It is part of the present atmosphere in Anglicanism that people do not hear what others are saying clearly–alas. For only the latest example of this, read the Anglican Scotist’s piece here. This would be sad if it were not so serious.
Never mind that people such as Susan Russell and FatherJake–both known for not agreeing with the convenor of this blog–appreciated what I said. Somehow it isn’t good enough.
It would help if the Anglican Scotist would at least cite my argument in the order in which it is written. I cited the Primates first because they are Christian leaders and I believe they are speaking to a Christian standard in the Christian community which they lead. I only went on to the second point because it makes this offense all the more egregious. The argument is not instrumental at all, the first point is theological, and the second point goes further and undergirds it.
If the Anglican Scotist had the courtesy at least to check with me first and to ask–is this in fact what you are saying, have I fairly summarized your argument?–it would have helped–KSH.
What an embarrassing piece by the Anglican Scotist. I have always found him to be one of the least effective voices on the other side.
Boy, some of those comments are embarrassing, too. Others are outright lies.
Wow — to continue to be so ignorant of the basics of the gospel, which has been revealed over and over in the past two days. For instance he says this: “All Scripture is of a piece, and Christ did not come to obliterate any part of the Law–not a single iota! Bishop Orama respects the Bible enough not to claim to be a biblical Christian and just pretend. His Bible says homosexuals must die–what does Father Harmon’s Bible say? Or Griffith’s? After all, Scripture is clear in Leviticus. The difference might be simply that Bishop Orama has the courage to be consistent and lift up his vision of Scripture for all the world to see, whereas other self-styled conservatives insist on hiding this unsavory part–ashamed–under a bushel.”
The penalty for sin is death. Jesus came and took the penalty for all of our sin on his shoulders through the atonining work of the cross.
It is an outrage to them for anyone, I suppose to be considered a “sinner” since apparently “sinners” can’t go to heaven — when in reality it is precisely the opposite.
They really don’t get it.
That’s why we have two gospels in one church.
He can hold bitterness inside if he wants too. The Lord allows us all to do that if we want, though we are commanded to forgive. However, it’s an acid that eat it’s container up from the inside out.
You did the right thing Kendall. If it’s not good enough or he does not accept it, in the end it’s his problem. Life is too short, I’d shake the head, let go and move on.
How sad for anyone to harbor that much anger, enough that the person has abandoned critical listening and thinking, and write such spiteful and evil things. I read somewhere that everyone thinks, and that on average each of has several thousand thoughts a day. Unfortunately, about 80% think the same things every day. Hence the intellectually vacuous posts, especially from the reappraisers. “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!”. Those folks are in desperate need of healing, and our prayers.
How many misunderstandings can dance on the head of a pin?
This demonization of another who has a different viewpoint makes war easy to understand. Rather than saying He has another opinion; it’s he is a bigot and a homophobe. Just a slippery slope away from the conclusion that it is ok to bomb those guys back to the stone age.
The needs are not unique to reappraisers, let us remember. We lack perspective and can fall prey to these temptations also.
This may be the worst of what the current strife is doing to us all. We cease to disagree and begin to condemn without discrimination of any sort.
We fail to show mercy and for that we ourselves have no claim to mercy. Peter asked Jesus how many times must we forgive our enemies? Jesus answered seventy times seven. Jesus was refering to the stories of Cain and the two Lamechs in Genesis. The number 7 represents God’s mercy toward those men, two of whom were murderers and deserved to die. See http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/07/chrysostoms-interpretation-of-lamechs.html
First, *DID* Bishop Orama make the statement which is attributed to him? I googled “bishop orama”; the only hits in 4 pages of results involved blogs or homosexual news sources… there were NO hits from regular news media. Then I went to Yahoo News and searched for “bishop orama”… no results. On Google News, the only hit was a homosexual source in Germany. I would think liberal-dominated news media would be all over this thing, but where are their stories?
Second, when I first read what Bishop Orama allegedly said I thought his statement that homosexuals aren’t fit to live is highly judgemental, and that he needs to fear that he will receive the same judgement that he gives, but that otherwise his alleged statement was perhaps harsh but basically true. I tried to propose that idea on Stand Firm and was totally ignored. The idea might be ignored here too, dunno.
But, considering that God has established in his word what he hopes humans will be, isn’t it just a little inhuman, insane, and Satanic, to act in such deliberate contradiction of that word… and to teach others to act that way as well?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
This singling out of a statement of a Nigerian bishop is thinly veiled hatred of the leader of the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola. Since TEC gay activists can’t discredit him, they will try to force him to make apologies for one of his priests. Then they will criticize the Archbishop’s apology.
Kendall+, of course they only hear what they want to hear. That’s their end of this “listening process” thingy.
Regarding my post at #11, there’s something weird about this story: I revisited the link Fr Kendall provided to the original UPI story reporting Bishop Orama’s alleged comments ( http://www.upi.com/AfricaMonitoring/view.php?StoryID=20070902-831713-6007-r ). On that link is a search box. I entered “orama”… and got NO RESULT!!!
Try it!
That’s interesting!!! Even UPI has no record of the story.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
In the Scotist’s update he says that this sort of thing happens because there isn’t enough “dialogue,” repeating the refrain of the liberals that all problems can be solved if people only meet face to face. But there have been meetings and discussions ad nauseum over the past few years. The two sides simply do not look at things the same way, and no amount of dialogue is going to change that now.
dpierce, it’s not that I disagree with your basic point, which is that homosexual behavior is inherently disordered. This is the position of the Anglican conservatives, Eastern Orthodox, Baptist conservatives, and the Vatican. The statement attributed to Bishop Orama is very harsh, offering little room for compassion and repentance, and the “not fit to live” part can be very easily interpreted as being a threat of violence or an incitement to violence. It’s the “not fit to live” which is completely unacceptable because of the implied violence. If the speaker meant, instead, “inherently disordered,” then he needs to correct his statement as soon as possible.
My, my!! Matt Thompson, #15, I merely noted the fact that there’s no record of a UPI story (it was on a UPI link, remember?) in UPI’s own search field. I thought that was odd, considering that I found no mention of the story in Google or Yahoo News, and only one mention of it in Google News… on a homosexual source. In fact, the ONLY mentions of this story I’ve been able to find have been on blogs or homosexual media sources.
Perhaps you can offer an explanation for its absence? Other, that is, than my “conspiracy”? Maybe YOU can find where in the regular media the story is hidden?
In faith, Dave
Katherine, #16: Oh, I agree that his “not fit to live” statement was judgemental and the rest of his statement was too harsh. Your point about it not allowing room for repentence is very valid. But in all the comments I’ve read on T19 and StandFirm, I’ve not seen any recognition that most of the statement actually is true (except for the “live” part). It bothered me that no one at all would defend the parts of the statement which were true and in accord with Christian doctrines. Scotist attributed that to a fear the statement would “hurt the cause”. I’m afraid there might be a little bit of justification in what he said. I hope not!
“*IF*” the statement was made at all!!!
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Matt Thompson, I really don’t mind looking foolish. Been there already and done that. The scars go away quickly, so it’s doesn’t even hurt my feelings.
I note that you haven’t offered any explanation as to why a recent UPI story no longer appears in UPI’s search field, nor what has happened to the story viz the regular media. Your experience with the Nigerian Press, NAN, and UPI, should help there. I look forward to finding out.
I’ll go back and look on StandFirm to see where I missed the defensive comments. Last I looked, though, the thread was 110 posts long, so if you can provide me some times of posts it would help. Or, I can search for Sarah but I don’t know who else to search for.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Actually, Dave, I don’t much care for the first part of the statement either, before the implied violence. You don’t encourage someone to leave a behavior you think is hurting him by telling him that his entire existence is dirt.
You know, with all due respect to Fr. Kendall & Greg, both of whom I admire greatly, I do felt that they jumped the gun on this.
This statement has been up for 5 days with no independent corroboration. The statement itself reads as a hack job, a bunch of quotes out of context strung together. The syntax is hideous, which means either the bishop is not skilled at English or – and probably more likely – the original of whatever this was, it was not made in English and we’re dealing with a translation.
All in all, there should have been more independent verification on this story before folks on either side of the aisle went off the deep end.
There are numerous Anglican bloggers with Canon Tunde’s email – why not write & ask for some verification on this? All this craziness seems silly.
However, at this point, no matter the outcome – even if it is proved concretely that the bishop never said any of this at all – the liberals will never be satisfied. That is a given. The apparent willingness of conservatives to condemn a statement that goes too far will always be not-quite-good-enough. Nothing will ever be enough for them
Frankly, I don’t know why the good Father & Greg even bothered.
Look at the overall pattern of the story, as an outsider might see it. A bishop is reported (by an isolated but perhaps not impeccable source) to have said something contemptible. Two groups of people thousands of miles away react by condemning the words of the bishop. And then, in a heartbeat, they fall to attacking one another for not condemning the bishop’s words in quite the right way. And this is supposed to have something to do with Christianity?
MJD_NV, I often agree with you but in this case I disagree. You said this: “However, at this point, no matter the outcome – even if it is proved concretely that the bishop never said any of this at all – the liberals will never be satisfied. That is a given. The apparent willingness of conservatives to condemn a statement that goes too far will always be not-quite-good-enough. Nothing will ever be enough for them
Frankly, I don’t know why the good Father & Greg even bothered.”
This is what I wrote on the original thread to a similar complaing:
[blockquote]”I disagree with a number of the comments above about the worthiness of Kendall’s post.
It’s really not important what revisionists think of us. What’s important is to do the right thing, and Kendall, when he saw something that is clearly heretical, did exactly the right thing.
Of course, revisionists are going to be infuriated by anything at all that we say, no matter what, other than “yes, massah, you da boss†. . . and that’s not really important.
If there were no revisionists who ever came to this blog at all, it was right for him to state that the statement that purports to be a quote by Bishop Orama is false and heretical. And certainly the fact that revisionists are doing their usual is really no concern of his, and basically unimportant.
You don’t denounce the statement because revisionists might approve of you—they won’t and who cares—you denounce the statement when you believe it to be false.” [/blockquote]
Well, it’s history now ^_^!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5662/
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
[i]If there were no revisionists who ever came to this blog at all, it was right for him to state that the statement that purports to be a quote by Bishop Orama is false and heretical.[/i]
Agreed, Sarah. However, you missed the first part of my point – I apologize, I may not have made it clear enough – that there was enough to make one raise one’s eyes at the authenticity of the quote from the get-go that such condemnation should not have been given by ANYONE – no matter which side of the line – before it was properly corroborated. Not just that this was indeed what His Grace said, but also that the quotes were not mangled into oblivion. This is, after all, a very serious allegation to make of anyone, let alone a bishop of the church.
If it were corroborated and verified and THEN Fr. Kendall & Greg wrote what they wrote, Amen and right on.
But we presumed the article was correct BECAUSE the reappraisers were screaming – not in spite of them. I disagree with trying a man before there is enough evidence to warrant trial.
Witch-hunts are unbecoming either side of the Anglican divide.
RE: “But we presumed the article was correct BECAUSE the reappraisers were screaming – not in spite of them.”
Hi there — I did not presume the article was correct because the reappraisers were screaming, and I doubt that Matt, Kendall, or Greg did.
Others may have, but I did not. In fact, that would have probably caused me to think it might be incorrect! ; > )
But I don’t make writing decisions based on what reappraisers think.