quote: The worldwide Anglican Communion is on the brink of schism, with African prelates leading a charge against the U.S.-based Episcopal Church for consecrating a gay bishop. A showdown is shaping up for an Anglican summit next week in Tanzania. ... While liberals base their beliefs on the New Testament’s message of love and inclusiveness, he said, Christians in Africa focus more on the Old Testament with its plagues, visions and healings watched over by a stern and demanding God. Liberal churches in rich countries have become increasingly open towards homosexuality. In Africa, where the Bible is read much more literally, traditionalists believe the issue was settled when the Book of Leviticus called it “an abomination.” ... “If you’re arguing over homosexuality and quote Leviticus, most western Christians say that’s just in the Old Testament and has nothing to do with them,” Mr. Jenkins said. ... This different reading leads to practices that embarrass many liberals, such as exorcism of demons. Some African churches also refuse to join the majority and allow women priests. ... “[African] Christians do not want to be seen paying less attention to their own scriptures than Muslims devote to the Koran,” Mr. Jenkins wrote in his book. ... “Other mainstream Protestant churches have been extremely nervous watching the Anglican experience, but it’s not so pressing because they don’t have global conferences,” he said.
I find it ironic (although I'm not sure whether to be surprised or not) that Anglicans (and other Protestant churchs) can manage to create so many converts that are more conservative/hardcore then themselves.
IIRC, its not just Protestants, the Catholics also have a similar problem in South America where their converts are similarly more true to the original faith than they are.
Its almost like a strange game of telephone where the resulting message ends up being more correct than any of the intermediate messages.
posted
Was this meant to be deliberately insulting to Christians who focus more on the new covenant than the old?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why the Rest Hates the West -- book I was just reading -- refers to this controversy. Bishop Spong, who is extreme enough theologically he is no longer technically Christian (doesn't believe in divinity of Christ or the Resurrection) was quoted as referring to African bishops as "superstitious" and "uneducated" because of their stance on this. An ironic thing for a sensitive white liberal to say about indigenous persons.
The point the book made with this: multiculturalism only works until people of different cultures actually show up.
It might seem ironic, but in a way it really isn't. The modern Western ideas Episcopalians have here seem normal to us because we're modern Westerners. In every other culture I've ever heard of throughout history, they're radical. Given what both African culture and the Christian Bible say about the issue, it would be amazing if African bishops *did* agree with the US and UK Anglicans on this.
But the humor is definitely there. It looks like one of our most liberal, pro-multicultural denominations will only survive by separating its white and nonwhite members.
I was interested in the idea of a *Rwandan* bishop having a parish in South Carolina. I'm not expecting another Rwanda genocide, but if this all happens there'll probably be some bishop in the next sub-Saharan disaster zone, with US parishioners. Maybe he'll plead for help, and his parishioners will give it. Maybe they'll feel more personally involved in the moral issues if other parishioners are caught abetting a genocide. Maybe they can help.
Given what happened with the tsunami (Pentecostals in California getting involved in warning India and Sri Lanka, before even the US government knew what was happening), I think it's likely, and a good thing.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TP: Not really. Why would it be? If anything, I find more liberal Christians that focus on the New Testament to be more agreeable to the modern world. But its still interesting.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Applying blanket stereotypes in a derogatory manner as incidentals to what someone is saying.
The whole superficial stereotype is bad enough, but when it's just thrown out there without any purpose to what is being said but rather as an unconnected attack/characterization, to me, it is even worse.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, I think it would be more accurate to say that multiculturalism only works until a culture without a multicultural component shows up. Then it either has to adopt a multicultural component to get along or be rejected by a bunch of people who are going to feel like hypocrits as they defend themselves.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Given what happened with the tsunami (Pentecostals in California getting involved in warning India and Sri Lanka, before even the US government knew what was happening), I think it's likely, and a good thing.
I had never heard about this. What's the story? How did the Californian Pentecostals come to know first about tsunami conditions in India and Sri Lanka? *interested
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It looks like one of our most liberal, pro-multicultural denominations will only survive by separating its white and nonwhite members.
Do the Anglicans not have non-white members in western countries?
This sounds more like a cultural issue than a racial one. I don't see why you are trying to make it one.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Will, I think it would be more accurate to say that multiculturalism only works until a culture without a multicultural component shows up. Then it either has to adopt a multicultural component to get along or be rejected by a bunch of people who are going to feel like hypocrits as they defend themselves.
I'd say that's a pretty fair assessment.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: IIRC, its not just Protestants, the Catholics also have a similar problem in South America where their converts are similarly more true to the original faith than they are.
Its almost like a strange game of telephone where the resulting message ends up being more correct than any of the intermediate messages.
Interesting stuff.
I would take issue with what you seem to be assuming is "correct" and "the original faith".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: I'm not sure what you mean. Is it possible that you're associating positive qualities with the phrases "correct" and "original faith" when I did not intend so?
I'm merely saying that the original Anglican church clearly did not approve of gay marriages and gay bishops, and while the modern decision to include them is admirable, the decision itself clearly changes the church from what it used to be (and indeed even further away from the Catholic church from which the Anglican church originates). If you read the article, you'll even note that one African denomination doesn't even allow female priests which is definitely a throw-back to the original Anglican (or Catholic) church.
Thus for the new converts to go back to the original policies against homosexual priests and unions, makes them have more in common with the original faith.
If it makes you feel any better, you can use the original adjective in the original article "traditionalist."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Applying blanket stereotypes in a derogatory manner as incidentals":
As you can easily enough see, I didn't apply it; I brought it into question. (Dagonee, I think Squicky is referring to the idea that sensitive white liberals don't like calling indigenous people nasty names.) After all, I showed a case in which it wasn't true. If exploding stereotypes is a good thing, we can all be pleased!
Even if it *were* mine, it's not derogatory. Suggesting that sensitive white liberals are not expected to call indigenous persons names is a compliment.
It's not incidental. The irony M. refers to is real, and the problem multiculturalists have with other cultures is a big part of what's going on here. (The other part being the problem that other cultures have with us.)
--
quote:This sounds more like a cultural issue than a racial one. I don't see why you are trying to make it one.
I'm not. You can tell because I didn't use the word "race," but repeatedly used the word "culture."
However, it certainly is legitimate to note if an organization committed to racial diversity can only survive by separating US Episcopalians (an overwhelmingly white group) from Africans (an overwhelmingly nonwhite group). When what happens is the opposite of the organization's goal, it suggests a problem.
[ February 09, 2007, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: IIRC, its not just Protestants, the Catholics also have a similar problem in South America where their converts are similarly more true to the original faith than they are.
Its almost like a strange game of telephone where the resulting message ends up being more correct than any of the intermediate messages.
Interesting stuff.
I would take issue with what you seem to be assuming is "correct" and "the original faith".
So would I.
But I am reminded of a scene in the movie, "The Mission." Where a cardinal is inspecting some South American missions and asks the native priest how much he makes, and he replies that the funds the mission generates through agriculture are spread equally amongst all the people. The cardinal says, "Ah yes there is a radical sect in France that is practicing this idea." and the priest responds, "Oh no father! It was a practice of the early Christians."
I looked it up and sure enough the priest was right. Besides humanity's unwillingness to live selflessly I have yet to hear one good argument for why Christians do not still live this way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd tend to agree, Pixiest. I'll add that multiculturalism is a modern Western development, so if we can only get along with cultures that have it, we can only get along with Westernized cultures.
Claudia: I can't easily find a link, and I may have some details wrong, but here's the story as I remember it. When the tsunami hit Sumatra, someone from a church there called a clergyman friend in California (same denomination) and told him what had happened. Then someone from California contacted friends in India/Sri Lanka churches and warned them what was headed there way. It all happened very quickly.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
BlackBlade has it pretty much right. Where I see now that you were refering specifically to Anglicans, I was refering to Christianity in general. I think that inclusion is closer to the original spirit of Christianity rather than further from it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
BlackBlade has it pretty much right. Where I see now that you were refering specifically to Anglicans, I was refering to Christianity in general. I think that inclusion is closer to the original spirit of Christianity rather than further from it.
Closer to the original spirit, maybe, closer to the original text, I'm not sure I see it.
I think modern day Christians view the Bible in much the same way some people view the Constitution, as a living document, open to interpretation in regards to the evolution of peoples and societies, whereas perhaps the African/South American Christians view it as some strict constructionists view the Constitution, as a set of rules inscribed in stone, unbreakable and unchanging.
If you look at the original words in the Bible, there's a lot more fire and brimstone to be had than cheery togetherness, and that's what they are focusing on.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This sounds more like a cultural issue than a racial one. I don't see why you are trying to make it one.
I'm not. You can tell because I didn't use the word "race," but repeatedly used the word "culture."
quote:Originally posted by Will B: It looks like one of our most liberal, pro-multicultural denominations will only survive by separating its white and nonwhite members.
BlackBlade has it pretty much right. Where I see now that you were refering specifically to Anglicans, I was refering to Christianity in general. I think that inclusion is closer to the original spirit of Christianity rather than further from it.
I can't judge "spirit". However, I was under the impression that the early Christian church did not allow female priests, gay priests, or gay unions. I was under the impression that these were modern additions, although I could be wrong.
So in terms of actions (which I deem more important than words), African Anglican Christians act more like the original church than their converters.
Edit to add: I see Lyr has already addressed this too.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [However, I was under the impression that the early Christian church did not allow female priests, gay priests, or gay unions. I was under the impression that these were modern additions, although I could be wrong.
Did the concept of people being gay even exist during the time of the early Christian church? The concept of homosexual sex did, of course, but that's a seperate thing.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, you have demonstrated the art of taking small bits of text out of context, and of refuting an argument by ignoring it. This isn't a sound argumentation technique, but it's certainly powerful rhetorically.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, you categorically cast the situation in terms of whites and non-whites, period. You didn't use the word "race", but you were most certainly referring to race. If you weren't, why that choice of words?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I see again that you are talking about particulars and I am talking about generalities.
I believe that the Bible was written in a specific historical time by people who, while inspired, were still people who lived in a specific historical concept. Inclusion may not have been extended to homosexuals - as Noemon said, people didn't really identify that way - but it was extended to other pariahs - tax collectors, prostitutes, even Samaritans! Inclusion was kind of a theme. Expanding "who is my neighbor" was important to the early church.
More specifics. Early Christianity didn't even have "priests" until the second century. There were a variety of different leadership functions. Some of these were performed by women.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: [However, I was under the impression that the early Christian church did not allow female priests, gay priests, or gay unions. I was under the impression that these were modern additions, although I could be wrong.
Did the concept of people being gay even exist during the time of the early Christian church? The concept of homosexual sex did, of course, but that's a seperate thing.
Could you elaborate what you mean Noemon?
Lyrhawn: I would say most Christians do NOT view the Bible as a living book. In fact most would see it as set in stone, unmodifiable, and eternally so. Some sects, such as Mormons believe that the only person who can offer God's official opinion on his words are prophets selected by God himself. Or that if God wishes to give additional instructions he will also use a prophet. Much in the same way as the US constitution, the Supreme Court must interpret its meaning, and nobody else can. The prophet fits the role of judiciary and legislature in this instance.
It's no secret that some Christians interpret the Bible's words literally and some look at the spirit. I wouldn't say the best way is somewhere in the middle, but I would say that new converts usually take a very literal approach to the wording of the scriptures and often draw bad conclusions from it. But I also submit that in SOME instances people blatantly ignore what the Bible clearly says, and try to supplant it with what is called "wisdom" by non believers.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very few people take all of the Bible literally. Even all of the New Testament. Everyone interprets. Most Christians who can afford them have more than one coat.
The differences are in what we choose to interpret and how.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Very few people take all of the Bible literally. Even all of the New Testament. Everyone interprets. Most Christians who can afford them have more than one coat.
The differences are in what we choose to interpret and how.
quote:The differences are in what we choose to interpret and how.
From my perspective, one of the big differences between Christians is less about what and how they choose to interpret and more about what they choose to ignore.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will- I am sick and tired of people saying the most insulting things and then looking wide eyed and innocent when someone calls them on it. You want to be snide and insulting, at least be man enough to admit to it. If you don't want to admit to your behavior, then possibly that's behavior you shouldn't be engaging in.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know blackwolve, not everyone thinks that they are insulting when you say they are. Not that I can say one way or another for Will, but you aren't exactly the judge of what someone should think about what they say or do.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Good point, Mr. Squicky. Sometimes we manage to "interpret" stuff away entirely.
Well I think a big part of that mindset was established by Jesus when he "fulfilled the law of moses."
Certainly some people found it hard to understand that God did not, "Change his mind," he simply "Lead them on to bigger and greater things."
No offense intended for our Jewish brothers and sisters.
But there is a difference between "Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday or any other day of the week." and "Only in and through Christ is salvation made possible."
edit: And apologies to 7th Day Adventists.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: But the humor is definitely there. It looks like one of our most liberal, pro-multicultural denominations will only survive by separating its white and nonwhite members.
What part of that was about cultures again?
Seems like it was directed at race to me.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
BlackBlade has it pretty much right. Where I see now that you were refering specifically to Anglicans, I was refering to Christianity in general. I think that inclusion is closer to the original spirit of Christianity rather than further from it.
I can't judge "spirit". However, I was under the impression that the early Christian church did not allow female priests, gay priests, or gay unions. I was under the impression that these were modern additions, although I could be wrong.
Depending on the translation you use, the early Christian church did allow women to hold positions. I'm not talking about the Catholic church, mind you.
quote:Depending on the translation you use, the early Christian church did allow women to hold positions. I'm not talking about the Catholic church, mind you.
The early Christian church IS the catholic church. The first break occurred with the Greek Orthodox church, but even that was a few centuries A.D.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find this to be at all counter intuitive. Converts to any cause are often more zealous than those who are born to the faith. And why wouldn't they be. These are people who have studied it out and made a conscious choice to adopt a new system of belief.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Questioning the effectiveness of Episcopalian methods for promoting tolerance of different cultures *and races* is not the same as making a post about race, since "Episcopalian" is a denomination, not a race. BTW I'm not saying it's just Episcopalians here. They're the ones noticing the cultural conflict because they're both so very modern-Western *and* have an international structure. But I think we can expect to see more of this: it's an increasingly small world.
[ February 09, 2007, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The early Christian church IS the catholic church. The first break occurred with the Greek Orthodox church, but even that was a few centuries A.D.
The accepted doctrine of the medieval Catholic Church was different enough from the common Christian beliefs of A.D. 100 that people usually draw a distinction somewhere between those two iterations of Christianity. In most discussions I've participated in, "Early Christians" are thought of as pre- or proto-Catholics, not actual full-fledged Catholics.
Besides, couldn't you just as easily say that early Christianity IS Greek Orthodoxy? Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The first break occurred with the Greek Orthodox church, but even that was a few centuries A.D.
There were many divisions in Christianity long bfore the break occurred between the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox Church. The Armenian Christian Church, the Coptic Christians of Egypt, the Ethipian Christian Church and likely an assortment of others predate the Roman Catholic Church and have never been united under the pope. The Roman Catholic Church sees itself as the Universal center of Christianity but its really never been seen that way by all of Christianity.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find if very interesting that this article portrays it as a conflict between African Episcopalians and US/English Episcopalians. I've always understood that the US church itself was fairly divide on the issue with half the church supporting a very liberal interpretation of Christianity and the other half supporting more orthodox views.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say, Rabbit, that's accurate, with the addition that more recently the liberal side has the upper hand -- at least, they got their way on gay ordinations. And I think we can expect liberals to get even more control as conservatives leave the church, either singly or by parish ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6690609 ).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
