter?
Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential. And this is surely intolerable (1970, p. 237, emp. in orig.).
Scripture makes it clear: “O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.... Shall the potter be esteemed as clay; that the thing made should say of him that made it, ‘He made me not’; or the thing formed say of him that formed it, ‘He hath no understanding’?” (Isaiah 64:8; 29:16). Since when does the clay have the right to dictate to the potter or override his decisions? As a believer in God and His inspired Word, and yet as one speaking from an inherently masculine view point, Lewis went on to say:
We have no authority to take the living and semitive figures which God has painted on the canvas of our nature and shift them about as if they were mere geometrical figures.... It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the </B>privilege which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer.... A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles... (1970, pp. 237-238, emp. added).It is not man’s (or woman’s!) place to question God’s sovereign authority or divine will; neither falls under mankind’s jurisdiction. As Kreeft and Tacelli noted: “One issue is whether we have the authority to change the names of God used by Christ, the Bible and the church. The traditional defense of masculine imagery for God rests on the premise that the Bible is divine revelation, not culturally relative, negotiable and changeable” (1994, p. 98). Christ Himself left us the perfect example (as He always did) when He said: “Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name” (Matthew 6:9, emp. added). The fact that biblical designations of God are placed within the specific framework of the masculine settles the matter once and for all. It simply is not a matter up for discussion.

[brightmorningstar]

just to clarify. To me, the statement 'our mother Jesus is a nonsence. As a hen gathers her chicks is a description of an action, Jesus was a man, has described Himself as the Son of our Father in heaven.

[DeoJuvante]

But I do think 'that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential.' And I don't agree with Mr Lewis that that is intolerable.

[Aymn27]

Look, it is meaningless to describe God as though He were male or female. He's not an animal, he's God. Just because He was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary does not imply that the Holy Spirit is male... it is not as though a sexual act somehow took place between them (she is the VIRGIN Mary, after all). It was possible not because the Holy Spirit is male but because the Holy Spirit is God.
I'm not talking about Him in a physical world sense - not that he has male genitals, etc...but God's nature is that of a male....

That should not be understood as excluding females - they are created in His image and likeness as well - both male and female attributes are found in Him..but to make His nature gender neutral or feminine is inconsistent with what has been revealed...

that's why we have the Bible :)

[brightmorningstar]

Dear SaepiusOfficio,
How can it be meaningless to describe God as though He were male or female when this is what Jesus did so often? We know God created male and female in His image but to describe God we call Him Father as Jesus has told us to address Him.

[kiwimac]

God either transcends gender or else is a gender-based creature. There is no middle road here.

[Aymn27]

But I do think 'that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential.' And I don't agree with Mr Lewis that that is intolerable.
And herein lies another facet to the current great debate - and why the AC is splitting at the seams - on what authority do we rest our theology of revealed truth...can we contextualize it into "other meanings" or is it laid upon a sure foundation (like Scripture or Tradition)...

[ebia]

How do we know that the Second Person of the Trinity has revealed himself as male. Christ was both fully God and fully human, yes? And while his human nature was definitely male, why must me assume that his divine nature is male? To me, I don't see how we can even begin to talk about God in terms of sex. What would it even mean for God to be male or female?

I would have thought that God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is neither male nor female but God. Sure the Son became incarnate in male form but it had to be one or the other and I don't see why his choice of body is particularly important. I mean presumably Jesus (the man) had race, hair colour, etc., but that doesn't mean that God is Jewish, or has black hair or whatever. So, in short, can somebody please explain to me why using feminine imagery to refer to God is any different from using masculine imagery to do likewise?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SaepiusOfficio again.

[ebia]

Actually, when this debate began, most on the "liberal" side started by doing what you are saying.. they took bible passages and the teachings of the church etc, and said "well does this really mean what everyone has thought that it means???"

Now, that tactic is rarely used anymore. I see it occasionally in conversation, but much more often the "liberal" tag line has become "that was the truth then, but revelation of the truth is progressive and God is now revealing through us (ie current society) a new understanding of the truth".

Ironically.. or perhaps not ironically, but interestingly, this again equates well to the garden of eden. Satan always begins his attacks on truth with the same question "Hath God REALLY said this?" Once he gets people to question what was once blatantly clear, then he moves from "Hath God REALLY said this..." to "You will not surely die" (What God said isn't really true).

The situation is no longer one of people saying "does the bible really mean such and such" it is now one of people saying "The bible may have meant that then, but we have learned and grown since then, so what the bible meant is out dated and should be moved on from."

this is because the initial questioning was never legitimate to begin with. It was always clear what was meant. Anyone reading it reasonably objectively would have no doubt about it. The initial questions were used simply to introduce enough doubt to move the issue out of the realm of the bible and the idea of revealed truth, into the realm of subjectivity and progressive 'truth'.




It may be a gross misrepresentation of what liberals are TRYING to do. It is an accurate description of what they ARE DOING.

A quote for you, (I don't know who originally made it) "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". The church version of it is "the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" (I think that might have been from Chrysostom.. not sure though).

The point is that intention matters little when what you do is evil and serves evil. There are few people who believe that they are evil. The vast majority are decieved about the nature of themselves, and their beliefs, and their actions.
Depends who we are talking about. What you say may be true of some, but it's certainly not true of all who are 'liberal' on the particular issue we are talking about. Not everyone who supports the consecration of +Gene Robinson is also a supporter of +Shelby Spong.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear kiwimac,
God either transcends gender or else is a gender-based creature. There is no middle road here.
Actually although I find that a tricky concept, you are probably right. :) Certainly in that respect we can't say mother God or mother Jesus, that although God made male and female in His image we address Him and think of Him as Father nonetheless looking at what Jesus teaches, we do fall short in our knowing God fully even as we are fully known. We havent seen God except in Jesus Christ.

[brightmorningstar]

The other thing is, Jesus is the way the truth and the life to God. He calls disciples to do all He commands, including His command to pray to our Father in heaven as He did. He prayed to His Father in heaven and tells disciples to pray to your Father in heaven.
Indeed Jesus even tells women 'you will worship' the Father. It is a spiritual matter not a physical one. John 4:21

[kiwimac]

I am perfectly happy to use female imagery to talk about God, I find it quite OK.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear kiwimac,
So can I in respect to the Father gathering us up like a mother hen gathers her chicks, but that doesnt prompt me to think of God as a hen. In this respect I am not ok to use 'mother God' as Jesus teaches me to pray to the Father and worship the Father.

[ebia]

Dear kiwimac,
So can I in respect to the Father gathering us up like a mother hen gathers her chicks, but that doesnt prompt me to think of God as a hen. In this respect I am not ok to use 'mother God' as Jesus teaches me to pray to the Father and worship the Father.
That doesn't, in itself, exclude praying to God (1st person of the trinity) as Mother any more than it excludes praying to him as friend, mentor, or any number of other ways of trying to get to grips with our relationship.

"Father" is one way (a very important way) of looking at his relationship to us, but it's not intended to exclude all other ways of looking at that relationship. It's also primarily about trying to describe the relationship, not primarily about trying to describe the anatomy of God.

[karen freeinchristman]

Like the Most Rev. Jefferts Schori, I think I've been quoted out of context! :D
Sorry, Polycarp1, I meant that for those who hold to the strictly male essence of God. I used your words, but it wasn't directed to you! :)

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
No I agree that thinking of God's actions like a mother hen with her chicks doesn't, in itself, exclude praying to God (1st person of the trinity) as Mother. What I am saying excluses praying to God as a Mother is Jesus never did and taught both men and women to pray to our Father. .. which I think tends to most definately exclude all other ways of addressing God and understanding Him. A father is quite able to gather up his children just as a mother hen would do.

As you said 'looking at his relationship with us' If it is His relationship He is sometimes like a mother, but He is the Father.

[ebia]

Dear ebia,
No I agree that thinking of God's actions like a mother hen with her chicks doesn't, in itself, exclude praying to God (1st person of the trinity) as Mother. What I am saying excluses praying to God as a Mother is Jesus never did and taught both men and women to pray to our Father. .. which I think tends to most definately exclude all other ways of addressing God and understanding Him.
You can't think what you like, but thinking of God as father doesn't preclude thinking of him as mother unless you add some other extra-biblical condition that God can't be both.

If the PB denied God as father she would be on very dodgy ground, but she hasn't done that.


A father is quite able to gather up his children just as a mother hen would do.
And this is relevent how?

As you said 'looking at his relationship with us' If it is His relationship He is sometimes like a mother, but He is the Father.
He is father and mother equally. The (66 book) bible explicity calls on one and implicity the other.

[Albion]

I think there are too many slants on this subject floating around and being confused with each other.

Few of us think of Almighty God as having genitalia, so he is not male or female as we know the genders. BUT...

...the point was originally about God as incarnate, i.e. as Jesus of Nazareth. The point is lost if in discussion we switch back and forth between the Father and the Son.

Jesus WAS a man, not a woman, so God was a man as far as his Earthly person goes. This has nothing to do with Biblical descriptions of God as having qualities we associate with human men or women.

To suggest that he was NOT a man as Jesus is to partake of the Gnostic heresy which, in some of its manifestations, held that God as spirit could not, absolutely could not, be material. That means that a Christian holding to this view would tend to see him as a spirit which merely looked like a human.

When Bp Schori used the terminology of Gnosticism, naturally there were observers who thought that this was wrong on her part, at least as far as expressing the orthodox Christian view of the nature of the Second Person of the Trinity is concerned.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear ebia,
You can't think what you like, but thinking of God as father doesn't preclude thinking of him as mother unless you add some other extra-biblical condition that God can't be both.
In fact it is not adding anything that leads me to thinking of God as Father. But if Jesus said He prayed to His Father in heaven, He didnt pray to His mother in heaven. As we have not seen God and Jesus has, I rest my case.
And this is relevent how?
Well it shows God as a Father can do something in a way we can understand a mother hen would do, its an analogy. Jesus didnt just say God is like a Father, but called God Father.

He is father and mother equally. The (66 book) bible explicity calls on one and implicity the other.
I see no evidence He is addressed as mother in the Bible.

[No Swansong]

Thread temporarily closed for mod review.