Thursday, 15 January 2004

more conservative plots

Yesterday’s story has produced plenty of follow-up.
First, here is the Associated Press version of the story as headlined in the Philadelphia area, Strategy paper asks ‘replacement’ for Episcopal Church due to gay bishop.
This version met with less disapproval than any other version from Kendall Harmon who even objected to “anti-ECUSA plot revealed” as my choice of title, though he failed to comment on our main blog headline Plot to supplant ECUSA.
Anyway, he really didn’t like the Washington Post story one little bit, not to mention the ENS version.

I don’t suppose he’s any happier about Stephen Bates who managed to get both a front page article, US Anglicans plot to break up church, and a more detailed inside story, Leaked letters reveal plot to split US church in today’s Guardian. The front page starts out:

American Anglican traditionalists are plotting the break-up of their national church and the creation of a new fundamentalist church in the wake of its consecration of the openly gay bishop Gene Robinson.
In spite of public assurances that they only wish to secure oversight by sympathetic conservative bishops, rebel parishes are being secretly told to prepare for the ultimate goal of breaking up the US Episcopal church - the American equivalent of the Church of England - the Guardian can reveal.

And that was not all: Stephen also had a third story in the same paper, this one about English plots: Bishops attack pressure groups which reports that Bishop Colin Buchanan has joined Bishop Pete Broadbent in complaining about the dreadful notes written after NEAC.
And for good measure today, the Guardian also has Karen Armstrong weighing in about third province apartheid proposals, The Eve of destruction.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Thursday, 15 January 2004 at 11:19 PM GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: ECUSA | News

It appears, that fears of those who differ from ourselves are quite effective in silencing the Gospel of Christ. As those who live in fear of being part of the diverse and WHOLE body of Christ on earth shout ever louder, attempting to create the message of our Lord as one of exclusion, as one of the pre Gospel, a chosen people. The factions of power seekers will continue to divide and disrupt as they have through history. The lessons of history are many, and Gods message doesn’t end with scripture, nor is Revelation his last word. There are voices who would have us believe so and they shout louder through the press all the time.

Posted by: Bruno at January 16, 2004 01:00 PM

Didn’t know the Gospels backed Homosexual behavior. Can you give me one instance where it does in the Bible? Or same sex couples? And where is this extra-biblical revelation? I have a feeling it is man-made. I think that the ECUSA is well on its way to becoming the Episcopal Unitarians.

Posted by: Richard Cook at January 16, 2004 04:14 PM

The Gospels don’t back homosexual behavior. Nor do they back heterosexual behavior (in the sense of partner-chosen, equal rights modern marriage) either.

What the Gospel does abundantly, is set out principles of equality in Christ (No Greek, No Jew, etc.), and
treating others as you would have them treat you (You want to marry the partner of your choice? Then let me marry the partner of my choice).

[Also, the NT teaches Christians to peacably settle disputes amongst themselves, and not go behind each other’s backs w/ secret plots.]

Posted by: J. Collins Fisher at January 18, 2004 07:58 AM

Oh, bravo, J.C. Fisher! Preach it brother!

You write the Gospel message is “You want to marry the partner of your choice? Then let me marry the partner of my choice.” I’m glad you’ll be supporting me in my choice to marry these two women I can’t decide between as well one of their daughters as well as my 22 year old sister.

And I’ll ask you viciously judgmental people like Simon Sarmiento and “Bruno” to quit judging Kendall Harmon so harshly. His God is a discerning and judgmental God, but yours is not, so how can you be so judgmental?

Posted by: William Sulik at January 19, 2004 03:13 AM

“The Gospels don’t . . . back heterosexual behavior”
Matt 19:4-6
Other NT references for your consideration . . .
Matt 18:6-7, 15-17 (With regard to the latter, “church”/”assembly”/etc. might be regarded as the rest of the Anglican Communion, plus Rome, Constantinople . . .)
Matt 5:17-20 (followed by not a relaxing, but a strengthening of the law), and then see Lev 18:22; also, since it is relevant in the particular case that brought all this about, Go back to Matt 19:6-9 and not that divorce is a sin against God—or at least Jesus thought so, and for Christians, anyway, that ought to be good enough.
And, since the good Apostle Paul has been quoted, try 1Cor 5:9-13 and 6:9-10; and then, to see what this is all really about, read a verse further. Christianity is not, never has been, and never will be about how everyone is already ok; it is about how no one (except Christ, and—depending on where you are on the Immaculate Conception—possibly Mary) is ok, but God can save us. The whole Les-bi-gay agenda centers on the notion that nothing—God included—can save us, thereby denying the power of God. For those of us who have experienced God’s power and seek to proclaim it to the world, this cannot be tolerated.
I suppose you can call me a homophobe and a fundamentalist, and other nasssty names, as a lot of revisionists seem to like to do. And I suppose I am a fundamentalist—if there is such a thing as an Anglo-catholic fundamentalist; and I might even be a homophobe—if homophobes go to schools dominated by alternate sexualities and list among their friends at least 2 gays, 1 lesbian, and 2 bisexuals. But a point that seems to be often missed is that this is NOT about rejecting people; rather, from the point of view of someone who knows God’s life-changing Love, it is incomprehensible not to wish that same Love on another person—but doing so often requires the assertion of a moral code, which itself might force you into an untenable position were it not for the fact that (a) you are doing it out of love and (b) that assertion forces you to accept that you are no better than they—that is, both of you require God’s grace, which is available to all who ask it
As for the “secret” “Conservative plot” to “destroy ECUSA” . . . it has been openly posted and talked about online for several months (for your news, try or; it is also NOT directed at destroying the church, but rather to provide support to persecuted orthodox believers in territory controlled by liberal fascists like Bennison of PA (Church of the Good Shepherd affair) and Ingham of New Westminster (who gave one of his conservative churches its shut-down notice as an early Christmas present—did someone say something about “do unto others . . .”?). The destruction of ECUSA was accomplished by the revisionists at GC03 and on November 2; it is because ECUSA liberals have given the middle finger in every way imaginable to everyone who has cared to weigh in on it—the rest of the AC, Rome, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Islam, etc., all of whom ECUSA ostensibly “respects” and wants to “cooperate” with (laying aside the whole issue of Catholicity that would bind us to abiding by the decisions of the entire Church)—that they have decided that there’s is no point talking to Griswold and Co., and because they do care about Christian unity and/or ecumenism, they have no choice but to turn to someone else.

Posted by: Tobias Karlowicz at January 19, 2004 03:59 AM

The reference to “third province apartheid” is more than a little naughty. I don’t think that even the apostate ex-nun writing the article to which you refer uses this insulting terminology.
I worship regularly in two parishes, one in the diocese of London and one in the diocese of Lichfield, both opposed to the innovation of the purported “ordination” of women to the sacred priesthood and both numbering substantial numbers of black people among their congregations. I can, withour racking my brains, think of many such parishes in diocese such as Birmingham, Manchestera nd Southwark. The reference to aprtheid is insulting to such black worshippers.
Once the Church of England decides to “consecrate” woman as bishops, the present provisions will no longer be workable, and some framework has to be set in place to replace them.

Posted by: Alan Harrison at January 19, 2004 04:30 PM

Pray upon these verses.
John 13:35
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
John 15:17
This is my command: Love each other.
John 15:19
If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
And from St. Paul:
1 Corinthians 13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Posted by: Roy Murphy at January 19, 2004 05:03 PM

It is not a question of love. It is a question of the Episcopal Church walking away from over 2,000 years of the revealed truth. Homosexuality is not different from any other sin. Even though we are all in the same boat concerning sin there is one difference. You must recognize it as such and repent, not try to convince people that not only is your action not sin but is acceptable in God’s sight. Loving someone does not mean accepting their sin, it means, out of concern for their soul, encouraging them to recognize it as sin and repent.

Posted by: Richard Cook at January 19, 2004 05:21 PM