Now I doubt much cash will be exchanged at Canterbury, except perhaps in the bookstore, and it is unlikely that the Archbishop will give us all a lashing with a whip of cords””as much as he might like to, still, this passage to me reminds us that any religious institution, whether than be the temple in Jerusalem, the Diocese or local parish, yes even the Anglican Communion is continue need of reformation, of purifying, of being called back by God to the purpose for which it was founded. The medieval scholars used to say, Ecclesia semper reformanda, the church is always being reformed. In Jesus’ day the Temple worship had become big business, with a complex and expensive bureaucracy of sacrifice, it needed a through housecleaning and reminder that its purpose was to be the house of God, not a currency exchange or a shopping mall. I would suggest that in the case of the Anglican Communion we have become equally derailed by at least a decade of power politics and bickering about structures which have little relevance to the needs of our parishioners, and have for at least a decade distracted the wider church from its Gospel mission. We too are need of a reformation, of a cleansing and purification. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that the issues we have dealt with are not important. As practitioners of an incarnational faith, it is right and proper for us to enter into discussions about human sexuality. As members of a body which was founded by Jesus to be radically inclusive. It is essential that we be a place which is totally welcoming and affirming to all sorts and conditions of people, especially those who have been historically excluded from society and the life of the church, women, gay and lesbian folk, children, and those marginalized because of race or class. I am very proud of what the American Episcopal Church has done to include all people. To me, our prayerfully early inclusion of women as priests and bishops, our outspoken involvement in the fight against AIDs/HIV, and our ordination of monogamous gay lesbian people as priests and bishop. All of this is mandated by our baptismal vows. To put it bluntly, if we disqualify certain groups of people from ordination, then why baptize them? For me there can be no second class citizens in the Kingdom of God. Where the Church needs reformation is not in the area of belief, but the way we treat each other. Our problem is not purity of doctrine but lack of Christian charity. Our divisions not only distract us from our real mission, but thy make us a laughing stock to the rest of the world. It breaks my heart to see the time and money we have wasted fighting with one another. I have watched many of my conservative friend’s leave the church because they feel there is no place for them, while many gay and lesbian people have turned their backs because we have not moved fast enough.
To me, our prayerfully early inclusion of women as priests and bishops, our outspoken involvement in the fight against AIDs/HIV, and our ordination of monogamous gay lesbian people as priests and bishop. All of this is mandated by our baptismal vows.
The baptismal vows of the Episcopal Church mandate the ordination of sexually active gays? Wow, who knew?
IOW:
we want the church to be reformed and cleansed — from outdated orthodox thinking so we can do our new thing.
“lack of charity is more important than purity of (Christian) doctrine”, he says.
The old adage that ‘he who stands for nothing will fall for anything’ is an apt response, I think. Correct doctrine will more often lead to proper action than the reverse.
Peace
Jim Elliott
[i]To put it bluntly, if we disqualify certain groups of people from ordination, then why baptize them? For me there can be no second class citizens in the Kingdom of God.[/i]
This makes my head want to explode. Can I ask the good bishop this question: if we do not ask those who are receiving the Holy Eucharist to be fully committed to the Kingdom of God as members of the Body of Christ, recognizing His Holy Sacrifice as our only means of salvation and unity with God, then why baptize them?
Why the hell should we baptize anyone at all? It apparently only excludes people, so why bother participating in such a close-minded intolerant ceremony in the first place?
I wonder, is there anything else in those vows that we might have missed? A mandate to drink Merlot, for instance? Or a mandate to ignore whatever isn’t politically correct in Scripture? Or perhaps a mandate to give property to those who have neither deed nor title, and who didn’t pay for any of it?
Yes, Mr. Fischler. I believe it is all wrapped up in a leftist interpretation of the American Baptismal Covenant to “respect the dignity of every human being.” And yes to Bernini as well, it does make my head explode.
It seems downright demonic to me that while Africa implodes in starvation, epidemic, corruption and genocide, so many of its bishops felt that the best use of their time and money was to travel to Jerusalem to help a small group of a handful of fat cat white churches in suburban Virginia separate from the American Church.
This needs a small re-write:
“It seems downright demonic to me that while Africa implodes in starvation, epidemic, corruption and genocide, so many American bishops felt that the best use of their time and money was to travel to England to help a small group of a handful [sic] of sex-obsessed gays who want everybody’s approval for what they do in bed separate from the rest of the Anglican Communion.”
That fixes it.
Baptize “them”?
RGEaton
By this statement, this bishop would like to ignore any requirements of the leadership of the church to holiness. There should be no distinction between the leaders and elders of the church and the new converts. He would have the sheep lead the flock, because for the Shepherd to actually lead and set an example for the flock would be non-inclusive.
His idea of church appears to be nothing more than a loose knit group of acquaintances, instead of a family. If this is all that a church family is, then why would anyone want to sacrifice.
The 1979 baptismal vow (which I like) says nothing about qualification for ministry. Period. No debate.
If for sake of argument we allow that it does speak to qualifications for ministry; and since it states no reasons against being set apart, it follows that any baptised person can be ordained. There is no need for a discernment committe, diocesan exams, waiting periods, etc.
Next time this Bishop is in town maybe I will ask him to ordain me on the spot. (bet he would add some quaifications to the baptismal vows !)
I am embarrassed and distraught that our bishops are there under the guise of representing the WHOLE church but all they can do is preach to the English people about gay inclusion. They are doing a huge disservice to the church AND to the English people who presumably attend services to hear preaching about God’s Word, not TEC’s new thing.
This is disgusting.
This idea of baptism being the only qualifier (“if you’re going to baptise them, then you can’t keep them from being ordained) comes right out of the TEC seminaries. You will hear many professors spouting this. It’s as if Timothy and Titus didn’t exist.
Are the profoundly mentally retarded not to be baptized now? What about pedophiles – are the unbaptizable? How about the uninsurable, or the profoundly mentally ill for that matter?
Or how about small children. Let’s stop baptizing babies since we aren’t going to ordain them.
“…the best use of their time and money was to travel to Jerusalem to help a small group of a handful of fat cat white churches in suburban Virginia separate from the American Church.”
Wow, I’m a fat cat!! Who knew???!!! Guess +Arizona didn’t bother to read any of the reports from GAFCON. What an idiot!
This is such a dishonest sermon on so many levels. Even Bishop Smith can’t avoid undermining his entire premise regarding baptismal vows by qualifying his comments to “ordination of monogamous gay lesbian people as priests and bishop.” [sic] It would seem that behavior is indeed a potential disqualifier from the clergy, but it’s an ad hoc thing, made up by the progressives as we go.
I am SO thankful I didn’t have to listen to him. Someone pinch me: maybe I’m dreaming – a nightmare? – this stuff up. I cannot believe he really, really means what he’s saying. This is not from the Jesus I know. Not even close.
Be sure to click on “Read it all.†Go to Julie Anne’s reponse. She tells His Grace how it really is for so many in the church. Her post ends:
“Wake up and realize that within this church there are people in much greater numbers who are far more marginalized than homosexuals. We don’t have parades and “pride” events; people often avert their eyes from the sick and the poor. You turn away from us while patting yourselves on the back for being gay activists. And you join with Hollywood celebrities and PC governments in affirming gay people while kicking the rest of us to the curb and emphasizing that we and our concerns don’t matter. Thanksâ€.
Heh, I’m wondering how long my comment (I’m sure y’all can guess which one!) will be allowed to stay on their blog. I’ll bet it doesn’t last until the evening.
Wasn’t Adolph Hitler batized? Can I hear an amen for the proposition that if the church baptizes them (genocidal maniacs) there is no reason they should not also be ordained to the priesthood? And if Hitler was not baptized, substitute your own mass murderer – the principle remains the same.
[i]It seems downright demonic to me that while Africa implodes in starvation, epidemic, corruption and genocide, so many of its bishops felt that the best use of their time and money was to travel to Jerusalem to help a small group of a handful of fat cat white churches in suburban Virginia separate from the American Church. [/i]
This reminds me of when the confessing parishes first stopped giving money to 815. The cry was:
[i]How dare they cut off the flow of much needed financial relief to the sections of Africa that need it the most?[/i]
(not withstanding that it seems the majority of 815 funds are going for lawsuits.)
Then when we started sending money directly TO African dioceses it was:
[i]See? They are trying to buy their support![/i]
Conversely, when the African diocesesan churches stopped accepting money from 815, it was:
[i]These bishops are starving their own people, condemning others to lives without medical assist, etc. How dare they put their misplaced convictions over the welfare of their people![/i]
And when they did accept funds from the missionary society:
[i]Hah! See? They compromised their convictions for money![/i]
In other words, with reappraisers, you can’t win. They look for the basest of motives even when the highest is being exhibited.
Dear Bishop,
Re: “downright demonic”
Please tell us who you are and whose purposes you are serving.
With all due respect,
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Preaching to the choir here – don’t forget who the Dean of St.Alban’s is.
And in case you had forgotten you can remind youself here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3858915.stm
This guy is definitely a cart-before-the-horse sort of thinker. Why indeed baptize any not to be included? Perhaps because they disobey the faith of their own volition and make their own decisions at variance with the Church’s teaching and choose to be apart? That old hear my voice and keep my commandments stuff….again.
Don’t they teach that at seminary?
I think it is time to take torch and pitchfork to those seminaries that produce Clergy who spout such bullcrap.
Please someone tell me how did a person like this become a Bishop? Cow emissions have nothing on this guy.
This is the kind of remark that leaves you genuinely speechless and dazed trying to think how to reply. It’s so meaningless on so many levels.
Following Puppet Boy’s “logic,” if anyone who is baptized can be ordained and there are no second class citizens in the Kingdom of God, then how can the Episcopal Organization deny ordination to anyone? Non-Episcopalians, professed atheists whose parents had a little water sprinkled on them back in the day. Even children.
When are the bishop and his wife leaving for Zimbabwe??
[blockquote]To me, our prayerfully early inclusion of women as priests and bishops, our outspoken involvement in the fight against AIDs/HIV, and our ordination of monogamous gay lesbian people as priests and bishop. All of this is mandated by our baptismal vows.[/blockquote]
I’m surprised. I didn’t realize the vows under which I was baptized mandated that I achieve my salvation by my own works. [/sarcasm]
OTOH, he did say “priests and bishop,” singular. Perhaps there will be only one non-celibate non-heterosexually married bishop. [/sarcasm again]
What shall we cry to such dishonesty? What shall we cry? Let me suggest: While you are dithering and dining, dawdling and whitewashing,, THE DAMNED WOLVES ARE EATING THE SHEEP!” Larry
if anyone who is baptized can be ordained and there are no second class citizens in the Kingdom of God, then how can the Episcopal Organization deny ordination to anyone?
And why on earth bother with *discernment*. Obviously, we should all be priests and bishops.
I was one of the 11,000 in June who moved here to AZ and could not be part of any parish that does not preach the Gospel, no matter what liturgical trappings they employ. And that accounts for 100% of the ECUSA parishes here in Tucson…
Well, if I ever move back to Arizona, I won’t be worshipping in an Episcopal Church. That’s what I think Canterbury and others don’t understand. In Arizona, and in my present home diocese, I cannot worship in the church into which I was confirmed. They’ve taken it away and replaced it with something else.
Sherri said:
[blockquote]And why on earth bother with *discernment*. Obviously, we should all be priests and bishops.[/blockquote]
Ah, it is a Royal Priesthood of All Believers (run amok), isn’t it, dear? Therefore, let’s just start passing out the collars.