Wow….didn’t see this one coming!

I am ... aware that not everyone rejoices in this election and consent, and will work, pray and continue to extend my own hands and heart to bridge those gaps, and strengthen the bonds of affection among all people

The underlying assumption being that the problem is fundamentally relational, and can be solved by the application of understanding brought about through closer relationship.  But what kind of relationship.  The extended hand will offer no compromise.  The proffered heart will bridge no gaps unless conservatives simply surrender. 

carl

If the quotation below is any guide, you may bet that Glass and her friends will use her new position to justify homosexuality as an acceptable way— one that is sin-free, pioneering, attractive in its daring,  and certainly on a par with other alternative life styles such as hetrosexuality.  I cannot understand why parents would put their impressionable minor children in this Bishop’s path.  Is it just me?

“....an essay on the Los Angeles diocese Web site that she had an “intense struggle” while in college with her sexuality and the call to become a priest. “Did God hate me (since I was a homosexual), or did God love me?” she wrote. “Did I hate (or love) myself?”

#2 carl says:

The underlying assumption being that the problem is fundamentally relational, and can be solved by the application of understanding brought about through closer relationship.  But what kind of relationship.  The extended hand will offer no compromise.  The proffered heart will bridge no gaps unless conservatives simply surrender.

Which is pretty much the same deal as the conservatives have offered to the liberals.

Both sides in this conflict have consistently said to each other, “We will, reluctantly, concede that you have the right to hold wrong beliefs; but we will by no means allow you to act on those beliefs.”  It’s not surprising that this has failed to lead to any kind of compromise.

Ross, nor could it ever.  We believe in different things which are mutually exclusive.

Not news from these folks.

If/when they formally apostasise to unitarianism, wake me.

Until then I’ll stick to covering the launch of the Pope’s ordinariates for ex-Anglicans.

RE: “Which is pretty much the same deal as the conservatives have offered to the liberals.”

Very true as the two gospels are mutually opposing and antithetical.

4. Ross wrote:

Which is pretty much the same deal as the conservatives have offered to the liberals.

Conservatives do not see this conflict as a relational problem.  We see it as an issue of fidelity to truth.  No amount of relational understanding can trump the simple fact that homosexuality is a morally evil act.  Hands and hearts proffered across the gap cannot and will not change this reality.  Mary Glasspool therefore fundamentally misdiagnoses the solution to the problem.  But this diagnosis is completely consistent with the liberal view that says “We fear what we do not know.” 

Both sides in this conflict have consistently said to each other, “We will, reluctantly, concede that you have the right to hold wrong beliefs…

I for one do not concede this point at all.  Liberal views on this matter amount to calling good what God has declared to be evil.  You do not have the right to contradict God.  Such an attitude is grounds for repentance.

but we will by no means allow you to act on those beliefs.”

I do not fault liberals for trying to silence those in TEC who oppose them.  Indeed, I would not respect them if they did otherwise.  To be a consistent religious liberal is to see conservative religion as retrograde and destructive.  But liberals are disastrously wrong in their judgments.  They are in effect silencing the Word of God.  It is not wrong to silence a false prophet.  It is disastrously wrong to silence a true prophet.  One who silences a true prophet incurs divine wrath.  TEC is acting like the kings of old who stoned the prophets.  It attacks those who preach the Gospel of Peace and so opposes the Living God.  It attempts to substitute its false gospel of inclusion for the true Gospel of Christ.  TECs error is not silencing the opposition.  Its error is to set its face against God Himself.

It’s not surprising that this has failed to lead to any kind of compromise.

There can never be compromise between mutually exclusive religions.  This has never been a family conflict between brothers.  This is a conflict between true Christianity and a gnostic liberal counterfeit Christianity.  These two are mortal enemies.  They cannot co-exist.  One side or the other must win.  That victory can only be achieved by the utter destruction of the opponent.

carl

Br. Michael and Ross:  If finding compromise is a non-starter,  why do you continue in this church, if you do?  Are you looking to the ABC to put on the brakes, reverse course?  Is ACNA an unaceptable alternative?  Do you see gathering elements in TEC that will turn it all around?
Maybe the answer to my question of “why do you continue” is within me:  I left TEC back in ‘03, the very day Robinson was consecrated. Have even joined another church.  But, I’ve been blogging here ever since; I still cannot completely move on, cannot look away! Best. D.

Thanks be to God.

#9 Richard Hoover:  Well, I stay in TEC because I am a reappraiser and think we’re moving in the right direction.  I don’t always agree with ways and means, but I think that theologically, on the presenting issues, TEC is right and the reasserters and ACNA are wrong.

Ross, The Episcopal Church deliberately and with long-scheduled planning (an agenda, I believe it’s called) initiated this entire mess by walking apart from the Anglican Communion (although they remain in it while scheming to eventually seize control).  They have repeatedly disregarded the opinions and desires of the huge majority of the Communion’s provinces, they have violated agreed-upon norms…...claiming that their beloved polity allows them to do so with impunity, they have allowed their Presiding Bishop to utter statements openly questioning the divinity of Christ and have never censored her for doing so, and in fact their House of Bishops have never made even the slightest attempt to discipline her for violating the canons of The Episcopal Church.

The blame for this entire fiasco (or should I call it a tragedy) stretching back for forty-plus years rests entirely with the people of The Episcopal Church, and this includes all of us for having sat in our pews or stood in our pulpits without saying stop this!  We were deaf, dumb, and blind to what was happening to the Church, and in short, we just didn’t care!  And look at what happened:  The revisionist heretics and their cohorts the LGBT crowd grabbed control.  And we were stupid enough to let them get away with it.

Ross, your Church is dying.  Get used to it.

Ross:  Both sides in this conflict have consistently said to each other, “We will, reluctantly, concede that you have the right to hold wrong beliefs…

Perhaps as US citizens. But not in the Body of Christ.  I, for another, have never “conceded”, relunctantly or otherwise, anything of the sort.  Relativism is not a value found in biblical theology.  Given your comments I believe we MIGHT agree on this one thing, that Jesus did not espouse a “live and let live” philosophy of life, nor morality.  Thus, do we not search the Bible to understand Who God is, and what God desires from us?  And what we find consistently throughout the holy scriptures, both Old and New Testament, is the truth that sexual relations between members of the same gender is not according to God’s will, as much as it is literally against God’s will for all people, whether of faith or not.
This election should never have taken place.  The consents should never have been given.  An ordination will be flagrant disobedience.  That is without a doubt the word of the Lord.

What I will concede is the fact that Jesus gave permission to His Church to make choices for themselves.  In order to assist their decision making, He breathed on the apostles His Spirit.  He told them as well that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth.  And then, apparently to make it abundantly clear the consequences of their actions - with the clear desire that they indeed make decisions led into truth by the Holy Spirit -  He told them that whatever they chose to bind on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loose on earth would be loosed (released) in heaven.  Thus it is possible to see how the Church can make decisions that 1) are not in unity, and 2) not according to God’s will, and yet 3) allowed to take place.

Would a heterosexual living in an adulterous relationship have more difficulty obtaining consents?  Does this mean that living in sexually active relationships outside of marriage is categorically not an impediment to consents?

9, I remain in TEC because I am still in an orthodox church within a liberal diocese.  I am under no illusions.  The ABC and the AC will not ever do anything (I lost that illusion 3 years ago).  TEC is in fact the Gay Church.  I suspect that when I leave I will not join any Church for a while.

Cennydd,

RE: “Ross, your Church is dying.”

Ross does not care.  His gospel is more important than those details.  And I expect he comforts himself with the thought that TEC is “leading edge” and that the moment society makes the correct shift, TEC will grow.

I expect that if he lives long enough he’ll see that that won’t happen.  But by then, he’ll just comfort himself with the fact that his gospel won, even if the church did “die”—whatever that means to him.  ; > ) 

Remember—two people can be a “living” organization.  So I suspect that Ross will not have to confront the “dying” organization meme for quite some time to come.

I left ECUSA for the ACNA last year because (among other things) it had become apparent to me that while ECUSA was willing to accept those with conservative positions on the various issues of the day and who held conservative theology, the requirement was an acceptance of liberal theology as a valid part of the Christian faith.  We would be allowed to hold and to teach our convictions - as long as we did not seek to require others to conform to them and as long as we did not try to argue liberals into accepting conservative theology.  We could say, “I don’t like that,” but we were not allowed to say, “That is wrong.”

The election of a “Buddhist Episcopalian” was the final evidence of the theological bankruptcy of ECUSA.  A great many ECUSA leaders now affirm literal nonsense.

If a man who was infertile fell in love with his sister and was having sex with her would he be able to serve as bishop?

If not why not as I see no different in these consenting adults as in the case of Glasspool.

[Comment deleted by Elf - comments suggesting, encouraging or instructing readers to leave one church or join another are against T19 comment policy]

NoVA Scout, I would deny consent to everyone living in a sexually active relationship outside of marriage.

And by that, I mean marriage between one man and one woman.  No exceptions.

#14 NoVA:  Would a heterosexual living in an adulterous relationship have more difficulty obtaining consents?  Does this mean that living in sexually active relationships outside of marriage is categorically not an impediment to consents?

Prior to the election of the current Bp of D. of Atlanta, the election of a person found (post-election) to be living apparently in an adulterous heterosexual relationship was overturned and never sent to the HOB or other diocesan standing committees for consent and a new election was held, in which the current Bp was elected and later approved.  So it appears, in answer to your question, “that living in sexually active relationships outside of marriage” is only an impediment to heterosexuals in TEC.  So, since TEC reappraisers, like you, see the election of a homosexual as a rights and justice issue, how does this double standard sit with your sense of justice?

Parsed, “justice” is “just” as “I” “see” - nothing more and nothing less.  It is not either a legal nor a moral category but a propaganda term and equal to truthiness and the american provincial way, wherein the latter is equivalent to “the ugly american” way of unilateral actions without regard to others.  The EcUSA/TEc has become quintessentially “american religion”.