In the Episcopal Church, each diocese (generally a diocese consists of an entire state) is allowed to operate autonomously. It' s not like the Catholic Church where everything comes from the Pope.
All the various diocese pretty much respect the independence of any other diocese and confirms those who that particular chooses for the position of Bishop. Rubber stamp approval, you might say.
In this particular case, I think more of the bishops should have stood on the principle of defending Scripture rather than seeing it as a living document open to revision. God gets everything right the first time, by the way.
In arguing this point I get the typical liberal response that he is a good man, obviously respected by the people of New Hampshire and will do a good job so we shouldn' t deny him the position.
They make it a personal issue and focus on the person instead of the sin. Like, forget the sin this is a good person. Well, he probably is a great person but should we elevate to a position of authority in the church one who is obviously an unabashed, unrepentent sinner. The Bible says he is not qualified. Who are we to say he is. I' m sure Satan could be the nicest gem of a man you could ever want to meet. Anything to strike at Christ. Hey, wait a minute........ I might be on to something.......
The Bible doesn' t teach against homosexuality, it teaches against the hatred of those who are homosexual. Literal interpretation isn' t practiced by anyone, and those who believe homosexuality is wrong is picking and chosing what they want to believe to support their homophobic fears.
Big Buck, good to see you' re still around. I just ask Dave590 about you on another thread just a day or two ago.
I don' t claim to be an expert on any particular chuch doctrine but I see the issue this way regardless of denomination: If this man would have left wis wife and children for another woman it would be considered and adultress afair. That being the case and he is still living in sin with this other woman, should he be elevated in the church as a leader. Leader have a responsiblity to set an example and follow the rules of the church. I don' t believe under those conditions he would have been advance. He therefore would not be advanced in this situation other than the fact that there is so much PC oressure or willingness to bend the rules.
It' s sort of like Reparation Day in 2003 for this church.
Reparations to the church always make the sinners feel better whether they make, grant or receive the relief of sin.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
The Bible doesn' t teach against homosexuality, it teaches against the hatred of those who are homosexual. Literal interpretation isn' t practiced by anyone, and those who believe homosexuality is wrong is picking and chosing what they want to believe to support their homophobic fears.
Sorry, but that is a crock. The Bible does denounce homosexuality - as for " literal interpretation" it still holds true. However, the new testament in a way trumps the old testament as far as Jesus was the last sacrifice to " pay" for a sin.
Zelazny, Unfortunately you have a relatively shallow knowledge of the Bible. I think that as you listen you will also learn.
The Bible condemns lots of sins. I am no better in the eyes of God than the fruitiest rump-jumper. But here is the difference between me and the bishop. I am truly sorry for my sins and ask for forgiveness he un repentant on this sin. The bible hold bishops and clergy to a higher standard and so should we.
This is not a " gay" issue. It is an issue of elevating somebody to a position of authority in the church who does not conform to the requirements set forth in the bible.
Try this question on for size: Would he have been confirmed if he had left his wife and kids and shacked up with another woman? Even the people who support him would not support him if this were the case.
The Bible doesn' t teach against homosexuality, it teaches against the hatred of those who are homosexual. Literal interpretation isn' t practiced by anyone, and those who believe homosexuality is wrong is picking and chosing what they want to believe to support their homophobic fears.
Actually, Zelazny, I believe the Bible does teach that homosexuality is wrong and is a sin. In BBB' s post he didn' t state that he hates homosexuals either. I' m not sure where you got that from...many Christians disagree with homosexual practices, but do not " hate" homosexuals as you listed.
Just like I don' t agree with affirmative action and quotas, doesn' t mean that I hate all " non-whites."
Just like I believe homosexuality is wrong...I also believe that lying, sex outside of marriage, and drunkeness is wrong.
The gay bishop should not be allowed to run a church just like an alcoholic one shouldn' t...it' s not really about pick or choosing...it' s about not letting a " sinner" be a leader in God' s holy church.
__________________
πνεύμα γ*μισα
"Error never shows itself in its naked reality in order not to be discovered. On the contrary, it dresses elegantly, so that the unwary may be led to believe that it is more truthful than truth itself."
-Irenaeus of Lyon
Here' s how the gay bishop was elected....
