Election of Lesbian Bishop Causes Church Rift

[John317]

Anglicans cut Episcopalians from ecumenical bodies

1 hr 29 mins ago

LONDON – The Anglican Communion has suspended U.S. Episcopalians from serving on ecumenical bodies because of the election of a lesbian as a bishop in California.

The U.S. church opened a rift in the global communion, and within its own ranks, seven years ago by electing a gay man, V. Gene Robinson, as bishop of New Hampshire. Conservative African Anglicans have taken a lead in opposing moves in the United States and Canada to promote gays and to bless homosexual relationships.

Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, had called for a moratorium on appointing homosexuals to leadership positions. He asked for action against the Episcopal Church after the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool was made an assistant bishop of Los Angeles.

The Anglican Communion is an association of 44 regional and national member churches, most founded by Church of England missionaries, with more than 80 million members in more than 160 countries.

The Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, announced Monday that Episcopalians had been downgraded from members to consultants in formal ecumenical dialogues, annual meetings between Anglicans and clergy in other churches intended to build friendship and better understand one another's traditions and issues of mutual concern such as points of theology and ways of worshipping.

Kearon said he had also written to the primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to ask whether it has formally adopted a policy backing same-sex blessings.

The Canadian church's governing General Synod is meeting this week, and is discussing whether to debate a motion on the issue.

The Episcopal News Service said the Rev. Katherine Grieb, an Episcopal priest and professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary, was downgraded from member to consultant to the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order.

[olger]

I can understand why church members would not want to be associated with that kind of apostasy. We probably haven't seen it all yet, either.

g

[John317]

Yes, a lot of former Episcopalians are now Anglicana because of the decision of the American church to accept practicing gays as clergy.

[Robert]

Apparently the gay community has an agenda: Make everyone accept their lifestyle or be called homophobic.

[olger]

People who support such things console themselves that they are warm-hearted, and tolerant as they fill up their cup of rebellion and pride. Far better to submit ourselves to the Word of God, and mourn for the sins that are done in Israel (Ezekiel 9:4).

courage,

og

[olger]

Apparently the gay community has an agenda: Make everyone accept their lifestyle or be called homophobic.

I'd say so, Robert,

g

[doug yowell]

How long has it been since this denominational family began by ordaining women pastors? Seems like that was the issue in the early 80's.

[Overaged]

It's amazing what people call "Christian" these days. The social agenda of the gay community has actually taken a turn for the worse. It used to be that a lot of them were concerned about "homophobia" (so called) but now many have become what they originally set out to prevent. Hetero-phobia is rampant in many gay communities today - and is one of the tools now used to try and quash opposition.

Imposing their agenda on churches is even worse than all the hatred directed at hetero-sexuals, for they call "holy" or "sacred" that which is not.

[doug yowell]

It's amazing what people call "Christian" these days. The social agenda of the gay community has actually taken a turn for the worse. It used to be that a lot of them were concerned about "homophobia" (so called) but now many have become what they originally set out to prevent. Hetero-phobia is rampant in many gay communities today - and is one of the tools now used to try and quash opposition.

Imposing their agenda on churches is even worse than all the hatred directed at hetero-sexuals, for they call "holy" or "sacred" that which is not.

Yes.

[olger]

How long has it been since this denominational family began by ordaining women pastors? Seems like that was the issue in the early 80's.

apropo

[Tom Wetmore]

How long has it been since this denominational family began by ordaining women pastors? Seems like that was the issue in the early 80's.

Actually in the 80's the issue among Anglicans was over the ordination of women as bishops, which is still not widespread. The first Anglican women ordained as a priest was back in 1944. Episcopalians in the US have ordained women for at least 40 years now.

This homosexual connection to women's ordination breaks down given that the clear majority of Anglicans that remain opposed to the ordination of gay clergy still support the ordination of women as priests and bishops in most Anglican provinces. And beyond Anglicans, at least half of Protestant denominations ordain women and very few ordain homosexuals.

If we look at all the other denominations that ordain women and track how long it takes them to consider ordaining homosexuals, if at all, we see no valid support of the theory that one leads to the other. When it comes to ordaining women, the Anglicans are truly late comers to that party. At least 10 denominations have been ordaining women as clergy since the 19th Century, few, if any, of which now ordain homosexuals. Notably the Salvation Army has ordained women since its founding in 1865. And another 10 or so denominations first ordained women in the first half of the 20th Century. Again, few of those have officially ordained homesexuals.

The Quakers have recognized women ministers since at least the early 1800's, although that likely goes all the way back to the beginning of the Quaker movement in the 1600's. (A famous Quaker pamphlet from 1660 proclaimed it was women that first preached the risen Saviour, an idea echoed by EGW...)

[Woody]

Maybe the gay leadership can help reach out to other gays and turn them on to Jesus. I dunno.

[doug yowell]

[

Actually in the 80's the issue among Anglicans was over the ordination of women as bishops, which is still not widespread. The first Anglican women ordained as a priest was back in 1944. Episcopalians in the US have ordained women for at least 40 years now.

This homosexual connection to women's ordination breaks down given that the clear majority of Anglicans that remain opposed to the ordination of gay clergy still support the ordination of women as priests and bishops in most Anglican provinces. And beyond Anglicans, at least half of Protestant denominations ordain women and very few ordain homosexuals.

If we look at all the other denominations that ordain women and track how long it takes them to consider ordaining homosexuals, if at all, we see no valid support of the theory that one leads to the other. When it comes to ordaining women, the Anglicans are truly late comers to that party. At least 10 denominations have been ordaining women as clergy since the 19th Century, few, if any, of which now ordain homosexuals. Notably the Salvation Army has ordained women since its founding in 1865. And another 10 or so denominations first ordained women in the first half of the 20th Century. Again, few of those have officially ordained homesexuals.

The Quakers have recognized women ministers since at least the early 1800's, although that likely goes all the way back to the beginning of the Quaker movement in the 1600's. (A famous Quaker pamphlet from 1660 proclaimed it was women that first preached the risen Saviour, an idea echoed by EGW...)

I'm not ready to connect a cause/effect connection between WO and gay acceptance. But I'm not ready to jettison it yet, either. Obviously, if no women had been ordained clergy in the 40's there would be no issue today with lesbian bishops. But that doesn't apply to all who've embraced WO. But are there any of those Protestant denoms (or non-denominations) who have NOT allowed WO but HAVE allowed homosexual clergy?

[John317]

Quote:

Robert: Apparently the gay community has an agenda: Make everyone accept their lifestyle or be called homophobic.

Yes, that is very true, and there are others who use the same tactics, only they say that if you don't support WO, you must be anti-woman. Quite a few today even go so far as to claim that the apostle Paul himself was anti-woman. Instead of dealing with the evidence, such people try to use name-calling and intimidation.

[olger]

Doug, both errors are a result of gender confusion. At a minimum they share a strong spiritual link.

How does a boy learn to be a man? From another man. He cannot learn how to be a man from a woman.

and so forth,

og

[olger]

Jewish author Henry Makow has this to say in his book "Cruel Hoax" (disclaimer - Olger is not endorsing the book or the author but rather including it for discussion).

"One book recently published by a well-known writer covers this topic in a way not regularly seen. Entitled Cruel Hoax…Feminism and the New World Order, Henry Makow PhD of www.henrymakow.com discusses the devastation wrought on Western society by feminism and its ugly twin sisters–the militant homosexual agenda, abortion, pornography and “sexual liberation.” In “Cruel Hoax” Makow shows how a determined enemy can conquer a nation–not with armies and tanks–but with destructive ideas that bore into the load-bearing beams of society.

The book shows that feminism was not a spontaneous grassroots “progressive” movement but rather was deliberately created by elite Communist and CIA agents like Betty Frieden and Gloria Steinem, using the mass media to undermine gender roles and the family. He makes a convincing case that we are being reengineered to behave as homosexuals in every sense except same-sex attraction for the express purpose of sexualizing the population but with no reproduction taking place, at least not in nuclear families.

He asserts that the feminist demand for “equal power” causes this neutering and sex role confusion. Makow maintains that masculinity is defined by power and femininity is defined by love.

“Men want power,” says Makow. “Women want love. Heterosexuality is based on the exchange of female power for male love, and when men trade power for love, they are feminized and when women demand power instead of love they are masculinized.”

Makow’s explanation of heterosexuality is one of the more lucid and original yet offered. In an age where paid mouthpieces and daily television programs blather on endlessly about what men and women are and aren’t, Makow goes right to the most irreducible, simplified of definitions–men represent raw power to protect and provide for a family and women represent the nurturing qualities needed for the human species to survive.

Drawing on historical documentation from the mouths of the New World Order architects and circumstantial evidence abundant to all with eyes to see, Makow paints a frightening picture of a society dying a slow, tortuous death and going out–not with a bang, but a whimper. He cites the changes in attitude about male-female relations as well as marriage and children. He shows how individuals in the West–through a deliberate yet subtle media campaign–have succumbed to a collective narcissistic and overly-sexualized worldview to the point that they can no longer function intellectually, making them easy prey for powerful forces at work in remolding society.

A former teacher of English at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, Makow encountered this agenda first-hand by allowing free and open discussion of male/female relations in his courses. In short time, female students majoring in “Women’s Studies” protested and his contract wasn’t extended. A smear campaign in the media compared him to a doctor who uses his position to fondle female patients. He sued the “Winnipeg Sun” for libel and won.

‘The NWO conspiracy seeks to destroy all collective forces, races, religions, nations and families, anything that competes with the bankers and the power-elite. In its most basic description, it is satanic and anti-God. It seeks to reduce all people to the level described by George Orwell and Aldous Huxley in their classic dystopias.”

Naturally, Makow has been targeted by the usual suspects since beginning his crusade. The Canadian Jewish Congress has issued complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission over his writings on Zionism. Despite growing up in a secular Jewish home he has rejected the ethno-centric, exclusivist teachings of Judaism and although he does not attend a church, he basically agrees with the teachings of Jesus."

humbly selected by olger for your discussion,

og

[Tom Wetmore]

...But that doesn't apply to all who've embraced WO. But are there any of those Protestant denoms (or non-denominations) who have NOT allowed WO but HAVE allowed homosexual clergy?

Yes. The Roman Catholic Church. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ruzione_en.html

That link is the footnote #9 from this Wikipedia note:

Quote:

The Roman Catholic Church allows the ordination of men who have, in the past, experienced same-sex attraction, but only on the condition that they have lived without engaging in "homosexual culture" or acts for several years, and can be psychologically verified as having their same-sex attraction "under control".[9]

Previously ordination of these "homosexually inclined" males was strictly forbidden, even though this discipline was often not really observed by local bishops after the 1960s (see homosexuality and Roman Catholicism).

Despite the official line, some studies in the United States have suggested that at least a third of all priests in the US Catholic Church may be homosexual[10]. A 2006 survey suggests that Roman Catholic church-goers in the US are evenly split on whether such men should serve as priests or bishops[4].

Following the scandals over child abuse by serving priests in the Roman Catholic that began to emerge in the USA, Britain and Ireland in the late 1990s, some have mistakenly or deliberately conflated the issues of pedophilia and hebophilia with homosexuality. This has subsequently enhanced the level of controversy in discussions about the ordination of gay people.[11]

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

...But that doesn't apply to all who've embraced WO. But are there any of those Protestant denoms (or non-denominations) who have NOT allowed WO but HAVE allowed homosexual clergy?

Yes. The Roman Catholic Church. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ruzione_en.html

That link is the footnote #9 from this Wikipedia note:

Quote:

The Roman Catholic Church allows the ordination of men who have, in the past, experienced same-sex attraction, but only on the condition that they have lived without engaging in "homosexual culture" or acts for several years, and can be psychologically verified as having their same-sex attraction "under control".[9]

Previously ordination of these "homosexually inclined" males was strictly forbidden, even though this discipline was often not really observed by local bishops after the 1960s (see homosexuality and Roman Catholicism).

Despite the official line, some studies in the United States have suggested that at least a third of all priests in the US Catholic Church may be homosexual[10]. A 2006 survey suggests that Roman Catholic church-goers in the US are evenly split on whether such men should serve as priests or bishops[4].

Following the scandals over child abuse by serving priests in the Roman Catholic that began to emerge in the USA, Britain and Ireland in the late 1990s, some have mistakenly or deliberately conflated the issues of pedophilia and hebophilia with homosexuality. This has subsequently enhanced the level of controversy in discussions about the ordination of gay people.[11]

By homosexual clergy I meant openly practicing not repentent or purposely latent or tendencies towards, Isn't this the issue with the Episcopalien's, not "such were some of you"? What denomination (by the way, you previously cited Protestant denominations) officially embraces homosexual clergy while at the same time forbidding women clergy?

[Tom Wetmore]

None that I can see, although the lists I have compared include a caveat that they are not exhaustive of all denominations. I would be rather surprised to find any and was a bit surprised at the Catholic Church's official position on the question.

But I am not sure exactly what you hoe to establish by asking the question. I just don't think that from any direction there is a valid substantive connection between the two issues. The fundamental differences are too strong to give anyhting other than a superficial connection. One is a moral issue. The other is not.

[John317]

Quote:

doug yowell:

By homosexual clergy I meant openly practicing not repentent or purposely latent or tendencies towards, Isn't this the issue with the Episcopalien's, not "such were some of you"?

Yes, you are absolutely right. There's no one saying repentant, formerly practicing gays shouldn't be a pastor. There's at least one well-known "ex-homosexual" who's an SDA pastor now.

Quote:

doug yowell: What denomination (by the way, you previously cited Protestant denominations) officially embraces homosexual clergy while at the same time forbidding women clergy?

Answer: NONE.

[doug yowell]

Is there a list of Protestent denominations that encourage female clergy? I know that since I've been a Christian those major traditional one's that are open to this have been in a moral,doctrinal, and membership freefall while other smaller denominations seem to remain relatively stabled.Episcopal, United Methodist, Church of Christ, and others have been split and dying since the inclusion of women clergy. Why? Why embrace homosexuality (practicing) next and then progress to homosexual clergy? If there's no connection at all why the coincidence?And why only in the larger churches? And why,at the same time, are those churches that reject women clergy (pastors)growing rapidly? LDS, non-denominationals, Baptist, JW, even Muslim?

[doug yowell]

. The fundamental differences are too strong to give anyhting other than a superficial connection. One is a moral issue. The other is not.

Tom, You conclude the two issues as being different. But don't those who push for the inclusion of women in pastoral ministry (including yourself,unless I've been reading you wrong) argue just the opposite? Wasn't that the bottom line,that refusing WO is to violate Scriptural directive? Why do you think that supporters of WO so often refer to slavery as a parallel, if they don't see it as a moral issue? Why the willingness to divide the church in order to accomodate a non moral practice? And don't supporters of homosexual Christianity argue that it is immoral to exclude anyone from either membership or leadership?