[QUOTE=Skammer]
Nope, you’re not being asked to give up either. You are being asked to slow down, though, and give the rest of Christendom (or at least a larger part of the Anglican Communion) to catch up with you before you go running ahead on this issue.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve had two thousand years. How long is it going to take you people?
Kimstu, I won’t try to defend that particular legislation. The argument has been made that the law supported by the Nigerian Church is a reaction to the fundamentalist Muslim community in Nigeria, who support much harsher penalties for homosexual activity and activism, including death. In that context, the Nigerian church is pushing for greater mercy and tolerance. But I admit that’s a sketchy argument. I do know that the American churches who have aligned themselves with ++Akinola have publically distanced themselves from this particular issue, and confronted him privately about it.
And the issue with woman bishops is a bit different, because (in the opinion of many, anyway) scripture is much more ambiguous. But in any case, with women’s ordination, the whole Anglican Communion discussed and came to an agreement on the issue (an agreement to disagree, basically). In the case of homosexual bishops and SSBs, not only did the Episcopal Church strike out on its own, it specifically rejected warnings from the Communion that its actions would cause a fracturing of the communion. Whether you support the Episcopal Church or not, you can’t really be surprised that it has come to this.
[QUOTE=Skammer]
Whether you support the Episcopal Church or not, you can’t really be surprised that it has come to this.
[/QUOTE]
Sure I can. I find all of the total vacuums of tolerance, decency, and rational thought that I encounter in my life surprising.
Thank you, Skammer, for responding to vitriol and misrepresentation with class and tact.
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time a bunch of congretions abandoned the Episcopal Church. Remember the dust-up over the new Book of Common Prayer? That was pretty odd because the old service is included in it anyway.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time a bunch of congretions abandoned the Episcopal Church. Remember the dust-up over the new Book of Common Prayer? That was pretty odd because the old service is included in it anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for reminding me about one of the most encouraging things about this recent statement. Aside from the expectations expressed for the Episcopal Church, the Primates have indicated that they fully expect breakaway congregations – the hundreds of parishes that have joined the churches of Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, Korea, Bolivia - to return to the EC if it does in fact choose to stay with the Communion. I’m glad that they are taking steps to end the patchwork of foreign jurisdictions that has broken out in the last couple of years. In truth, I’m no more excited about there being Nigerian churches in Virginia than Polycarp is, although we disagree on their necessity.
Interesting, ain’t it? If the West tells the Africans to give up polygamy or married clergy (I know Anglicans got married clergy) or try to impose a Latinate Mass that is imperialism. When they try to impose their prejudices on the West, then it is OK.
[QUOTE=Skammer]
And the issue with woman bishops is a bit different, because (in the opinion of many, anyway) scripture is much more ambiguous.
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t seem very ambiguous to me. But of course women make up half the population (and I would not be surprised if they make up more than half of the active churchgoers); gays, not so much.
At least the Episcopal Church has taken those first steps of ordaining a gay bishop and having a woman in the highest position of leadership. I don’t think there is any going back now.
I’ve seen splits before, but nothing like this. It’s so unnecessary. Eventually, the Anglican Church will have to deal with reality.
Oh. And, Miller…bless you.
Well, it could’ve been worse. I know of at least one pastor who refuses to perform marriages in his church if the bride and groom are of different races, even if they both belong to his denomination!
[QUOTE=Skammer]
Well, yeah, frankly, that is offensive as hell. (Is Tanzania an island?)
[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
Doesn’t seem very ambiguous to me. But of course women make up half the population (and I would not be surprised if they make up more than half of the active churchgoers); gays, not so much.
[/QUOTE]
Phoebe, deacon in the church of Chechreae, Roman 16:1. Paul’s own patron.
Priscilla, primary over Aquila (Interestingly, some bible translations make her a man)
And, of course, foremost among the apostles, Junia.
“there is not male and female, for all of you are one in Jesus Christ.”
Of course, 1 Timothy appears not to have been written by Paul, but in his name. After all, it does contradict other writings.
And, of course, 1 Corinthians 14 is corrupted, circa verse 34/35: “let the woman keep silent.” and so on. It appears to have been inserted in various texts, in different places. It appears in some after verse 40 rather than after verse 33, suggesting strongly it was once marginalia, later inserted within the main document, as a method of rationalizing 1 Timothy with the rest of Paul.
They do not flow with 1 Corinthians. Examine the text without it, and it does not change topic, insert it and it does. Further, it contradicts the rest of Paul, where he says how a woman should pray in church, and how a woman should prophesy.
My source is, of course, Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman. Fascinating book, well worth reading.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Phoebe, deacon in the church of Chechreae, Roman 16:1. Paul’s own patron.
Priscilla, primary over Aquila (Interestingly, some bible translations make her a man)
And, of course, foremost among the apostles, Junia.
“there is not male and female, for all of you are one in Jesus Christ.”
Of course, 1 Timothy appears not to have been written by Paul, but in his name. After all, it does contradict other writings.
And, of course, 1 Corinthians 14 is corrupted, circa verse 34/35: “let the woman keep silent.” and so on. It appears to have been inserted in various texts, in different places. It appears in some after verse 40 rather than after verse 33, suggesting strongly it was once marginalia, later inserted within the main document, as a method of rationalizing 1 Timothy with the rest of Paul.
They do not flow with 1 Corinthians. Examine the text without it, and it does not change topic, insert it and it does. Further, it contradicts the rest of Paul, where he says how a woman should pray in church, and how a woman should prophesy.
My source is, of course, Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman. Fascinating book, well worth reading.
[/QUOTE]
Believing that the I Tim 2 and I Cor 14 passages are Paulist & still believing in women in Church leadership, I think these passages are more about the relationship between wives & husbands- in I Tim 2, that wives should not be
their husbands’ spiritual directors but rather husbands should be discipled by
other men, and in I Cor 14, that when a man has a Spirit-inspired utterance and the congregation assesses it, his wife should sit out on the public assessment.
As Biblically conservative as the Holiness & Pentecostal movements of the late 1800s-early 1900s were, they were actually the first to acknowledge women as
preachers and pastors.
Paul in Saudi, I don’t know if you mean to imply that polygamy is considered acceptable in the Anglican churches in Africa, but it is not. It is only tolerated when a man already has multiple wives when he joins the church; in those cases he is not forced to cast out his extra wife or wives (which would result in her being destitute and a social outcast). And men with multiple wives cannot become bishops.
Married clergy in general, as you indicated, is not an issue in Anglicanism.
[QUOTE=Skammer]
(Is Tanzania an island?)
[/QUOTE]
Tanzania was formed as a nation through the union of Tanganyika (mainland Africa) and Zanzibar (Indian Ocean islands near to the coast of mainland Tanganyika).
Polycarp, OP and originator of the “bunch of primates on an island off Africa” comment, mentions in the very first sentence of the OP that the conference was held in the city of Dar Es Salaam.
Dar Es Salaam is, of course, part of the mainland and is an island in no sense of the word.
Don’t make too much of it. On the SDMB, if you support gay rights you are given a pass to be ignorant on any and every other subject.
[QUOTE=bienville]
Don’t make too much of it. On the SDMB, if you support gay rights you are given a pass to be ignorant on any and every other subject.
[/QUOTE]
Right, because knowledge of geography was so central to Polycarp’s argument.
Putz.
[QUOTE=bienville]
Tanzania was formed as a nation through the union of Tanganyika (mainland Africa) and Zanzibar (Indian Ocean islands near to the coast of mainland Tanganyika).
Polycarp, OP and originator of the “bunch of primates on an island off Africa” comment, mentions in the very first sentence of the OP that the conference was held in the city of Dar Es Salaam.
Dar Es Salaam is, of course, part of the mainland and is an island in no sense of the word.
[/QUOTE]
And in fact I knew that Tanzania was in fact the result of the union of Tanganyika and Zanzibar (populous and substantially more prosperous when they were first united). My error was in mistakenly thinking that Dar Es Salaam, capital of the united country, had been the capital of Zanzibar before union, not Tanganyika as was the case.
The error in geography is hardly the problem we should have with that comment.
The fact that noone but skammer has objected to comparing black africans to apes, and the fact that Poly seems to stand by it even after a day to cool his jets …
Sad, but unfortunately not surprising.
[QUOTE=furt]
The fact that noone but skammer has objected to comparing black africans to apes, and the fact that Poly seems to stand by it even after a day to cool his jets …
[/QUOTE]
That’s because most of us were able to recognize that he was making a pun on the word “primate,” and not a racial slur.
If we accept, for the moment, that Poly did make a racial slur, and that we’re all giving him a pass on it, what, precisely, is surprising about that?
Furt, you can be a real prick when you choose, you know that? As it happens, some of the so-called “Global South” archbishops are from Africa. And some are not. Drexel Gomes is from the West Indies, the Abp. of Singapore has been involved in this, and I gather the Abp. of Sydney has some less-than-complimentary things to say.
I emphatically deny any racist intent, other than in mentioning Africa as where they gathered. The pun was on primates=archbishops vs. primates=apes, monkeys, etc.
But of course nothing would do but that you could get your digs in. Because that’s showing how very Christian you are.