Polygamy was destroyed by Western missionaries. That was Imperialism. When Africans tell Westerners how to run their lives and communities, that is OK. There is a big difference, depending on where the bluenoses and busybodies are from.
Oh for fuck sake, furt. Looks like you need someone to spell it out for you and speak slowly.
Hmmm…now let’s see here. Could he have meant “offensive” in the sense that most people find the idea of other people throwing their own excrement around as distasteful, perhaps to the point of being offensive?
thinks really fucking hard
Ass.
Paul, I apologize for misunderstanding you. It didn’t cross my mind that you were bemoaning the decline of polygamy in Africa. I have seen too many unfounded accusations of polygamy in the African churches held up as some kind of evidence of hypocrisy, so that’s what I thought you were saying.
Poly, for the record, I didn’t take your comment as racist, although you should be careful… I’ve seen other commenters in the blogosphere pilloried for making the same innocent mistake.
Actually the reason the meeting was in Africa is kind of interesting in an ironic way.
Slavery was an issue they were addressing. They celebrated the Eucharist in a church used to be a slave market. The altar of that church stands on the spot that the whipping post once stood. The 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the UK is approaching and this is part of the ‘celebration’ of that anniversary. You see back then, the differences between whites and blacks was used, not as an excuse, but as a reason to treat negroes as less than human. That was wrong. We know that now.
Of course, that lesson doesn’t apply to those Godless Faggots.
furt, I’ll pay you 500 bucks to stop misspelling “no one”.
Either provide evidence that an Anglican leader has used the phrase “Godless Faggots” or the equivalent, or shut the hell up. Veiled and baseless accusations do not contribute to reconciliation.
In fact, let me provide evidence of the opposite. Bolding added by me:
The first statement was approved in a meeting of all bishops of the Anglican Commuion, the second by the same group of primates who met last week.
I skimmed past the primates-Africa-flinging-shit comment the other day with a quick suprised “huh!?” and went on to post about the Holiness-Pentecostal movements ordaining women. I didn’t even notice that the comment came from Poly. Now that I did fully read it, I don’t believe for a minute that Polycarp meant that as a racial slur, BUT if it had been said by anyone with a lesser reputation, I can’t say such suspicion wouldn’t be reasonable.
Pit threads do not contribute to reconcilation.
(geez, go out and treat yourself to a sense of humor)
Talk is cheap.
Oh, I’d give Polycarp a pass on the racism part, as I don’t believe I’ve ever seen him exhibit signs of having a racist bone in his body.
But I did notice the cheap shot against a bunch of bishops who (I presume thoughtfully and prayerfully) reached a set of conclusions with which he happened not to agree. Apparently that’s grounds enough for calling people apes. 
I’d had good reason, once upon a time, to believe Rowan Williams did.
And yet when it comes time to put their money where there mouths are…
I guess some children of God are more equal than others.
So let me get this straight:
- If one enters the Anglican Communion in a state of sin, then one can remain in that state of sin if the sin is a polygamous relationship. But not if the state of sin is a homosexual relationship.
(ISTM that the man with multiple wives could choose one to remain married to, but continue to support his now ex-wives in his household until such time as they found new mates. But that’s JMHO.)
- Apparently men with multiple wives can become Anglican priests, since I notice that you only say they cannot become bishops.
There does seem to be a double standard here, if you ask me.
On that, I’ve always been amused by the female-bishops debate. I heard one person say it was ridiculous he should be submitted to the authority of a woman. I was wondering if he was aware that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is a woman.
Silly Matt! It’s OK, don’t’cha know, for women to be figureheads.
A woman was also the first person to see the resurrected Jesus and believe in Him. Men are slow on the uptake sometimes.
Taking your points in reverse order, I don’t think they can be ordained to the priesthood at all; but I am not 100% certain and could not find a cite so I limited my statement to bishops, which I am certain of.
Responding to your #1, I don’t think I have a good answer – I’ve basically shared all the facts I know. Your proposed solution seems to make sense, but also seems obvious enough to have been thought of and rejected – perhaps for social, cultural, or (sadly) political reasons. I just can’t speculate.
Thoughtful and prayerful bigotry is still bigotry.
Beg the question much?
Or, to elaborate, if the conclusions they reach are arrived at other than through bigotry, it is unreasonable to call it bigotry simply because the conclusions they arrive at happen to match those of a bigot. In a trial, one juror might vote to convict because the case presented by the prosecution was overwhelming. Another might vote to convict because the defendant was black. The conclusions are the same, but the first juror is not guilty of bigotry.
Silly Matt! Don’t you know the Queen has no ecclesiastical standing in the Church of England?
Meaning that HM the Q has no more right to open her mouth in church than any commoner.
This person was not talking about opening her mouth in church; he was talking about being subordinate to a woman.