Oh My God…They’re headed for HEll!

If anyone thought I was serious with the above statement haven’t read my previous posts on simular subjects. Anyhow, if the deed was done, as reported, I expect the Chief Dude has his knickers in a twist over it. It is done..forget it…and just use your “holy” authority and let everyone know that the 2 priests were “bad” and that no one should try that kind of thing again. The archbishop of Uganda is upset, calling it “blasphemous”. Golly! He is in Uganda…what business is it of his?

The apostolic mantle of authority is unravelling! And what is worse, almost nobody cares!! It seems that when faced with a choice between the authority of the Church and the Power of Love, people are choosing power. In the words of the Guardian of the Grail (Indiana Jones and the Last Crucade), They have chosen – wisely.
So what is under this unravelling mantle – the plain shirt of humanity. I think the priests involved will have more credibility because of their choice, simply because thy have revealed their appreciation for human love as an expression of God’s love.

This sounds like their ceremony in God’s house celebrating their love and future was beautiful. Congratulations to both of them.
To call love blasphemous is totally, really blasphemous!!

Blasphemous is being kind and a understatement, but it is also prophetic.It’s what the church gets for ordaining people in homosexual relationships and its just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s called LOVE, cknuck. 2 people in love who happened to be the same gender and they wanted to pledge their vows in a place they consider “sacred.” That is most certainly not blasphemous. Expect your divne being was smiling. Mine would have been.

cknuck, the church gets what it should, more loving couples to participate in it’s life. Christianity claims to be about love, and that should and in many churches, does, extend to all, without reservation, as long as they “accept Christ as their Savior”…at least that is what I was taught.

The Prohesy of the Beatles:
“All you need is love. All you need is love. All you need is love, sweet love; Love is all you need”
All together now… “All you need is love,…”
ck,
You may not like it, but love is here to stay. These are no mere infatuations, no momentary lusts, no rush of hormones. Most of these folks (there are always a few who slip through – but that is true with mixed chromosomal weddings too) are commited and ready to make formal tstatements about their relationship. Come on, man, you can sing it too,
“All you need is love,…”

I salute the Rev. Martin Dudley for having the courage to bless his friends ceremony…and, to assist in leading the way to equality.
I sent him an email thanking him. I wonder if he will get it…or, if he has already been removed.
As far as the prejudice-promoting Bishop from Uganda…my heart goes out to people such as him. People so filled with fear/hate that they do not feel love. It is so sad when church leaders promote prejudice, discrimination, bigotry, and hate.
The Anglican Communion is that much better because of this ceremony at St. Barts. I guess time will tell what the future holds for the Anglican Communion.
I have so much respect for our presiding bishop here in the USA and her unwavering commitment towards equality within our church.

I really hope Archbishop Williams has the guts to start cracking down on this kind of blasphemy.
For those who here who are justifying this on the grounds of “love,” sexual love is no excuse for flagrantly violating the tradition. The issue is not even about homosexuality–Williams himself has always be thoughtfully pro-gay but is no supporter of flagrant disregard for tradition–but it’s about love for the Church and its tradition first and formost, and sexual love only second. Liberal Western priests and bishops who are flagrantly abandoning the tradition they hold in common with conservatives and with African leaders aren’t defending love; they certainly don’t have enough love for the conservatives and refuse to patiently engage them in ecclesiastical dialogue.

Nate
You betray your own ignorance of the entire issue with this one sentence, “For those who here who are justifying this on the grounds of ‘love,’ sexual love is no excuse for flagrantly violating the tradition.” It ain’t all sex – hetero or homosexually speaking.
Your argument that this is simply an issue about tradition and authority is lost in the face of basic human needs for affection. Paul wrote – it’s all love, baby! Anything else – knowledge, tradition, even wisdom – is clanging metal. Allegiance to an institution is in large part what Jesus was hoping to reform. It is allegiance to God;s love, experienced in one person’s love for another that is the goal. The institution is simply there to help move things along.

Tradition, smamishion! It’s far better to be righter alone than wronger in a crowd. Ever hear of a moral compass?

Excellent Post, jestrfyl, Excellent.

If you don’t want to be part of a tradition-centric church, then you should just leave it. If sexual love is what’s most important to you, then quit claiming to be a part of a church where other forms of love–like love for the other members of the church and their common tradition, something the liberals have no respect for–THEN LEAVE!!! Liberal Catholics, Anglicans, etc., don’t seem to get this. There are plenty of churches that pay no heed to preserving any real theological tradition; join one of those, or quit whining when the hierarchy challenges your flagrant disregard the tradition the hierarchy exists to defend.

Your description of a traditional church Nate, to me is empty and wanting, with no true feelings. In every church there are people that would end up being judged and cast out the way you explain it. And for many, many years that is just what was happening. It’s 2008 now and there is no reason why a traditional church shouldn’t also be home to people you’re used to judging, and received instead of casting them out as whining liberals, or any other disparaging term you generally might come up with.

Actually jest you betray your ignorance in your “all you need is love” Beatle theology and Paul did not say “all you need is love baby.” The kind of love he was referring to had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality especially in the church. God’s word concerning homosexuality is clear it is an affront to Him among other things. This is what the Ugandan representative is talking about not what you feel or believe but what the Bible says. The church does love all kinds of sinner but it does not say that it is God’s will that we sin. The people of the church that Nate refers to built this country and built the church.

Yes, Henrietta, in any traditional church there SHOULD be people who are cast out. Those who flagrantly (and unlovingly) disregard the tradition and the tradition-informed opinions of fellow church members around the world need to be disciplined, and if they continue to put their own private opinions above the ecumenical deliberation of the whole church, they simply need to leave. There are other places they can fit in quite well.
What right do liberals and revisionists have to force their own novel opinions on the rest of the Anglican Communion? Because that’s exactly what’s happening. Traditional churches are not secular democracies practicing a “live and let live” philosophy. That’s simply not how the ecclesiology works.
Those who don’t want to be a part of a tradition can leave that tradition. It’s that simple. Those who stay are nothing but noisy, unwelcome troublemakers.

“flagrant disregard for tradition”
Ya mean like when the Anglican Church accepted women priests?
U 2 funneee.

Nate W’s words, ” That’s simply not how the ecclesiology works.” It is allegiance to ecclesiology and not to humanity that is the problem. A Church that does not change is, as the Bibe phrases these things, “as good as dead”. Strict adherence to tradtion because it is what it is sticks a person to nothing, vapors, the aether. All of those troublesome liberals (Loud & Proud, thank you very much) and revisionists are working for thiese changes in order to keep the denomination alive. However, if a rigid carcase of an insitution is all you need to keep your spirit intact, enjoy it (though it smacks of institutional necorphilia)
nnmns,
“Tradition, smamishion” Smamishion? I love it! Now say it five time fast.
ck,
I meant most of that in jest (refer to my moniker for the reason). However, I do think Paul was on the mark in ways he did not really appreciate. The portion of the first Corinthian letter was to a church divided, and his point was if there is no love present – in all of its loftiest and most wonderful sense – then all the other stuff is good for flowers and fields, but not for human consumption. Get past the sex and look at the lives and love of the people who are working so hard to formalize relaionships that have given their lives meaning and hope. If sex is the only reason for getting married, then I think I’ll leave it all to the state to work through. But if people want to discover more about themselves through their relationship with another person, and therby their relationship with God (why else get married by clergy?), then I am there for them – without regard for theire sexual proclusions.

Some people here are completely ignorant about what it means to belong to a tradition. Respecting tradition isn’t about allegiance to some dying institution. First and foremost, it’s about respect for the PEOPLE who have given their lives to that tradition and its preservation. Liberals have shown time and time again that when you look past all their rhetoric about love, there’s no love to be found for the traditionalists and the African bishops who have dedicated their lives to a church only to see the very definition of their church challenged by rebels who have no interest in dialogue and no interest in paying any regard to the set of practices that makes the community what it is: Anglican, rather than Unitarian, or UCC, or neo-pagan, or atheist, or whatever else. Why lie to yourselves and call yourselves Anglicans when you have no regard for Anglicanism?
Liberals would do well to learn a lesson from Archbishop Williams, an advocate of homosexuality in his own private theological work who nevertheless has a great respect for the importance of working with the tradition to effect change. That’s what love demands. Those who try to force a revisionist agenda on the rest of the church have no love. Their claim to uphold the goodness of love is a lie, because they refuse to extend love to those concerned with maintaining the defining characteristics of the community. It’s not love the liberals defend, it’s self-centered moral autonomy. They want to be able to do what they want to do; who cares what the rest of the community thinks?

So Nate, by your definition love by a liberal would be when he or she gives in. No doubt love by a conservative is when he or she dominates.

In the interest of claiming my own words please know the 10:19 am post from today is mine – jestrfyl’s. I wouldn’t want anyone else getting blamed for my remarks.
Nate, so you subscribe to “don’t ask, don’t tell” or “don’t rock the boat”. I am glad someone is finding a way to work through this on the traditional side. I suggest reading Peter Gomes books as well. He is as dyed-in-the-wool a traditionalist Episcopalian as I have met, yet he is black, gay (celibate), and incredibly liberal – the former Harvard Chaplain. His work, “The Good Book” is great nad worth people’s time.
I do not completely reject tradition. Our services of worship are very “traditional” and I have little interest or use for “contemporary” styles of worship – too performance/entertainment oriented. But when I see a viable challenge to tradition, I am intrigued by it and will spend time and energy learing about it. I am (painfully) white, middle class, middle age, heterosexual, male, with a wife, 2 kids, and a dog. The only thing missing is the white picket fence (they rot too fast in Florida). But even with all that, I find jousting with the windmills of tradition to be fun and energizing. If nothing else, the windmills sharpen my “spear” and hone my “blade”.

Paul was clear about homosexuality in the church and his reasoning was sound. The love about the Lord talked about is the love between one woman and one man in any order you choose as long as there is different sexes and not the same. No where in any example given in the Bible (which Christian churches are based on)is there an example of a man marring another man in church or out. When Paul uses the ample He talks of Christ loving the Christ loving the church in a one man one woman context. Jesus used the example of groom and bride in His parable. The only examples of same sex partners used in the Bible is used in sinful references. That’s crystal clear no matter how folk try try to muddle it.

A liberal, or anyone else who disagrees with this or that part of their ecclesial tradition, is not to just “give in.” I’ve already pointed to the example of Rowan Williams, who is both fairly progressive on some issues like homosexuality and an ardent defender of the importance of working with tradition (he’s written whole books on the importance of tradition, and he firmly believes–just as I’ve tried to explain to people here before–that “traditionalism” and “progressivism” are not in opposition to each other). Eugene Rogers, a gay Anglican theologian, would be another fine example of someone who is both pro-gay but is also no supporter of the flagrant disregard for tradition by many liberals or the willingness of many liberals to place their allegiance with secular wisdom ahead of allegiance to the rest of the church and its common tradition. There are numerous examples of traditionalists who do anything but give in. They work humbly and charitably with other people in the church and with the tradition in hopes of making ecumenical agreements on appropriate belief and practice. In other words, they put patient love for their fellow church members ahead of the temptation to run off and support the latest trend in “social justice” and unilaterally claim that’s what the gospel’s all about. When you’re in a tradition-centered community, that’s the proper way to proceed, whatever the specific reform you’re promoting. If there’s some issue of justice that you feel demands your urgent attention, immediate action is fine, just don’t perform that action on behalf of the church and ignore the opinion of the rest of the church and its traditional teachings. It’s overstepping the bounds of one’s own authority do things like marry gays or ordain women (and I’m for women’s ordination) until the community has come together and invested its clerical representatives with that kind of authority.
The same works in the other direction, too. Fundamentalists who retreat into more “conservative” readings of their faith against the ecumenical tradition of their church (think of radical Catholic traditionists who reject Vatican II) are equally at fault. The “rightness” of “wrongness” of their position is not what matters. What matters is that they’ve claimed for themselves a kind of doctrinal and moral authority that, in traditionalist ecclesiologies–Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican–doesn’t properly belong to the isolated individual but to the gathered body of Christ come together to critically, humbly, and charitably reflect on their received tradition in light of contemporary concerns.
It’s fine if you don’t like that ecclesiology. There are plenty of liberal, evangelical, and fundamentalist churches that don’t give any authoritative role to tradition. No one is forced to stay in a tradition-based church.

Nate I think I have a clearer view of your position on this. I don’t promise to always agree with you, in fact I doubt I will, but I understand better where you are coming from. Thanks.

Nate,
I think this was one of your more clear statements – well thought through and explained. As with nnmns, I may not agree with you on specific interpretations, but I do (I think) on this point. Our own liberal UCC has some very conservative pastors and congregations who serve as our “loyal opposition”. I honor their stance, though I do not agree, if for no other reason that they require us (the liberals) to be accountable. It is at times frustrating to plow the same ground over and again. But it is part of the process – refining what is good and casting off (a good metalurgical term for the impurities that rise during refinement) what is not. I am no fan of ecclesiology or polity – but I know from experiece they are in place because they offer the most dispassionate and beneficial path for dealing with contradictions and conflict.
I believe all these discussions go better when emotional outbursts are restrained and we hear & listen to each other. I appreciate your efforts in this.

NateW,
I’ll throw in my two cents’ worth to agree with others posters here about your 2:40 post on June 18. You took a lot of time to explain without emotion and I appreciate your efforts and your thoughts.