Head of the Episcopal Church Says St. Paul Was a Bigoted Dick

Her excellency Bishopette Schori, is at it again. According to her, being possessed by a demon is actually spiritual awareness and St. Paul was a bigot for not recognizing that. He was guilty of harming a slave girl whom he performed an exorcism on because he didn't recognize the Godliness in her blasphemy and he deserved to go to jail for his bigotry. You can't make this up.

Here is the core of her brilliant insight

We live with the continuing tension between holier impulses that encourage us to see the image of God in all human beings and the reality that some of us choose not to see that glimpse of the divine, and instead use other people as means to an end.  We’re seeing something similar right now in the changing attitudes and laws about same-sex relationships, as many people come to recognize that different is not the same thing as wrong.  For many people, it can be difficult to see God at work in the world around us, particularly if God is doing something unexpected.

Many people who are not the head of the American Anglican Communion just don't get that different isn't wrong. Obviously only people who are different from Schori are wrong.

Comments

  • edited May 2013

    From your link,

    "The beauty of this place is legendary. It is beautiful – and fragile, for its beauty depends on a dynamic balance among the parts of this island system. Many people don’t notice beauty around them until it’s gone. "

    ...  Spoken by a feminist and member of a group who have devoted a lifetime to trashing a beauty that survived centuries before it was found to imperfectly serve the whims of bored  suburban women.

  • Do you consider yourself part of this ninny's communion, zuk? Or have you joined up with the splitters?
  • Short question, long answer.

    Am I a part of the communion [catholic and orthodox (small "c' and small "o") Christianity] to which this ninny claims to belong?  Yes.  So are you, btw.  Is her claim that she is part of that communion and that she exercises fidelity to it plausible?  No.

    The problem with the the american split (for me) is that I don't fit into either camp.  Lots of episcos who dislike priestesses and communists are de facto theological protestants, while the Barbara Harris feminist/marxist crowd defend episcopal governance because it lets them take over buildings and impose their horseshit on anyone who wants to take communion (not that one can actually do that from a priestess).  If I want to hear about how bad McCarthyism was or how womyn must rise to take their place in society I can watch MSNBC, so I don't need a church for that.  (In the 80s, I'd have said the same thing about some RCs and south american "workers' rights".

    I am just a regular anglican.  I am conventional.  I spend lots of time arguing what many might consider fine points of theology mostly because what people believe interests me, but I don't get concerned about detail personally.


  • Thanks, Matt. Not trying to draw you out, but wanted to get some insight as to how the leadership of Schori was viewed within the part of the communion over which she exercises authority. I appreciate we are all part of the universal church, I was asking which part of the Anglican church you aligned yourself with. Sounds like you don't recognize or simply ignore the divisions as a matter of personal practice. I'm curious what you consider conventional anglicanism to be, how you would delineate that?
  • Us Presbys are going through it now, too. The church I've been going to is about to vote on whether or not to withdraw from the PCUSA.
  • edited May 2013
    Seabird said:

    Us Presbys are going through it now, too. The church I've been going to is about to vote on whether or not to withdraw from the PCUSA.



    Neither choice is excellent.  I understand that you (presbys) have much the same problem.  Was not the woman, the female minister, who pressed for Elian Gonzalez to be returned to Cuba a Presbyterian minister?

     

     

    Thanks, Matt. Not trying to draw you out, but wanted to get some insight as to how the leadership of Schori was viewed within the part of the communion over which she exercises authority. I appreciate we are all part of the universal church, I was asking which part of the Anglican church you aligned yourself with. Sounds like you don't recognize or simply ignore the divisions as a matter of personal practice. I'm curious what you consider conventional anglicanism to be, how you would delineate that?

    I do not object to the question; any irratibility you might pick up in my response pertains to the subject matter itself.

    With which part of the Anglican church would I currently align myself? That risks another long answer. It would not be with the culturally transgressive point in the UK, US and Canada. It also is not with the low church, functionally Protestant and very Bible centered gaggle of 12 or 16 splinter groups in the US and Canada (different groups leaving over different issues).

    I may be beyond and alignment with any camp of people who still attend church. The church I attended as a lad used the old prayer book even as the rest of the diocese had abandoned it, was essentially catholic in its theology in a quietly and characteristically Anglican way and had a lot of immigrants from England or other English parts of the world. I would like to place without Bible thumping nonsense and without the feminist/Marxist nonsense.  I would like a church service I could take my litle girls to without having to explain sexual deviance to my seven and 10 year old.

    Seemingly, there is no such thing here.

    Conventional Anglicanism is slightly broader in its demeanor than Roman Catholicism, but somewhat less socially tolerant of failure than Roman Catholicism. A casual observer, or one who observes from a distance, might mistake it for Roman Catholicism without quite so much Mary.

    I do not know if that answers your question.

  • Seabird said:

    Us Presbys are going through it now, too. The church I've been going to is about to vote on whether or not to withdraw from the PCUSA.

    Chris, since I have ridden this ride before, I hope you will not mind a forecast.

    In the 1980s, a decade after American Episcopalians had switched to the new prayer book, the diocese began to press priestesses on its churches. One consequence was that this already very small population, less than 2% of the American population, just stopped going rather than fighting another fight. The next consequence is that the remainder, the people who did want to fight about it engaged in the fight. Guess how that went. The pro-priestess contingent characterized those who resisted as bigots and morons. I attended a service in my college town once. Once. The homily was about how ugly, small minded, trivial and short sighted the people who lost the fight and left the church were, even while he acknowledged that they were treated poorly. It was like a cesspool thread played out in real life.

    What you have left at the end of this process is a bunch of resentful but self-satisfied liberals who meet once a week to congratulate themselves about how open-minded they are.

    In a world that already has Unitarian churches, who needs that?

  • Who cares what that Yenta thinks?
  • edited May 2013
    Has this newer, more inclusive model (female ordination, open and practicing gay clergy, etc.) increased overall membership in the COE/ Episco Church? That's supposed to be the point, right?

    When Jill and I met, she was going to what I affectionately called "Hippie Church". It was in a very Bohemian section of town, and it had really good music, and there was a coffee bar in the front and you could even bring your latte into the service. People wore jeans and shorts and flip flops and the congregation was mostly 20-somethings. Kind of heartening to see such young and hip people showing up for the Word. I was surprised, actually. I never could decide if 20-something girls in wearing tight shorts and tank tops during service was a good thing or a bad thing... Some Sundays I would ignore the sermon and read straight straight from Job. :D

    There were also a lot of gays and lesbians who attended. Again, surprising, but I had no problem with that.

    The guy who led the service (Chris Seay) was a little self-serving. His father and grandfather were well-known traditional Southern Baptist preachers, and Chris' interpretation were along those lines, which was okay, I guess. But he was also promoting his latest book and he really put the screws for money on the older members of the congregation, like my wife and myself. Established people with careers carrying the weight for the broke college kids who couldn't tithe.

    The two final straws were:
    -During a large Easter service held at an outdoor theater, he lauded a woman who took out a home equity loan on her house to donate to the church for a new facility. WTF???
    -Chris hooked up with Cornell West and talked about what a great guy he is and such and inspirational Man of God.

    I told Jill that I was done with him.

    My point is, there are lots of inclusive congregations out there. Churches like that have grown in this city over the last several years. They're all evangelical to my perception, and I've decided that's not really my cup of tea, so we've ended up going back to a more traditional service. I find the hand waving and high-fiving of the Holy Spirit a little uncomfortable.
  • Seabird said:

    Has this newer, more inclusive model (female ordination, open and practicing gay clergy, etc.) increased overall membership in the COE/ Episco Church?




    Just the opposite.

     

    Seabird said:



    When Jill and I met, she was going to what I affectionately called "Hippie Church". It was in a very Bohemian section of town, and it had really good music, and there was a coffee bar in the front and you could even bring your latte into the service. People wore jeans and shorts and flip flops and the congregation was mostly 20-somethings. Kind of heartening to see such young and hip people showing up for the Word. I was surprised, actually. I never could decide if 20-something girls in wearing tight shorts and tank tops during service was a good thing or a bad thing... Some Sundays I would ignore the sermon and read straight straight from Job. :D



    I don't necessarily begrudge other people that, and I certainly found observation of girls during the service an incredible incentive when I was younger.  However, I would not be comfortable with a service that resembles a cross between a coffee bar and a fund raising session.


     

    Seabird said:

    They're all evangelical to my perception, and I've decided that's not really my cup of tea, so we've ended up going back to a more traditional service. I find the hand waving and high-fiving of the Holy Spirit a little uncomfortable.

    I find that sort of thing offensive at a visceral level.  I've spoken about this experience with a greek orthodox friend.  We both had the same reaction.  I can only tell you that if you are not from that tradition, seeing it first hand, i.e. not on a TV screen, is jarring.
  • In general it seems that the "Demons" exercised where from people who have cognitive disabilities. just an observation.
  • Seabird said:

    Us Presbys are going through it now, too. The church I've been going to is about to vote on whether or not to withdraw from the PCUSA.




    As a member of the PCA I can relate, we had a vote recently on whether or not intinction was a valid form of communion... you should have seen the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    As for the hand raising and such.  I don't mind it but the most I do is a little tapping of my fingers on my pant leg... even that feels a little exuberant.


  • As for the hand raising and such.  I don't mind it but the most I do is a little tapping of my fingers on my pant leg... even that feels a little exuberant.

    We are the Frozen Chosen. :)
  • Seabird said:

    Us Presbys are going through it now, too. The church I've been going to is about to vote on whether or not to withdraw from the PCUSA.




    As a member of the PCA I can relate, we had a vote recently on whether or not intinction was a valid form of communion... you should have seen the wailing and gnashing of teeth.


    Why would that be a big deal? When I was younger, I didn't like my food to touch, but I had no idea it was religiously ideological.

    People find some of the weirdest things to fight over.
  • edited May 2013
    Seabird said:


    People find some of the weirdest things to fight over.

     

    Totally disagree.
  • I see what you did there...
  • It's not a big deal and I don't think the question of intinction was taken very seriously but it was refreshing to see the organization deal with the issue.  I'd rather see the church wrestle with nonsense then actually consider changing positions on major issues, like homosexuality.

  • It's a man, man.
Sign In or Register to comment.