The first ballot tabulations are available.
Update: Lee elected on the second ballot.
The first ballot tabulations are available.
Update: Lee elected on the second ballot.
Or here:
http://www.bishopforchicago.org/
The Rev. Jeffrey D. Lee Elected on Second Ballot
http://www.bishopforchicago.org/content/view/77/1/lang,en/
From Lee’s profile:
[i]For instance, in the parish I try hard to listen deeply to people who are concerned or troubled by developments in the church around sexuality and what I discover over and over again is that the issue is rarely the real issue. Someone may be deeply troubled about the liberalization of the church’s practice around the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the church, but what lies at the root of their misgivings is some hurt or brokenness in their family. Once you uncover that pain in a safe way you can begin to move through it to a place of deeper understanding.[/i]
So if someone disagrees with him on “full inclusion” of homosexuals, they must have family problems.
[i] Comment edited by elf. [/i]
Nice.
Been away for a few days … see I haven’t missed anything!
Here’s Integrity’s comment: http://tinyurl.com/2n9np7
[i] Comment slightly edited. [/i]
An expected and standard outcome — Lind nominated “just to show we can” but not elected, and a guy essentially the same as Persell elected. Similar to the other elections, only no one even bothered to predict that what happened would happen . . .
#3,
It was funnyto read that part. In my pastoral experience, it is usually the one’s with revisionist theology that have some sort of pathology in their past that needs healing.
Bottom line, we are all fallen, broken human beings in need of God’s grace and transformation. It is the one’s who are willing to follow Jesus and be countercultural that are the recipients of that grace. God meets us where we are. He just expects us not to stay there.
Townsend… what? I could hope, for example, that God will meet you in your views about thinking gays are disordered and hope that you, also, won’t stay there.
First, what is “revisionist” theology? Is it like when we have new facts we revise our understanding of the world? A more appropriate word is “modern.” Second, how is revisionist theology indicative of pathology? Unless everyone is pathological? “Revisionist” theology is merely “revisionist” in that it holds the claims of science as having some merit. That’s about it.
God will meet him in his views? He’s commenting on his personal pastoral experience. I hate to say this, and I have never said it before, but it is also my personal experience that of the many gay friends I have had, I can think of only one that didn’t have very serious psychological and/or character disorders as well. I don’t mean to hurt any feelings in saying this, but it is my experience, too.
[i] Let’s return to a discussion of the election. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Elves,
Sorry. I did not realize that his comments (that may have gotten him elected!) were out of bounds.
[i] The candidate’s personal experience comments are, of course, part of the discussion. However,
#8’s personal experience comments are not. [/i]
#7, John: “First, what is “revisionist†theology? Is it like when we have new facts we revise our understanding of the world? A more appropriate word is “modern.â€
You have to ask, John? I thought you had been on this blog before…
Anyway, as always, John, you are wrong. “Modern” is not an appropriate word. The reason “revisionist” works as a description of your theology is that it seeks to, well, revise what has been. You might also call it “re-written”, “made-up”, etc. It is called this because you choose to throw out traditional, Catholic understanding of Christianity and replace it with whatever makes you feel good.
Rolling eyes, that’s not how I understand it. We are seeing the conflict between two different traditions: that of grace and that of sexual ethics. I’m not sure how monogamous, faithful relationships are “rewriting” Christianity.
Yes – there is revision. Because some facts have changed. Thank God, for example, for credit, an end to slavery and the translation of scripture into the vernacular. Those are revisions to traditional Catholic teaching.
Your eagerness into making the issue a black-white / good evil is remarkably Manichean.
John: “I’m not sure how monogamous, faithful relationships are “rewriting†Christianity.”
They aren’t. Blessing behavior that God, through Holy Scripture, calls a sin is, however.
“Your eagerness into making the issue a black-white / good evil is remarkably Manichean.”
Blah blah blah. Your celebration of sinful behavior, which runs contrary to the very image of God as clearly expressed through his Holy Scriptures, is remarkably pagan. Next?
[i] Back to #9, please. [/i]