Bishop Hollerith, what was your reaction to the Episcopal Church’s recent decision to allow the Blessing of Same-gender unions and did you vote in favor?
We have been struggling with this matter for many, many years now – attempting to discern the full place of Gays and Lesbians in the life of the church. In fact, the theological dialogue on a national level began way back in the mid-seventies. And yes, I did vote in favor because I believe the Church needs to move forward now. I do find I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I know that many among us welcome this new reality with great joy and celebration having waited long and patiently for what is seen as a new, grace-filled opportunity. On the other hand, I also know that others among us will be upset and not at all comfortable with this new direction. As I stated in my address to Council, I believe both responses are legitimate expressions of who we are in our diocesan family. I find I have deep respect for both. And this is something that is not easy for me to reconcile. But, in the end, I am joyful about our moving forward and ready to do so.
Can you spell ‘mugwump’? I can…Episcopal bishop!
No. 1. Yes, I, too, was wondering when reading this article if she was a Republican who refused to support the party nominee, James G. Blaine, in the presidential campaign of 1884. 😉
Sorry, sometimes my historical humor is so subtle, even I don’t get it.
Bob Uecker should be made an Episcopal bishop for his work in the “tastes great, less filling” Miller Lite commercials. At least he would be more fun than the typical double-minded TEC bishops we have. As a side benefit, I bet his theology would be no worse, and probably a lot more entertaining.
No. 4, I think he’s over the age limit, but I would nominate him. He could preach a wild sermon “just a bit outside!”
The Bishop says that we are “…attempting to discern the full place of Gays and Lesbians in the life of the church.”
What?
Bishop, that place would be right next to you and I, and all of the other broken sinners at worship, trying hard to live in the model of Jesus Christ. End of “discernment”.
There is nothing more to discern if the only answers you are seeking are those that came out of your “theological dialog of the mid-seventies…”
What theological dialog?
When I read this patronizing sentence, “I also know that others among us will be upset and not at all comfortable with this new direction” deep annoyance rose up in my, but the elves would surely edit or delete what I wanted to write.
Bishop Hollerith writes:
“Did the author/authors of the Genesis story mean to suggest that the male-female relationship is the only way human beings are to relate to one another as sexual beings?”
To which the short answer is, yes, and the Bible teaches the same thing whenever it touches on this issue: marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman only, and sexual activity is meant to be between men and women only, and only in marriage.
It may be difficult for we fallen human beings to stick to that standard, just as it is difficult to obey all of God’s laws. But its not at all difficult to understand.
So, yet another bishop trying to promote decline in his diocese. Does anyone know how Dio Southern Virginia has been faring in recent years?
No. 8, I found that a rather patronizing statement myself, particularly since one of the questions to prospective bishop candidates in this search (I know because I got nominated) was worded to the affect of “how can you effectively be a bishop to people of differing views?” Apparently that was question was a facade.
I have far more respect for Spong than for Ms. Hollerith. At least he said what he had the conviction to say what he meant and he didn’t pretend to give a bleep about the opinions of the unenlightened. Madam Hollerith’s comments are frankly infuriating.