Jump to content

New Head Of Episcopal Church


des
 Share

Recommended Posts

I didn't see this here, what'ya'all think of the new women head of Episcopal church? Also supposedly the new head of the Southern Baptists is a kindler gentler one.

 

As for above, about time, but I don't know about repackaging Southern Baptists-- think it is mostly a new

package (as in old wine in new bottles). OTOH, some conservatives have been taking bolder stands lately-- global warming, conservation, AIDs. So who knows.

 

Hope someone might have something more interesting to say. :-)

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see this here, what'ya'all think of the new women head of Episcopal church? Also supposedly the new head of the Southern Baptists is a kindler gentler one.

 

As for above, about time, but I don't know about repackaging Southern Baptists-- think it is mostly a new

package (as in old wine in new bottles). OTOH, some conservatives have been taking bolder stands lately-- global warming, conservation, AIDs. So who knows.

 

Hope someone might have something more interesting to say. :-)

--des

 

 

des:

 

The local press here has been kind of tentative here in her home state. If you ask me that's probably a good sign since her early statements have landed on the side of tolerance and understanding of peoples' needs and problems. Definitely an anti-corporate/establishment attitude seemingly.

 

I believe that Bishop Schiory (sp?) will be a breath of fresh air in the long run. Besides her husband's a theoretical mathematician so the family's got brainpower. A good choice if you ask me.

 

I hadn't heard about the new SB leader. Time will tell, but we probably already can expect more of the same stuff like "wives should be obedient to their husbands" sort of things.

 

flow.... :)

Edited by flowperson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see this here, what'ya'all think of the new women head of Episcopal church? Also supposedly the new head of the Southern Baptists is a kindler gentler one.

 

As for above, about time, but I don't know about repackaging Southern Baptists-- think it is mostly a new

package (as in old wine in new bottles). OTOH, some conservatives have been taking bolder stands lately-- global warming, conservation, AIDs. So who knows.

 

Hope someone might have something more interesting to say. :-)

--des

 

 

des,

 

A good call by the leading mainline Episcopals. I think she will be cautiously liberal and inclusive. I like the Episcopals for so often taking the lead, they are the real progressive christian examples. Bravo!

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read about. Sometimes I can tell if something is good by the negative response ;) I suspect her appointment is a very good thing!

 

yeah, I'm hesitant to use the word 'gentle' to describe anything or anyone Southern Baptist - speaking as someone who was raised SB, and still has to attend a SB church w/ family. Thankfully, my new job will require me to work on weekends alot. lol.

 

 

That will be a good way for you to break away from the church. Get as many Sunday mornings as you can! I couldn't break until I went to college. Then I suffered through the first summer home. The second and third summers I made sure I had jobs elsewhere so I didn't even go home!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read about. Sometimes I can tell if something is good by the negative response ;) I suspect her appointment is a very good thing!

That will be a good way for you to break away from the church. Get as many Sunday mornings as you can! I couldn't break until I went to college. Then I suffered through the first summer home. The second and third summers I made sure I had jobs elsewhere so I didn't even go home!

 

Yeah, I'm pretty much gonna be scheduled to work every other weekend, I think. And several nights and overnights(I work at a group home with DSS kids). I'm still considering talking to my family about trying out a different church - whether or not I should bother b/c of my work schedule, how I would approach it, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one of the worst things about what's happened to the Southern Baptist Convention is that it used to be a body of free thinkers. The idea of enforcing orthodoxy on local churches would've appalled Southern Baptists of old. Remember Carter and Clinton both came from Southern Baptist traditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I thought I read somewhere that Southern Baptists started because of the issue of African-Americans' role in the church, in the days following the Civil War. That doesn't sound very free-thinking to me. Although, I suppose they could shift in cycles.

That MAY be true. But it was far from universal. And there were many local congregations that were, for their day, progressive. Carter, as he tells in his Our Endangered Values, believed his more progressive worldview was in complete keeping with his Southern Baptists tradition.

 

I may be mistaken, but I believe that Huey Long, a great progressive of his time, was a Southern Baptist. Clinton was also a Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists most certainly have had their fair share of progressives. Those progressives may have been an aberration, but they were made possible because, until the 80s and 90s takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention by fundamentalist like Falwell, free thinking was allowed in that denomination. That doesn't put them in league with the Quakers or the UCC, but it doesn't entirely segregate them from progressives either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Carter and I think Bill Moyers as well (not sure about Bill Moyers though). Baptists have in their

tradition belief in doctrinal freedom. At one time, they were pro-choice. Not so much because they favored abortion under any circumstance, but that they valued the individual's responsibility first.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy Carter and I think Bill Moyers as well (not sure about Bill Moyers though). Baptists have in their

tradition belief in doctrinal freedom. At one time, they were pro-choice. Not so much because they favored abortion under any circumstance, but that they valued the individual's responsibility first.

--des

 

I have a sense that the current crop of Southern Baptists has been coopted by the televangelists.

 

As for Presiding Bishop-Elect Schiori, I say, "right on!"

 

The Episcopal Church is living in interesting times right now. There is an active and painful schism growing in that church between progressive and conservative factions, mostly centering around the fairly recent consecration of an openly gay bishop, and there have been rumors circulating that the election of Schiori was, in part, driven by conservative votes wishing to further enhance the schism.

 

I can't say if or if not that is true, but I do think that the lord works in mysterious ways. In my own church, a mention by our Dean of the first female Presiding Bishop was met with a hearty round of applause. Lots of folks approve of it, but some don't, just as some disapprove of the gay bishop.

 

It all makes for a strained communion, and what happens, ultimately, to the Anglican Communion (of which the Episcopal church is a part) remains to be seen.

 

Fortunately, at least in most churches, the politicking is being left mostly to the church politicians, and Jesus' message of love and redemption can still be heard each Sunday... at least in the church I go to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that several stories have broken in last few days which state that scientists have found that sexual orientation (gay or hetero} is determined prior to birth while the fetus is in its mother, and at least in boys, has much to do with how many older brothers the boy-baby-to- be has already.

 

In other words homosexual tendencies are probably dependent upon genetic pre-disposition ( similar to macular degeneration, alcoholism, or diabetes suceptability) and is not a learned behavior. The conjunction of these findings with the increasing polarization within several mainline protestant denominations probably is not a coincidence. There were hints of genetic predisposition for homosexuality that came to light in the late 80's, but the findings were not this convincing or well-researched.

 

flow.... :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading Carter's book "Our Endangered Values" - in it he does a great job of describing that denomination's move to the right, both theologically and to a much greater degree politically.

 

An above post says that Carter has a "progressive world view" - - - - after reading the book, it is very clear that he is theologically quite conservative, although politically a moderate. It is true though, that Carter may have a more progressive theological view that an extreemist like say, Pat Robertson.... but that is hardly a bench mark!

 

A great point Carter makes in that book is that one can theologically be a conservative, while at the same time be moderate or even liberal in one's political views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words homosexual tendencies are probably dependent upon genetic pre-disposition ( similar to macular degeneration, alcoholism, or diabetes suceptability)

 

I'm a little uncomfortable with that analogy. Comparing homosexual orientation to alcoholism, macular degeneration, or diabetes susceptibility seems to imply that homosexual orientation is akin to an inherent problem in life that some people suffer from.

 

While I do think that science is teaching us that some of us are "naturally" homosexual,

it seems that a better way to understand these lessons is to embrace a person's sexual orientation as a part of God's design for that person in creation.

 

I do not believe that homosexuality should be viewed as an affliction, but rather embraced as a part of a person's divinely created identity.

 

Just as God has made some of us male and some of us female, some of us with light skin and some of us with dark skin, some of us tall and some of us short, God also made some of us to be attracted to people of the same gender, some of us to be attracted to people of the other gender, and some of us to be attracted to persons of both genders. I believe that all parts of our identity bring glory to God when used to their natural potential for life affirming goodness.

 

Using analogies of genetic illnesses when talking about sexual orientation reminds me of the days when homosexuality was a diagnosable mental illness. Today, psychiatry is much more enlightened.

And so, we as people of faith should be as well.

 

I don't think that the post I origionally quoted was intended to be anything but supportive toward our LGBT sisters and brothers, but I felt compelled to make the above point in all respect and love

Edited by Carl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little uncomfortable with that analogy. Comparing homosexual orientation to alcoholism, macular degeneration, or diabetes susceptibility seems to imply that homosexual orientation is akin to an inherent problem in life that some people suffer from.

 

While I do think that science is teaching us that some of us are "naturally" homosexual,

it seems that a better way to understand these lessons is to embrace a person's sexual orientation as a part of God's design for that person in creation.

 

I do not believe that homosexuality should be viewed as an affliction, but rather embraced as a part of a person's divinely created identity.

 

Just as God has made some of us male and some of us female, some of us with light skin and some of us with dark skin, some of us tall and some of us short, God also made some of us to be attracted to people of the same gender, some of us to be attracted to people of the other gender, and some of us to be attracted to persons of both genders. I believe that all parts of our identity bring glory to God when used to their natural potential for life affirming goodness.

 

Using analogies of genetic illnesses when talking about sexual orientation reminds me of the days when homosexuality was a diagnosable mental illness. Today, psychiatry is much more enlightened.

And so, we as people of faith should be as well.

 

I don't think that the post I origionally quoted was intended to be anything but supportive toward our LGBT sisters and brothers, but I felt compelled to make the above point in all respect and love

 

Carl ( hi Atticus!)

 

As a lifelong UCC member until a short time ago, no one was more joyful than I when the denomination chose to support the new realities of the world, when it comes to sexual and gender issues, at their most recent national gathering. My comments were not made to cast this set of findings in the light of an affliction or disease as you seem to have interpreted my comments. It was written, or at least I attempted to do so, in such a way to show that from a genetic viewpoint, the human organism is highly variable and diverse, and this diversity is based upon a subtle dance and interplay between and among genetics and environmental influences. I merely summarized my understanding of the outcome of the findings and some of their implications.

 

These genetically-based outcomes are not diseases or afflictions, per se, but outward evidences of genetic variability. That is a large difference. There is no "normal" human being. We are all different in some external ways, but very similar on the inside, I believe.

 

Now, you and I are the type of individuals, I believe, that love and support our fellow human beings, and sexual orientation likely has no affect upon that set of priorities for either of us. I was trying to compare gender orientation with other genetically based variabilities, and say that while homosexuality is not an affliction or disease, it does cause others in society to exclude people who have them from the community simply because this particular genetic variability is objectionable to some of them; similar to the situation in which different colors of skin have historically separated the human community, or how public drunkeness sometimes causes people to be put in jail .

 

Community ostracism is a form of bigotry that has been practiced for as long as we have been humans, and it's not going to end any time soon. Some people will always exclude homosexuals from their societies. Some people will always abuse people who have a different skin color than they do. Some people will always look down upon those who are addicted to alchohol. People can't help what they are genetically, and until the rest of our exclusionary society wises up to how much we all need to embrace the excluded and unloved, things aren't going to change.

 

In short, I'm with you in what you said, but that's not going to change the realities of our societal situations.

By the way, the film Gattica, speaks to these issues more eloquently than I could ever hope to. And now with wealthy people being able to have designer babies made from their genetic materials, this issue is probably only going to become more divisive for us all in the future.

 

flow.... :unsure:

Edited by flowperson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Flow (from both Atticus and I :) )

 

I understand the points you are making. They are very valid. I never meant to question your acceptance/view of GLBT persons, I am aware from other interactions with you on this board, that you and I are on the same page there. I'm sorry if my responce didn't make that clear enough.

 

This is an issue that is very, very personal to me, and because of my personal realities, I may be overly sensitive about it.

Sometimes my hyper sensitivity on this issue (the result of many negative experiences with religious structures/leaders on this topic) leads me to be more guarded about anything that looks potentially damaging, than may be necessairy at times. Thank you very much for taking the time to write your second post clairifying the points you were making.

 

If I had one wish it would be that the Church would stop fighting with oneanother and just focus on showing the love of Jesus. - I'm sure that is a concept that we can all agree on !

Edited by Carl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Carl and Atticus !

 

Thanks for your response. I knew it was just a matter of my trying to say too much in too few words in my original post.

 

As far as your being sensitive, please work hard at holding on to that attribute since it will be the primary talent that we will all have to exercise and exploit diligently in the future that is bearing down upon all of us quite rapidly now. Applying the knowledge that sensitive people glean as a result of their life experiences and observations is the raw material that entire civilizations have been built upon.

 

Whether or not our churches and religious and governmental institutions have the wisdom to use this knowledge wisely in policy formation and operational direction is, of course, another matter altogether. All we can do is to pray for them to do so.

 

flow.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Jimmy Carter, I would say, yes, that he may be much more conservative religiously-- the thing is that it doesn't seem to effect his world view or make him take an "agenda". I think this is much closer to Baptist belief pre: the revolt in the Southern Baptist church that turned it so reactionary.

 

As for the comparison of homosexuality with genetic disorders, I am also uncomfortable. I think it is largely genetic, but I don't see it as a disorder. But there are other states of being that are primarily genetic that are not disorders. You could even say high intelligence is not always esp valued in our culture, but it isn't a

disorder-- as I would say (and I'm sure others would disagree-- but outside of school mild retardation isn't really a disorder.) These things are more on a continuum of what is the cultural norm. We obviously were not meant to be created identically.

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another forum, I have posed the question of how this dichotomy arose within human belief. Why is diversity and variability in genotype viewed as a "disorder" by some of us, and conversely, why do many of us see this variability as a "normal" feature of natural differences among people ?

 

This goes way back in human cultural history. Just as the book of Genesis is written from the dual perspectives of imposing order upon nature versus living in harmony with nature, so also does this basic difference in perspective arise in issues such as we have been discussing here. I'll report on any interesting answers that may arise.

 

flow.... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To carry forth my imperfect analogy, at one time in our history (before WW2) it was considered acceptable, even desirable, to keep low IQ (and again I am speaking of individuals who would appear normal otherwise) from having children. Of course, at one time it was considered more the norm that certain racial and ethnic groups would not have equal rights. And even that women were not equal. I think that this is an example of how we are 'growing" in terms of civilized behavior. I am thinking at some time that the issue of gay rights will seem just as strange in some decades-- because gay rights would be a matter of course, assumed.

Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo, who are no means wildly liberal guys, think we should wait awhile on these issues. I think the idea of "waiting" is that they are assuming that this acceptance will eventually come about. I think that younger kids are more accepting of gays even in conservative families.

 

I am guessing that the disorder idea is actual a more civilized form and on a continuum to acceptance. You know you have a state of rejection and revulsion first. Saying something is a disorder makes it less nasty. Ok, they have this condition, but they are still people who require these services (perhaps to cure them, or whatever), and then you would eventually get to acceptance. I'm not saying all individuals go thru this but that might be actually a kinder gentler stand. I have noticed how the far right sometimes will not even admit to gays genetic differences. If it is a lifestyle choice, then it is harder to say "well these are people who need our care, etc." There would be no reason to meet gays in any capacity, if they are just these bad people who take this lifestyle. But once they woudl get to the disorder stage they would be able to try and "help them", in the process they could figure out they that gays are more like them than different, and maybe they do not respond so well to "cures". I'm not saying the view of disorder necessarily leads to acceptance, because it obviously does not. But if society doesn't go in this direction, I'm guessing it might not go to accetance. OTOH, other cultures might be different. Some cultures have always had a place for deviants of some kind. Western culture's place is "disorder".

 

 

--des

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read an interview with the new SB president. I generally have a negative view - so I was very happily surprised when he was quoted as saying that everyone knows what the SB church is against, he wants them to know what they are "for". He said that he'd like people to say that whether or not they agree with the SBC, they know that the SBC loves people. A bit of hope :)

 

Jimmy Carter discusses (in Our Endangered Values) his withdrawal from the SBC due to their vast change in primary focus and function. I think (read it a long time ago) that he talked about the church being established in response to too much involvement in politics.

 

Re the homosexuality topic - it is interesting to note that in societies with less hysteria about the topic many people seem to be attracted to members of both genders at different phases of their lives. It is much less a fixed choice than we perceive it to be. I think we do people a disservice by telling them that if they have ever had a interest or encounter with someone of the same gender that they are denying themselves by having a heterosexual relationship. Not much black and white in this world... too easy! :P:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Cynthia !

 

So good to hear from you again. Yes, I agree with your assessment about the SBC situation. Everyone deserves a chance to show their intent and direction.

 

I also agree with your take on the homosexuality issue. Just like everything else in nature, humans are a spectrum of desires and actions. The directions we pursue and take in life depend upon our genetic predispositions and our explorations and experimentations with the environments around us that influence us. A life of rigid control for control's sake is boring and deadening IMHO, and not what we are indended for.

 

flow.... :)

Edited by flowperson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Here's a little article that appeared in one of our local alternative papers, The Las Vegas Weekly. I thought that you'd all enjoy it.

 

flow.... :)

 

> NEVADA BISHOP TAKES OVER WORLD<

 

Now that she's been voted Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church worldwide, Nevada's Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori is everywhere-- CNN, Time, NPR, flying around the globe. We remember when her concerns were much, much smaller than becoming the first female to hold that post and subsequently divide the stodgy international Anglican community:

 

"When I was growing up, the closest that little girls could come to the altar was singing in the choir." Las Vegas Sun, October 2000 upon being named Bishop of Nevada.

 

"I hope to... develop God's dream for Nevada."--Las Vegas Sun 2001

 

Better amp up those dreams, Bishop. Here's the reaction of Orthodox Anglican, Virtue Online, to your new job: " [Liberals] voted for her to stick it in the eye of the Anglican community."

 

Give 'em hell, Right Reverend !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a little article that appeared in one of our local alternative papers, The Las Vegas Weekly. I thought that you'd all enjoy it.

 

flow.... :)

 

> NEVADA BISHOP TAKES OVER WORLD<

 

Now that she's been voted Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church worldwide, Nevada's Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori is everywhere-- CNN, Time, NPR, flying around the globe. We remember when her concerns were much, much smaller than becoming the first female to hold that post and subsequently divide the stodgy international Anglican community:

 

"When I was growing up, the closest that little girls could come to the altar was singing in the choir." Las Vegas Sun, October 2000 upon being named Bishop of Nevada.

 

"I hope to... develop God's dream for Nevada."--Las Vegas Sun 2001

 

Better amp up those dreams, Bishop. Here's the reaction of Orthodox Anglican, Virtue Online, to your new job: " [Liberals] voted for her to stick it in the eye of the Anglican community."

 

Give 'em hell, Right Reverend !

 

 

 

I hope it won't be too long before the UK has its first woman bishop! It would be great if there was a woman Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest Anglican office in the UK. I am hopeful that my daughter, an Anglican priest, might have aspirations in that direction!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service