Congratulations Bishop Mynns
Thursday June 29, 2006
Wow, wow, wow. The large and vibrant Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia is now an Anglican cathedral. Its rector, Father Mynns, is as of today a bishop serving under the Primate of ... Nigeria. Virginia, you will recall, led the...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
The large and vibrant Truro Church in Fairfax, Virginia is now an Anglican cathedral. Its rector, Father Mynns, is as of today a bishop serving under the Primate of ... Nigeria
Doesn't seem like such a surprise to me, since the Anglicans want to cut loose most of the American part of their church based on the homophobia of Africans...
What better way to bypass the will of the 'communion' than to 'redistrict?'
Interesting times, maybe, but no mystery.>
"The homophobia of Africans"? Is it racist to write that?>
No, not really. I refer, of course, to the Africans the Anglican church uses to try and push a homophobic agenda on people in America who don't want it.>
So, you're saying that the natives are backward, then? That "homophobia" is par for the course for a bunch of African primitives?
If so, that's racist and just not very "diverse" or "inclusive" at all.>
Truro hasn't even decided to leave the ECUSA. Mynns is retiring and then doing the bidding for Akiniola.>
It seems you comparison to the Confederacy is appropriate. Bad theology supporting even worse social policy. Slaveowners with Bibles in their hands went to war to support their bad theology and narrow political beliefs.
And look how history views them now.>
I don't have any trouble with people deciding to form their own groups, to split off, to have a cohesive and supportive spiritual community where there is agreement on issues that are deemed very important to the spiritual community.
It's a shame that someone or other feels unwelcome in a church they grew up in. But what do you do when people grow differently?
Some groups can accomodate more diversity than others, that need not be a bad thing.>
Seems there are serious questions about the story.
">http://religiousleftonline.typepad.com/religious_left_online/>
Cusidh:
It is vulgar and boorish to ridicule and sneer at the moral convictions of fellow Christians, no matter how much you might disagree with them.>
"What better way to bypass the will of the 'communion' than to 'redistrict?'"
Isn't it ECUSA that is bypassing -- or, rather flouting -- the will of the worldwide Anglican Communion?>
hahaha! "Homophobia". Why argue when you can sneer and smear with one word?
News flash: Christians aren't afraid of active homosexuals. They just realize that they're committing atrocities (one of only four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance) and trying, by and large, to make it The Summit Of All That Is Good and Holy.>
Is it an atrocity like rape or torture?
Or something else, like eating shellfish?>
Given that Akinola lobbied the Nigerian government to imprison gays and anyone who speak out against them, I think the word "homophobia" is fair.
And this is who the American Anglicans want to align themselves with.>
News flash: Christians aren't afraid of active homosexuals. They just realize that they're committing atrocities (one of only four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance) and trying, by and large, to make it The Summit Of All That Is Good and Holy.
How's that mixed-fibre clothing working out for ya?
See you in hell :)>
Cusidh wrote:
> I refer, of course, to the Africans the Anglican
> church uses to try and push a homophobic
> agenda on people in America who don't want it.
It's funny you mentioned this. Last week, these 2 guys who said they were African-Anglicans came by my house trying to recruit me for their anti-gay club. They were selling statues of King Henry VIII, the founder of their church and, according to them, a "really butch chap." When I told them I wasn't interested, they told me I'd be really sorry and that I should "watch my back.">
Wow, if we're going to throw out the mixed-fiber prohibition of Leviticus (19:19), I guess we can throw out everything, including all that about not hating your brother (19:17) and not taking vengeance (19:18). Woo hoo!
Or maybe a more nuanced interpretation is called for, which I guess may be your point, but one which no one here (even the "homophobes") would argue with.>
19:18) = 19:18, of course.>
Bruce:
Not to mention not screwing your mom, sister, or animals; not defrauding your neighbor; not lying; making sure to care for the stranger; being impartial...
Yep, its easier to keep having fun with the tattered shellfish/fiber clothes canards.
">http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018-19&version=47>
But it shows that people pick-and-choose from those laws and that some laws were based on the reality of the times and may not have relevance to us now.
So it's not unrealistic, for instance, to suggest that the laws against homosexual rape and the use of male prostitutes may have nothing to do with the world we live in now.>
"Isn't it ECUSA that is bypassing -- or, rather flouting -- the will of the worldwide Anglican Communion?"
As an Episcopalian for 45 years, I have to laugh at comments such as the above which show absolutely no understanding of the Anglican Communion. This isn't the Roman Catholic Church in which everyone is issued edicts from on high that they must follow. The "will of the Anglican Communion" is simply irrelevant when it comes to selection of local bishops. To the contrary, the global south churches are attempting to do something very "Un-Anglican" i.e. meddle and interfere in the local affairs of other member churches. They are the ones in the wrong here. This is the equivalent of the United Nations attempting to set the speed limit in Arkansas - nothing wrong with the UN but local laws of member nations are not their business.
The Episcopal Church existed before the Anglican Communion did, and of course it was originally separate even from Canterbury. Having to get a permission slip from the global south is simply not a "rule" with which the Episcopal Church must comply. As an Episcopalian I simply could not care less about the internal affairs of the church in Nigeria. I only wish they would return the courtesy. But then again there is that same old conservative disorder of "aversion to ambiguity".
While the conservatives fret over homosexuality, Bishop Schori sees other issues as higher priorities. From her first press conference after being elected Presiding Bishop, a reporter asked how the "average Anglican who is a black woman under 30, earns two dollars a day and is evangelical," might react to news of her consecration and to her consent to Gene Robinson's consecration, she responded: "If the average Anglican is as you describe, she is dealing with hunger, inadequate housing, unclean water and unavailability of education. Those are the places I would start. The issue of sexuality comes along much higher on the hierarchy of needs."
I guess ultimatley we all must decide where our priorities as Chrisitians should be. Is "SEX" the be all and end all, or are the things Bishop Schori descibes more important.
I stand with Bishop Schori as my Presding Bishop.>
Barry writes:
it shows that people pick-and-choose from those laws and that some laws were based on the reality of the times and may not have relevance to us now.
Yes, that's why we do not worry about mixed fibers today. But if you're going to call sexual practices a "pick-and-choose" law you might as well do the same for "love your neighbor". Both are addressed in both the old and new testaments and are enduring moral laws.
Bob writes:
I guess ultimatley we all must decide where our priorities as Chrisitians should be. Is "SEX" the be all and end all, or are the things Bishop Schori descibes more important.
I don't think the lack of discussion about the poor on this forum reflects a lack of its importance in the minds of the "homophobes". What's there to discuss? Everyone agrees Christians should assist the poor.>
"Everyone agrees Christians should assist the poor."
Yet most do nothing about it. The American renegades, in fact, are distracting the Africans from focusing on poverty by getting them to focus on American issues like gays and women priests. First World problems, to the detriment of focusing on Third World concerns.>
The American renegades, in fact, are distracting the Africans from focusing on poverty by getting them to focus on American issues like gays and women priests.
As has been brought up before, one could argue that it is the progressives that are doing all the distracting. What's more important -- the poor or elevating a gay bishop?>
I can't celebrate further evidence that the ECUSA and Anglican Communion are splitsville, so I don't think congratulations are in order. But I understand why those who believe the ECUSA is moving in a sinful direction are rejoicing.
On Wednesday, I attended a "wrap-up" meeting about the convention at my own local church.
As I've described elsewhere, my church evolved over several decades from a dying urban church to a vital, wonderful institution that was open to all sorts of people -- skeptics and believers, Republicans and Democrats, ex-Catholics and ex- other Protestant denominations, people of different races and ages, and so forth.
After intial discomfort with openly gay members, our rector grew to welcome them such an extent that he ended up testifying before Congress on the Biblical basis for supporting civil unions.
I want to belong to a church that strives to include gays and lesbians, in spite of my occasional personal discomfort, because, being human, I'm not prejudice-free.
But, to me, this is an evolutionary process. It cannot, and should not, be forced on conservatives by simple (or even not so simple) majority vote by liberal Episcopalians who currently have the upper hand in the ECUSA. Sometimes communication may be easier after a divorce, but I don't believe it will be in this case, and I think that's a shame.>
What's more important -- the poor or elevating a gay bishop?
The ECUSA elevated a *human*.
It was the conservatives who made an issue of his sexuality.>
Imprisoning homosexuals is immoral, and such Bishops that lobby governments to imprison homosexuals and anyone who disagrees with that ruling, are bearing evil fruit, and are not suited to lead in a Christian community.>
"average Anglican who is a black woman under 30, earns two dollars a day and is evangelical"
I presume we're talking about a Third World Anglican here - most likely in Africa? In that case, sexual issues are far from being unimportant (as Bishop Katharine suggests) to her, because she is directly under threat from AIDS.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.