Windsor Report:Scripture, Tradition, and Reason--Anglican/Old Catholic ONLY

[Naomi4Christ]

Going after the divorce/remarried will not do. There are far too many divorced/remarried conservatives.

In the congregation, for use, but in leadership positions also?

 

[Naomi4Christ]

While I still question whether either is being set "as a standard", I would certainly agree that any movement toward equal standards would be a welcome move in the right direction.

We won't have divorced/remarried clergy in our church, but we haven't made any public statement about gay clergy. Maybe that's something we need to address...

 

[Simon_Templar]

Are there double standards within the conservatiev movement? yes, there are. Are conservatives hypocrits, some are, maybe even alot.

Does that change the fact that some things, which conservatives happen to be opposed to, are thus not wrong.. no.

What is going on here is a common defence, devoid of logical merit. When someone disagrees with your view.. you point out problems with that person or their other views. The fact that I'm not perfect, and some of my other views may be incomplete or incorrect, doesn't make you right.
As my brother likes to call it, the big man small man argument.. if you call me a small man.. even if your right.. it doesn't make you a big man.

If I had a divorced bishop (and especially a remarried bishop) I would probably seek pastoral care from another bishop, and I would not be upset with anyone else who did so. The reasong being, the same thing I have pointed out before. There is no obligation to remain under a false bishop. In fact ther is an obligation NOT to remain under a false bishop.
The fact is that there is no active crusade within the church to force everyone to accept divorced bishops, or to agree that they would accept divorced bishops if one were appointed over them.

The point was raised earlier that God calls bishops and priests, not us based on how ideal they are etc etc. This is very true. However, God does not call people who violate his stated standards and requirements. This is not a statement that a sinner can't be a priest or bishop.. but God layed out statements in scripture that outline special requirements for such positions, indicating that they are required to meet standards higher than other people.

The idea of "homophobia" is a misnomer. There are people who hate gay people, just as there are people who hate virtually every other demographic of people around... Stupid pop pyschology and psychobabble can't except the fact that people are often times just hateful, and thus has to explain it that "they are really afraid, and so they react in anger against what they fear", thus the term homophobia was coined.

I'll be honest, I don't like homosexuality at all, but at the same time I've worked with gay people (and transgender too), been friends with gay people, I even was room mates with a gay guy, and I've never had any difficulty seeing or treating them like any other person.
I also don't like divorce and remarriage, yet i have family and even some of my best friends who are divorced and remarried... one of my friends married a divorced woman after discussing the issue with me and I felt his justification was entirely wrong.. possibly the worst you could come up with.. but that doesn't mean I dislike him.
I don't like theft.. but I've been friends with alot of theives.. I can't stand wiccanism and neo-paganism, but I worked with a wiccan for two years, was good friends with her and had many civil conversations on religion.

Disagreement, even thinking some one's belief's or actions are sinful and vile does not mean that you don't see that person, as a person, understand them as a person. People do make it difficult sometimes.. homosexuals often have a tendancy to wrap their identity up in their sexuality, the wiccan friend of mine always dressed in clothing and jewelry that identified her as a pagan. Just see people as people, don't identify them by their sins... but at the same time, there is no need to validate sins in order to value and treat a person with respect.

 

[erin74]

Are there double standards within the conservatiev movement? yes, there are. Are conservatives hypocrits, some are, maybe even alot.

Does that change the fact that some things, which conservatives happen to be opposed to, are thus not wrong.. no.

What is going on here is a common defence, devoid of logical merit. When someone disagrees with your view.. you point out problems with that person or their other views. The fact that I'm not perfect, and some of my other views may be incomplete or incorrect, doesn't make you right.
As my brother likes to call it, the big man small man argument.. if you call me a small man.. even if your right.. it doesn't make you a big man.

If I had a divorced bishop (and especially a remarried bishop) I would probably seek pastoral care from another bishop, and I would not be upset with anyone else who did so. The reasong being, the same thing I have pointed out before. There is no obligation to remain under a false bishop. In fact ther is an obligation NOT to remain under a false bishop.
The fact is that there is no active crusade within the church to force everyone to accept divorced bishops, or to agree that they would accept divorced bishops if one were appointed over them.

The point was raised earlier that God calls bishops and priests, not us based on how ideal they are etc etc. This is very true. However, God does not call people who violate his stated standards and requirements. This is not a statement that a sinner can't be a priest or bishop.. but God layed out statements in scripture that outline special requirements for such positions, indicating that they are required to meet standards higher than other people.

The idea of "homophobia" is a misnomer. There are people who hate gay people, just as there are people who hate virtually every other demographic of people around... Stupid pop pyschology and psychobabble can't except the fact that people are often times just hateful, and thus has to explain it that "they are really afraid, and so they react in anger against what they fear", thus the term homophobia was coined.

I'll be honest, I don't like homosexuality at all, but at the same time I've worked with gay people (and transgender too), been friends with gay people, I even was room mates with a gay guy, and I've never had any difficulty seeing or treating them like any other person.
I also don't like divorce and remarriage, yet i have family and even some of my best friends who are divorced and remarried... one of my friends married a divorced woman after discussing the issue with me and I felt his justification was entirely wrong.. possibly the worst you could come up with.. but that doesn't mean I dislike him.
I don't like theft.. but I've been friends with alot of theives.. I can't stand wiccanism and neo-paganism, but I worked with a wiccan for two years, was good friends with her and had many civil conversations on religion.

Disagreement, even thinking some one's belief's or actions are sinful and vile does not mean that you don't see that person, as a person, understand them as a person. People do make it difficult sometimes.. homosexuals often have a tendancy to wrap their identity up in their sexuality, the wiccan friend of mine always dressed in clothing and jewelry that identified her as a pagan. Just see people as people, don't identify them by their sins... but at the same time, there is no need to validate sins in order to value and treat a person with respect.

Thank you Simon. Again you always phrase things so well.

I'll add my agreement to this - what he said.

I too have worked with and been friends with many people who are homosexual. I also have had at least two homosexual christian friends (ones who I knew to be homosexual anyway), who chose to remain celebant. I also was at church with a woman who chose not to seek another relationship after her spouse left her. She continues to pray for his conversion even long after he has remarried. These were christians that encouraged me to work harder at fighting sin in my life, and at striving for holiness. What a testimony their lives are to those around them.

 

[john23237]

Are there double standards within the conservatiev movement? yes, there are. Are conservatives hypocrits, some are, maybe even alot.

Does that change the fact that some things, which conservatives happen to be opposed to, are thus not wrong.. no.

What is going on here is a common defence, devoid of logical merit. When someone disagrees with your view.. you point out problems with that person or their other views. The fact that I'm not perfect, and some of my other views may be incomplete or incorrect, doesn't make you right.
As my brother likes to call it, the big man small man argument.. if you call me a small man.. even if your right.. it doesn't make you a big man.

If I had a divorced bishop (and especially a remarried bishop) I would probably seek pastoral care from another bishop, and I would not be upset with anyone else who did so. The reasong being, the same thing I have pointed out before. There is no obligation to remain under a false bishop. In fact ther is an obligation NOT to remain under a false bishop.
The fact is that there is no active crusade within the church to force everyone to accept divorced bishops, or to agree that they would accept divorced bishops if one were appointed over them.

The point was raised earlier that God calls bishops and priests, not us based on how ideal they are etc etc. This is very true. However, God does not call people who violate his stated standards and requirements. This is not a statement that a sinner can't be a priest or bishop.. but God layed out statements in scripture that outline special requirements for such positions, indicating that they are required to meet standards higher than other people.

The idea of "homophobia" is a misnomer. There are people who hate gay people, just as there are people who hate virtually every other demographic of people around... Stupid pop pyschology and psychobabble can't except the fact that people are often times just hateful, and thus has to explain it that "they are really afraid, and so they react in anger against what they fear", thus the term homophobia was coined.

I'll be honest, I don't like homosexuality at all, but at the same time I've worked with gay people (and transgender too), been friends with gay people, I even was room mates with a gay guy, and I've never had any difficulty seeing or treating them like any other person.
I also don't like divorce and remarriage, yet i have family and even some of my best friends who are divorced and remarried... one of my friends married a divorced woman after discussing the issue with me and I felt his justification was entirely wrong.. possibly the worst you could come up with.. but that doesn't mean I dislike him.
I don't like theft.. but I've been friends with alot of theives.. I can't stand wiccanism and neo-paganism, but I worked with a wiccan for two years, was good friends with her and had many civil conversations on religion.

Disagreement, even thinking some one's belief's or actions are sinful and vile does not mean that you don't see that person, as a person, understand them as a person. People do make it difficult sometimes.. homosexuals often have a tendancy to wrap their identity up in their sexuality, the wiccan friend of mine always dressed in clothing and jewelry that identified her as a pagan. Just see people as people, don't identify them by their sins... but at the same time, there is no need to validate sins in order to value and treat a person with respect.

Again, I believe there is much truth to what you have written and I do respect your right and that of your fellow conservatives to your viewpoint, but the OP of this thread was addressing the Windsor report and I hardly consider it a "defence devoid of logical merit" to point out the clear double standard used by many conservatives in this regard. The real problem here may be that as the result of the rules of this board, we are not allowed to discuss the actual issue behind the report and, therefore, are left discussing the effects instead of the causes. Because of said rules I will limit my comments to this. Christians of good will reading the same scripture and examining it in the original languages and in the context in which it was written can and do draw differant conclusions as to it's meaning. In the past the Anglican communion seemed to be tolerant of differing understandings under what appeared to be an unwritten "agree to disagree" policy. Today the conservatives certainly seem to be saying something like you will accept our understanding, dishonestly renounce yours ( to renounce what you truly believe in is dishonest), or we will destroy the communion. To be plain about it, this is simply not acceptable and if it indeed is being done, at least partly, out of a desire for power, control, or revenge against the West, it is even more unacceptable.

 

[Finella]

From Wikipedia:
Sodomy is a term of religious origin to characterise certain sexual acts. Most commonly used to describe the specific act of anal sex between two males or between a male and a female, the term "sodomy" also may include non-coital sexual acts such as oral sex and other paraphilia. Laws forbidding certain types of sex acts have been found in some pre-modern cultures and are still prevalent in some industrialized nations as well.

I know exactly what "sodomy" is and yes I do realize that heterosexuals engage in this disordered sexual act.

Also, note the words etymology:
The term sodomy derives from the name of the ancient city of Sodom, which according to the Bible was destroyed by God for its misdeeds (see Sodom and Gomorrah). In today's common language it identifies the practice of anal intercourse, despite the fact that Sodom's condemnation in the Bible may not have been primarily or exclusively condemned for committing homosexual acts. (my note** according to whom??LOL)

Now, I know how terribly hard revisionists and the liberal intellegence' have been working to redefine ideas and words that do not fit into their inclusive worldview, but, sorry, this bird doesn't fly.

Also, I would add that no, we should not investigate people private lives - but that is just it - it is private. If Bishop A wants to sodomize his wife, then let him - he will stand before God on judgment day and account for that (actually I think sins of this type generally have a way of coming out in the open on their own). But when he wants the Church to openly condone, or better yet, endorse it, that is a whole different ballgame.

This is my point: How do you know that any couple -- regardless of orientation -- is practicing sodomy? You simply don't. You are making an assumption about how they engage in sex. A person who wants inclusivity for all sexual orientations is not stating he wants the church to condone sodomy, he/she is advocating for inclusivity in loving, committed relationships.

As you rightly point out above, sodomy can include several different kinds of sex acts, again, which could be and are practiced by all kinds of couples. If you are willing to let God judge the heterosexual couples for engaging in these "disordered" acts, why not allow God to judge all people?

Show me a person who is asking the church to "openly condone, or better yet, endorse" sodomy. I have not seen this.

Edited to add: I realize I am addressing a verboten topic for the forum, but I had to make my point even if it would stay in the thread only a little while. Thank you.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

he/she is advocating for inclusivity in loving, committed relationships.

I think he/she is advocating more than that.

 

[john23237]

Again, because of the rules of this board, there is a limit as to what can be discussed, but let us just state that there are a growing number of scriptural scholars who believe the condemnation of certain sexual practices were directly related to there being engaged in the context of pagan fertility practices and have nothing whatsoever to do with those acts themselves, let alone there being engaged in within the context of marriage.

P.S. To the moderator. If this post in any way violates the rules, please feel free to edit or remove it.

 

[Polycarp1]

I thought that this extended post, made by Anglican CF member loriersea over in News and Current Events in response to a series of comments about the meaning of "legislating belief," had something useful to say in regard to the topic under discussion. (Please excuse her excursus into gay marriage as an example.)

Legislating beliefs does not mean legislating that everyone accept your beliefs. It means that you want to force everyone to act in accord with your beliefs.

Contrary to the common perception, conservative Christians and more liberal Christians are NOT equally guilty of wanting to "legislate their beliefs." For one thing, I have never, ever seen liberals argue that conservative Christians should be kicked out of the church, that Christians who don't agree with their stance on gay marriage or abortion should be denied ordination, or that you have to hold their political views to be a good Christian. Only one group is responsible for that kind of behavior.

And, there is an enormous difference between wanting to make a morally debatable issue legal, and wanting to make it illegal. When someone wants to outlaw abortion, they want to force everyone in society to act in accord with their belief that abortion is murder. They do not want people to be able to make up their own minds. Sure, people can believe that abortion is morally acceptable in some cases, or at least legally allowable, but those people will be barred from acting on their beliefs.

When abortion is legal, on the other hand, nobody is forced to accept any belief, and nobody is forced to act in accordance with a belief they do not accept. Nobody who is pro-choice wants to take away the right of anyone who believes that abortion is morally wrong from feeling that way, or from acting on their belief by not getting an abortion or by taking legal steps to discourage others from having abortions.

Right now, gay people cannot marry in most states. It is not an option. If you think it is okay, it doesn't matter; you still cannot marry a gay couple, or get married if you are gay. If gay marriage were legal, it would not force anyone to think gay marriage is okay, any more than anyone is currently forced to think that interracial marriage is okay, marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian is okay, remarriage is okay, or marriage between a 50 year old and an 18 year old is okay. Nobody is forced to think that any kind of marriage is okay, and nobody is forced to enter into any kind of marriage that they do not want to. All that changes is that, just as people now have to recognize the legal status of marriage they might consider morally unacceptable, they would have to do the same thing with gay marriage. But, having to accept the legal status of something is very different from having to embrace it as moral or right.

So that's the difference. Everyone is not trying to "legislate their beliefs," although most people obviously want legislation that is in line with their beliefs.

 

[CSMR]

Do you want to tell us how all that is relevant here?

 

[Aymn27]

.

 

[Polycarp1]

 

[Aymn27]

.

 

[CSMR]

Fine. You win, Bishops CMSR and Amyn. Would you be so kind as to draw up the Deed Poll of Excommunication for John, myself, and the other liberal members of this forum, and post it to the moderators?

I am frankly disgusted. You are doing precisely what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing, and don't have the slightest clue that there might be anything sinful in your stance. May you find more mercy at the Last Judgment than you have seen fit to render unto others!

Is the reason for your righteous disgust to be found in this thread or outside it? Was it my question that prompted your outburst, which does rather mystify me, or my replies to your previous post?

 

[Aymn27]

.

 

[Simon_Templar]

This is my point: How do you know that any couple -- regardless of orientation -- is practicing sodomy? You simply don't. You are making an assumption about how they engage in sex. A person who wants inclusivity for all sexual orientations is not stating he wants the church to condone sodomy, he/she is advocating for inclusivity in loving, committed relationships.

As you rightly point out above, sodomy can include several different kinds of sex acts, again, which could be and are practiced by all kinds of couples. If you are willing to let God judge the heterosexual couples for engaging in these "disordered" acts, why not allow God to judge all people?

Show me a person who is asking the church to "openly condone, or better yet, endorse" sodomy. I have not seen this.

Edited to add: I realize I am addressing a verboten topic for the forum, but I had to make my point even if it would stay in the thread only a little while. Thank you.

Let me put it this way... This isn't an issue about prying into people's private lives in an effort to dig out their secret sins and hold them accountable. This is an issue of a group of people who are demanding that their practices in their private lives be validated by the church as acceptable practice and even righteous practice.
If a single man is a bishop I'm not going to go on a witch hunt to determine that he's living to the required standards of sexual purity. Likewise with a married man, I'm not going to grill him every sunday to find out if he is committing adultery or sodomy... I may ask him what his stand is on those things as issues of morality...

It is entirely a different matter when someone comes and says "this is what I do, you must accept it and decree it to be valid."

 

[Simon_Templar]

In the past the Anglican communion seemed to be tolerant of differing understandings under what appeared to be an unwritten "agree to disagree" policy. Today the conservatives certainly seem to be saying something like you will accept our understanding, dishonestly renounce yours ( to renounce what you truly believe in is dishonest), or we will destroy the communion. To be plain about it, this is simply not acceptable and if it indeed is being done, at least partly, out of a desire for power, control, or revenge against the West, it is even more unacceptable.

Almost everyone has limits. As the church has become more and more liberal, and begun to push more and more liberal issues there have been splinter groups because the people in those groups reached the limit of what they were willing to "agree to disagree about". As liberalism in the church continues to push for more change in traditional beliefs, more and more people will reach their limit and no longer be able to agree to disagree. It just happens that the current unpleasentness is a limit that alot of people are unwilling to cross.
If the Anglican Church as a whole does accept this issue and a bunch of conservatives continue to leave, the whole thing will begin again with a different issue... the next one, my guess is, would be pushing not only acceptance but approval and support for abortion. After that, eventually it'll probably get around to pedophilia... I would say polygamy but there doesn't seem to be as large or active advocacy for that as yet.

One of the big reasons for this is that the church is following the culture rather than impacting the culture, or the culture following the church. In our culture the prevailing ideals are that each person decides what is right in their own eyes, and that human nature and desires are good and should be indulged.

 

[erin74]

Almost everyone has limits. As the church has become more and more liberal, and begun to push more and more liberal issues there have been splinter groups because the people in those groups reached the limit of what they were willing to "agree to disagree about". As liberalism in the church continues to push for more change in traditional beliefs, more and more people will reach their limit and no longer be able to agree to disagree. It just happens that the current unpleasentness is a limit that alot of people are unwilling to cross.
If the Anglican Church as a whole does accept this issue and a bunch of conservatives continue to leave, the whole thing will begin again with a different issue... the next one, my guess is, would be pushing not only acceptance but approval and support for abortion. After that, eventually it'll probably get around to pedophilia... I would say polygamy but there doesn't seem to be as large or active advocacy for that as yet.

One of the big reasons for this is that the church is following the culture rather than impacting the culture, or the culture following the church. In our culture the prevailing ideals are that each person decides what is right in their own eyes, and that human nature and desires are good and should be indulged.

Agree again.

Although I don't think pedophila is quite ready to raise it's head - it's not accepted in the wider community yet. I believe there is a word for the adolescent version which might come about though.

Before that though I believe cloning and other medical practices will raise their heads. And perhaps euthanasia. I think scientific advancements are racing before our ethics can catch up, and the governments are at risk of not legislating practices fast enough, and embracing technology without studying the impact. I think this is going to play a huge role in the next few decades.

 

[Polycarp1]

My closest friends in college, other than the woman who is now my wife, were a couple, he an army veteran in his late 20s and she, a cradle Episcopalian who had married fresh out of high school. They eventually had two beautiful little girls, and we remained close. Then their marriage broke up, and it was discovered he had had a previous wife. She returned

By some obscure interpretation of the Church's regulations of the time, it was decided that her having had a marriage to a divorced man was grounds for excommunicating her -- at a time when she needed the Church most.

She hasn't been back in an Episcopal church since. And I can understand her point.

Insofar as I'm concerned, the people who insist on slamming doors on others, making a major issue out of particular instances of what they regard as especially egregious sins, or calling those whose stance is to focus more on God's mercy and inclusiveness "preaching false doctrine," are themselves sinning against God and their fellow man.

And I will insist on this, based on my own reading of the Gospel and the teaching of my rector, her priest-husband, and our bishop, the people to whom, rather than fellow members of a message board, I am to give obedience to under Christ, regardless of who appeals to what tradition.

 

[Finella]

Let me put it this way... This isn't an issue about prying into people's private lives in an effort to dig out their secret sins and hold them accountable. This is an issue of a group of people who are demanding that their practices in their private lives be validated by the church as acceptable practice and even righteous practice.
If a single man is a bishop I'm not going to go on a witch hunt to determine that he's living to the required standards of sexual purity. Likewise with a married man, I'm not going to grill him every sunday to find out if he is committing adultery or sodomy... I may ask him what his stand is on those things as issues of morality...

It is entirely a different matter when someone comes and says "this is what I do, you must accept it and decree it to be valid."

I respectfully disagree. I think previous posts have demonstrated the double-standard when it comes to particular sex acts and particular sexual orientations. Additonally, your "group of people demanding that practices in their private lives be validated by the church" is still invalid. I have asked for, and have not yet seen proof of this claim.