Skip to main content

I'd laugh my Episcopalian self silly if this were not true.  Picked up by Google News, The Jerusalem Post has reported that

In a revolutionary move bordering on schismatic, African archbishops unilaterally announced Sunday in Jerusalem that they have taken over the leadership of the Anglican Church from England and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

Genuflect below...

The Jerusalem Post

Following the installation of Rev. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire, many displeased conservative Episcopalians searched for a new way to express their love of Jesus and hatred of gays by leaving ECUSA (Episcopal Church in the United States of America). Some, like the Truro Church, have aligned themselves with the Anglican Church of Nigeria, headed by Peter Akinola.

Frederick Clarkson's diary covers Akinola very well, so I'll head you there, since he is far better writer than I! Not to mention more thorough.

The African Bishop's statement, called the Jerusalem Declaration, says the Archbishop of Canterbury has failed  to discipline those who have supported Bishop Robinson, and have instead been preaching a "false gospel".

The declaration criticizes the Archbishop of Canterbury for failing to take action against those who proclaim this false gospel.

"Bishops of unrepentant churches are welcome to Lambeth 2008," said the declaration adding that there has been a "failure to honor promises of discipline."

The conservative clergymen go on to say that "we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

I'm a cradle Episcopalian myself. I'm no theologian.  This Jerusalem Declaration is an abomination, and if Rowan Williams does not finally stand up to these heretics, he should resign and allow someone with the love of Christ in heart to take action against these steeplejackers.

According to Rev. Dr. Arne H. Fjeldstad, who's the head of communications for Communications for the Global Anglican Future:

"Jerusalem was the natural place for us to go back to our Jewish roots and our Christian heritage. It is a way of reaffirming that we are Bible-believing Christians."

The rabid religious right has stretched it's tenacles to Africa, and is poisoning the faith there as well. I tend to take offence at people who use the codeword "Bible-believing Christians" as it always turns out they are bigots of one form or another.

To me, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer says it best:

Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith.
THOU shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

The Church of England, the Anglican Communion and ECUSA should keep us all very amused, and angry, for some time.  I remember when women were ordained and the outrage that occurred then.  This however, is much worse.  In the end, I'm hopeful that love will prevail.

Originally posted to Pam aka Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:08 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Alms for the church kittehs? (22+ / 0-)

    There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

    by Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM PDT

  •  Not sure, and I wouldn't know where to look... (4+ / 0-)

    ...for a clear view of this, but I think your take might be slightly off.

    The African churches have been a rising phenomenon for years, and they are on the whole very conservative.  I don't think this is a political matter (right wing) so much as a doctrinal and cultural one.

    But as I say, I don't know much about it other than the snippets in the int'l news.

    •  They are more conservative, to be sure (6+ / 0-)

      They are also intolerant, and very political.  Frederick Clarkson's diaries say it much better than my somewhat lupus addled mind could say.

      Not much has shown up yet on the ECUSA site, but I suspect it'll be buzzing soon.

      There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

      by Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:21:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is another one of those stories that makes (6+ / 0-)

    me think we are just living out a script of Stand on Zanzibar, where it would have been right at home.

    What's so hard about Peace, Love, and Truth and Progress?

    by melvin on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:16:42 PM PDT

  •  Strange how every "Bible-Believing Christian" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rogneid, grada3784, MI Sooner

    seems to find something different in the Bible from every other "Bible-Believing Christian". And yet each "Bible-Believing Christian" is convinced that he/she has the Absolute Truth and is called by Gawd to impose it on everybody else.

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:17:31 PM PDT

  •  Excuse me for being gay AND black, but (6+ / 0-)

    this is just racism vs. homophobia, as though the better man might win.
    Don't you realize that Canterbury would've already told these idiots where to stuff it long ago if they did not legitimately fear that that would get them accused of treating the Africans as too stupid to rightly divine the word of God, i.e., as being the same kind of intellectual/eugenics-oriented racists as the Nazis?

    African cultures are just different.  Cultures where having more children is seen as a short-term economic help to the family that does that are different from cultures that have undergone the kind of demographic transition that has occurred in W.Europe and Japan.   Besides, there are plenty of NON-African bigots in white churches (European and American, Episcopal and non-) that would (even as racist as most of them are) agree that the Africans are showing nothing more than basic common sense here, which is a long way from "steeplejacking".  Obviously the Africans would counter that gay men steeplejacked first.

    I wonder if there is any sort of counter-attack available on polygamy.
    I imagine there are some locales where African Episcopalians have to tolerate a little of that simply because it is culturally endemic.  Maybe "we'll tolerate yours if you'll tolerate ours"?

    "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

    by ge0rge on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:19:30 PM PDT

    •  Tolerance would be great. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llywrch, grada3784

      I think Canterbury, well, Rowan Williams, hasn't done a good job of keeping dialogs open between Anglicans who have differing opinions. Members of the Communion are free to disagree, it doesn't have to become where we have a schism.

      If we did that every time we argued over a matter of faith, the Anglican Communion would've disappeared long ago.

      I'm not black or gay, and I'm glad you made the point about racism and homophobia. I have to spend some time mulling about how that plays into this.  I'm white and Lenape, so those are the two worlds I usually walk in.  

      There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

      by Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:38:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Non-racist bigotry. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rogneid, 3O3

      If I recall correctly, a number of US Episcopalian congregations (overwhelmingly white, of course) have asked to be placed under the jurisdiction of African (black, of course) bishops, because their theology is more compatible re: condemnation of homosexuality.

      -4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero

      by HeyMikey on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:49:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That about sums it up. (0+ / 0-)

        It's on this one issue though. That's what bothers me most. I have a lot of gay relatives and friends and this really doesn't feel like an expression of Christ's love to me.  It feels like hatred and homophobia.

        There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

        by Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:57:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is that progress?? (0+ / 0-)

        If American Republicans ever figure out how to put that Halloween coalition together here politically, our party is in real trouble.  One could argue (16% black support for Bush in Ohio in 2004) that they have already managed it in the 1 time and place where it mattered most.

        There is some evil psychological law whereby victims of hate (the second party) view it as liberation if they get promoted to CO-haters (of a lower third party) with the people (the first party) who formerly hated them.
        Me, personally, I favor hating back vs. the people who hated you, not co- hating some innocent bystanders.  Unfortunately fundamentalists remain full of this crap about hating the sin while loving the sinner.

        "You can't nice these people to death."-- John Edwards

        by ge0rge on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:14:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  In Africa, they are Anglicans (Episcopalians are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      llywrch

      Anglicans in the US), and yes, there is a polygamy question - all sorts of problems when a polygamist husband converts or when a wife wants to convert but her polygamist husband doesn't want to. There are areas in Africa where marriage per se is not all that common and the Anglican churches in the area have to specify that catechists and clergy are expected to marry or remain celibate.

  •  Seeing as Rowan Williams (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tiponeill, Rogneid, grada3784

    has bent over backwards for the African bishops, it's entertaining to see him hoist by his own petard.

  •  Don't more (3+ / 0-)

    Anglicans live in Africa than in England?  Why must the head of the of the Anglican Communion be English?  (Not that I care.  I never really got the Henry VIII-wanting-a-divorce thing.)

    •  There are probably more than in the US (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grada3784

      that's for sure.  I think we're the smallest mainline Protestant denomination.

      The head of the Church of England, I think, would have to be English, but the Communion could be another matter. I'm not sure if the two are always yoked.  Traditionally the head of the C of E is the head of the Anglican Communion, but I don't see that really has to be when the church is worldwide.  

      There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

      by Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:44:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This has been going on for a loooong time (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, HeyMikey, Rogneid, grada3784

    Historical biblical criticism, women's ordination, prayer book revision, gays in the church and subsequently in ministry.

    The Episcopal Church in the U.S. and much of the western Anglican Communion never ascribed to biblical literalism (at least not since the modernist-fundamentalist controversies of the early 20th century).

    For many Episcopalians and western Anglicans, their church is a refuge from biblical literalism--a way to remain Christian after science and history and philosophy had their way with the bible. The Africans and a remnant of biblical literalists in the Episcopal Church (who have been fighting all of the things above for about a century) have aligned to try to take over the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. This would not have happened without the encouragement and financing of these American dissidents. They knew it and planned it and hoped that a bunch of liberal, white Episcopalians wouldn't want to be accused of racism.

    Here is a very helpful read: Following the Money

    The Anglican schism was my great blog obsession before DailyKos and the great Democratic Schism of 2008 captured my attention. It's a little disconcerting to see it pop up here. There are some great sites on which to follow it. See Father Jake Stops the World

    •  Father Jake is one of my favorites. (3+ / 0-)

      This would not have happened without the encouragement and financing of these American dissidents. They knew it and planned it and hoped that a bunch of liberal, white Episcopalians wouldn't want to be accused of racism.

      I so agree with you there!

      There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

      by Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:00:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rowan Williams should have resigned a year ago (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, corvo, Rogneid, grada3784

    I could carve a better bishop out of a banana

    Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks... -- William F. Buckley, Jr

    by tiponeill on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:46:55 PM PDT

  •  You know, it seems to me they should just split. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rogneid

    One large group of Anglicans wants to read the Bible literally, at least the parts condemning homosexuality. Another large group of Anglicans doesn't. There are respectable theological arguments on both sides. Seems to me they should wish each other well and just split.

    I want to make it clear I DON'T believe the parts of the Bible condemning homosexuality should be read literally. I believe people are gay because God made them gay, and the rest of us should not be in the business of saying God makes mistakes. Nevertheless, I fully understand that arriving at this position means I'm asserting Moses and St. Paul made mistakes, which requires a heap of theological chutzpah. If other Christians want to credit Moses and St. Paul over me and others like me, I can't really say that's crazy.

    I'm a Presbyterian (PCUSA), and my church has not come to quite as severe a divide as the Anglicans on this issue, but it may yet come to that.

    -4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero

    by HeyMikey on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:56:32 PM PDT

    •  I can (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rogneid, Schopenhauer Telescope

      I can unequivically say that anyone who thinks that Moses or Paul never made mistakes is batshit crazy :)

      Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks... -- William F. Buckley, Jr

      by tiponeill on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:00:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, qualify that a bit. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rogneid

        Of course, it's basic Christian theology that all humans, including Moses and Paul, make mistakes. The question is whether Moses and Paul made THEOLOGICAL mistakes, in their thoughts that got passed down to us. There are plenty of people who are not bat-shit crazy who think they didn't.

        -4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero

        by HeyMikey on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Paul's not my favorite. Such a misogynist. (0+ / 0-)

        There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

        by Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:06:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Moses probably never existed, so he couldn't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rogneid

        have made mystakes, Paul certainly did exist and sure made them.

        We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

        by Lepanto on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:06:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Taking the Bible literally (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, Rogneid

      I have heard the New Testament spends far more time dwelling on social and economic injustice than abortion or homosexuality.  I haven't sat down and counted the passages, but I remember from my days of weekly church attendance a lot more about Jesus fighting corrupt authority than bashing "queers."

      "I shall never surrender or retreat." --Lieutenant Colonel William Barret Travis

      by badger1968 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nothing on abortion in Old or New Testaments. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rogneid, badger1968

        Nothing specific that I know of, anyway. And I'm sure if there were, we'd see it on billboards in every city in America.

        The general Biblical basis for being anti-abortion, of course, is "thou shalt not kill," "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," etc. Which, of course, apply to human beings. Which is why the question of when a fetus becomes a human being is so important.

        -4.25, -4.87 "If the truth were self-evident, there would be no need for eloquence." -- Cicero

        by HeyMikey on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I believe the biblical opposition (0+ / 0-)

          to abortion is based on the passages you mention (which "conservative" Christians tend to apply only to fetuses, eggs, and sperm--not, heaven forbid "scary brown people") and the (Old Testament?) passage: "I knew you when you were not yet born."  I think "when you were on the moon eating ice cream" was dropped over time.  : )

          "I shall never surrender or retreat." --Lieutenant Colonel William Barret Travis

          by badger1968 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is a passage (? Leviticus) that says if (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          HeyMikey

          someone hits a pregnant woman and causes a miscarriage they are to pay a fine - the penalty is definitely less than the penalty for murder.

    •  there are some who say that the American church (0+ / 0-)

      is quietly preparing for this. The old name was ECUSA - Episcopal Church, USA. The new name is The Episcopal Church - arguing that since a number of our provinces are outside the USA that the USA part of the name was misleading. It does mean that if (God forfend) there is a major split, "The Episcopal Church" could become the umbrella under which other like-minded provinces could gather. I don't think the name change was undertaken for that reason but as in biological evolution a feature can arise for one reason and turn out to be useful for another.

  •  As a former Epsicopal Choir Boy and Acolyte (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wee Mama, HeyMikey, Rogneid, Darmok

    I can say the greatest thing about Episcopals is that they are so nice and tolerant.   They're not into squashing dissent (like the SBC).  There is, and has always been (in my lifetime) a strong dissenting undercurrent in the Episcopal church.  In the small island in Maine where I live there are two Episcopal churches.  They roughly represent both sides in this ongoing "schismatic struggle."  One church has nice Tiffany windows and a beautiful pipe organ and a quaint New England churchyard next to it.  The other one has an Iraqi flag sent by the armed forces upon the "liberation" of Baghdad in the coffee room (not sure what I think about that), a humble piano, and some congregants have been known to speak in tongues.
    I'm not sure where I'm going with this one . . . I'm always dismayed by gay-bashing--especially by churches.  It is especially dismaying coming from a group that will ultimately bring down the Episcopal Church as it is presently constituted.  And that would be a shame.  Because, Episcopals usually aren't screaming in your face or proselytizing you.  They generally quietly do God's work as they understand it.  And laugh along with those who make fun of them.  

    "I shall never surrender or retreat." --Lieutenant Colonel William Barret Travis

    by badger1968 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM PDT

    •  I can remember the arguments over women's (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, Darmok, badger1968

      ordination.  It got very loud at times, and then everyone in our diocese seemed to just calmed down and if a church didn't want a woman at the altar, they did't invite one.  Of course, eventually, there were women at that altar.  The church didn't crumble, the heavens didn't part.  Some people left, but no one wished them ill.

      But this feels different, much more anger.

      There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't. -- Robert Benchley -5.75, -7.18

      by Rogneid on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:14:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is really sad. (0+ / 0-)

        But this feels different, much more anger.

        "I shall never surrender or retreat." --Lieutenant Colonel William Barret Travis

        by badger1968 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Anglican Church has always prided itself on (0+ / 0-)

        being inclusive and accomodating and has considered these traits its greatest strength. I suspect the African Anglican bishops are starting to feel that it's so inclusive and accomodating as not to stand for anything whatsoever.

        We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

        by Lepanto on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:26:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Chrisitans don't hate the people, (0+ / 0-)

    They are against the sin.

    I think christians should reach out to homosexuals, and not beat them over the head with a bible. Just be friends with them, help them, treat them like people. I'm not saying condone any sin, should it be homosexuality oy any thing else, but never hate the people, because we all sin.

    A christian that hates a gay, is as bad a thing in the eyes of God as the gay lifestyle. But both of them can be forgiven at an any time if they'd ask.

    •  Homosexuality a sin? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Themistoclea

      The gay lifestyle a bad thing in the eyes of God?
      You seem to have access to a special source of information on God's mind.
      Tells us what it is.

      We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

      by Lepanto on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:29:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Don't Think They're Accepting Suggestions (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Schopenhauer Telescope

      on these matters.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:30:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then they're not reading the bible. (0+ / 0-)
        •  Read the Bible cover to cover six times so far. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Themistoclea

          It's enlightening how little many Christians actually know about their own freakin religion.

          "It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime. What better place than here? What better time than now?" -- Zack de la Rocha

          by Schopenhauer Telescope on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why read the Bible as opposed to, say, Marx? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Themistoclea

          What gives the Bible the authority you seem to ascribe to it? Because the Bible is the Literal Word of God? Wny do you believe that, because the Bible says so?

          We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

          by Lepanto on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:39:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ok. (0+ / 0-)

            If the Bible is so unreliable then prove it wrong. I dare you. Tell me one case where it is unreliable. Answer it in your next reply. I'm sure you won't have anything, and it will be a sarcastic or an "insulting" remark.

            •  It's impossible to prove a negative. (0+ / 0-)

              Just so you know.

              But what the hell, let me give it a shot.  Genesis says that all humanity is descended from two human beings (let's leave aside the fact that there are two creation stories, not one, and they contradict each other).  According to the second story, these two humans had three sons, one of whom was killed.  There were no daughters.  None.  Where did the rest of humanity come from?  It doesn't say.  It just magically says that Cain and Seth had wives and children, but unless we have missing daughters and incest, then there's no way the human race can be descended from two people.

              Moving on to the New Testament.  According to the synoptic Gospels, Jesus of Nazareth was either crucified singly or with two thieves.  This is wildly historically inaccurate, as the Romans never crucified a couple of people at a time; it was wasteful and inefficient.  Instead, dozens would be crucified together.

              I can go into much more detail if you'd like, but I'm sure you'd prefer me not to.

              "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." -- Wes Clark

              by Schopenhauer Telescope on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:16:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Keep going. (0+ / 0-)

                You haven't proven it wrong. I still believe it's true. God can do anything, if God says that's the way it happened then it happened that way.

                •  That's ridiculous. (0+ / 0-)

                  You've just entered into circular logic.  You've said that no matter what historical arguments there are to show that elements of the Bible have been altered over time, you won't believe it.  Therefore it is logically impossible for you to accept any reasoned argument.

                  How about this, then?  The Bible, as it was composed over a few thousand years by a variety of people, does contradict itself on several occasions.  Let's begin with Genesis.  In Genesis chapter 1, it states that when Adonai created the universe, human beings were the first life form created, and both genders were created simultaneously.  However, in the second chapter, it states that when Yahweh created the universe, human beings were the last life forms created, and at first there was only a male; the female pairing came later.

                  "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." -- Wes Clark

                  by Schopenhauer Telescope on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:26:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The only way I've seen it is the latter version. (0+ / 0-)
                    •  The problem is that modern Christianity, (0+ / 0-)

                      disregarding the text it considers sacred, has smooshed these two accounts together into one narrative.  If you read Genesis, you'll see what I mean.

                      I'm not attempting to attack Christianity, Barrus.  The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, especially those found in the Gospel of Thomas, are some of the most enlightening and mind-shattered ideas ever composed.  What I am attacking is the idea of literalism, that the canonical Bible is unerrant from beginning to end.  The Bible is, in my opinion, a combination of histories, parables, mythos, guidelines, and societal laws, brought together over a period of centuries.  You can be a faithful Christian without having to believe that dinosaur bones were put there by Satan to fool us.

                      "I don't think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president." -- Wes Clark

                      by Schopenhauer Telescope on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:37:11 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  May I suggest to you, my friend, that you inform (0+ / 0-)

                      yourself a little on the history of the biblical text. How the Bible came to be formed, the authors and different backgrounds of the various texts that came to be accepted as canonical (that is, as parts of the Bible) during the course of the early fourth century. How the Bible as we have it today came to be accepted as divinely inspired by the communiity of Christian believers at that time. You might also wish to inform yourself on the value of the biblical text as we have it now, on its reliability as an historical document. Please, whatever you do, don't go around just Bible-spouting, even demons can do that, as is evident from Luke 4:9-12.
                      Be good.

                      We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

                      by Lepanto on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:40:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Of Course Not, They're Following Their Clergy (0+ / 0-)

          and what their clergy tell them is in the Bible, who after all are being guided realtime by the presently living God and Jesus.

          They get their Bible via their clergy and they get verification of it from God and Jesus in their daily lives.

          You and I are not qualified to be in the conversation.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:42:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, well, make those suggestions to Peter (0+ / 0-)

      Akinola, please. He wants to imprison people for even talking about homosexuality.

      •  Well look at Jesus. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Wee Mama

        Jesus and the "High religious leaders" of the time found a prostitute. The "Leaders" wanted to stone her, and they could, as it was the law. But Jesus said, "The first one who has not sinned, throw the first stone." And they all put their stones down. And he told her to go free and sin no more.

        Some "religious elites" are doing the contrary to what Jesus would have done.

    •  Wait a minute. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Themistoclea

      A christian that hates a gay, is as bad a thing in the eyes of God as the gay lifestyle

      The "gay lifestyle"?  That's a RWTP if I've ever heard one.  Is there such thing as the "heterosexual lifetstyle", or perhaps the "bisexual but leaning towards straight" lifestyle, or maybe even the "I like men/women, I just don't like sex" lifestyle?  

      By the by, if we're going to be taking Leviticus seriously, I hope to God you're not eating lobster or shrim (the "shellfish-eater lifestyle") or staying in the same house with a woman who is menstruating (the ünclean woman" lifestyle), because then you're an abomination in the eyes of God.  And since there's no temple left for the priests to cleanse you, I guess you're SOL and will be spending eternity in a flaming pit.

      "It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime. What better place than here? What better time than now?" -- Zack de la Rocha

      by Schopenhauer Telescope on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When Jesus came he said you can eat all foods. (0+ / 0-)

        So I can eat shrimp and lobster. (But I don't like either of them.)

      •  Also I'm not saying I'm perfect. (0+ / 0-)

        Non eof us are, and if you've come under the impression that any human besides Jesus can live a life perfectly your wrong. But I recognize homosexuality as a sin, as I do murder ect. I don't hate the people though because I'm as guilty as they are. I can't condone sin, however.

      •  It's a Conservative CHRISTIAN Talking Point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Schopenhauer Telescope

        The Republicans appropriated it.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:43:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And... (0+ / 0-)

        your never an abomination in the eyes of God. God made every person for a reason, and loves the all, and there's nothing you can do right now good or better, do make God love any more or less.

        And I need no priest to save me from going to hell. That's what Jesus did.

        •  Oboviusly you haven't read your Leviticus. (0+ / 0-)

          As well, Peter was the one who laid down the rule concerning the dietary laws, not Jesus of Nazareth.

          Homosexuality is mentioned twice (and only twice) in the Bible: Leviticus and Romans.  To accept that the Leviticus ban on homosexuality is valid, you must in turn accept that every other prohibition in Leviticus is truthful.  This includes the uncleanness of menstruating women, the dietary laws, the death penalty for disobedient children, etc. To do otherwise is hypocritical and smacks of the attitude of the Pharisaical leaders under the Roman Empire.

          To accept the Epistle to the Romans ban on homosexuality, you must likewise accept all other behavior modifications in Romans.  This includes no women speaking in church, the communal owning of all property, and the segregation of the sexes in all religious gatherings.  Again, you cannot choose which of these prohibitions you will follow and which you will not.

          The point I'm getting at, Barrus, is that your claim that homosexuality is a sin can only be based off two particular texts.  If you accept part of that text, you must accept all.

          "It has to start somewhere. It has to start sometime. What better place than here? What better time than now?" -- Zack de la Rocha

          by Schopenhauer Telescope on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:53:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Mainline Protestants - (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llywrch, terabytes

    Are getting screwed at every turn.

    While Archbishop Rowan Williams and, to a lesser extent, Archbishop Katharine Jefferts Schori talk compromise and work to prevent schism - people like Akinola laugh their way to the bank.  Akinola is nothing but an arrogant, conceited, SOB.  He would gladly destroy the Anglican Communion for personal gain and glory.

    The actions within the international Anglican community parallel political compromises between progressives and the right wing in many Western nations - the United States included.  Intolerant extremists use tolerance and moderation on the part of their opponents to destroy the institution and pillage whatever remains.

    It's the old adage -
    "What's mine is mine.  What's yours is negotiable."

  •  Fundamentalism Is the Wave of the Future (0+ / 0-)

    Superstition and fundamentalism are adaptive strategies for masses of people in worlds that they find are difficult to understand and very difficult to influence.

    We're making the world both of those things at an accelerating pace.

    From my casual observation I'd say this denomination is going to split permanently, and the conservative portion as time goes by will probably become the lion's share of it.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:38:11 PM PDT

  •  Genocide is a Christian Value - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Themistoclea

    What I really love about Akinola and his cronies is that they are FAR more concerned with a few gay people and far less concerned with the complicity of the Rwandan Anglican Church in the Rwanda Genocide.

    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/...

    Schismatic churches in the United States that place themselves under the authority of the Anglican Mission in the Americas are, in actuality, placing themselves under the authority of the Anglican Province of Rwanda which had direct links to the genocide.

    I say to all American Anglicans. "Out of fear and hatred of GLBTI people, you would willingly align with a church complicit in the murder of a million people."  

  •  A word from a Palestinian Anglican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    llywrch

    We hosted this thing I guess.

    So let me make a few points about my attitude toward
    the issues facing the Anglican communion.

    First, I'm not here trying to represent my very small community nor express the views of our bishop in Jerusalem. Though I know him personally and played with him as a kid.

    Some background maybe helpful. The Episcopalian Palestinians though Christian (Orthodox or Catholic) since the Roman era became Anglican/Protestants during in the late 18 hundreds and during the British Mandate over Palestine.

    Much of the congregation lost their homes and
    could not return to Palestine after the establishment of Israel. Nevertheless, a few thousand of us remain in Palestinian villages not cleared in the north of Israel.

    We partook in the Palestinian tragedy, sharing a common fate with tattered remains of that indigenous community. Our mission as I see it is to bear silent witness to the christian message in Palestine. Our mission in practice is to the masses of Palestinian refugees fenced in like beasts in refugee for many generations. Most of these refugees are Muslim.
    It is certainly not a traditional mission it is silent one that seeks to liberation and hopes to make bearable the unbearable.    The best example of a life that lived this mission is the late Professor
    Edward Said the author of Orientalism.

    Our community is progressive. In the main it has supported the socialist parties in both Israel and Palestine. We have also had clergy running for the equivalent of the communist party (Hadash) primaries.

    Further, our congregation has openly gay members who
    by the by run some of the only Gay and Lesbian advocacy and support groups in Palestine.

    Nevertheless, there is a lot of unease about the behavior and advocacy by certain progressives in the  ECUSA. This was not helped by the comments a few years by certain members of the ECUSA implying that we are happy to take American money but unwilling to accept their proposed reforms. I can't remember that particular gem of a quote, but I do remember the outrage at what was perceived as an imperialist and orientalist  disposition of certain American groups in ECUSA. It hurt because our natural allies in the ECUSA are precisely the progressives and liberals in the American church.

    Our attitude regarding doctrinal issues is that we shouldn't be in a hurry. Change takes time and it ought to wait for some sort of consensus in the communion. Our attitudes is that there are tremendous  benefits to waiting for a consensus. Even if we have to wait for a number of generations. We are calling for patience. From my conversations with members of our congregation this appears to be the position of the Anglican church in Jerusalem.

    There are of course differences between the positions of our minuscule church and the African bishops.
    I'll be occidentalist in this regard and say some outrageous things, which I'm sure reflects in some brutish way the perspective of many of the Churches in the east and Africa.  Let me emphasize that   there appears to be a difference in attitude between the American church and the rest of the communion regarding prudence and patience in doctrinal issues. The ECUSA wants change right now and in this generation, come what may. They appears to think that they have a right to impose such changes simply because they are wealthy. They have no regard for the communion, consensus, and Ecumenism.

       

  •  Another dull chapter.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....in the continuing decomposition of the Christian religion.

    It's kind of funny to watch those with such grand claims fall so utterly flat on their faces.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site