quote:MINNEAPOLIS, Aug. 4 -- On the verge of a historic vote, a convention of Episcopalian leaders was thrown into sudden disarray today when opponents raised allegations involving inappropriate touching and pornography against the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, who is awaiting confirmation as the first openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Do you think there's any truth to these allegations, or are Robinson's opponents just trying to thwart him??
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:"When I first encountered Gene at a Province I convocation a couple of years ago he put his hands on me inappropriately every time I engaged him in conversation," said the e-mail, which was signed "David Lewis" and listed a post office box and telephone number in Manchester, Vt.
Obviously I know next to nothing when it comes to the facts, but if that is the whole of his accusation it reeks of falsehood.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This entire affair completely floors me. I heard an interview with the man on NPR, and what struck me was a complete refusal to label ANY homosexual activity as a sin.
Now, this may not be appropriate in the political thread, but he wants to head a church. I'm all for warm and fuzzy, but does he believe that ANYTHING is a sin? If not, what on earth is the point of church? The entire concept of sins and redemption is a central point of Christianity.
When nothing is a sin, the church is the Buena Vista Social Club.
I don't know if he did this or not, but I was not impressed with him as a person. He sounded like a politician.
At one point in the interview, Teri Gross asked him to explain the parts in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. "They weren't referring to a loving, faithful relationship." "What were they referring to?" "The real H word that is at issue here is not homosexuality, but honesty. I've been very honest from the beginning, and I think I will be respected for it."
Dude, you're not a politician - way to completely dodge the question. This isn't a case of "private life is not our business." I can't believe he wants to be a spiritual leader if he sidesteps some very important questions about faith, redemption, and what brings about a need for redemption. Being honest is nice, but sins don't dissapear because you are open about doing them. If he doesn't consider it wrong, he should have said so. The lack of straightfoward frankness is troubling. If it is - if, you know, the scriptures actually meant what they said - then he has no business being any kind of religious leader, because has NO moral authority.
[ August 05, 2003, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What if he genuinely doesn't believe that homosexual activity is a sin?
----
That said, these charges seem pretty pointless. The "porn" charge is ludicrous, since it's a buried link three sites away from a site run by a group with which he used to be affiliated years ago. The "inappropriate touching" thing could be a problem, but I don't see how an isolated accusation is particularly bothersome.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What if he genuinely doesn't believe that homosexual activity is a sin?
Then what the heck is he doing in a church?
Maybe its the entire structure that is mind-boggling to me. The concept of redefining doctrine by vote. "If enough people want to do it, it isn't a sin anymore!"
And he believes that, why didn't he say so? Because saying it baldly sounds bad? *snort* Not impressed. I'm embarassed for their church it's even under consideration.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Then what the heck is he doing in a church?"
Do you believe that it is necessary for all members of a church to believe all components of its doctrine?
I know several priests who think the Pope is, frankly, wrong about the whole birth control issue. Should these people abandon the collar?
(Note: my own gut feeling is that, yes, people who belong to religions that believe in divine revelation should leave those religions if they fail to believe in the doctrine, but we've had that discussion on this site before and I was in the minority.)
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I think these accusations are baseless.
I also believe that homosexual ACTS are sinful (similar in severity to adultery), and this man should not be a religious leader. But, hey it's not my church.
IMHO, the people who have foisted these baseless accusations have just shot themselves in the foot, if their goal was to prevent his becoming a bishop.
The sympathy factor will all but assure his election, once the allegations are proven to be false.
Edited to remove the point about the web site porn, which Tom made much better than I.
[ August 05, 2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Do you believe that it is necessary for all members of a church to believe all components of its doctrine?
That's debatable.
He doesn't want to be a member. He wants to be a leader. Yes, in order to be a leader, you need to believe the doctrine.
Or we can make Pat Robertson pope.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
What's the right way to change doctrine, then?
Should it never be changed?
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
If he doesn't believe that homosexuality is a sin, then he should convert to a church (or start his own, as the trend goes) that has that doctrine. How can you be an offical of a church whose doctrine you don't sustain or try to uphold.
I'm glad he honest about his sexuality. I wanted to kill one of my roomates. I knew how I was going to do it. I didn't do it just because I "wanted" to, or because I was honest about my feelings.
I know, murder and promiscuity are two different things, but both are part of the 10 commandments which I know his church believes are valid. Adultry is sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse. Since same sex marriages are not legal...
I love it when people "pick and choose" doctrines. "I'm catholic, but I don't believe in transustantiation, or purgatory, or original sin." What? These are key points of your doctrine! I know Catholics (mainly my family members) don't even know what transubstantiation is.
I'm digressing...if you choose to be clergyman of a certain religious denomination (ordained to teach about doctrines and administer the ordinances of that faith) you should practice what you preach.
As for the charges, I don't know whether they are valid or not. I am listening to Glenn Beck right now who is talking about it. But I haven't formed an opinion.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Here's a question. Can any person (not this man specifically) be a leader in a church where homosexuality is considered sinful if he has homosexual tendencies but does not engage in homosexual activity? Is it the thought or the act that is the sin?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Can any person (not this man specifically) be a leader in a church where homosexuality is considered sinful if he has homosexual tendencies but does not engage in homosexual activity?
Yes. It is the act, not the temptation.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I agree with katharina to a point. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not should not be based on popular vote. The Lutheran church is going through the same thing and it bugs me to no end when I read that one of the leaders is in favor of blessing homosexual unions simply because that is the way society is leaning.
If you truly believe it is not a sin, then say so. If you believe God has led you to this decision, then say so. If you believe the Bible was mistranslated or you think Paul was just plain wrong, then say so. But don't tell me church doctrine should change simply because most of the people want it to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Adultry is sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse. Since same sex marriages are not legal..."
Leaving aside the fact that this is probably NOT the definition of adultery used by the Ten Commandments, should the legality of same-sex marriage matter? What if one belongs to a Christian church that performs same-sex marriages, even if that marriage is not recognized by the state?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's in the other thread, in the discussion of gay marriage.
Tom, what do you think of this man sidestepping the question? Is his disingenuousness enough to disqualify him?
Do you think he should be a leader?
[ August 05, 2003, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure he was "side-stepping." He was saying, quite plainly, that he doesn't believe the parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuality were condemning loving, committed homosexual relationships.
Now, you -- and I -- may well disagree, but it sounds to me like he's worked to interpret a minor tenet of his faith in a way that accomodates his beliefs. Since most non-fundamentalist faithful do this -- when was the last time you killed a Wiccan? -- I don't see much of a problem.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But don't tell me church doctrine should change simply because most of the people want it to
It has before. Few churches preach the exact same things as they did when they began.
I suspect that there's a major choice for any believer who possesses opinions that conflict with their church. If you determine to the best of your ability that a single doctrine of your church is faulty, old-fashioned, or simply wrong, do you immediately abandon the church completely? Or work to change it from within?
[ August 05, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: If he doesn't believe that homosexuality is a sin, then he should convert to a church (or start his own, as the trend goes) that has that doctrine.
He’s already in one. Although there’s quite a bit of dissention the Episcopal church in America has made the decision to ordain openly gay priests. And he’s already a church leader, as an ordained priest.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Kasie, yes. I believe that some people are born with a stronger libido than others, but that doesn't mean they should have more sex. Some people are born selfish (this is a personal problem) yet they must struggle to overcome it.
Everyone has weaknesses. Some may not consider homosexual tendancies a weakness, but he has aligned himself with a group who has!
Why not got to the symphony and demand to hear Mick Jaggar. Then, get pissed off and demand they get Mick Jaggar there NOW! (Did I spell his name right?)
Edit: dkw, I didn't know that. Thanks. That weakens my point in this instance...
[ August 05, 2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: aretee ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Okay, then here's the thing. Any heterosexual man or woman who is ordained is allowed to marry. One of the church's key doctrines is no extramarital sex. Therefore, any rector or bishop who engages in such activity should not be permitted to remain in the priesthood.
Another important doctrine of Christianity is forgiveness. Since we are all sinners, obviously the rectors and the bishops have committed sins and have since been forgiven for them. Therefore, if a rector or a bishop had pre- or extra-marital sex before his or her ordination, he or she has since been forgiven for it. As long as he or she does not engage in such activity while serving the church, everything should be fine and dandy.
Assuming it is the act and not the thought, then, that defines sin, it should be completely appropriate to elect this man as a bishop, as long has he follows the rules that apply to every other church leader. According to that line of thought, if he wants to be in a position of such high esteem, he is required to sacrifice something. Namely, here, sexual activity of any kind.
Which brings me to my next question.
quote:Adultry is sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse. Since same sex marriages are not legal...
If the US government were to legalize homosexual marriage or civil unions, would that be viewed as acceptable by the church? If you look at in artee's context, that is, as stated in the Ten Commandments, a recognized homosexual marriage would involve two people who could be legally defied as spouses. But how much of US law is Christian law?
[ August 05, 2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Minor?
He dodged the question of whether or not any homosexuality is a sin.
If it isn't, then he is striking entire passages from the Bible and claiming they don't apply. If he's going to do that, why doesn't he say it?
The question was, "What is a sin, then?" to which he answered, "Certainly not what I'm doing."
That is not a direct answer. How can he want to be a leader?
--------
Kasie, I'm not concerned with what he had done before. It is one thing to ordain someone who has repented from adultry. It is another to ordain someone who actively celebrates adultery.
The issue of whether or not it is legal for gays to get married keeps getting tangled up in here, but it doesn't belong in this question. I mean, we are discussing doctrine, God's law. Homosexuality isn't wrong because its illegal.
dkw - really? Then the point is moot - it's already been done.
[ August 05, 2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kasie, on that NPR show that kat referenced, it was mentioned that there is an Anglican priest in England who openly admitted his homosexual tendencies yet was not practicing them and as I recall he was drummed out of the priesthood.
Thisis the Episcopal church link stating that the website charges were baseless and that an investigation is in process on the other charge.
Maybe the Episcopal Church USA should withdraw from the Angelican Communion because it appears that the majority of the international communion is against it. However within the Episcopal church USA there is quite a divide as well. I think a lot of the issue is how much local control the churches have to do what they want and how much national/international control is exerted on them. Remember that this church originated on the premise that the Catholic Church exerted too much local control on its members (particularly Henry the Eighth). This is why the Angelican Communion is much more lenient to begin with.
AJ
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Tom wrote: "The "inappropriate touching" thing could be a problem, but I don't see how an isolated accusation is particularly bothersome."
If someone is homophobic, and knows someone is gay, any touch from them might seem inappropriate.
Interestingly, this person(the accuser) also wants to be a minister in the Episcopalean church.
As Tom also said the porn sites were found embedded in a site he did not have any part of setting up. He was affilitaed with the group, not their website. That came after he started the group.(a support group for gay teens, I believe.)
Unfortunately for this man, it doesn't even matter now. He seems to me to be a wonderful person. Whether or not he is moral according to his religion or anyone else's is, to me, a moot point now. This is just defamation of character, and it worked. Some people just want to believe that gay people are perverts, even though most sex offenders are hetero.
Liz
edit to clarify
[ August 05, 2003, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posted by hillarygayle (Member # 4624) on :
Yes. The fact that it's the act & not the tendency is a pretty strong point. After all, no one would be fit to be a church leader if only the THOUGHT disqualified you. We all get the urge to commit one sin or another; one of the points of Christianity is to have the strength to avoid committing it. Like someone who has a tendency toward alcoholism, but avoids alcohol, thus avoiding the alcoholism.
Personally, I believe that the gentleman is not qualified to be a bishop. I don't find a lot of wriggling room in the Bible about homosexuality. It pretty much says it's wrong, & that's that. Someone else here made a very good point, as well. This man cannot legally marry another man in the United States, therefore if he sleeps with another man, that in itself is a sin, regardless of homosexuality.
As for the truth of the allegations, gut instinct tells me they're false. Trumped up by someone who doesn't want a gay bishop in the church.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:If you determine to the best of your ability that a doctrine of your church is faulty, old-fashioned, or simply wrong, do you immediately abandon the church completely? Or work to change it from within?
My problem is when they haven't determined it to the best of their ability. A church leader should guide the people, not the other way around. As I said, if he truly believes homosexuality is not a sin, then fine, but if a church leader does so because 55% of his congregation thinks it's not, that's not right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"One of the church's key doctrines is no extramarital sex."
Out of interest, why is this considered a key doctrine of the Episcopalian Church?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
zgator, thanks.
That's what I mean about being a religious and therefor moral leader. This entire process feels political - should a church leader really preach by the polls?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"This man cannot legally marry another man in the United States, therefore if he sleeps with another man, that in itself is a sin, regardless of homosexuality."
Let me ask this question again:
Does it matter if he can't LEGALLY marry someone, if the Episcopalian Church -- as it is considering -- begins conducting religious services for homosexual couples? Does the legal definition of marriage matter MORE than his own church's blessing?
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Tom,
Forgive my assumption. I'm not affiliated with any particular church, so I'm not an expert on the doctrines of any of them, but I'd always assumed that no extramarital sex was an emphasized doctrine of all the major Christian denominations. Perhaps not 'fundamental', but at least 'emphasized'.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
About adultery... I don't have the references in front of me, but I have read the entire Bible through several times. I'll try to look for them tonight.
One of the things that always struck me and some other friends who had the same religious upbringing as me was that in the Old Testament there is a distinct line between adultery, sex before marriage, and rape. Adultery ONLY applies to infidelity in a marriage.
Adultery does NOT include "sex before marriage" in all those Levitical laws when both parties are single. This is completely contrary to what is actually taught in Fundamentalist (non-LDS) churches where "sex before marriage" equals "adultery against your FUTURE spouse". (I don't know if the LDS teachings in their additional scriptures state this specifically or not, so I'm not including LDS in this argument.)
In the "sex before marriage" section there are all kinds of things about whether it was a rape or not, whether she screamed and no one heard her, or whether she didn't scream. There is also a section about if they are already engaged and caught with someone else, which is also consider adultery I believe and punishable by death.
But, if they are both single and caught in non-rape sex before marriage, the main law that applied was that the couple HAD to marry and were NEVER allowed to divorce. This is a far, far milder punishment than losing one's life. (Though those in a bad marriage might debate that.) That particular passage gets greatly overlooked by many fundamentalist types, like it doesn't even exist!
Edit: Here's one of passages I was talking about. Unfortunately it isn't as hard on rape as I hoped... but notice the contrast of verse 28 with the rest of the passage (v. 13-30)!
AJ
[ August 05, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Does it matter if he can't LEGALLY marry someone, if the Episcopalian Church -- as it is considering -- begins conducting religious services for homosexual couples? Does the legal definition of marriage matter MORE than his own church's blessing?
I don't think so, no. If the Episcopalian Church begins marrying homosexual couples, then I see absolutely no barriers unique to a homosexual priest.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The Episcopal church has no official position either permitting or forbidding same-sex marriage. That being the case, some dioceses permit it, others don’t.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then it looks like the question, the contrversey, and the issue has already been decided somewhere else?
Why is this a controversey at all, then? If their church already considers it not to be a sin, why is he a controversial figure?
--- dkw answered my question just as I asked it.
Hmm... so it looks like the question is whether he can be elected leader of a group that will include dioces that do consider it a sin. Which means some groups can have a leader that they don't consider a moral authority.
No wonder there's whispers of a schism. Holy crap.
So, is that okay? For one religious group to impose a leader that on another group that they consider objectionable? It is like saying to them, "Give it up, lump it, or get out."
[ August 05, 2003, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also, the reason why adultery is so bad in the Bible, is because God's love for Isreal (and the later Christian Church) is characterized by that of a relationship between a husband and wife. (See the entire book of Hosea). When Isreal worshipped foreign gods/idols the were "comitting adultery against" or in modern parlance "cheating on" their own God. Naturally their God that is getting neglected would be displeased!
Once again though it is "cheating" in an already existing relationship that is the major problem, not a new relationship forming between formerly unattached parties.
AJ
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
quote:Why is this a controversey at all, then? If their church already considers it not to be a sin, why is he a controversial figure?
Because insofar as a "church" is a body of "members"--not just "leaders"--it's obvious that the church has not decided what it thinks.
[ August 05, 2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Caleb Varns ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because the church itself is divided on the issue, and because a lot of OTHER churches think it's their business.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
In a way, I would feel like a hypocrite to comment on this.
The church of which I am a member does not believe in women leading/teaching in any way, based on an injuction that seems black and white to them (1 Tim. 2). To me, it's not that easy.
There are a few isolated congregations who have the practice of allowing women in "leadership" roles, but the congregation of which I am a member is not one of them.
I am female, but I'm also drawn to this form of ministry, the teaching, preaching, and Bible study. Doctrinally, however, I agree more with the way in which my church interprets the Bible than any other body I've encountered. So I don't know; it's hard. At least in part, I empathize.
But where do you go when you no longer fit in at "home" and there doesn't seem to be another place?
I'm not "church shopping." I go to church to worship God and I can still do that there, I just can't exercise certain gifts in that context. This is, for me, another struggle. Whether I am striving for unity or whether I am burying talents, I don't know.
I do, however, respect the Episcopal church's dedication to investigating these charges, even if they heavily suspect it to be trumped up. Allegations should not be let slide, even if they are suspicious.
Q.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It’s a controversy because there are people who don’t agree with the decision. They can’t (officially) object to his consecration as Bishop based on his orientation, so they filed charges about pornography and inappropriate touching instead.
Edit: that’s assuming the “inappropriate touching” charge has no more merit than the pornography one turned out to have. Any allegation of sexual misconduct by clergy has to be taken seriously, but so far this one looks to be a stretch.
[ August 05, 2003, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"If their church already considers it not to be a sin, why is he a controversial figure"
Katharina, I really believe it goes back to the prejudice of many people that homesexuals are, or will be, sex offenders.
Liz
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So dkw... how bad is my interpretation of Levitical laws?
Also, which denominations let women be ordained? Is it only United Methodist and Episcopal? I'm guessing there fewer passages of the Bible that can be construed to be "against" female ordination than there are against homosexuality.
Though, in the churches where I grew up, one was seen to be virtually as bad as the other. I'm guessing it is a bigger "leap of faith" to include homosexuals in the clergy than it is to allow women.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Katharina, I really believe it goes back to the prejudice of many people that homesexuals are, or will be, sex offenders.
No, I don't believe that. I think that's a pet issue for you, but if someone considers an act to be a sin, it is a sin in itself, not because it leads to a greater one.
quote:Also, the reason why adultery is so bad in the Bible, is because God's love for Isreal (and the later Christian Church) is characterized by that of a relationship between a husband and wife. (See the entire book of Hosea). When Isreal worshipped foreign gods/idols the were "comitting adultery against" or in modern parlance "cheating on" their own God. Naturally their God that is getting neglected would be displeased!
Banna, I'm not sure I agree with causality there. It is equally possible that the Lord characterized his relationship with the church because of the sacredness of marriage and the horror of adultery - it was a relationship that already had meaning. It was not invested with meaning because of the analogy.
quote:There are a few isolated congregations who have the practice of allowing women in "leadership" roles, but the congregation of which I am a member is not one of them.
I am female, but I'm also drawn to this form of ministry, the teaching, preaching, and Bible study. Doctrinally, however, I agree more with the way in which my church interprets the Bible than any other body I've encountered. So I don't know; it's hard. At least in part, I empathize.
But where do you go when you no longer fit in at "home" and there doesn't seem to be another place?
*hug* That's a question for yourself, dear. I do sympathize.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Q, you aren't even allowed to lead or teach in a group of other women? Even the churches I grew up in allowed women to teach other women. They just weren't allowed to teach men.
AJ
(Incidentally for those of you who do not know me well, I am no longer Fundamentalist, however I grew up with highly rigorous theological training. I am currently taking a hiatus from organized religious activities to figure out what I really believe. I would still generally characterize myself as Christian but a far more liberal variety than what I grew up with.)
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
kat:
quote:So, is that okay? For one religious group to impose a leader that on another group that they consider objectionable? It is like saying to them, "Give it up, lump it, or get out."
Of course it's "okay". In fact, it's the only thing: for a faction that thinks there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, it is unconscionable for homosexuals to be barred from leadership roles, and for a faction that considers homosexuality to be a sin, it is unconscionable for a homosexual to be their leader. They will have to reconcile this or split, if not now, over this, then eventually. It's as simple as that. Such things have occurred over seemingly more trivial details in the past.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The Episcopal church has no official position either permitting or forbidding same-sex marriage.
Why, btw? Why isn't there one? It obviously is topical, affects people on many fronts, and the lack of a position is raising controversies.
*thinks* I mean, on what are there official positions, and why isn't this issue one of them? *honestly curious*
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
if he has homosexual tendencies but does not engage in homosexual activity?
Kat:
I think he could be an effective leader, because he sets an example of overcoming and obeying God's commands.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'll concede the point Kat. It may be a chicken or the egg issue as to which came first. I don't know if the LDS scriptures say anything more specifically.
My greater point was that in the generally accepted (by conservatives) non-LDS Bible translations, Adultery/fornication (though the Greek on the word fornication can get interesting) is NOT equvialent to pre-marital, pre-betrothal sex. Most conservative Christians (that I have encountered) believe they are one and the same.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Kat, he’s been elected by the diocese where he will serve. The Conference is being asked to ratify that decision. So the conference would not be forcing him on the diocese.
Banna, lots of passages can be construed to mean whatever the construer wants them to mean. And you would not believe some of the arguments that have been made. Denominations that ordain women (off the top of my head): United Methodist, Episcopalian, ELCA Lutheran, American Baptist, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Metropolitan Community Church. I know there are more, but those are the ones I know without looking it up.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*puts those churches on her list to try when she is ready to go back to church*
I wish you could know what an encouragement you are to me dkw.
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Kat, he’s been elected by the diocese where he will serve. The Conference is being asked to ratify that decision. So the conference would not be forcing him on the diocese.
Since that is the way the organization operates, this actually makes me feel much better. I mean, if it runs by election, at least he'll be the leader of those who elected him.
So the real controversey is "How far does this 'Local Control' thing go?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Christy and I were married by a Episcopalian woman, actually, after a great deal of deliberation over the ceremony.
Posted by Potemkyn (Member # 5465) on :
quote: [Tom] the church itself is divided on the issue, and because a lot of OTHER churches think it's their business.
Actually, the problem exists because there is a very liberal church hierarchy and conservative parishes. Of course this rule doesn't always apply. But there is a growing schism between the layman and the church officials. Several churches have already split over this, and I expect more to follow.
<puts $.02 in slot>
Unless he can explain how his actions are not sinful in the eyes of God (using the Bible, since it is God's word), he should not hold that position. I will not accept any, "well Paul was wrong and I'm right" argument in this situation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Why, btw? Why isn't there one? It obviously is topical, affects people on many fronts, and the lack of a position is raising controversies.
It’s got a lot to do with the history of the Anglican church. I’ve got to go now, but I’ll write up a short answer when I get back, if no one beats me to it.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Katharina, I really believe it goes back to the prejudice of many people that homesexuals are, or will be, sex offenders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, I don't believe that. I think that's a pet issue for you,"
It is not necessary to be condescending to me, Katharina. I already stated it as a belief, which means it is, obviously, a "pet" issue for me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I really believe it goes back to the prejudice of many people that homesexuals are, or will be, sex offenders.
Sorry about the condescending.
*thinks* I don't agree with you, but there's no way to resolve this. You believe something about hidden motivations, and there's really nothing to say to that. If they are true, they would be hidden, and if they are not, then they would be absent, which looks like hidden.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Potemkyn,
You say "using the Bible" The question is actually one of pre-definitions, and the premises used for Biblical interpretation. You see, the conservative non-Catholic, Non-LDS Christians, tend to see the Bible as the LITERAL word of God with strict interpretation of the literal words in the actual language. Even then they diverge in interpretation between Reformed (believe the Church has taken the place of Isreal and all prophecies to Isreal now apply to the church) and Dispensational (believe that Isreal is just on hiatus and the Church will be Raptured and then God will go back to using Isreal as his main means of communication with the world.)
The more liberal churches view the Bible as a collection of stories, some true, used for teaching morals and values, they tend to be more tolerant of the concept of evolution as a result. So it depends on how strictly one interprets the Bible as to what conclusions arrive.
A classic example: You could say that during the Civil War the South was interpreting the Bible more literally because the Old Testament has specific laws on slaves. The North could come up with as many anti-slavery passages that said what they wanted it to say. At no point that I am aware of in the Bible does it specifically give a moral judgment to slavery. Personally I would say the South went too far because it stopped valuing slaves as human beings, and the Bible makes it clear that slaves are indeed human, but that is just my opinion.
Catholicism is acutally in the middle on this issue IMO. The Catholic Church "spiritualizes" and re-interprets lot of passages that the Fundamentalists take literally, (and have the Marian doctrines) but at the same time (in doctrine) they still hold the hard core lines on homosexuality, chastity, birth control etc.
In the American Catholic churches I have observed though, women are give in a much more equal status in the church leadership than in the Fundamentalist churches I grew up in. Women are allowed to lead committees that include men, and are often deeply involved in managing local church finances etc. responsibilities that are considered male-only domains in many fundamentalist circles. There is also the separate, unique category of Nun, which there is no equivalent to in Protestant circles that I am aware of other than being a spinster missionary.
AJ
(edit to add, I'm not speaking to the LDS positions because I know I don't know enough about them, and because I believe their Biblical interpretations are according to their more recent revelations in their other scriptures)
[ August 05, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Ron and I were also married in the Episcopal church. The minister is still on my short list of really cool people whose lives match their supposed religious beliefs.
There are lots of things the Bible condemns that we ignore. There was the thing about women wearing braids, or speaking in church, or wearing coverings over their heads in church.
The Bible was used to justify slavery, for crying out loud. Many churches did not ALLOW people of color to be ministers, even well after most moral authorities found the practice abhorrent.
Most of these things we rationalize because of cultural differences. If the world stands, I think such questions will become moral no-brainers in the next century or two.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
quote:*hug* That's a question for yourself, dear. I do sympathize.
Thanks, I appreciate it. It's just something I've struggled with for a while.
quote:Q, you aren't even allowed to lead or teach in a group of other women? Even the churches I grew up in allowed women to teach other women. They just weren't allowed to teach men.
This is the part that bugs me about my church, the tetrapylocatmist attitude. Yes, women can teach women in my church - as they can also teach children under the apparently magical age of twelve.
If a woman speaks knowledgeably in a mixed-gender Bible study class and informs the class of something previously unknown, however, it's apparently not teaching because she is not listed as the "teacher" for that quarter. She can read scripture if in the context of Bible class - for instance, if each member of the class was taking a turn reading a verse or so during study, or if she wanted to make a point and used the text to back it up, but the same woman couldn't read from the same Bible to the same people if it's in the auditorium during worship.
Oy. It gets to the point where I wish they'd enforce complete silence or at least admit the drawing of lines that don't exist. So much of it is so arbitrary. And I don't think they (my church specifically) realize how hurtful it is to the younger women, the girls I work with at teen camps, the girls who doubt the worth of their own souls and don't know that they're allowed to pray simply because when the boys are taught to begin to lead, the girls are taught nothing. They're simply stuck in spiritual stasis, apparently in hopes that they'll just combust one day and spontaneously become ideal wives for the upcoming leaders.
Sorry to get completely off topic, but this tromps on a well-exposed nerve of mine. The parallels bug the snot outta me.
Q.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Katharina, thanks.
Ha ha. I love this:
"If they are true, they would be hidden, and if they are not, then they would be absent, which looks like hidden."
It actually makes a lot of sense.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Q, this is one of the very reasons why I am no longer fundamentalist.
/rant
One of the things that I resented is that I would not be consdered an adult (not even by my own family) until I was married. That until I was married my father was "spiritually" responsible for me. At what point did I reach the accountable age where I was responsible for myself? I feel bad because now that I have "rebelled" (as a college graduate at the age of 22 mind you, not at 15 or 16, when it is forgivable) my father is beating himself up for being a spiritual leadership failure, when he wasn't. But at the age of 23 when I am supporting myself and living 1000s of miles away from my family (also unacceptable to a lot of fundamentalists for a girl to be so far away from her family) aren't I responsible for my own spiritual well being. They would argue that me wanting to take responsiblity of my own spiritual life is rebellion in and of itself, and maybe it is according to their standards.
Another thing that annoys me beyond belief that ties in with the speaking thing is that women aren't truly given credit for being intelligent, and that it is some kind of crime to use your education after you've gotten it, rather than becoming a wife and mother. (Understand I'm not knocking being either a wife or a mother I have the utmost respect for both, but the fact that it was virtually REQUIRED, or you were worthless as a woman unless you were a missionary of some sort.)
Thirdly, being an intelligent female, since I couldn't help it, guys won't have anything to do with you because when you know more Bible verses than they do then they aren't qualified to be your "spiritual leader" barring marrying a pastor.
Fourthly being an intelligent female, and being able to spout off Bible verses and find all sorts of appropriate insights in scripture passages (I think this was what made me good at poetry analysis in my English classes btw) you are automatically considered "spiritual" and nobody actually bothers to inquire what you are actually feeling and thinking. While I was in their church, I was not a hypocrite. I genuinely was trying to do everything to the best of my ability. But while sincerely doing all of the "disciplines of the faith" reading the Bible, praying, and fellowshipping with others of like faith, instead of experiencing deeper "spiritual growth" it began to ring hollow. If doing the "disciplines" that supposedly guarantee growth doesn't cause spiritual growth, but regression, then something is wrong.
Maybe it is with me, maybe it is the church. I live in a much scarier more uncertain world than I did when I was nestled safe in the cocoon of the church. Sometimes I wish I could go back, but the only way to go would be to act repentant. Even if I do one day agree that that particular way is correct, I don't believe I will regret the time away and feel repentance is necessary, so that still leaves me with too much pride and unfit for that congregation.
/end rant AJ
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
AJ, I know what you mean in a lot of ways. Our situations are somewhat different. Out of curiosity, were you a member of a fundamental Baptist congregation?
I'm considered responsible for my own spirituality UNTIL I'm married, essentially. Then the husband is the head, the spiritual leader.
Though it's pretty well agreed that a woman should seek to be married, and those who aren't are odd.
I'm sorry. I'm 23; marriage isn't what I want to do right now. I'm happily making my life and gaining some more education before "settling down." I think I'd like to be married someday, but I'm not in any rush. I got so tired of hearing "you'll be a great resource and help to your husband" while I was in college pursuing a Bible degree. I don't mind being a help and a resource, but that's not all I am. I'm not an encyclopedia, for Pete's sake.
I wish sometimes that I had the talents that make it "easy" for women in my church. I wish I were good with little children and toddlers. I wish cooking, card writing, nursery-tending, marriage-y stuff were what I was good at. That way I could fit in.
I've tried to be the "ideal" c of C woman. It was a disaster. And it was a lie. I don't want to spend my entire life trying to pretend I'm someone I'm not simply so my church will think I'm acceptable. God knows who I am, no matter how well I hide it from the deacons, preacher, brothers and sisters. I'm not maternal, I'm not the demure, silent type. I'm not "like them."
But every time I think of leaving, I remember why I'm there. It's just hard sometimes.
Q.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: wish sometimes that I had the talents that make it "easy" for women in my church. I wish I were good with little children and toddlers. I wish cooking, card writing, nursery-tending, marriage-y stuff were what I was good at. That way I could fit in.
I know what you mean. It would be so much easier if I were somehow different.
I can't be, though. I've even tried, but I just can't keep it up.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
dkw’s severely abridged history of the English Reformation as it relates to the topic of the thread and Kat’s question about why the Episcopal church doesn’t have an official position on same-sex weddings:
The English Reformation was different than the Protestant Reformation in the rest of Europe in that it was at first entirely political and not theological. King Henry didn’t want to be under the rule of Rome, but he was a defender of Catholic theology against the protestants. Which was a huge disappointment to those who wanted England to go protestant. After his death England went back and forth from officially Catholic to officially Protestant, and there were significant groups of each. Finally Elizabeth I and her advisors decided that for the purposes of a State Church it didn’t matter if everyone agreed on theology as long as they could worship and pray together. Even today there are Anglicans/Episcopalians who consider themselves Catholic (Anglo-Catholic, not Roman-Catholic) and those who consider themselves Protestant.
Ever since then the Church of England and its sister denominations have been marked by liturgical conformity and theological diversity. It’s telling that while other denominations have a “Book of Order” or “Book of Discipline,” the uniting document of the Anglican Communion is The Book of Common Prayer.”
***
I also want to add that, while it comes across as a political process, it really is a theological issue for both sides. It’s just that often the media don’t understand the theological issues involved, or don’t have time/column space to get into them, or don’t find them as exciting a story as a political battle.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Or, in the words of Eddie Izzard, "You can't have strong views in the church of England . . ."
Q.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you, dkw. ----
The structure is very different, then. *thinks* Most of my objections don't apply then, because it isn't an organization that sees a need to agree on doctrinal matters. By that description, it isn't a matter of local control, because there is nothing BUT local control.
In which case, the question appears to be "Should we pray together still?"
What are the advantages, then, of remaining an organization?
I mean, does saying, "I'm Anglican." actually mean anything? Is it mostly history? Cultural?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It’s a commitment to community in the face of what divides us. Kind of like Hatrack. Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Again, according to Eddie Izzard, "It's more of a hobby, really."
But all joking aside, I've known Episcopalians who run the line from devout to hobbyist, just like anywhere else. One of the most spiritual people I know is an Episcopal convert. One of the least spiritual people I know is an Episcopalian turned Baptist.
The Episcopal church won't divide because doctrinal cohesiveness isn't seen as an essential to unity. Ironically, churches that get "up in arms" about various doctrinal issues are constantly dividing into molecular subsets.
[edited to say that dkw said it better. But maybe that should go in the 'thread to state the obvious' thread.]
Q.
[ August 05, 2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Ironically, churches that get "up in arms" about various doctrinal issues are constantly dividing into molecular subsets.
Well, sometimes...
dk: Okay.
Nothing I said applies, then.
That's so-o-o different... I can't even wrap my brain around it. *rests head on desk*
----
Added: *picks head up* Okay, this is the part where I might offend people, and if so, I apologize. But I was thinking.
How is that different from a social club? I mean, I love Hatrack, and I even partially self-identify myself as a Jatrequera, and I have that "Good Hatracker?" people-filter that is proving more and more reliable, but it isn't a religion.
If the sense of community and not the beliefs is what is holding the church together, is that different at all from a social club?
[ August 05, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If the sense of community and not the beliefs is what is holding the church together, is that different at all from a social club?"
I made that point a while ago about American Catholics, but everyone said I was wrong. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It really is based on belief, not a social club. It’s just that the particular beliefs that are most emphasized have to do with unity as the Body of Christ. (There are doctrinal standards too, they’re just quite broad, and anything that fits within them or is not covered by them is fair game.)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Q,
Most of the churches I attended with my parents were part of the IFCA- Independent Fundamental Churches of America. The family currently goes to an Evangelical Free Church. Felt very similar when attending fundamental Baptist churches though they tended to have a few more altar calls.
AJ
P.S. In theory they sub-scribe to the "in the world but not of the world" view on life. The problem being that many of them cocoon themselves so much that they don't realize what "reality" for most people is and how far it diverges from their views. My own mother is an example of this.
[ August 05, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It really is based on belief, not a social club. It’s just that the particular beliefs that are most emphasized have to do with unity as the Body of Christ. (There are doctrinal standards too, they’re just quite broad, and anything that fits within them or is not covered by them is fair game.)
What is the difference, then, between, say, Hatrack and a religion that isn't really defined?
I mean, we certainly have rules here at Hatrack, although they are only occasionally codified. They are formed and changed by the community. The only rules that are enforced are those set by the mods. In a way, Hatrack is MORE of a religion.
In that case, even the mods are elected. How is that different from a social club?
*shakes head* I'm not trying to be offensive. Just... who decides what are a deal-breakers? "This is Anglican, this doesn't matter, but once you believe this, you're no longer Anglican."
I mean, if a group is defined in part by beliefs, then what beliefs are the defining ones?
[ August 05, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Edit: Better link The 39 articles have some historical stuff included that's considered less important today.
New edit: the above link went to the wrong place. It's fixed now.
[ August 05, 2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments. Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.
XXXVI. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers. The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, as set forth by the General Convention of this Church in 1792, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering; neither hath it any thing that, of itself, is superstitious and ungodly. And, therefore, whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to said Form, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.
The original 1571, 1662 text of this Article reads as follows: "The Book of Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons, lately set forth in the time of Edward the Sixth, and confirmed at the same time by authority of Parliament, doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering: neither hath it any thing, that of itself is superstitious and ungodly. And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book, since the second year of the forenamed King Edward unto this time, or hereafter shall be consecrated or ordered according to the same Rites; we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered."
So why is there even a controversey?
Behavioral commandments are not part of the definition of the church, and even if they were, the worthiness of the leaders doesn't matter.
[ August 05, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It’s not that the worthiness of the leaders doesn’t matter, it’s that sacraments performed by leaders later found “unworthy” are still valid. That was a big deal historically, when a bunch of priests were deposed and people were worried about whether or not their baptisms were valid.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why would the worthiness of the leaders matter, though?
I mean, there's no authority, and if those are the dealbreakers, they just need to fit those as the criteria.
Homosexuality isn't mentioned as a criteria, so why is there a controversey?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don’t think there should be a controversy. But obviously some Episcopalians feel strongly enough that homosexuality is wrong that they’re willing to make one. I think you might still be looking at this from the point of view of a church that is a little more hierarchical on doctrinal matters. You seem to expect everyone to agree with their church’s positions. (or lack thereof)
And there is authority, it just isn’t the style of authority you’re used to.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What kind of authority, then? To extend the Hatrack analogy, same kind as the mods? The mods can edit views and ban people if they are so out there they no longer fit the definition of acceptable Hatrack behavior. That kind?
Or the kind of authority that CT or Papa Moose have, the authority of those who have been here so long, been so exemplary, or embody the idea of Hatrackiness to such an extent that they have a non-formal ability to end a discussion point.
*thinks* Is this controversy the equivalent of us electing Otaku as a mod?
(I know I'm looking at the from the point-of-view of a more hierarchical structure. I couldn't stop if I tried, so I'm trying to work with it.)
[ August 05, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
An update:
All charges against Mr. Robinson have been investigated and dropped. The vote on his confirmation will take place this afternoon.
[ August 05, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
*thinks* Somewhere in between the authority of the mods and CT and Papa Moose?
I’m getting a little uncomfortable speaking for Anglicans, since my denomination broke off from the Church of England in 1784 (darn that Revolutionary War). I know a lot about them historically, but my modern knowledge is more general. What the specific powers of the Bishops and Archbishops are, I do not know. I can look it up, if you want me to. If it’s a more general question of how a church that isn’t as doctrinally hierarchical functions, could we switch the specifics to the UMC? I’m much more current on that polity.
On the thread topic – it’s worth repeating that the current controversy isn’t over sexual orientation, it’s over whether Rev. Robinson is guilty of “inappropriate touching” of someone at a conference.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Wow, interesting discussion that I missed out on.
The Presbyterian church split over issues some time ago, fragmenting into the PC-USA and the PCA. There are smaller groups too, like Cumberland Presbyterians.
PCA churches to this day are still much more conservative than their USA brethren, allowing of course, that some individual denominations may vary some from the national teachings.
My husband's grandfather was a presbyterian minister so I've heard all the history behind it. The church I go to split from the Presbyterian church and went independent when all the squabbling and infighting began.
I've always felt it was silly for denominations to get into headlocks over doctrinal issues, when they share the same core beliefs. It doesn't "bother" me that dkw is a pastor, even though in my conservative church a woman would never become one. We do however, allow women to speak to the entire congregation, I've even been asked to do some teaching to the entire church.
I think a woman's role in the church can move beyond keeping the nursery and teaching vacation bible school to youngsters. My husband is a fan of Joyce Meyer, he listens to her tapes and watches her shows. And Wes is about as conservative as it comes.
Why shouldn't a woman be called to do more than take care of kids? I certainly feel like I'm called forth to do something with my writing, and once I began focusing on faith-based writing I suddenly got published and other opportunities began coming my way. I think Joyce Meyer was called to preach, and I think dkw was called to ministry. I would love to attend one of her services. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I was listening to NPR during my lunch break, and they had two people on speaking about this issue. One of the most interesting points made was that the Episcopalian Church is like a three legged stool, the legs being faith, tradition, and reason. To keep the stool standing correctly, they have to find the right balance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:*thinks* Somewhere in between the authority of the mods and CT and Papa Moose?
I’m getting a little uncomfortable speaking for Anglicans, since my denomination broke off from the Church of England in 1784 (darn that Revolutionary War). I know a lot about them historically, but my modern knowledge is more general. What the specific powers of the Bishops and Archbishops are, I do not know. I can look it up, if you want me to. If it’s a more general question of how a church that isn’t as doctrinally hierarchical functions, could we switch the specifics to the UMC? I’m much more current on that polity.
Thank you for what you've said so far, dkw. This is great.
There really is a wealth of topics in here: what authority do church leaders have (and whence does it come - from God or from the congregation?), the role of women in church, how do modern churches decide what is doctrine, how sinless do we need our leaders to be, and how does a sin become not a sin anymore.
quote:On the thread topic – it’s worth repeating that the current controversy isn’t over sexual orientation, it’s over whether Rev. Robinson is guilty of “inappropriate touching” of someone at a conference.
He's been cleared of that, but it seems like the larger controversey is the leadership of the church is going in a direction that many of the members protest against. How to handle that?
That's where the authority bit comes in, and the bit about preaching by the polls. If his authority is from God, why doesn't he say so? If it is from the people, have enough people objected to make it invalid?
quote:I was listening to NPR during my lunch break, and they had two people on speaking about this issue. One of the most interesting points made was that the Episcopalian Church is like a three legged stool, the legs being faith, tradition, and reason. To keep the stool standing correctly, they have to find the right balance.
The most interesting part of that quote is the phrase "to stand correctly". What is correctly? What is it defined by?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And I don't mean I'm not interested in hearing about the authority bit. I am, and I wanted to thank you for what you've said so far. I just am not going to able to post in a minute, and didn't want to start a conversation I'm not sure I can continue. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Perhaps balanced is a better word. I didn't use it because I thought it sounded funny to use it twice in the same sentence
And the ultimate argument here is what the best balance is, whether tradition should be followed, or whether reason shows the better path. I think that's what we're arguing here, really. But it was good to know that the Episcopalians find reason to be an important part of their church.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I just am not going to able to post in a minute, and didn't want to start a conversation I'm not sure I can continue.
*relieved* I have to leave now too, and won't be free until late tonight. I was kicking myself for offering to start I discussion that I can't follow up on. Maybe some other day. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
quote:Why shouldn't a woman be called to do more than take care of kids? I certainly feel like I'm called forth to do something with my writing, and once I began focusing on faith-based writing I suddenly got published and other opportunities began coming my way. I think Joyce Meyer was called to preach, and I think dkw was called to ministry. I would love to attend one of her services.
I'm glad you've found your place, Belle.
Most men at my church think Joyce Myers is anathema because to them, she not only spurns what they consider Biblical authority, but because they disagree with her on other matters, she confirms their view that if you let a woman have a pulpit, she'll only teach heresy. (Note: this is implied rather than explicit, usually).
In addition, my church doesn't really subscribe to a doctrine concering being "called" to anything in particular beyond the "priesthood of all believers." So deference to any compulsion I feel or any talents I may have is out of the question - it's not a valid argument. I remain wafflish on the idea of being called. I know that in some ways, what I feel is like "a fire, shut up in my bones," etc. But I even had one person tell me that this was a temptation I would have to struggle with, not a calling.
In other words, my desire to preach is apparently either due to an inherent weakness in my gender that makes us want what we cannot rightfully have ("And your desire will be for your husband and he shall rule over you" is used all to often here), or, expanding on that, my desire is the direct result of a temptation and therefore succumbing to it is the same as taking part in any other sin.
So for me to preach/teach God's word is sinful. Makes me wonder why my church is okay with men teaching wrongly, men who enter the ministry without any interest in being a minister, and men who use the pulpit as a political platform. . . simply because they're men.
/more ranting.
Q.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
My aunt was an Episcopalian priest until her death. I went to her church several times and it seemed more Catholic to me that my grandmother's Catholic Church. The Catholic Church she went to when I was younger. . . now that was hard core Catholic. I liked the old days, when mass was in Latin.
But anyway, my aunt was one of the first female priests. So, things change. Just like the development of Prostestants (and all their splinter groups) the Episcopalians will either come out of this whole or separated.
Considering there are, what, 6,000 Protestant denominations, I don't understand why everyone is so baffled. People and the Churches they attend don't always agree. Hence, all the different denominations. Heck, even LDS is a splinter of Christianity.
Also, in reading on of AJ's links, was anyone else bothered by the fact that if you slander a married woman's name (say she wasn't a virgin) and are proven false, you have to pay 100 sheckles. But if you rape her, you have to pay only 50 and then she gets the pleasure of being married to you for the rest of her life?
Thank God things have changed. I hope they keep changing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
yes... that's Leviticus and Deuteronomy for you...Judges is pretty bad too, though there are some cool females in that book.
(it makes you see how much of PROPERTY issue marriage was back then... and how few rights the women had)
Though in Judges there was that woman Jael who seduced the enemy general and then pounded a tent stake through his head...
AJ
[ August 05, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, I agree with all of the above except this:
quote: Heck, even LDS is a splinter of Christianity.
AAAAAA!!!!!! splinter??? LDS is NOT protestant.
Give me a minute. *rests head on desk again*
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
*loves reading katharina's animated posts*
Q.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Protestant? Depends on your definition, but probably not.\ Splinter? Hell yes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Main Entry: 1splin·ter Pronunciation: 'splin-t&r Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle Dutch; akin to Middle Low German splinte splint Date: 14th century 1 a : a thin piece split or broken off lengthwise : SLIVER b : a small needlelike particle 2 : a group or faction broken away from a parent body
Parent body. There was no breaking off. There's no parent body.
[ August 05, 2003, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Yes kat, we Protestants consider you to be a splinter. We keep trying to remove you, but you're dug in to deep. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
zgator: Like the commercial with the toe fungus?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*snort*
Posted by Major Spoiler (Member # 5498) on :
katharina,
So you're not Christian, then?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"Parent body. There was no breaking off. There's no parent body."
Educate me!!
I really thought that a Christian sect that is not Catholic is a Protestant group. Are Protestant groups just ones that split off from the church around the time Henry left? Lutherans, Anglicans, etc?
(I feel a paradigm shift coming on...)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He organized His Church. It was “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). In addition to the Twelve Apostles, Christ appointed other leaders to assist the Apostles in the work of His Church. These included:
These officers were given the authority (or priesthood) necessary to do the work of Christ’s Church. They did missionary work, performed ordinances such as baptism, presided over congregations, instructed and inspired Church members, and helped unify them in their faith. As long as those who had the priesthood were alive, the Church grew and prospered. Early Church members referred to themselves as Saints (Romans 15:25; 1 Corinthians 1:2).
A general falling away from the truth occurred after the death of Christ’s Apostles. This is called the Apostasy. When Jesus Christ lived on the earth, He established His Church. After His Ascension into heaven, His Apostles carried on His work under His direction, through revelation and with His priesthood authority.
After the Apostles and many righteous Church members were killed and other members departed from the truth, the Lord took the priesthood authority and His Church from the earth. Without God’s priesthood authority, the Church no longer functioned as Christ had established it. The ordinances were changed and many plain and simple truths were lost. While many good people and some truth remained, the original Church was lost.
The Apostles prophesied of the falling away or Apostasy. One example is Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:1–3).
The Apostle Peter prophesied of the “restitution of all things” before Christ’s Second Coming (Acts 3:19–21). Having been lost because of the Apostasy, Christ’s Church and His authority were to be restored to the earth. This Restoration would make available the opportunity for all to receive once again all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith’s First Vision marked the beginning of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth. In subsequent years, Christ restored His priesthood and reorganized His Church. He has continued to reveal truths to His prophets and to restore the blessings that were taken from the earth for a time.
No, LDS is not protestant. We believe the true church of Jesus Christ, along with the priesthood, dissapeared from the earth after the apostles were killed. There was still the scriptures, the Spirit, and good people, but Christ's church was gone. The organization left was a human organization.
When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was formed in 1830, it was a restoration. For the first time since the days of the apostles, the church of Christ, complete with the authority of God (the priesthood), was on the earth.
So, no, it isn't a splinter. It didn't break off (protest) from a then-present organization. It is a restoration.
[ August 05, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
kat, I didn't say a splinter from Protestants. Just Christianity. Y'all are Christians, right? The followers of Christ became Catholics (apparently Cathol was a better speaker than Jesus) and then Martin Luther decided he'd had enough of that. Henry the 8th wanted to divorce so he created his own church (the hobbbist Church of England) (tea and cake or death!) Obviously somewhere in there, LDS came about.
quote: The Mormons have had a fascinating and turbulent history. Its founder was Joseph Smith (1805-1844), a resident of Palmyra NY. His family of origin were called "Seekers" - Christians who were not affiliated with a church, but which respected the teachings of all denominations. In his teens, his mother and most of the rest of the family converted to Presbyterianism.
quote:The Mormons have had a fascinating and turbulent history. Its founder was Joseph Smith (1805-1844), a resident of Palmyra NY. His family of origin were called "Seekers" - Christians who were not affiliated with a church, but which respected the teachings of all denominations. In his teens, his mother and most of the rest of the family converted to Presbyterianism.
Yes, that's right.
Splinter still doesn't work, though. I mean, you can say its a subset of Christianity. That works. But splinter means it broke off somewhere... there was no breaking off. Joseph Smith acting under the direction of the Lord.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ah, yes, well, nevermind. You answered the question.
But, I still think that LDS is a splinter of other forms of Christianity. Otherwise, there'd have been no reform necessary. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Kayla -- yeah, that's what I thought.
katharina,
I don't think being considered a "splinter" group is an insult, really. Why did you take it that way?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Carpsicles. We keep missing each other!
Well, I keep missing you!
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
Regarding changing doctrine &c-
"The proud wish God would agree with them."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I don't think it's an insult. It is inaccurate, though.
*thinks* Maybe its the connotation? Just the word splinter sounds pointy, tiny, and less important.
Maybe... maybe its the connotation of an edge nation, like from COTM.
Kayla and Kasie: *grin* Okay. I'm done. Not offended, and none intended.
[ August 05, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"It is a restoration." Ah, that makes so much sense! I didn't know that.
Kayla, the Eastern Orthodox Church would not be Priotestant either, right? They did not split off after Luther, but way, way before(about 400 AD from memory, when Justinian changed the seat of the Roman Empire to Constantinople.)(Or was that Constantine?)
Anyway, thanks Katharina, that makes so much more sense to me now.
Paradigm shifted.
Liz
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
*Tries to figure out whether he wants to get into this argument more deeply*
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I'm confused about this whole splinter thing, though actually my confusion has been coming a long time. I'm probably going to be offensive, but I'm honestly not trying to be, I'm just confused.
Why do Mormons identify themselves as Christians when they deny that they can be indetified with other Christians? For instance, I'm Christian, specifically I'm reformed and evangelical; my church would be part of the PCA; So I'm generally part of that denomination, however, I still recognize other denominations as having authority from God. The Mormon church, from what I know of it, doesn't do that; so why does the church affiliate themselves with a group that they don't recognize as being legitimate?
I repeat, I'm really really sorry if this is offensive, I honestly don't mean to be; and I don't think I'm being bigoted or hypocritical either; I hope I'm not. I've just been confused about this for a while, and I thought this seemed like a good time to ask.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: The Great Schism between the West and East was a long time in coming. The pope in the West asserted primacy because it was in Rome that St. Peter was buried - an "apostolic" primacy. The patriarch in Constantinople asserted primacy based on the fact that it was there that the seat of Roman government now existed - a "pragmatic" primacy. For a long time, tensions between the two were resolved in peacefully in councils - for example, the Iconoclastic Controversy.
In 1014, however, irreconcilable differences arose over the word filoque, which means "and from the Son" - the standard Christian creed in the West was rendered to read "I believe ... in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son, " which church leaders of the East regarded as heretical. The reason why the difference was irreconcilable was the different ways approached the issue: in the West the popes considered themselves the ultimate judges in matters of faith and doctrine, but in the East leaders followed the authority of councils where the local churches spoke as equals.
quote: Disagreements continues to strain relations, and some - like the filoque problem - were never really resolved. Matters came to a head by 1052 when Norman rulers insisted that Greek churches in Italy conform to standard Latin practices. The patriarch of the Greek church in turn demanded that Latin churches in Constantinople conform to Greek customs. When he was refused, he simply had them closed.
Because the issue could not be resolved in 1054, that is the year usually given for the final break between East and West. However, the two regions remained on very good terms and there was always hope that some sort of reconciliation could be achieved. Those hopes were, however, finally dashed in 1204 when soldiers in the Fourth Crusade entered and sacked Constantinople.
Kat, if it's any better, I used a poor word choice. Instead of splinter, would fork in the road be better? Easter Orthodox and Western Catholicism seems to be more what I was talking about. And Western Catholicsism to Protestants. I guess coming up with an entirely new (yet old) religion doesn't really have anything to compare. Though, being as he was brough up as a non-denomination Protestant, I still think he's a fork in that road.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Hey, a huge section of my post disappeared! (found it!)
Elizabeth, no. I don't think so. I mean, they were basically founded about the same time, right? They just had a couple of disagreements. They both believe they are Catholic. Though, I would guess, that anyone who split from the Western Catholic Church in protest would be considered a Protestant, huh?
[ August 05, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Why do Mormons identify themselves as Christians when they deny that they can be indetified with other Christians?
This depends on how you define a Christian. Naming is a powerful act, and since religion is so important, I'm generally for letting people name themselves. The simplest definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ, who believes that he is the Son of God (this disqualifies Muslims) and died in an act of redemption.
quote:For instance, I'm Christian, specifically I'm reformed and evangelical; my church would be part of the PCA; So I'm generally part of that denomination,
Saying you're a reformed Christian adds some qualifiers to it. Reformed from what? Whatever qualifications are added, LDS aren't a part of that.
quote: however, I still recognize other denominations as having authority from God. The Mormon church, from what I know of it, doesn't do that; so why does the church affiliate themselves with a group that they don't recognize as being legitimate?
Because when someone says they are a follower of Christ, they would know. It's best to believe them.
If you are meaning the authority from God, to me that means the priesthood. You can be a good person, a follower of Christ, and even acting on inpiration from the Lord, but that isn't the same thing as having the priesthood.
Kayla:
quote:Instead of splinter, would fork in the road be better?
I don't think fork works either, because that means you're still on the same road - that the LDS came from something that never left the ground. It's more like apparating.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Kayla, I think the Catholic issue is called a "schism."But then, isn't the protestant movement a schism as well?
I thought I had it there for a second, now i'm confused again.
Maybe LDS is not a splinter, or even a fork, but more like "retro."
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ooh, retro. I like that.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
What's the preisthood?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The priesthood is the authority to act in God’s name. The same priesthood authority that existed in the original Church established by Jesus Christ exists in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today. The Church is directed and led through this authority. All male members of the Church who are prepared receive the priesthood in order to help lead the Church and serve Heavenly Father’s children. A man with the priesthood might serve in some of the following ways:
Leading congregations of the Church
Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism
Blessing those who are sick
God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.
It's the authority of God, and its under this authority that the leaders run the church here on earth.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: Leading congregations of the Church Performing the ordinances of the Church, such as baptism Blessing those who are sick God expects those who hold this sacred priesthood authority to follow the example of Jesus Christ and serve with love, gentleness, and kindness.
But pastors and ministers in most Protestant churches do all of these things. I get the feeling they don't have the preisthood though?
Thanks for being patient, I'm sometimes (ok, most of the time) slow about things like this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No problem.
No. The priesthood left the earth after Jesus' apostles died, and it was restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowderey by John the Baptist in 1829.
They needed it in order to baptize one another, and to organize the restored church.
Other people do it, and it is a meaningful act, but it isn't done with the authority of God.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I bet there are a bunch of people who disagree with that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm sorry, what Katharina is describing is exactly what a splinter group is...
A group that believes something that had never been believed before, within a larger group, is a splinter.
Just because you describe yourself as the continuation of the "True christian church" does not mean you did not "split off" from the rest of christianity in the 1800's.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, there certainly are.
When I was in Michigan, we were in a small town, and a Methodist minister and his wife called us to come tell them about the church. Things went great all the way up to the third discussion. In fact, the wife wanted me to meet/marry her son. Then we hit the third discussion, where we talk about the restoration of the priesthood.
It didn't go well. They didn't like us nearly as much after that.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:A group that believes something that had never been believed before, within a larger group, is a splinter.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I don't think YOU know what it means...
Quoting from Webster
"Splinter Group, n. A small organization that becomes seperated from an original larger group."
Ok, so we've got two different definitions.
Yours is "2 : a group or faction broken away from a parent body"
Well, you're a group or faction of the parent body Christianity, and you broke away from that parent body in the 1800's.
Theologically, you believe that you're a restoration of Jesus' original church. Fine. But UNTIL the 1800's, there were no people who accepted that belief. At which point, a number of people from OTHER splinter groups of christianity to join the newest splinter group.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I posted that definition already. Did you miss it?
Why's this so important to you?
If you are saying we broke from a church then, you're wrong. If you are saying that in 1830, Mormons ceased to be Christians, I'm officially offended.
[ August 05, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
But Mormons didn't separate from an original larger group. We started from scratch.
[ August 05, 2003, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jon Boy, maybe he's saying its a splinter group because most of the early members were members of a different church before they joined.
It's the only explanation I can think of. It doesn't make any sense, though. Does that mean the converts from another church are a splinter group, but those that were atheists before aren't?
[ August 05, 2003, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
A group of people, vaguely associated with another group, start something new.
"Splinter" or "Restoration" all sort of depends on whether an individualn thinks Joseph Smith was a prophet or a loony.
So, I don't see this being resolved until all posters convert to LDS. Or, you know, whatever the reverse is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*grin* You're exactly right, Olivet. Persistently calling LDS a splinter group is saying "Joseph Smith is a loony."
That hardly seems polite. Setting aside origins, LDS can safely be called a subset of Christianity. Will that work for everyone?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I'm cool with that, but I'm not really part of whatever bruhaha started the 'splinter' question. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm wondering why it was important to Paul that it WAS a splinter group. I never got a vibe like that from him before.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Olivet, wouldn't you know, it was me!
I wasn't even trying this time. I swear!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ok...
A lot to respond to in the last few posts.
1) I do not think Joseph Smith was a loony. A founder of a splinter group of ANYTHING isn't necessarily a loony. There is a splinter group of baseball scounts who believe that the traditional "tools" method of evaluation of players leaves a lot to be desired. They have fragmented themselves from the more "Traditional" scouts, and, in my mind, created a more logical, effective, and efficient manner of evaluated baseball players. Billy Beane has done wonders with the new method of baseball evaluation, for example. "Splinter" does not mean worse, better, crazy, or anything else. It means "a fragment of," essentially.
2) This wasn't really important to me, until after my second post on this thread, which was as follows...
"*Tries to figure out whether he wants to get into this argument more deeply*"
I wasn't certain how important this was to Katharina, but, since that post, it has become clear that this is VERY important to her. For some reason, being told that her religion seperated from christianity is very offensive to her.
Using her simple definition of Christian "This depends on how you define a Christian. Naming is a powerful act, and since religion is so important, I'm generally for letting people name themselves. The simplest definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ, who believes that he is the Son of God (this disqualifies Muslims) and died in an act of redemption. "
I think that qualifies all members of the church of latter day saints as christians.
Whats bugging me, and why this became important was, Katharine proceeded down a path that is accusing many OTHER people of being inferior.
"They needed it in order to baptize one another, and to organize the restored church. Other people do it, and it is a meaningful act, but it isn't done with the authority of God."
As Kayla stated, many people would disagree with that assesment.
At this point, it became clear to me that what Katharina is doing is not trying to clear up a misunderstanding, but is preserving her belief that other Christians are not worthy of... something. She specifies it as not receiving the priesthood. I think something deeper is going on.
3) I was charged with not seeing Katharina's definition of splinter.
A careful reading of my post indicates that, in fact, I had seen it, and was providing a slightly different defition, as well as quoting her definition. Both definitions talk about a group seperating from an original group.
$) Anyrate, Katharina then accused me of saying two things I didn't say
1) That LDS are not Christians. In fact, this is the opposite of what I said.
2) That LDS split from a church. THis is not what I said. I said LDS split from "mainstream christianity," or, to be a little more precise, created another specific sect of christianity within the umbrella of christendom.
Christianity is NOT a church. It is a broad religious category that includes many sects.
Mormonism is a sect that was created much later then many other Christian sects, and earlier then many others. 10 years before Joseph Smith was born, it is fair to say that no people anywhere on earth held the beliefs that would come to be LDS doctrine, and now define the sect as seperate from other Christien sects.
Putting this all together...
Whats important to me, in this portion of the thread, is historical accuracy. Its fine to believe that your religion is superior... after all, if you belong to a religion, you believe it is correct. Anything that is correct is superior to something of the same category that is incorrect.
However, even if we assume that Katharina's beliefs concerning her religion are true, the historical fact is that, until the early 1800's, her church did not exist. It is, however, a Christian church, in that it recognizes Jesus Christ as the Son of God (and if we use her defintion, his death was an act of redemption). If we assume Christianity is an umbrella under which many religions exist (somthing I don't think is disputable) then the Church of Latter Day Saints is a splinter of Christianity. It is a Church formed from a group of people who believed that the teachings of Joseph Smith more closely aligned with the Truth then anything that previously existed, left their churches, and created something that had not been seen on this Earth at any other time in history.
The Crux of this issue is, as far as I see it, that Katharina refuses to acknowledge that her Church is a subset of Christianity that has broken away from other Christian sects. If she acknowledges that, then she's acknowledging that her religion is a splinter group of christianity.
What I can't figure out is, what other possibility there is that makes any sense. The only possibility I see, and this doesn't make any sense, is that the REST of Christianity has broken away from the Church of Latter Day Saints.
To reiterate an important point: Just because something is a splinter does not make it inferior, or crazy.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Thank you Paul for summing up my feelings on this. Either LDS are Christians, or they aren't.
And as they claim to be Christian, then they would have to be a splinter of Christianity (which as you say is not a church per se).
There's a lot of issues here, some of which I won't go into because it will offend my LDS friends. Much as we like to dance around the issue and pretend there is no bad blood - fact is that mormons and protestants don't usually get along very swimmingly when we start discussing the differences in our doctrines. Just too many differences, and the differences are almost always those that will fire people up - "Well, your belief isn't as good as ours, here's the scripture to prove it." "Oh yeah? Well, here's the scripture that proves YOU'RE wrong!! How you like them apples?" I've done it before and it's very draining.
Getting into discussions that are bound to get folks involved emotionally is probably not a good idea. At least not for me, as I don't want to get emotional in a thread again, it takes too much out of me. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Oh, and I want to add that I don't think being a splinter is a bad thing. And I'm not trying in my post to say LDS are not Christians, I realize it may look that way on first reading. Not my intention.
I agree with the definition kat gave of a Christian, they come in all kinds of denominations and with all kinds of doctrines. I'm not one of the hard core Baptists who think Catholics aren't Christian and are headed for hell.
I better make that clear or Mack will thump me with her stick. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
"And as they claim to be Christian, then they would have to be a splinter of Christianity (which as you say is not a church per se)."
From Katharina's explanation earlier, which was news to me, it seems that Joseph Smith did not splinter from, but went back to, something. (the retro term) To me, it seems more like a rewinding of the tape, and starting back at an earlier point.
I am definitely still in the midst of my paradigm shift. Growing up as a baptized Catholic who went to a Methodist church, I still got the feeling that there were Catholics, and there were moved-away-from-Catholics. Any nonCatholic Christian group would be a Protestant sect, in my mind.
It is sort of like roots music. If a musician is into reggae, but then goes back to performing ska, the root of reggae, they are not really moving away from reggae, they are going back to an earlier, purer, form of it.
I can see how the "splinter" analogy would rankle.
Liz
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I might thump you anyway, just for posterity, Belle.
Paul did a good job of summing up my thoughts on the issue. (Paul, get out of my head!o_O)
Kat says that other Christian churches may believe in Christ and do things in his name, which are all well and good, but act without 1. the authority of god or 2. have the priesthood. Or is that the same thing? I think she did say that it was.
*raises eyebrow*
Jesus chose the apostles before his death and resurrection that make him the Christ. After he is Risen, he comissions the apostles. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is given to the Apostles. All Christian then receieve the Holy Spirit.
Pentecost marks the formation of the Church.
Did we blink and miss the authority from God? the power of binding and loosing that was given first to Peter and then to the other apostles?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
oh, and a side note: the bishop was confirmed to his bishopric in NH. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
As a member of the churches of Christ, I have a little something to say about the use of "splinter groups" as a descriptor. From a technical sociological standpoint it may be true (both of us and of the LDS). However, neither of us consider it theologically true of ourselves (each other is another matter), as we each consider ourselves to be a re-creation of the original church, not a derivative of some other group.
Moreover, the term "splinter" implies something of minimal importance--a tiny fragment not really deserving of recognition--or an unwarranted fracture. I get irate when people claim that the churches of Christ are made up entirely of "little splinter groups", because it suggests either that we are not important or that we divide over issues we ought to know are not important. It may not be in the dictionary, but it's a real connotation nonetheless.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
*desperately refrains from comment*
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
I'm also church of Christ and while I understand essentially what Maccabeus is saying, I think that our church :cough:denomination:cough: has a lot of mildly delusional stances. Not the least of which is the contention that we are neither protestant nor a denomination . . . .
I won't tell you my current feelings on our goal of restoration, either, just now since I feel it unwise to spark a debate in the middle of this thread with another c of C'er. We divide too much as it is already.
Q.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Mack: ?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
69. Do I need to say more? o_O
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Ha! Sorry. Dumb.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Moreover, the term "splinter" implies something of minimal importance--a tiny fragment not really deserving of recognition--or an unwarranted fracture. I get irate when people claim that the churches of Christ are made up entirely of "little splinter groups", because it suggests either that we are not important or that we divide over issues we ought to know are not important. It may not be in the dictionary, but it's a real connotation nonetheless. "
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
I wish you could know what an encouragement you are to me dkw. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)