Comments: PB speaks to American Episcopalians

++KJS is terrific. So thoroughly Anglican, smart and spiritual, entirely unpretentious. Via media. TEC allows many of us to be both catholic and Christian generally. My wife has always insisted that if TEC did not exist in its current form, someone would have to invent it. We would be unhappy across the Tiber, and equally as unhappy as Protestants.

Posted by Andrew at Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 8:05pm BST

Well, I was very impressed by Bishop Katharine, but there is nothing new about that.

I am sure that those who will never accept her statements with good will won't change their opinions now, either (which is truly very sad).

Posted by Prior Aelred at Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 8:08pm BST

Well done Schori and TEC, God bless you all as you find your stride and for not surrendering. Remember the prophets of old, the Hoseas and Ezekiels and Jeremiahs. If they couldn't elucidate with one strategy, then they prayed and woved and took another tack.

I liked your question Simon.

My first thought was that the question should be "When will the Church of England have this kind of event?"

But as I contemplated, ABC already does do these kinds of things e.g. the question and answer session from New Orleans linked on TA a few weeks ago.

So the next question would be "When will the Church of England have this calibre of consideration?"

The hubris of Christianity for too long has been the presumption that the scriptures had been completely fulfilled, that earlier covenants can be gazzumped or put aside, and that God has been replaced in entirety by Jesus. Their arrogance made them forget to read the earlier texts to ensure their faith manifested God's desires and that their churches were actually fulfilling God's promises. They dismissed the Old Testament and its teachings, they forgot how to think hermeneutically, they shown partiality in the Law and insulted the God of gods by accusing God of lacking righteousness.

They purported that God is capricious and vengeful and that souls are not treated justly in death. They ascribed blame and guilt to innocents whilst claiming purity amidst the filth of their own corruptions. They not only did not help souls with their burdens but kept adding to their loads. Instead of pouring soothing oils to calm the storms of fear, they used their sticks to incite hatred and whip up storms of aggression and arrogance.

Until there is a fundamental understanding that God despises oppression, tyranny and accusations; there will not be the fundamental grasp that God loves peace, justice and mercy.

Dialogues of the quality of TEC can not be done by opportunistic wimps nor arrogant bullies. It requires courageous souls who trust in God to create peace and nurturing and are prepared to refute accusers and stay the hands of attackers. Only then will the weapons of war be transformed into gardening tools (Micah 4:3 and Isaiah 2:6). Watch the scene at the end of Shrek 3. That is the kind of discussion that will be possible.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 9:37pm BST

Let me interrupt this lovefest for ++KJS:

"This statement both affirms the church’s commitment to the full dignity of gay and lesbian persons and cautions us to wait before their full sacramental inclusion. There is a fundamental tension there that will continue to ***challenge us all***."

The issue isn't whether all are challenged, but whether all are BURDENED.

When the HofB committed to a moratorium on ALL consents for bishops (Spring '05), then that was truly a burden on all---a burden SHARED.

But now, w/ the specification that gays and lesbians "present a challenge to the wider communion"---and ABSENT an indication of any other group---this is declared a burden ONLY on SOME.

This isn't a "tension"---it's a contradiction. And what is contradicted, is the PROMISE that "in Christ there is no" division, leading to burden-impositions only on a select few.

Don't get me wrong: I'm no less committed an Episcopalian, than I was before the Sept. HofB meeting (and ++KJS is no less my PB).

But this is NOT the "via media"---it's a concession to the ***principalities and powers***.

Lord have mercy!

Posted by JCF at Wednesday, 17 October 2007 at 10:53pm BST

Sensible and prudent.

Like "sensible shoes" selected prudently for leading ones barefoot followers through blind curved biways that are littered with broken bones, stigmatic nails, rusting hearts and other Body-of-Christ cast-off parts.

Posted by Leonardo Ricardo at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 3:07am BST

"Greetings to all of you in the Episcopal Church, from Taiwan to Europe, Alaska to Ecuador, and everywhere between and beyond"......sounds like a US organisation or a global one?

JCF is right - the AC is being sold fudge but also Integrity et al are being sold fudge.

Many people asked TEC HOB simply to speak the truth about what it believes to be right and stand by its beliefs.....the tangled web woven with Lambeth Palace bureaucrats lacks integrity and hurts all.

Posted by NP at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 7:20am BST

The Lambeth strategy was to isolate "both extremes" – I believe they think this strategy has succeeded and listening to this speech they would seem to be right.

An interesting consequence of this is there is now some disquiet and discomfort as to who is occupying an “extreme” position as the centre ground appears to have moved again!

Lambeth Palace and the ACO are clearly happy they have achieved all the Windsor Report asked and see the experiment with the Primates Group as something of a disaster and best left for a while.

Those who heavily bought into the Primates Group as THE way forward for Anglican polity are now dissing the settlement (“too little too late” ) – because it leaves American conservatives and four or five large African Provinces way out on a limb.

The underlying issues are now emerging as the presenting issue is pushed aside. The theological chasm has not been bridged and there are those conservatives eager to see it run wider and deeper accompanied by a large number who are not so extreme but having failed to get what they hoped for so far will play along with the schismatics out of frustration.

But can influential conservative commentators do anything other than pick at the settlement and attempt to undermine it? Can they exert a moderating influence on the actions of their natural allies? It seems not.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 11:22am BST

NP will ignore this comment (no surprise there), but I have to make it anyway. I am a gay Episcopalian whose brother has served in Iraq. The Episcopal Church has condemned the war, an action which filled me with deep gratitude and increased my certainty that I am where I am supposed to be. I deeply opposed the war from the beginning, and I live in a most decidedly Republican area. So each Sunday I take the Eucharist with people who have supported and continue to support the false witness that is daily murdering and maiming the people of Iraq and the coalition forces stationed there. And believe me, I struggle with this fact -- with grief and rage that threaten time and again to carry me over into hatred. It is a far greater challenge to me than the position of gay people in the church. Katherine, our presiding bishop, as I am glad and grateful to call her each Sunday during Prayers of the People, strengthens my faith and my determination to follow Christ when she reminds me "God has given us to each other, to love and to learn from each other."

Posted by Susan in Georgia at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 1:21pm BST

I don't think I agree. It's about uderstanding that there are more people in the world than us and that perhaps it is not appropriate for Christians to demand that their personal needs, whatever those needs may be, come before the needs of others. That doesn't sound to me like the sacrificial love we are always being told Christians should practice. What they feel and say and do about us may hurt, may even get us killed, but that still doesn't mean that we should put ourselves before them. Sorry. I know that sounds hyperpious, but I see an awful lot of "me firstness" in this. If the Right can be accused of narrowminded judgementalism, bigotry, and hypocrisy, and hiding behind God to justify it, and I think they can, then I really believe the left can be accused of a profound self centredness. Whatever else the Left may be doing, however closely they are following the Gospel in this, they are far from the Gospel in that respect. Even those who are not gay but defend us show signs of it being as much about their status as defenders of the downtrodden as it is about God's justice, to balance out those on the Right fore whom it is all about being seen as stalwart defenders of the True Faith against the heathen hordes of TEC. God's justice may well be done in this in the long run, but that doesn't do much to shake my basic doubts about the motives of many in this debate.

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 1:31pm BST

NP: There are several dioceses, like Taiwan, which are outside of the United States but which are members of the Episcopal Church. That was the main reason for dropping "United States" from the title.

Posted by Paul Davison at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 2:03pm BST

"If the Right can be accused of narrowminded judgementalism, bigotry, and hypocrisy, and hiding behind God to justify it, and I think they can, then I really believe the left can be accused of a profound self centredness. Whatever else the Left may be doing, however closely they are following the Gospel in this, they are far from the Gospel in that respect"

I agree, and I have been deeply moved by the call for gay people to possibly agree to accept their own exclusion for the time being(on another thread).

But it rather does leave me with the question of who is allowed to fight for anybody's equality and when. It cannot be true that Christ requires victims to acquiesce with everything being done to them (and I'm not talking about homosexuality here, but about the principle of fighting any injustice), and that only those not directly affected can be allowed to be vocal. Certainly, if the world had waited for men to take up women's fights for equality, we'd still be waiting.

"Me-first" is what it looks like, I grant you. But I would hesitate to judge that that is the underlying motivation for all those standing up.

Do we not have to continue the fight and leave the judging to Him to whom all hearts are open?

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 2:21pm BST

Paul - indeed, TEC(USA) has dioceses in other countries.... maybe Rowan will "lead" us to the point where it has dioceses in England too.

Martin - I am sure you noticed +Durham signed a recent ACI piece which was less than complimentary on the JSC fudge....I took that as a significant sign that Lambeth has not actually succeeded in isolating the extremes because the sold centre (+Tom?) is not fooled by TEC doublespeak.

Susan, Ford, Martin - my problem with TEC HOB NO statement is that it lacks honesty. Same problem with the JSC fudge. I have praised VGR for being much more open and honest....

Here is a piece from a Fulcrum, "open" evangelical academic (Dr Goddard) i.e. not stupid, supposedly right-wing (but Labour-voting) NP. Anyway, this piece is fair, detailed and balanced and it exposes the half truths and empty promises on which some, like KJS and the JSC report writers, want us to build so called "unity":

Posted by NP at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 3:27pm BST

"it rather does leave me with the question of who is allowed to fight for anybody's equality and when. "

I think we should ask a different question. We start from a position of injustice which must be opposed.Here's a hypothetical, and admittedly idealistically pious, suggestion of an alternative: We are all equal in God's eyes. Thus, when others practice inequality, they are sinning, since it goes against God. Now, we wouldn't "fight against" other people's sin, we wouldn't walk away from them. We would patiently try to help them, and pray for them. So when +Akinola sins by claiming I am inhuman and ought to be jailed, our response should not be to fight against him, but to try to bring him to an awareness of his own sinfulness in doing this.

Perhaps God's justice isn't to be brought about by a fight at all. The civil rights movement has been around a long time, but activists fighting for justice will tell you we still have a long way to go. Might that be because we are going about it the wrong way, that justice isn't achieved through a fight, but by something else entirely? Might it be that we Christians actually know what that something is, but have been distracted by the great romanticism of fighting for the downtrodden or defending God's Truth?

Posted by Ford Elms at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 3:46pm BST

Well PB Katherine is not perfect, and I suspect she would be the last person to claim that she was perfect. In her great favor are her steady intelligence - dissed on many conservative blogs as: THAT MARINE BIOLOGIST - who only knows about octopus and squid; plus her public calmness in the face of tensions and controversies - dissed among some right and lefty believers as: SHE DOES NOT REALLY CARE; plus her willingness to be clear where most other church life leaders are either loudly confusing and/or trenchantly silent - dissed as PHONINESS by those of us who struggle with the unavoidable truth that we are now living through times of incredibly fast and wide and deep transitions (in church life, in human empirical knowledge, and in our trembling awareness that no single human leader now leading is masterfully and completely driving the global boat to species safety).

As so many conservative realignment leaders and believers constantly imply: We are paused now for a bit - trying what divorce and family courts call, A Cooling Off Period - even though in real life things just keep moving on. While the conservatives continue to put their bets on being able to shut out queer folks, liberals, and other citizens for whom they feel deep, continuing distaste - OUT of church life generally, and Anglican church life in particular - the rest of us are, well, still just here.

A cooling off period while we all let our being still here, together, on a small blue green planet, together - sink in, quite a bit more, might not be a complete sell-out or betrayal or fudge. No matter what an Anglican realignment conservative thinks of me, I am just still here, alive and working and trying to be loving. No matter what I think of some things preached by such a conservative believer, he or she is also just still here - my global neighbor unavoidably.

Time will tell, at least among Anglicans.

Meanwhile, follow Jesus, love your neighbor as yourself as often as you can manage it, and keep on keeping on.

Posted by drdanfee at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 7:21pm BST

I was on a clergy retreat and they showed this projected on a large screen. I wish someone had asked her what the support of glbt civil rights, mentioned at the end of the New Orleans document, would look like. A number of states, including my own, have passed very harsh antigay laws or constitutional amendments on marriage, civil unions, and the like. These were pushed by the fundagelicals with lots of 'reverends' speaking out. Silence from most mainline churches, including our own in the Diocese of Virginia.

Posted by Cynthia at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 7:41pm BST

I thought the implication by the PB was pretty clear that the question of the role of GLBTQ people will re-visited at General Convention in 2009 -- the issue is not going to go away -- people are going to try to persuade other people -- the people who leave are not going to be around to be persuaded (or that's how I read things, anyway).

BTW -- why did no one at the HoB meeting ask Bishop Anis about his predecessor as Primate of that province who had the misfortune to be arrested in a cottaging sting? IIRC, the case was dropped because it was not considered in the interests of HM Govt. to pursue the matter (nor was he removed from office).

It seems very odd, but that's just me.

Posted by Prior Aelred at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 9:31pm BST

May God bless you Susan and others like you.

Ford, you commented "It's about understanding that there are more people in the world than us and that perhaps it is not appropriate for Christians to demand that their personal needs… come before the needs of others. That doesn't sound to me like the sacrificial love we are always being told Christians should practice."

There are some very motivated Christians who are prepared to face death to spread the good news of Jesus. Yet often these "loving" Christians use intimidation to gain conditional conversions along the lines of "You will go to hell unless you acknowledge Jesus our way and nothing less will do."

That has created a problem. There are souls who never knew of Jesus, so "can't" be saved. Then there are other souls who look at these aggressive Christians and comment to God, Jesus might be the ants pants in your eyes, but if that is what holiness makes one become, then I'd rather remain a sinner.

So it raises the question, how does God accommodate and reconcile all those non-Christians back to God? How to create the promised Millennia of peace? We had to find a way of bringing grace to non-Christians. It was agreed that all souls had to come through Jesus, but the priests were denying that souls had come to Jesus and so were therefore outside of his grace.

The solution was dialogue, truces, treaties and alliances across all levels of Creation. We all agree that God has given Jesus authority. We all continue to honor the covenants that God has entrusted to our realms. Some souls have offered themselves as advocates for others. These souls are prepared to be martyrs, not just for the "winning" team, but for those who have no hope of redemption. They are prepared to sacrifice themselves even for their enemies.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Thursday, 18 October 2007 at 10:35pm BST

NP: "Susan, Ford, Martin - my problem with TEC HOB NO statement is that it lacks honesty. Same problem with the JSC fudge. I have praised VGR for being much more open and honest...."

You are so full of it.

So September 30th came and went. We're (TEC) still here in the AC, I'm off the boat and you're still whining about TEC's non-compliance (according to the Gospel of you) with Lambeth 1:10.

Some things never change.

Posted by choirboyfromhell at Friday, 19 October 2007 at 3:28am BST

choirboy - very powerful arguments from you....

a)30th Sept was the deadline for TEC(USA) to respond - they did..... what did you expect to happen?

b) now, the AC's Primates are being asked what they think of TEC(USA)'s response.....and many are calling for a Primates' Meeting (including the ACI and +Durham) but Lambeth seems to feel it is easier to manipulate the process without a meeting..... if TEC(USA) had given a clear, acceptable, honest answer to the Primates, I suspect there would be many positive Primatial voices raised to celebrate the ABC saving the communion but there ain't;

c) It is not just CAPA, AM and Reform (conservative) who do not think TEC(USA) has responded honestly .....
but also Fulcrum (open evos) and the ACI (open and very scholarly .....
Also, VGR and KJS, amongst others in TEC HOB, have confirmed what you say.... some things never change and TEC(USA) has again given warm but flexible words to the AC but nothing in reality is changing in TEC(USA).....

Before you try and make a big deal of the fact that TEC made its Sept 30th deadline to respond to the Primates, maybe you ought to wait and see what actually happens in the AC??
The Primates of the AC may like to respond to TEC HOB, you know..... and they may just say that TEC HOB has not done enough to satisfy them...... even if the Lambeth Conference requires financial subsidies from Trinity, Wall St, they may come to this conclusion.

Posted by NP at Friday, 19 October 2007 at 9:47am BST

"Before you try and make a big deal of the fact that TEC made its Sept 30th deadline to respond to the Primates, maybe you ought to wait and see what actually happens in the AC??"

Poor NP.

He/she keeps drawing new lines in the sand, and every time that his/her latest timeline event passes, without the predicted house falling in on everyone, NP creates a new timeline: just wait and see.

Sorry, NP, you've been so regularly wrong that the only reliable consistency is your inconsistency of correct prediction.

All that is going to happen is that the more extreme among the Primates, largely from Central Africa but also a few elsewhere, and their extremist supporters primarily in England and in the US, will grumble off to form a new fundamentalist Christian faith community, formerly part of the broad tent Anglican Communion.

The rest of us -- including England, the US, and Canada, and those previously mentioned rejecting the Akinolaite putsch -- will, with fewer distractions, continue to pursue the mission of Christ and to strengthen the core Anglican Communion, measured not in money, nor in numbers, but in faith and service.

Posted by Jerry Hannon at Friday, 19 October 2007 at 3:30pm BST

Interesting link, NP. It reads more like an expression of disappointment that they didn't get their way with the JSC. By the way, your acronyms are making your postings increasingly difficult to read. They comment how this has "predictably" not met with communion wide approval. It's rather funny that they cannot see that their desperate attempt to paint this out as negatively as they can so as to maintain the frenzy for righteousness of the poor faithful remnant is even more predictable. Is there anyone who DIDN'T think the ACI would come out against this? Nothing TEC does will be enough. They have done everything that has been asked of them, and every time the response has been that, despite fulfilling all requests, they are still not doing enough. What is it that the schismatics want? Repentance? What they have gotten looks far more penitent than anything the GS has said in response to their sinful behaviour. Indeed, they have not even acknowledged doing anything ou of the way. Honesty? They encourage dishonesty and practice it in public. What right have they to denounce statements that are far more honest than most of what they get on with?

Posted by Ford Elms at Friday, 19 October 2007 at 6:12pm BST

"So when +Akinola sins by claiming I am inhuman and ought to be jailed, our response should not be to fight against him, but to try to bring him to an awareness of his own sinfulness in doing this."

So when +Akinola sins by trying to introduce a law that will further endanger our brother Davis and those who speak out for him, we are just to sit there prayerfully hoping to "bring him to an awareness of his own sinfulness in doing this"?

Because what I see happening on TA is people talking, nothing more. Talking angrily at times, calling for equality, but nevertheless only talking, not "fighting". And yet, this is already perceived as selfishly calling for me-first rights.

I agree with you, I really do. But I am also really and truly confused about what a genuine Christian response might be if it's not to disappear into woolly "oh please don't do that" sentiments.

Posted by Erika Baker at Saturday, 20 October 2007 at 11:13am BST

"really and truly confused"

Are we all confused about this because we are so caught up in the "fight for your rights" model? Jesus didn't fight, and look what happened. The Crucifixion was an actual event with real people. They were killing a heretic and a political troublemaker. Well, that particular troublemaker didn't fight back. We mysticize the reality out of it. It was all because of some "higher purpose", going meekly to die because it was the Father's will. True, and of huge Cosmic significance, but in real time, He was a real human being who didn't fight against His persecutors. There's a lovely scene in the movie Ghandi where the police try to stop him and his followers by charging them with horses. They lie down on the ground. Have we gotten so led astray by the "Rah Rah, fight the power" model that we no longer understand that sometimes we need to lie down? You mention Nigeria. What CAN we do, really? We can talk, we can express our displeasure, we can boycott, all of which will lead somewhere, eventually, probably, like they did in South Africa, eventually. But everyone says "sanctions don't work" and they're far more right than wrong in that assertion. So what's the option? Go to war with Nigeria because it's government wants to passively murder gay people? There has to be something better, and no, impotent dismay is also not an answer. I don't have the answer. We've done so much theorizing and strategizing about how to better fight for something that we have not bothered to consider how we might attain it by not fighting, our whole understanding of that is rudimentary because we have ignored it as an option. Surely Christianity gives us the tools, and the reason, to start that process. Our current tactics, while giving us the romantic idea of the valiant fighter struggling for justice, really seem at times more about self-aggrandizement than justice.

Posted by Ford Elms at Monday, 22 October 2007 at 2:39pm BST

Ford is absolutely right in challenging the rights-based attitude of some.

He has also said law suits are wrong... and I would agree (from the bible) - conservatives being sued by TEC should, as the ACI points out, obey the bible, give their buildings to TEC and move on..... God is not dependent on endowments and buildings and fighting for rights to buildings in the courts is also wrong.

(see Ford - I can criticise "my own" when they disobey the bible!)

Posted by NP at Tuesday, 23 October 2007 at 9:25am BST

"Ford is absolutely right in challenging the rights-based attitude of some."

Oh dear! Now I have to reassess my entire world view!

Posted by Ford Elms at Tuesday, 23 October 2007 at 4:57pm BST

“Jesus didn't fight, and look what happened”

But he did. Not for himself, but for other people. He spoke out loud and clear for the persecuted, the lowly, the outsiders of his time.
Are we not to speak out for the outsiders of our time, just because we may find ourselves to be part of one of those groups of people? Can I not accept my small private trials with humility, yet still speak out against the real trials of others like me?

What we do about Nigeria is up to every single one of us. Write letters to their Government like many of us did when the last bout of anti gay legislation was before parliament.
Support people like Davis directly, with money or friendship. Support Changing Attitude in Nigeria. Speak out for them on TA and other places.
We each can make a small contribution. No, not going to war, of course not. But “fight” against the very real injustice there by whichever means each one of us has – why ever not. If we’re truly following Christ we should be able to do this without a sense of moral superiority and self-aggrandizement.

Posted by Erika Baker at Tuesday, 23 October 2007 at 5:42pm BST

Yes Erika

Jesus did fight and he did succeed.

It's just some (mainly) men like putting back in place the yokes of slavery and the burdens of accussations, particularly I notice on others more so than on themselves. Just as some are as determined to reinstate divine laws and rituals as essential even though Jesus had made them optional. They advocate that Jesus was only partially successful, and it was only to those of their camp.

Such have become the teachers of the law of this generation that Jesus so despised in that generation.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Tuesday, 23 October 2007 at 9:46pm BST

"Jesus did fight"

When? The only bit of fighting He did was to drive the money lenders out of the temple. He didn't fight for the rights of the Samaritans, He held one of them up as an example of holiness to people who considered them cursed in the eyes of God and broke several ritual laws to give the Good News to another and tell her to spread it. He didn't demand the rights of the woman taken in adultery, He forgave her. No marches. No petitions. No campaigns, just respect for the fact they are ALL made in the image and likeness of God. If marching through the streets demanding rights for Samaritans is the right way to go about it, why didn't He do it?

"But “fight”....self-aggrandizement."

First of all, we don't. Second of all I am not, never have been, saying we ought not to stand for the oppressed. I am saying there has to be a better way. The choice is not "fight or be silent", the choice is "fight, something else, or silence". I just think we have ignored the something else for so long we can't even conceive that it exists, let alone what it might be. Yes, support Changing Attitude, support Davis, absolutely. You mentioned writing letters. That might have made them stall in their vote, but I bet it also generated a lot of resentment among the high and mighty over there that will last long after the vote is forgotten. And it will likely rise up and bite somebody some day, but we might well be dead by then.

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 24 October 2007 at 12:14am BST

Ford - I was expecting a reply like that from you! Don't worry, it does not mean you are wrong just because stupid old NP agrees with you on something!

Erika/Cheryl - not sure how you prove He did "fight"....not in saying "turn the other cheek" or "forgive 70x7" or in Mark 10:45.

He did speak to the truth in love....but was not mostly concerned with civil rights but his Kingdom eg Mark 1:38 and see his shocking first answer to the "paralytic" in Mark 2.

Posted by NP at Wednesday, 24 October 2007 at 7:20am BST

But Jesus did fight, just like Paul

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

You see, you fight to control "the numbers" and "the colleges" and "the churches". We fight to control the collective consciousness.

You can't control that because you don't even acknowledge that celestial consciousnesses exist, let alone have sentience, let alone have opinions or desires that Jesus considers worthy.

You count the numbers of dead and the numbers under control. We count those in holy communion, and not the communion measured by quanities of bread or wine measured by human priests, but the communion of Spirit apportioned by consciousness that you don't even acknowledge let alone respect.

You can't win a battle when you don't even comprehend what you are fighting. You can't win a battle when you presume souls do not communicate with Jesus and do not have either Jesus' or God's blessings to act as they do.

You might "win" and gain control over humanity, but you do not have Spirit's blessings. Your victory would make you the priests that led humanity into extinction and would make Jesus the King of a dead species killed by his own priests' hands and theology.

Posted by Cheryl Va. Clough at Wednesday, 24 October 2007 at 10:14am BST

"we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world."

Thanks! I asked for an Evo to give me chapter and verse, but you rose to the challenge, thereby heaping coals on the heads of those who have spoken scornfully of your theology in the past! Cheryl, this is the point I have been trying to make. Currently we ARE waging war as the world does, and that is why we have no effective solution. I have been saying that we need to find a way to "wage the war", so to speak, in ways that are not of this world. And you still haven't shown me how Jesus's fight is in any way like what we are doing now. He stood against the corrupt power structure of His day, but He didn't do it the way we conceive of ourselves as standing against the corrupt power structure of our day. This is my point. We are not to wage war as the world does. So why are we now waging war as the world does?

Posted by Ford Elms at Wednesday, 24 October 2007 at 2:47pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.