What the American Episcopal direction really means is that we’re moving towards a schism that looks like the Mercedes-Benz logo. In one segment we have the Roman Catholic and Orthodox traditions; in another, the conservative and orthodox Anglicans and, in the third, those who push the Reformist tradition alongside Bishops Glasspool and Robinson.
To those who say this last category is taking the Church to hell in a handcart, or possibly a handbag, I would say this: when Anglicans started to ordain women priests in the Nineties, female bishops became a logical and rational extension of that Reformist tradition. As for lesbians, the Bible has even less to say about them than it does about homosexuals. It may very well be that Queen Victoria, for whom lesbianism is said to have been removed from the Labouchere Amendment in 1865 when homosexual acts were outlawed because she simply didn’t believe they existed, was being more obedient than she knew to her scripture study.
But, ultimately, what Bishop Glasspool shows us is a God who is infinitely more interested in love than in sex. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth for his human creatures.
[blockquote]”… a God who is infinitely more interested in love than in sex. Sadly, [u]ultimately, what the election of Bishop Glasspool shows us is[/u] nothing could be further from the truth for his human creatures.”[/blockquote]
John 14:21 “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
Although I consider the “more interested” comment to be an illogical straw man argument – assuming the proposition for argument – the edited second comment then seems to me to be a bit more accurate.
🙄
I would suggest one minor edit for Pitcher’s tripartite vision: instead of “Reformist,” I would substitute “Heretical.”
What weird times in which we live. For Mr. Pitcher seems to think is it’s obvious that one should understand sex and love as entirely separate spheres of human action. Secondly he believes that it is makes theological sense to describe God as lacking “interest” in one of the most powerful human desires.
I think that for the Rev. George Pitcher, understanding and consistency are entirely separate spheres of human action as his article drifts this way, and then that, in an apparently random and disconnected stream of consciousness. Was this written after a libation or two one wonders.
Yes – I thought that too. It seems in part just to take for granted certain contemporary progressive perceptions about what is ethically significant and in which areas of life others should and should not be “interested”. What is really weird is that no effort is made even to connect these claims in a coherent way with what Christians have said they believe about God. That God simply lacks “interest” in sexual desire really is a risible argument.
Maybe George Pitcher just lives in contemporary Britain, while so many churchmen seem to inhabit a different planet altogether at the moment…
#6 What’s with the Roman nom-de-blog, commenter formerly known as Fr Mark, or have you lost the “im” off your name?
“The commenter formerly known as Fr Mark.” I like it!
& wildly inappropriate too, since ‘Pius’ is a favorite papal name.
George Pitcher is just another English hack who recently started wearing his collar backwards. He knows as much about theology as hacks know about, well, anything.
“…a different planet…”
I suppose, that is if you want to go all Augustinian on us.
Anywho, if living in contemporary Britain for some means reasoning-like-Pitcher (which IMHO translates to a jumble of illogical notions that agree with faddish sentiment), then, well, I’m not one to gainsay.
(n.b., no disrespect intended to PM, who is apparently a rare, shining exception to the Pitcher-like reasoning besetting contemporary Britain.)
😉
#9 tired
I would be just as incoherant as the next man after a pitcher of ale.