Friday, June 23, 2006


One of the last posts on the Episcopalians...but here are two articles from Wednesday's Dispatch about the gay bishops decision.

From "Limits on gay bishops rejected":

"[T]he Epicopal Church continued to anger conservatives yesterday by refusing a request to stop electing gay bishops. The move, certain to further alientate the U.S. church from overseas Anglican leaders, prompted the outgoing head of the church to call a special session [Wednesday] in the last-ditch effort at compromise. 'Obviously, it's not over until it's over, but every indication is that the Episcopal Church intends to continue on its revolutionary course, one that it out of the Christian mainstream,' said Peter Frank, spokesman for Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, a leader of the conservative wing of the church. 'It's heartbreaking.'...Leaders of the worldwide group have warned of a break-up unless progressive Episcopalians back away from their acceptance of gay diocesan leaders and same-sex blessing ceremonies....'What I'm seeing here is teh Holy Spirit moving us in new directions,' said the Rev. Heather Buchanan Wiseman, of Cincinnati, a deputy for the Diocese of Southern Ohio. 'It's kind of exciting, it's scary, it's new,' she said....Wiseman said...many leaders think [the church] shouldn't have to sacrifice the dignity of homosexual members in the process...Bishops, however, were unwilling to let the convention adjourn without weighing in on the church's response to the crisis that erupted in 2003 with the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an openly gay man...Officials have apologized for the fallout but not for choosing Robinson...The presiding bishop-elect, Rt. Rev. Katherine Jefferts Schori of Neveda, is viewed as a liberal on sexuality issues. She voted in favor of Robinson and has backed same-sex unions in her diocese...she said...people of all races, creeds and orientations are "fully part" of God's creation...'This is not your grandmother's church anymore.' For Mike Wernick, president of the Episcopal gay advocacy group Integrity-central Ohio, yesterday's developments offer hope...'In my opionion, when Jesus came, Jesus came to expand God's circle. He came to make it so there would be no one left on the outside.'"

Man, these libs!! Come on! "No one left on the outside"? Who said they couldn't be in the Church? They just can't be bishops, or whatever. Women can't be priests. Hello! There are just some things you can't do within a church. If you don't like it, find somewhere else to go. Sheesh. But don't try to change everything and mangle the Bible in the process by giving me this touchy feely stuff. It's not going to fly.

The next article's headline says it all: "'Restraint' urged in allowing gay bishops." Well what the heck does that mean?? Are they allowed or not?? "We're again quite in a muddle," Bishop Duncan says in the article. A muddle indeed....


Anonymous said...

"Hello! There are just some things you can't do within a church. If you don't like it, find somewhere else to go."

Of course - and they did. They're not part of your church; they're part of another church which has decided this is ok. Just like how all of the churches have different standpoints on other issues, they can have differing views on this too.

Emily said...

Well sure they did go somewhere else. My point in that statement was that now they have to find somewhere else to go, since the place they went when the Catholic Church didn't do it for them anymore (i.e., the Anglican/ECUSA) isn't doing it for them anymore, either.

As for differing views--sure, they're allowed. It's a free country. But I do think that the ECUSA is going to be in trouble if they can't come up with one common view that the whole church agrees with. This is more than just AC vrs. ECUSA--it's ECUSA vrs. ECUSA.

andrea said...

(sorry, that was me, I just didn't get my name up there somehow)

You're right, they are fighting amongst themselves right now. Sure, I guess this can be a "dangerous" thing. But what's going to happen? They'll either split or come to an agreement (which could involve change or not). Is splitting really such a bad thing? Especially if you can't come to an agreement on a pretty big issue. Of course this is going to be difficult and cause "trouble." But discussing this pretty controversial issue - and taking a stand on both sides - is (I think) a good idea. It's big, important, and obviously something which people in this group differ on. Avoiding the discussion to prevent conflict/"trouble" is rarely a good idea.