Comments: 6 ECUSA bishops comment

No accounting of the Bishops' comments would be complete w/o this gem from Bishop +Edward Salmon:

I listened on the 23rd of August to a show that Oprah Winfrey had, and she was interviewing Cameron Diaz, and Cameron was saying, "I don't have a dog," and what she meant by that was that dogs were too much trouble. She had a cat. And then the conversation went to relationships, and Cameron said that she was not willing to make a long-term relationship with anybody -- I'm paraphrasing now -- that she only went this way one time and that she was not wiling to do that. And Oprah said, "How exciting; how revolutionary." And she said, "I'm not willing to make long-term commitments," and she said marriage was a wonderful institution in the past, but she said, "We are emerging as a new species, and I'm not willing to make a commitment for 10 years or 30 years." What that says is that there is a new value there, and that new value is the self, and what is acceptable and what is right is what I want.

It's oh so clear now: faithful LGBT Anglicans cannot be permitted *equal access to the sacraments* (inc. marriage and ordination), as heterosexuals have, _because of actress Cameron Diaz and her cat.
Got that?

[See why conservative rationales---for their *prejudice*---drive me just a little bit _nuts_? I should note that Salmon actually shows a wee bit of sensitivity ("gay and lesbian people in the Western world have been mistreated historically in our life, in the life of the Western world. I mean, it's just a given") , when compared to +Robert "we're standing where the Episcopal Church has always stood" ( *patent falsehood*!) Duncan]

Posted by J. C. Fisher at Monday, 24 January 2005 at 6:59am GMT

What struck me about Bishop Salmon's comments was the equating of gay and lesbian relationships with promiscuous and irresponsible relationships, as if every single relationship of gays or lesbians is necessarily irresponsible and uncommitted.

Posted by Episcopalian in Louisiana at Monday, 24 January 2005 at 4:08pm GMT

When will Bishops Duncan, Salmon, etc. ad nauseum stop worrying about the souls of the members of the GLBT community and start worrying about their own? Exactly what faith is it they believe they are so cruelly guarding?

Posted by Carlton Kelley at Monday, 24 January 2005 at 5:13pm GMT

Thank you for your perceptive editorial comments, which always strike me as more Christian than what most Christian leaders say.
I left the Episcopal Church years ago to pursue my sense of call. I have never looked back but I have also never forgot the Truth I learned in the Episcopal Church albeit rarely practiced by its ministers.
As a hospital chaplain, I find that I spend a fourth to a third of my time dealing with the pain caused by a patient's rejection by an institutional church or representative. How sad when God is Father/Mother of us all.
Human beings are such a mixture of good and evil, but the God who created us is good and we can call on that goodness in our journey, wherever we have been and wherever we are now.
Keep up the good work to let God's light shine where you are.

Posted by Stephen at Monday, 24 January 2005 at 8:33pm GMT

A quote from Deepak Chopra in the latest issue of Time Magazine seems particularly apropos:

"Our image of God is outmoded. Religion has become divisive, quarrelsome and idiotic. Religion is the reason we have all this conflict in the world. We have squeezed God into the the volume of a body and the span of a lifetime; given God a male identity, an ethnic background; made him a tribal chief and gone to war. Yet people are not ready to forsake their image of God."

Under the banner of "Christianity" groups are working to deny gays and lesbians the right to employment, housing, health care, ordination and protection from hate crimes. The few attempts by Christians to redress this situation are met with vehement opposition from, who else, other Christians. Could someone please remind me, why did they take "Onward, Christian Soldiers" out of the hymnal?

Posted by F. William Voetberg at Tuesday, 25 January 2005 at 2:30pm GMT

Ah, but "Onward, Christian Soldiers" is still in The Hymnal 1982, at #562. Many may think it is gone, because, I dare say, it's unlikely to have been sung much of anywhere in the last 20 years; that hymn and "I sing a song of the saints of God" were, in fact, almost banished in 1982, but were restored after what seems to have been an epic battle at General Convention.

I would commend much of the work at CDSP's Epiphany West conference which concluded today. (http://www.cdsp.edu/call_epiphany.html) One of the speakers was Paul Zahl, a noted conservative, and dean of Trinity seminary in Pittsburgh. His call for a spirit of generosity was moving, even thrilling, and well in keeping with the rest of the more-"liberal" nature of the week.

But to return to "Onward": We had a hymn workshop, and when we turned to 562, the energy in the room just exploded. As we sang the first stanza, it was thrilling, even as people were in disbelief--"I can't believe I'm singing THIS thing!" My own personal piety includes being nurtured by this hymn and others that are "passé," as well as many great newer hymns. As a church musician, my goal is to embrace the best of the totality of our tradition, even while seeking out new voices.

It took some time the other day to get beyond our knee-jerk reaction to "Onward", to consider all five stanzas (well worth a look, and much more promising than we may think, given the automatic response to the first line). We then sang two alternative texts; one didn't work, the other (#134 in the new "Voices Found") has promise, and we'll be singing it soon at my parish.

As an older Gen-Xer (1967), I sometimes feel cheated at just missing 1000 years of the Latin Mass, and was frustrated at the 'baby-with-the-bathwater" approach of the 70s and 80s. Is it just possible that we can reclaim the best of Morning Prayer along with High Mass, along with Taizé, and everything in between as we worship together in this community we call Church?

Posted by Christopher Putnam at Saturday, 29 January 2005 at 10:10pm GMT
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.