This strikes me as just incredibly silly. The argument is that conservatives are racist because they’re reaching out to the “wrong” black people? I particularly find Bishop Sutton’s comment galling, that “They’re looking for black faces to give them legitimacy because they can’t find them at home.” So, what, their position cannot be legitimate unless they get some black support, specifically yours? That’s not just racist, it’s just plain hubristic.
God bless.

Hmm, the issue of the different perspectives of black Anglicans in America and Africa also brings me to a random thought, that both sides are likely framing this in terms of history. African-Americans were a minority persecuted, so many of them see gays as being in the same boat. But Africans historically have been a majority oppressed by colonialism. I’d be willing to get that in their minds, the whole homosexuality issue in the church is seen as being an example of a rich, white minority attempting to make drastic changes to a local culture without the consent of the majority of Anglicans, who are, after all, on their side.
Not that that really argues in favor of the issue one way or another, I’m just musing.
God bless.

Agreed they are looking for Black faces in the wrong arena this guy is the first Black to be ordain and he’s looking out for his own butt afraid to stand up to his superiors it took him so long to get in he want to sing the right song to stay in even if it means to go against scripture. Church first God maybe second. Most Black would disagree with him.

It’s great you can read all the Black’s minds and tell us how they think, cknuck. If I tried that it would likely be called racism.

That’s because you really don’t know many Blacks I do. My wife and I were talking and we come to realize we don’t know any Black Episcopal, so this guy is a poor representation because he probably doesn’t either. lol.

“That’s because you really don’t know many Blacks I do.”
So if I knew, say eighty Blacks and declared, say, “most Blacks like watermellon” or “most Blacks are bigots” that wouldn’t be racism?
To make it perfectly clear, I’m not declaring either of those. I’m asking a question about what’s racism and what’s not.

Why does the disagreement have to come down to “black and white?” (even though the Black Bishop here in the states accepts homosexuality in his church).Don’t the folks all read the SAME Bible? It’s a matter of interpretation…something which all people do. Some say the sky is blue and some say “no it’s not, because my holy book says it is always pink”. Who is right? Each side thinks they are…thus as much as some folks who post here want it, I don’t think either side is willing to give in. Each thinks they are correct in their Biblical interpretation. Personally, I think the book is very outdated, after all it did say slavery was fine as well as other out dated ideas.
The comment made by some of the folks that can’t see the discrimiation towards homosexuals as simular to those during the Civil Rights movement are basing it on that holy book…”God didn’t make it OK to love the same gender in a romantic way”. Again, interpretation.

My wife and I were talking and we come to realize we don’t know any Black Episcopal, so this guy is a poor representation because he probably doesn’t either. lol.
Another generalization and “dis” because you don’t agree. Way to keep an open mind and consider that others might have an opinion different than yours.
Not that differing opinions mean as much as yours does, of course. Clearly, they can’t be as valid.
And why “lol”? You weren’t kidding. Why include an implication of a joke or humor when there was none?

pagan since your post clearly is the most civil I will respond:
My comment was in response to the bishop’s implying that the Africans have no support or connection to Black Americans. It is a generalization from a man who in his own minority is clearly out of touch with Black folk in America and what they think.
Also his job probably has more to do with his statements than anything else like a relationship with God as many pastors on both liberal and conservative side today grow more political than biblical. There is a balance that escapes most folk, some pastors/bishops included

cknuck: For anyone to advance in a business environment, or educational environment they have to (to put it bluntly) kiss up to the right folks. That IMO is the same in a religious environment also…if a guy in the RCC (since women can’t be priests) wants to end up in an ivory tower job (bishop, cardinal)he must say the right things, and do the right things. TEC has women and men who have to do the same things, I’m sure. Lots of politics in all work places, even religious ones. It is possible that being in the minority in the U.S. as a Black Bishop, he might be out of touch with other Black men and women. He probably was one Black face in a large group of White faces while going through his religious training. However it has occured to me that skin color might be the only thing the Bishop has in common with Africans, who I’m sure have a totally different life style and customs, and the only thing in common is that they all claim to belong to the same Communion. That should be a unifying point, but since there is a large disagreement on women priests and on homosexual marriages, that isn’t currently a unifying point. Whether his job had anything to do with his statement we don’t know. But as I said above, politics if everywhere in the business, religious and educational world and probably elsewhere.

nnmns quote “So if I knew, say eighty Blacks and declared, say, “most Blacks like watermellon” or “most Blacks are bigots” that wouldn’t be racism?
To make it perfectly clear, I’m not declaring”
nnmns of course you are, and I know why. These statements came from inside of you, Maybe deep inside or may at the surface they are there, you speak them and they live because you speak them, then you put in the disclaimer and you feel better or safe.
I have the guts to say what I mean and mean what I say if I don’t mean it I won’t say it and if I change my mind about a saying I will not say it.

An elephant’s faithful, one-hundred percent.

“nnmns of course you are, and I know why. These statements came from inside of you”
cknuck you are just full of c***.

cknuck-
“…this guy is the first Black to be ordain and he’s looking out for his own butt afraid to stand up to his superiors….”
First, +Sutton is the first black Bishop of Maryland…meaning he is the first black bishop the state of Maryland has had. He is not the first black bishop TEC has had.
Second, TEC is not set up like the RCC…..he has no superiors (except God). Bishops are elected by their diocese. Yes, the diocese choice must pass the approval of the majority of other bishops within the TEC. Yes, to a degree a bishop reports to the presiding bishop (TEC primate)…but the presiding bishop is not the bishops “boss”. In that the presiding bishop does not direct nor delegate to the bishops.
TEC presiding bishop is elected for 9years…and must be a TEC bishop to be eligible. So, +Sutton does not have to be afraid of anyone.
Peace!

Thanks JohnQ I understand I did know the first Black bishop of Maryland but some of the other info I did not know. Even so it’s hard to believe he does not do things to further his career keeping on the good side so to speak of other folk who could help his career agenda.

The silliness is that the whole dispute is over the the word, “openly.” There have been many a homosexual priest, bishop, and archbishop in the Anglican communion — have been, are now, and ever shall be. No doubt that a few of those prostesting African bishops are men-lovers — just on the down-low. The C of E is clearly saying that if you are a poofster, and you keep it a secret, then the mitre may sit snuggly on your head, otherwise. . . . . Christian hyprocracy at its best!

I am – for lack of a better description – a Euro/American. My skin hue is like that of many other Europeans. But that does not make me particularly sympathetic to the theology of many Europeans. So it makes no more sense to think that African/American people should be sympathetic to the theological perspectives of Africans, simply because they share the same skin hue.
What galls me is the way the African Bishops are will to bend to the whims and wishes of the wealthy Americans who are quite willing to use them to gain some modicum of repsectablility and credibility. Couched in all the churchy language and institutional lingo there is barely buried more colonialistic exploitation of less affluent people. These “My way or the Highway” types will be supportive and cute about missions – until some sort of pressure (usually economic, ocassionally political) hits, then they will turn away and pretend to know nothing about these same folks whom they are willing to use for their own manipulations.

I’m not sure what you meant by that jest but I, I think I like it, I think.

You make a lot of sense, jestrfyl. Skin color doesn’t mean that all those of the same “hue” think alike or live alike or are in any other way alike!

pagan,Skin color doesn’t mean that all those of the same “hue” think alike or live alike or are in any other way alike.
That’s for sure. A family member used to teach in a rural, very Southern part of the country, and she was stunned about how much black-on-black prejudice the students displayed. Darker skinned blacks ragged on the lighter-skinned ones, etc. She was shocked and very turned off by their prejudices even to each other.

I’m sure she shocked in the “very Southern part of the country” (caution the real you is hanging out) after all white folk just don’t behave like that.

ecl: I’ve spent a majority of my life in the Deep South….college education there too. (don’t live there now, but have relatives there). And yes, there is black- on- black prejudice. However there is prejudice in all cultures and races. Example: I had 2 little girls, adopted from China, 2 years apart (by the same mother). The girls were born in two different parts of China. The mother said that her 2nd daughter was considered by the Chinese to be more beautiful…due to her facial structure. In India there is the cast system and I’m sure other parts of the world and other races have their discrimination problems.

ecl:
The Chinese girls I was mentioning were ones I had when I taught.
Also a thought…wouldn’t it be nice if all folks could just see each other as people…not what shade or religion they are?

(caution the real you is hanging out) after all white folk just don’t behave like that.
what is you g-ddamn problem, CK? You just can’t take the truth that not all Blacks think like you do, and you think a white person’s view on some Blacks mean we’re prejudiced.
All that does is reveal the true you, dripping with prejudice yourself and pretending otherwise, not the other way around.
And to make your inane point even more inane, tell me how many times you’ve heard whites say about each other, “they’re not white enough; I’m lighter skinned than him/her”, as though such a thing has any meaning whatsoever.
Try sticking to the arugument and stop pointing empty meaningless fingers, making up prejudice and insult where it does not exist but only in your own mind.

Sis,
Of course there are many cultures with prejudice, and I would never imply otherwise.
However, I was trying to stick to the point of the article and some of the comments about infighting between some Blacks and other Blacks and who presumes to speak for whom; who states who “represents” whom; who thinks like whom.
Sadly, it’s a fantasy to think that people will ever just look at each other and simply see another person, versus a culture, a race, a gender, an age, a size, etc, etc, etc.
Too bad we can’t learn to appreciate our diversity and stop looking for fights where they dont’ exist.
And some people need to stop pretending that prejudice only exits from without. Perhaps with your story about Chinese prejudice from within its own culture, you’ve helped make my point after all that prejudice against certain cultures doesn’t only come from outside that culture.

ecl, I knew that you weren’t implying by your story that only one group has prejudice towards each other.
Unfortunately I agree that it might be a fantasy to think that people can simply appreciate each other for who they are, regardless of (as you mentioned) culture, race, gender, age, size, etc. But I continue to dream. Working with 5 year olds and seeing there acceptance of each other gives one hope. They didn’t care what color their classmates were…

ec-l? I indeed know about prejudice from all perspectives my point is that you do dwell on negatives in Black people for a reason even if you don’t want to admit it. It’s not the first time I’ve observed this pattern in you. You’d rather think that I have a problem (which by the way I probably have several) than to look at your own. I’d be careful about using the g-d so often it He does decide to damn somebody you might be surprised where He starts.

Knowing that the above column wasn’t addressed to me, CK, but I’m diving in anyhow.
I thought you knew this, but maybe not. When a Jewish person writes God, they don’t use all 3 letters. They leave out the “O” on purpose. I used to know the reason, and I’m sure that ecl or ScottR can/will explain it. So when it is written, it is not a curse word!!!
As to some folks hidden prejudices…I’ve not seen any, but then I am not an psychatrist.

CK – is there a reason you have been writing my screen name as “ec-l?”
A person could take it as you questioning that I’m a “lady”, since that is what the “l” is for, as you well know.
The article was about Blacks and other Blacks. You talked how this pastor does not speak for other Blacks. You revealed prejudice since you did not like how this Black represented himself and how it did not agree with your own opinion regarding how Blacks think, as though you know better than this other man. My opinion was not a remark about Blacks in general, although you continue to strive to point me as a racist. My issues are typically with specific individuals, not with groups of people, again, contrary to the picture you try to paint of me.
Thank goodness there are people like pagansister who clearly have a less jaundiced point of view and can see that my heart is not at all as you paint it.
Sure I have problems, short temper being one of them. I have no patience for people who are the example of the “pot calling the kettle black.” Gonna jump on me for that one, too? I use it for this very white. blonde haired lady in my office, too. If you don’t like that one, then let’s say I have no patience for people who embody hypocrisy. Once again, I expect a snide comeback on this one, too.
BTW, I don’t understand what point you think you were trying to make about the “G-d” remark….
But pagansis, you were right, there is a reason – not as necessary in this blogging format as it might otherwise be in written communications, but since the language I used was a little strong, it’s also a way of not explicitly “cussing” and inserting instead a mark, like one would use a * or ! or # in lieu or writing out a curse word.

ecl:
Like I said above, I jumped in on the g-d remark from a religious point of view…but yes, it also is useful for not explicitly “cussing” as you pointed out so well. BTW, you are most certainly “a lady” from what I’ve read in these posts over the months.

Folks, it is a Wednesday in August, and way too hot for all this venom and vinegar. I suggest everyone plan an evening for s’mores and slapping skeeters, and not let this entire discussion raise your blood pressure. Once it gets reduced to personal comments the entire thrust is lost. The world needs more shared chocolate and less sweaty arguments.

Sis,
You are kind, thank you.
Jest,
You are correct, as usual.
But I’d like to pass on the skeeters and just say “yes” to the sweets, chocolate in particular.

Ahhh, jestrfyl, as usual, the “voice of reason”.
Today in my little state it is 64 degrees under rainy skies. Needed the rain, and the temp is great…considering it is August.
However, s’mores are always welcome but the skeeters…no.

OF COURSE black Episcopal Church bishops, like most other Episcopal bishops, side with their own Episcopal Church. It is to their political advantage within the church, which for thirty years has been brain-washing its seminarians. Those orthodox people who are looking beyond it, seeking to forge links with Africans who believe as they do, are willing to defy the brain-washing. Black Episcopal Church bishops are completely unrepresentative of black Christians, in the first place. The orthodox would find spiritual allies in other traditionally black American churches, perhaps AME Zion: and they should make such contacts as that, I agree. But of course doctrinally, the orthodox Episcopalians are reaching out to members of their own Anglican Communion. It is ludicrous to suppose that the clergy of the church that the orthodox are opposing (Episcopal Church) would be the ones they would turn to–black or white!! They are seeking a bond in the same faith tenets–and not mainly on sex-issues, either. There is so much more to it than that–membership in RCRC that supports late-term abortion, theological issues (p. c. changes in the Lord’s Prayer, creeds, and Scripture), relegation of the 39 Articles to irrelevancy, diminished and optional use of the Prayer Book. These are all problems in the U. S. Episcopal Church and not in some of the other Provinces of the Anglican Communion. Race has nothing to do with the decision to join with another Province, and sexuality has much less to do with it than the media will allow.

I didn’t realize until reading this that homosexuals or their lifestyle was a race unknown to mankind until now.