The neat thing is, we’re all Primates. Interesting they’d use the name for certain church leaders which is also the order to which we, lemurs, monkeys and our fellow apes belong. As primates we have flexible hands and feet; as Primates those guys seem to have inflexible brains.
Oh well.

That was very observant nnmns.

Maybe we’re just further behind in the evolutionary progression of things like some of our ape brethren, nmnns. Bear with us a little longer, maybe 20 millions years or so, and we’ll re-invent our fantasy-filled religion to include ordaining practicing homosexual priests and bishops as well. Ooo Ooo Aah Aah!!!

This is not an issue of gay rights as such; the GAFCON movement in the US is not against gay rights in terms of jobs, housing etc. It is against gays changing the Biblical definition of marriage and imposing that on the church. Liberals just don’t get it.

“It is against gays changing the Biblical definition of marriage and imposing that on the church. Liberals just don’t get it.” Richard T. P.
Marriage is a legal term stating that 2 people have agreed to stay together, and pledging to do so in front of an official of some sort…religious (minister, rabbi, priest etc.), judge, notary public etc. The term isn’t necessarily “religious” so what difference does it make if 2 people of the same gender decide to “marry.” Religions don’t have an exclusive contract on the word, even though they think they do. No church has to marry any person to another. Fortunately, however, there are churches that don’t worry about the sexual orientation of the people who what to marry. This “liberal” does get it. The difference in one side of this split is the interpretation of a book called the Bible…which can be used for good or not so good.

2 things worthy of note. Did anyone watch the final episode of “Boston Legal” this evening. It dealt with some very interesting issues in terms of marriage – gay, straight, green card, or – believe it or not – love. It was a great way to end the series.
Also, the cover story of Newsweek is on Gay Marriage. Well done article.
No one is re-defining marriage. People actually want to affirm marriage’s significance. Ah well – for those who see only sex, then sex is the only issue. If marriage were as much fun as sex, this might be worth all the palaver. Marriage is far greater than sex, but great sex never hurt a marriage.
Actually, when Jesus addressed marriage he was speaking with emissaries of the Temple. I believe – and have preached – that his remarks were parabolic (upside down and backward) and were more about the Temple authorities divorcing God but abandoning the very people they were intended to serve (using the OT motif of the relations of God & Israel as husband & wife, see Song of Solomon, Hoses v. Gomar, et al.)
I hope the Primate work the bugs out – I’ve seen it happen at zoos, so it must happen in church too.

A second thought, based on my last thought – regarding the Primates working out the bugs. It just occurred to me that a lot of committee work is like primates (and Primates) picking nits to everyones satisfaction. And amusing image – or disturbing I suppose. I expect there is as much nit picking and chest thumping at the ecclesiastical levela as there is on the community hygiene level. But it certainly sums up the whole committee process.

Pagansister,
I think you missed the point. The Episcopal Church isn’t breaking apart over gay civil marriages, it’s breaking apart over gay ecclesial marriages, practicing gay clergy, etc. It’s a church issue, not a state one.
And Richard’s got a point, this isn’t about gay rights. Rights-talk doesn’t even belong in an ecclesial context. This is about a theological understanding of what the sacrament of matrimony is and does and is for, not about rights. And thankfully, some people (including some traditionalist gays!) have been willing to stand up to the banal liberal position that marriage is all about two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together.

Episcopagansister slips in the sleight of hand phrase “Marriage is a legal term stating that 2 people have agreed to…”
Not so fast, Episcopagan, Marriage is a legal term stating that one man and one woman have agreed to…”

Nigel Nicholson-
From Merriam Webster:
mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union
Actually, marriage is between a man and a woman or, a man and a man or, a woman and a woman in Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, and Norway, along with the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Further, the same is true in New York as long as the marriage was performed in an area where these marriages are legal.
As you are probably aware, the same was true in California until last month. But, not to worry California will have marriage equality again very soon. And, within 8 years or less, there will be marriage equality through out all 50 states.
Peace!

Nate,
As I wrote earlier it is about juridictional rights as much as anything. In addition to the entire rnage of gay concerns, a few of the churches and at least one diocese is also upset at having a female archbishop. These are all little steps – backwards. All the while facing forward? Now doesn’t this look like a slapstick comedy about to happen.

Far too often this entire debate is portrayed as one about sex. Perhaps for the revisionists, but not for us orthadox. For us orthadox it is about following God, even when that is difficult and not in line with what the rest of society is doing or wants.
The Holy Word of God (the Holy Bible) gives us a lesson of what Marriage is. Society says that marriage is something else. As a Church we MUST follow God. But the revisionists are instead following society. That is what has happened, and why the orthadox are not able to remain with the revisionists.

“Rights-talk doesn’t even belong in an ecclesial context. This is about a theological understanding of what the sacrament of matrimony is and does and is for, not about rights.”
Apparently there’s no room for rights in Nate’s interpretation of what his imaginary god has decreed and what early hangers-on of his imaginary god’s other self have decreed. I just hope Nate and his ilk never get the kind of control over this country some of them desperately want.
“And thankfully, some people (including some traditionalist gays!) have been willing to stand up to the banal liberal position that marriage is all about two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together.”
Right, what a banal idea! Ugh, if an idea makes sense does repeating it a lot make it wrong? I don’t think so, just mockable by those who think they are more educated than they are.

Your Name-
“Far too often this entire debate is portrayed as one about sex. Perhaps for the revisionists, but not for us orthadox. For us orthadox it is about following God, even when that is difficult and not in line with what the rest of society is doing or wants.
Following God is exactly what we Episcopalians believe we are doing by including all people into the ministry….and, including all people into marriage.
We have not left the church…..nor, have we left you. We are perhaps out ahead of you….but, we are waiting for you to catch up. There is room in TEC for all of us. There is no need to start another church. However, if some Episcopalians wish to walk away from the church…that is their right.
Peace!

Banal – an interesting word for the Orthodox camp to assign to the liberal invaders. Orthodoxy would seem to be by its very definition banal – oft repeating the same phrases over and again (maybe trying to convince themselves as well as others?).
Our denomination (ucc.org) offers Still Speaking daily devotions, and todays seems to be on point here. The writer is working from Acts 11:1-18. Her point is that what is revelaed to Peter about eating clean or unclean animals applies also to the whole notion of marriage. Those whom God has made clean cannot be called profane. If love is indeed form God (a proposition I support, teach, preach, and proclaim) then those who express their love are from God (this excludes some of the other less auspicious forms of relationships – but these two cross gender affection lines).

The 1:15 post was mine. This comment software is ridiculous.
Your Name,
You apparently haven’t experienced what successful orthodoxy can be. Some of the freshest, most innovative, and most adventurous Christian theologians on the scene today are those who are most strongly committed to orthodoxy. Orthodoxy isn’t about repeating the same things over and over again; that’s fundamentalism and dead traditionalism. Orthodoxy is about holding true to certain fundamental commitments that have been passed down from tradition, and it’s about bringing those commitments into conversation with new problems and issues as they arise.
The “banality” of liberalism is that it so often is little more than secularism dressed up in church clothes. So liberals do things like say that gay church marriages are human rights matters, or that marriages is really just about two people who are romantically in love with each other, or something else that isn’t based on any deep engagement with the rich heritage of early Christian theology. What that means, then, is that the liberals aren’t saying anything new, not preaching any message that you couldn’t get just as easily out in the secular world or among some other liberal religious group.
But by the way, I don’t think “orthodox” is a good way to describe opponents of gay marriage. The gay question isn’t a question or orthodoxy or heterodoxy. There are plenty of fully orthodox gays out there, and there are plenty of supporters of traditional marriage who have betrayed aspects of traditional Christian thought.

I agree with Nate. There comes a point when a member of a religion must come to terms with what they know to be true and what their particular religion’s theology is telling them. It would be better if people were honest about this rather than trying to fit the wrong piece into the wrong puzzle, as it were. That said, the Catholic Church is also guilty of changing things here and there to suit their own agenda and that is just the nature of people and institutions made up of people.
Still, it would be nice to have it understood that a church is simply a group of people who meet together. Put a name on the church and there may be more standards but a group people who meet and agree to allow gays to be themselves among them and still read the wisdom of the bible is still a church, regardless, and should be afforded respect just the same.

This in”Security” software has more bugs than a fifty year old mattress! The posting of 11:26 am was mine – jestrfyl. I expect some of you may have suspected as much.
Nate & no name (O but aren’t we all these days)
I have no complaint about orthodoxy. I read, study and admire many ortohodox writers and have used several prayers from the orthodox traditions. I expect you have not had much pastoral experience. Much of what I do is for people who are usually unchurched (read “secular”), but show up for special events in church clothes. It is to the unchurched that I find the best work is done. Some of these folks have been cast out and know only the pain of rejection. I work at helping them find a new church home and rediscover God’s grace as a surprise greater than any human rule or institution. The complexities of life in a church are far beyond the clarity of academia. Liberal academics are no less sincere and assertive. Reality has a way of chipping off the sharp corners and hard edges that are so well ground in during academic years.
And just in case it gets lost – agina!! – peace to you all, jestrfyl.

Well Nate there are at least two arenas where this argument plays out. One has to do with churches and in a way it doesn’t make a lot of difference what a church does, except that way too many people think they are stuck in a particular church if they want to save their souls or something, so they suffer through whatever foolishness the church stays with. It’s a shame that people ever feel a church can make an important difference like that but some do.
The other, far more important arena is the political arena. Those decisions affect everyone’s life and it’s especially tragic when some people carry over decisions based on their particular beliefs in imaginary beings into decisions that affect everyone. Surely we can agree that people should not vote on who can marry based on their religious beliefs. No one is going to force a church to wed two guys or two gals, surely we all know that. And if Bill and Rush get married it’s not going to affect my life or marriage, surely we can agree on that.
And I agree, the software is ridiculous.

jestrfyl,
While I haven’t had much of any direct ministerial experience and so can’t speak with much authority on that matter, but I do know that most of the great defenders and developers of Christian orthodoxy weren’t academics, they were pastors and preachers and teachers. There’s no need to throw orthodoxy out the window just because you’re dealing with common people on the front lines, and there’s no need to suppose that orthodoxy itself doesn’t have tremendous power to positively transform the lives even of those who think that orthodoxy is the last thing in the world they’d ever need or want. And I’m wary of letting needs of the those who are hurting–important as they certainly are–determine our theological agendas any more than they’d determine the agendas of, say, science. We don’t go preaching six-day creationism to people simply because it might give them a higher sense of self-worth.
And I fear that you might be mischaracterizing academic life. Studying for a PhD in theology has a way of complexifying everything, clarifying hardly anything, which is precisely the reason we academic theologians often aren’t well received in the churches: we tend call out everyone, whether liberal or conservative, for thinking they have more clarity than they do, or than any person could ever have. Just because an academic happens to be orthodox and doesn’t much care for liberal churches doesn’t mean he thinks everything is clear, and just because a church is liberal doesn’t mean it takes a humble or nuanced approach to knowledge of God. Liberals pushing for the gay marriage agenda certainly pretend to have a lot of clarity on the gay rights issue, for example, and plenty of orthodox academics like Rowan Williams don’t suppose for a second that they’ve got all the answers to the questions the conflict raises.

Sure, nnmns, you’ve got a right to be concerned when internal ecclesial matters spill out to affect the wider world, just like we’ve all got reason to be concerned when, say, internal debates in Islam have violent results. But one of the best ways to fight that is actually NOT to cheer for the pro-gay side in the church disputes, because when conservatives in the church see secular values encroaching on their faith, the only thing that’s going to motivate them to do is go out and try to make laws that change secular values. The surge of pro-political fundamentalism in the US is a byproduct of the growing secularism of the wider culture, NOT an authentic representation of what religious culture is supposed to be. Secularized churches, and secular activity in churches, actually do quite a bit to stir up fundamentalist attitudes; in fact, they gave birth to fundamentalism in the first place.

“Episcopagan-Marriage is a leagal term stating that 1 man and 1 woman have agreed to…..” Nigel N.
That is your version…not that of many countries and a few progressive states in the U.S. as mentioned by JohnQ. I still contend it isn’t restricted to those in a church situation…as the term is also secular…thus marriges performed by a notary public,a judge, a justice of the peace. Those are recognized by the “state” as well as those done by a priest, rabbi etc.

Securalized Churches and secular activities in Churches, actually do quite a bit to stir up fundamentalist attitudes; in fact, they gave birth to fundamentalism in the first place. All the Churches I ever visited or belonged to in my childhood, and youth were Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and RC. The people I knew that were members of these Churches stayed in their own churches, on the east coast, and did many secular things outside of church without anyone having a religious fit, with the exception of the Baptist. I visited once with a girlfriend member of said Church, and I never went back. In one hr. they pointed out the misgivings of being a Lutheran. As far as fundamentalist churches they started in tents, and old barns, and it was a fine way to make a fist full of money, Elmer Gantry style. They improved and learned to copy estab. churches and built fine bldgs. while all of the Mainline Churches cont. on being half-secular accoring to these righteous souls. Books are great to study Nate, but living it is even more informative.

Forgot again. The first paragraph was a quote from Nates comment.

Uh, sorry to be so blunt, Henrietta, but you don’t know a thing about the history of American Protestant fundamentalism, apparently. Fundamentalism began as a breakaway movement from the mainline churches (all of them, not just the nasty old Baptists) and from mainline seminaries and universities, largely in the North East and largely among people who were just as highly educated as their former colleagues in the mainline churches.
You might think “living is even more informative,” Henrietta, but then, when you actually pick up a history book and educate yourself a bit, you realize that your own limited experiences don’t tell you much of anything about the real world.

Nate I’ve picked up History books, not your type though. So since you are so informed was the tents and old bldgs. a branch off of fundamentalists who were so educated that they were the same as Mainline Churches? The ones I have come in contact with were not the same caliber as my educated brother-in-law from Bob Jones, or my Father-in-law who was a Baptist Minister as well as MD, and Medical Missionary in the 30′s in Sierra Leone, Africa. You always are so informed maybe you can explain this.

So how old are you, exactly, Henrietta? Because unless you’re literally a century old or older, it’s impossible for you to have had any kind of firsthand experience that would give you any insight into origins of fundamentalism, since the movement was alreay up an running well before WWI.
Fundamentalism started mostly among highly-educated Northeastern Presbyterians, many of whom were working at major universities like Princeton. They broke away and founded their own denominations and seminaries when they feared that the mainline institutions were being taken over by liberalism (although a pretty different kind of liberalism than what’s popular today, one that lost its appeal after the world wars). This isn’t something that you get from “my type” of history books (what’s that supposed to mean, anyway? as if I’m not required required to read the exact same sorts of history books that everyone else reads?), this is what you’ll get from any historical study of fundamentalism. Heck, it’s even the story you’ll find on Wikipedia.
When a few years passed, the fundamentalist principles combined with some of the populism and anti-intellectualism common in some parts of the country, and fundamentalism became increasingly insular and distrustful of anything coming from outside the community. By the ’50s, several fundamentalist leaders (again, mostly educated) decided that fundamentalism had become too anti-intellectual and broke off to form the evangelical movement, leaving fundamentalism essentially dead until the ’70s and ’80s when, in the wake of events like the Sexual Revolution and the legalization of abortion, fundamentalist Christianity in its present form was born and when many evangelicals began to drift back in a fundamentalist direction.
I’m not sure why I felt the need to go into all that. My original point was pretty simple: fundamentalisms tend to be formed when groups of people feel threatened by the encroachment of a force that threatens their values and worldview, so the more that secularists take an interest in what goes on the churches, the more fundamentalisms are going to sprout up in response, and the more those fundamentalisms are going to try to protect their way of life through government action.

“fundamentalisms tend to be formed when groups of people feel threatened by the encroachment of a force that threatens their values and worldview”
That’s my understanding and it makes sense to me. But of the things threatening the fundamentalists, interest in churches by people like Henrietta or even me are small, small potatoes. They are threatened of course by the tenuousness of the foundation for their religious beliefs and there’s nothing the rest of us can do about that (hat short of ignoring science and logic. They are threatened by a world that’s getting smaller and smaller as the internet and tv news bring us so close together. And these days they are threatened by the Bush/Cheney/Republican economy as are we all. I don’t think the rest of us could shelter them from the world very much even if that were a priority. I think we’ll have to hope a lot of them can get over their shell shock and make better decisions than the GWB one.

Nate,
I guess what I resent and find to be less than beneficial is the air of superiority that “academics” seem to feel is necessary ofver those of us who have not chosen to follow the same path. That is as true with liberals as it is with conservatives. So there is the ocassional itch to deflate their balloon. I have known a few “academics” whose degrees were well kept secrets so people would not suspect them for their intellectual gyrations. I am very suspicious of anyone whose academic hood is well worn (I think I know where mine is – but it might take a while to find). I guess growing up in the shadow of one of the greater academic institutions made me cynical toward those whose degrees, or the pursuit of them, is their only claim to credibility.
The other issue I have – and it has proven as true with some hyper-liberal churches as it does with hyper-conservative – that everyone must toe the party line. Ortho- anything raises a rash. I believe that what raises a lot of hackles is the belief that everyone must be the same. The reason I remain with our flawed gem of a denomination is that we work hard at helping everyone find their path. There is no single path to the right or left. Academics may shed a little refined light here and there. But for the most part we are stumbling in the dark and helping each other over the dips and bumps. This need for assigning names and orders is fine for scientific order, but it raises all sorts of problems with people. Even the Kiersy or Myers Briggs inventories are only a tool, not an answer.
Read all of my posts. I begin by saying I have a lot of respect for orthodoxy and those who labor within it. But that respect slips like a sand-filled swim suit when Ortho-anyone starts to promote only ONE way and anything else is rotten. Give some credit to folks who are not breathing the rarified air of ivory towers and dusty library shelves. We may know a whole lot more than you allow. (Go re-read Amos, that tree surgeon and one-hit wonder of a prophet)

Nate, thanks for explaining the history of Fundamentalism. Being an academic you start at the beginning to understand what interests you. Nnmns is right about he and I we just don’t care that much to study religions from the start. I’m more concerned with how they make people react with each other. Spirituality is formost with me, not the politics of denominations. Oh I think I must be 114 yrs. old because my oldest Aunt would be that age, and I listened to all her take on religion for years.

Jestrfyl,
If I ever come across as using my education to lord over anyone else, please forgive me and call me out on it, because that’s not what I set out to do. It’s just annoying, though, when we academic theologians, who invest a dozen or more years in the lonely, stressful task of a pursuing our educations just so that we stand about a 50-50 chance of landing a job that might come close to paying our bills, aren’t given credit for the work we do or are even treated with disdain by all the people out in the “real world” who think that few experiences they’ve had invalidate everything that an academic can spend their whole life investigating. Because we face that attitude A LOT, it can cause us to be a little too much on guard and too prone to switching over into defense mode.
As for your other issue, when I say “orthodoxy,” I don’t have in mind anything all that limiting, something that says there’s only one way to talk about religious matters. Orthodoxy is a pretty big tent that has a lot of room for diversity and disagreement, but it does have walls somewhere. It MUST have walls somewhere, or else there’s no reason to call oneself a Christian, if one can’t offer some basic idea of what Christianity is. And that “basic idea,” I think, needs to be in conformity with the spirit of the tradition that preceded us; otherwise, we might as well just be honest with ourselves and go found a new religion.
And let’s be clear that this isn’t a conflict between academics and ministers. You speak as if it’s us academics who alone are concerned with traditional orthodoxy, but don’t forget that: 1) a high percentage of those in the top theology departments are more liberal than traditional, and 2) there are plenty of people out there in the pulpits and pews who are just as concerned with orthodoxy as I am, and they usually have a far more limiting view of orthodoxy than what just about any academic theologian would promote. My commitment to orthodoxy isn’t something I’ve gotten from my education; my love for traditional Christian language and my desire to defend it was my whole reason for chosing this profession in the first place.

Nate,
I appreciate your more conciliatory tone and approach; I shall try the same.
As I have said I do value Orthodoxy. It is at its best, a positive expression of ideals, principles, and theology for a group of people. There are far too many groups who identify themselves simply by NOT being someone else. Orthodoxy is at its worst when people say it is the only valid path. Being one of many is good, insisting that there is only one within many does not benefit anyone. As you say, the tent must have some edge (no call for walls on a tent here in the tropics – let the breezes flow!). But as with all metaphors, caution must be exercized so that the metaphor does not become the definition. Being open to the ebb and flow of people from one tent to another, until they find one of the greatest suitability to their situation is a good thing (sort of a crafts or country fair model).