From Barbara Bloom ”¢ Bloomington, Indiana…
Excellent. Who cares about another’s sexual preference, unless you are looking for a partner? Let’s celebrate how we work, in many diverse ways, to love God and to love our neighbors.
.
Read them all.
The Latest Episcopal Life Letters/Reader Responses
Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Episcopal Church (TEC)
And, how about this from a blogger at Susan Russell’s site:
From David..
“If I ever am so privileged to be ordained, I would not care whether the bishop is male or female, gay or straight, monogamous or promiscuous, as long as he/she is in the succession of the Apostles”.
We are reaping the failure of Christian Education when adults make comments so profoundly amiss as that.
Moving in on Christopher Johnson’s turf, are we?
🙂
It strikes me as an interesting phenomenon, that as sexual morality has been “privatized”, the public expression of intimate private sexual acts has increased. It’s as if as the public meaning of sexual acts decreases, the public expression of sexual acts increases as an illusory compensation.
“in the succession of the Apostles”
By whose definition? Our own, of course.
kb–Better question might be apostles of what? It certaintly can’t be Apostles of Christ.
Mr. Swain #3 – Excellent observation. I have been similarly struck by the odd interplay of decadence and narcissism that afflicts a society wherein naive assumptions about technology’s power over nature, specifically that pills and rubbers can perportedly sever copulation from procreation (the lie to which fatuous notion is given by its dependence on the barbarism of legalized homicide in the form of abortion), hold seemingly unfettered sway. One of Richard Neuhaus’ more amusing observations in [i]First Things[/i] some years back centered on a claim by some New York feminists that since they owned their breasts, they should be allowed to bare them and be neither arrested nor ogled. Fr. Neuhaus noted the distinction that the avatars of this curious philosophy might want to consider between ownership and public display. When one thinks one owns one’s body, one can come to some excruciatingly odd conclusions about what one might be allowed to do with it or what one might find oneself saying about what one does with it. As Eve found out the hard way, sin hurts.
My comment is not to take away from Kendall’s original post, but to illuminate just how widespread the problem of Christian Education is. The main comment that floor me is that the possible ordinand expressed that he didn’t care if a member of the clergy was promiscuous, just so long as a pointy hat and red shirt called him/her an Apostle. And then, on the blog, no one challenged that. If the goal of such people is to reclaim their personal Garden of Eden and inch at a time, they must be doing so only at the depth of an inch as well.
Forgive the spelling errors. I’m rushing while at work.
There is no better example of the total lack of “Christian Education” in the Episcopal Church than the former “Director of Faith Formation” at St. Mark’s Cathedral in Seattle who believed she could be both a Muslim and a Christian.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003751274_redding17m.html
Re # 4,
kb9gzg,
[blockquote] “in the succession of the Apostlesâ€
By whose definition? Our own, of course. [/blockquote]
That’s a can of worms many are uncomfortable with. Open it up for close examination and you can’t be sure where you will end up.
Jim she not only did, but does. Also not only was but *is* an Episcopalian in good standing, receiving communion.
The interesting thing about the letter excerpt is that the person who cares nothing about the conduct of an ordinand somehow thinks that “Succession” matters! How did they arrive at that conclusion? What a wonderfully fundamentalist “Catholic” idea!
See #3. Narcissism is not really a value, is it? It is simply a case of continual adolescence – like a bad habit, for insance. But exhibitionism has BECOME a value, has it not? It is as if one cannot believe one exists until one has exposed oneself to public view – and the more that is exposed, the more certain one can be of being real. The new rule is: I am seen by others, therefore I am. To be recognized is to become real.
See the pictures pf Lindsey Vonn in the lastest Sports Illustrated.
She is a hottie all right, but why this exposure? Surely it is not money. Rather, the pictures are an attempt to become what is called a celebrity, and celebrity-ness is determined by exposure. I asked two dental asssistants (whom I know well) if they would have posed as Liindsey has. One is young and pretty; one is surely not. But both said, “If I had HER body, I probably would.” They spoke enviously. I asked them if posing thus would not offend their modesty. Neither answered, but their faces said quite clearly that modesty is made a virtue by the homely and flat chested. It is this reason – that personal public exposure is a primary value – that lies behind Avatar’s Na’vi greeting, “I see you.” Larry
1
What then is modesty. It is to cease to exist, to become invisible.
These letters are best used as the textual basis for a drinking game.