The final line of the story fascinates me:  Meanwhile…

It makes this whole mess TRULY sound like a soap opera or a bad novel.
I wish it were mere fiction, but alas…

I agree, Karen.
From the old horse operas: “Meanwhile, back at the ranch…”
It’s like TEC got caught with its fingers in the cookie jar.
Perhaps they thought nobody would notice.

This article does not seem to be written from an eyewitness viewpoint, i.e., the writer does not know that there was a huge crowd there, merely that one was “expected”.

I look forward to a full eyewitness report, with details of what notable persons attended. I had read that they expected 10 (count ‘em, Ten) primates were expected to participate. If that occurs, that would be over a quarter of the provinces of the Anglican Communion represented, and most certainly a very large majority of Anglican communicants.

We have grown used to the liberal media in the US ignoring the fact that the root cause of this is a deep disagreement over theology and the primacy of Scripture, but one might hope for better from the BBC.  Unfortunately, this shows their true colors.  And was it really only two US churches who left TEC last year for Nigerian oversight.  As Karen B said,  “but alas…”

I think the author meant to say two dozen churches

FYI the BBC makes CNN look objective.

Amen #4 Mathematicus.  No matter how many times we keep showing them that the current issues over gay ordination are simply symptoms, that the actual disease is theological amnesia, the media really doesn’t want to get it.  That tells me they have dismissed the reasserter movement as homophobic and insincere and really don’t want to accidentally find out the truth else they might (gasp!) agree with us.
Boneheads.  Now we all know why reporters as a rule make such little money, they operate under editorial direction with little depth.  Been there, done that, hit the road.
KTF!....mrb

In a recent Anglican TV report, Dr. William Witt talked about being interviewed by the NY Times. Dr. Witt said that he said at the outset, in the beginning, and at the end of the interview that the issue was not about homsexul ordination. The reporter told him that if she did not frame the story as such, the editor would not print it. You need not guess what the NYT said was the main objection of the orthodox. I was struck by the frankness of the reporter, however.

The BBC article did not contain an important quote by ABp Venables who is in Nairobi to celebrate the ordinations. I commented on it here.

Here is a comment from someone who was there.  He doesn’t say how many people attended, but he does list the primates who participated, and other bishops.

The Turkish Press has an AFP (Agence France Press) report online now with a picture of both new bishops.

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=191733&s;=&i;=&t=Kenyan_Anglicans_ordain_rebel_US_bishops

http://www3.turkishpress.com/i-i/SGE.PIK13.300807130626.photo00.quicklook.default-245x168.jpg

#7 —I think a more apt description for “theological amnesia” would be “situational theology”  whose roots belong in another Episcopal priest gone astray, Joseph Fletcher, whose book Situational Ethics probably set the tone for what we’re experiencing today in the church and society.  One changes ones theology to suit the moment.

Gay people, [Archbishop Nzimbi] said, did not have a place as leaders in the Anglican communion. “We need to love them, we need to preach to them, but not to make them lay readers, pastors, bishops,” he said.

It is one thing to assert that gay people should “not have a place” as ordained ministers of God; it is another to remove them from participation in worship as lay readers. Why should the “sin” of being a gay person exclude a parishioner from lay duties in worship? The idea that sin disqualifies Christians from reading God’s word to the people is a scary innovation.

I fear that what we are really seeing here is an archbishop who reaches out to gay Christians with the back of his hand.

I suspect it is not the sin that disqualifies them from reading God’s word to the people.  It is the unrepentant sin, i.e. the refusal to acknowledge that homosexual sex is a sin.  I would be surprised if a celibate person with homosexual tendencies were kept from the pulpit as ordained or a lay person.  In fact I am pretty sure I heard the Archbishop say exactly that earlier.  Memory fails me…

KTF!...mrb

#12 - Evicted—I fear you may be right, in reactionary stance (meaning one side pushes so hard that another pushes back in the one area of the current ‘battle’). 

If Nzimbi holds the line on other area of sin in America (heterosexual sins of ‘serial monogamy,’ shacking up etc.), I’d cheer. We need to reach out to those trapped in all sorts of sins, but we need to hold leadership for those who walked the narrow road after coming to Christ.

Mike#13:

I would be surprised if a celibate person with homosexual tendencies were kept from the pulpit as ordained or a lay person.

I’d be prepared to be surprised. The archbishop’s statement refers to gay people. He offers no exceptions based on celibacy or whether the “sin” is acknowledged. He disqualifies all gay people not only from the sacrament of ordination, but from lay participation as worship leaders.

#15: “He disqualifies all gay people not only from the sacrament of ordination, but from lay participation as worship leaders.”

No, HE doesn’t, 2,000+ years of Church teaching says so.  Anything to the contrary is the “scary innovation”.

Besides, he does go so far as to say homosexuals should be loved and preached to, which again, just reflects the teachings and beliefs of Christ’s Church.  That is a back-handed to you?

I’d be interested to know, however, if you can point out ANY institution in this world that does not have certain standards for it’s leadership.  I doubt you can.  Sorry if that simple fact of life offends you, but that’s how things are in the grown-up world.  And how much more important is it when people’s souls are at stake!?!

Evicted…there is a difference between being gay and being homosexual or homophile. Being gay, as it was explained to me by a homophile parishioner in New York, is a choice to live “the gay lifestyle”. Being homosexual/homophile, as he identified himself, was a conscious choice to accept his orientation but not to accept or choose to live that life style (gay) and all that that implied.  This conversation was pre-AIDS early 1980’s and this individual already felt that the sexually driven promiscuous “lifestyle” of gay New York was disease ridden, abusive and dangerous. So he ( I might ad wisely) opted out.

I think the distinction is an important one: while all gays are homosexual not all homosexuals/homophiles are gay.  Not all homosexuals/homophiles choose to be gay.

And, of course that puts the lie to Senator Craig’s recent denials. But the solution for him is simple.  All he needs to do is switch from the senate to the house, become a Democrat, find himself a live-in hustler boyfriend, preferably one running a gay prostitution ring, the liberals will stand up and cheer his courage for “coming out” and Nancy Pelosi will make him co-chair with Barney Frank of the House Ways and Means Committee. 

If that doesn’t work he can always seek Holy Orders in TEC! They’ll make him a bishop.

Goodbye, all. I tried.

Someone who is co-habitating with his girlfriend or her boyfriend ought not to be a lay worship leader. Any objections to this statement from either side?