Let’s have a round of applause for the supporters in the Episcopal Church for ordaining the first openly lesbian bishop:
Despite objections from conservative Anglicans, the Episcopal Church will ordain its first openly lesbian bishop Saturday.
The Rev. Mary Glasspool, 56, becomes bishop surrounded by controversy.
Conservative factions in the Anglican Communion, a 77-million member denomination worldwide, have opposed the ordination of gay bishops.
Glasspool is the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church since Gene Robinson took office in New Hampshire in 2004. Episcopalians instituted a temporary ban on gay bishops after Robinson’s ordination but revoked that ban last summer.
The daughter of a priest, Glasspool was one of two openly gay candidates on the slate in the Los Angeles diocese. She has said that her sexual orientation is “not an issue.”
Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles said Glasspool was a “highly qualified and experienced” cleric.
“She’s not afraid of conflict and is a reconciler,” Bruno said, according to the Episcopal Church website.
He added that Glasspool and her partner of 19 years, Becki Sander, are an example of living service and ministry.
But her election drew opposition from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who said Glasspool’s ordination would deepen rifts in the church.
It “raises very serious questions not just for the Episcopal Church and its place in the Anglican Communion, but for the Communion as a whole,” said Rowan, according to the church’s website.
The Church of Ireland also issued a strong condemnation. That church is part of the Anglican Communion in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
No applause for the Neanderthals opposing it on grounds of sexuality or gender.
(That might have been unkind towards Neanderthals, and for that I apologize.)
Alright, Reverend Mary!!!!! Remember the George Clooney Rule (as posited in an Esquire interview a few years ago): Conservatives will ALWAYS lose! It may take longer than we wish, but history ALWAYS eventually swings to the liberal side (slavery, civil rights, women sufferage, gay rights, etc). The conservative naysayers will die off, and the Episcopal church will be healthier for it. Unfortunately, it will take the Catholic church longer, but eventually there will be women priests and optional celibacy, and the Catholic church will reverse its decline in membership.
You go, girl! Onward into the 21st century!!!
I’m not sure conservatives always lose or the time frame may be very long. The Roman Empire went from a religiously pluralistic society to one with one legal denomination of Christianity (and the Jews allowed to remain in very much a second class status and not even that in some areas).
Admittedly 20 years ago the protests would have been over her being a woman. A fair number still protested over Katharine Jefferts Schori being elected presiding bishop (aka head for 9 years) of the Episcopal Church in the US (which oddly enough includes Haiti and large chunks of central America) in 2006. The current Anglican Communion ranges from the US and Canadian churches on the liberal side to the Nigerian and Ugandan churches on the conservative side (no women bishops, no female priests in Nigeria, both have leaders calling for major legal penalties for gays). Nigeria may not have money but it does have numbers (it is many times the size of the US church).
A dead religious institution ‘ordains’ a woman who thinks she is a lesbian in the office of a so-called ‘Bishop’. Why is that surprising? What does any of this have to do with ‘God’, with Spirit, with Truth? Nothing, nothing at all.
Oh, fuck off.
“…fuck off…!”
It really works. They walked away from my front door so silently last sunday. I felt so good.
“a woman who thinks she is a lesbian” I’m not sure whether this remark demonstrates a greater degree of intolerance, arrogance, ignorance or downright stupidity.
@ Mike — e) All of the above. ^_^
@John C — Fuck. You.
John C must be an atheist. Or a Ultra conservative of some sort… That all look alike to me.
I think you may have just killed any good will and patience still held here for you and your ramblings, John C.
I’ll admit it pissed me off.
Meh, what does he care. He doesnt read posts, and he knows we can’t experience love.
“…a woman who thinks she is a lesbian…”
I can’t let this one pass. I’m sure you have some incoherent drivel about “indwelling” and “true faith” to try to explain this incredibly offensive statement, but I can’t imagine what makes you think you know better than this woman what she is or isn’t.
John C, what does this supposed to have to do with the truth, light, love, oneness, indwelling whatever that you like? You are oblivious to the sentiment of the article, and offensive and bigoted. If a woman thinks she likes other women sexually, it’s probably the case. A religious institution allowed one to be ordained. This should not be news, or interesting, but it is, because the oppression of homosexuals is largely due to others’ supernatural beliefs that this is a sin against your god. Do you have anything to say about it, or are you still witnessing like the crazy you are? Writing stupid things that bubble up in your brain like it always does? Why would you even suppose she isn’t a lesbian? Because she belongs to a RELIGION? A real believer in Christ would have their “SIN” eliminated and not really be a lesbian, nor wish to belong to or preach to a congregation at a particular church? You are so offensive. You seem to think we are all here hating on “religion” and you go on with your silly “beliefs” excepted from the bogged down rules of religion that we might someday think you make sense, but you’re an idiot, offensive, and a jerk! You are not a Christian. God has whispered to me the light and the love and says he thinks you’re a windbag who ought to STFU. Like, now.
I’m curious – how does she interpret this passage from the holy bible?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
what’s the actual translation? If it literally means men loving other men, no problem for her, but if it’s more general then she might have to do some extemporisation…
but seriously, fuck Paul. I don’t know why they even included his stuff in the Bible in the first place.
yeah Paul was a great Gnostic leader and also a schizophrenic at the same time…but I digress. How about this verse?
Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Probably the same way in which any contemporary Christian interprets any number of passages in the Bible. First, even if the original languages of Pauline epistles did refer to what we commonly understand as “homosexuals,” those texts arise out of cultures that didn’t understand sexuality as we understand it today. Second, perhaps Glasspool doesn’t take the Bible as the “inerrant” word of God. A number of Christians argue that the biblical texts must be regarded as “living” texts–in other words, Christians must recognize that these texts arise out particular cultural/historical circumstances and that divine revelation is ongoing, not fixed.
Roger – there was a time when you would have been put to death for such comments. The bible itself says that you cannot add or remove anything from it. It also says that it is true and because it says it is true, it must be so.
The bible itself says that you cannot add or remove anything from it.
Technically, only the Book of Revelation says that, and that was written long before there was ever such a thing as “the Bible”.
eh semantics… we all know:
The Bible is the result of the extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Spirit on the various writers, by which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, absolutely infallible in the original autographs.
chronology? Inconsequential when the maker of the universe is involved. He is timeless!
Yeah, that’s a GREAT strategy.
If you’re going to lose an argument, make sure you lose it without keeping the slightest shred of dignity.
I’d like to congratulate Roger for pointing out the obvious: the Bible was written in a different culture, a different language, and should probably not be interpreted literally and treated as if written in stone.
And congrats to the Episcopal Church. :)
“And congrats to the Episcopal Church. :)”
Do you even have any clue what you just said? Congrats to an institution that is designed to spread superstition. Yeah way to go… high five…you hired a gay woman yippee! Um yeah.
Yes, that ‘different’ culture and language is a heavenly one where Truth originates and is ironically our native homeland though for now (in the dark fog of this many tiered descent) is mostly unrecognizable to the masses.
How far is heaven? (Los Lonely Boys)
Not far, not far at all.
Keep talking the meds.
Wow, John, they let you have access to computers in the psych ward?
That does not mean nothing was removed… look at a Catholic Bible vs a Protestant one. Missing Books. Add to that much was taken from the Dead sea scrolls much of those were lost to time as well. So for all we know Homosexuality was Not meant to be a sin.
Prime example Many of the OT “Men of God” were practicing Polygamists. All mainstream Christian sects consider Polygamy a Sin and that God only allows & rewards one Man One Woman marriages all others burn in hell. Well except those in the bible that is.
And there was a time when people thought the world was flat and the universe revolved around the Earth and to say differently would have invited, at best, excommunication. Your point? Or are you just being obtuse for shits and giggles?
That was a response to VidLord.
“… Christians must recognize that these texts arise out particular cultural/historical circumstances and that divine revelation is ongoing, not fixed.”
Which basically means that Christians can say that any activity that they don’t personally approve of is against the word of God, as interpreted by them. If they are church leaders, then they can justify imposing their views on congregations, in their teachings. Scary.
But if the bible really is the word of God (OK, let’s pretend for a moment that He exists), then why would it need interpreting? Why can’t an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring God write what he actually means?
My comment above was in answer to Roger’s post.
There’s a very good reason for needing interpretation. The Bible doesn’t actually survive as one readable document, especially not in one single language. So we have different parts of the Bible written in different languages, most prominently ancient Greek. So, even if you get your hands on the earliest copies of the Bible, they’re not complete, and translating from Ancient Greek to English isn’t exactly easy, when a dictionary might give you three pages to define the word “logos”. Another thing is that most people don’t use a translation that comes directly from the oldest versions of the Bible. We have translations that go from Ancient Greek to Latin to German to English, etc. Finally, over time, scribes copying those Bibles over and over, there are bound to be many writing mistakes.
And the fact that the Bible can be interpreted doesn’t necessarily mean that it can be completely twisted. The point I’m assuming Roger is trying to make is that you have to recognize that the Bible cannot be taken word for word because of the reasons listed above. Thousands of years and many, many translations lie between us and the original words of the Bible. To interpret a translation literally wouldn’t make any sense.
As for the fear that a leader could make up whatever he wants from the Bible and lead his congregation astray, sure, it could happen, but the Bible’s easy enough to access that anyone can interpret it themselves. Anyone can misinterpret anything to lead anyone.
Which doesn’t really answer my question: Why can’t an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-caring God write what he actually means?
Oh, that’s easy! Because his ways are not our ways, his “thoughts” are higher than our thoughts…or other some such folderol that godbots and other woo-addled morons trot out in order to deal the obvious cognitive dissonance that reasonable questions about their tyrannical imaginary sky-friend generates.
She probably interprets it the same way that slavery is interpreted. We all know that slavery is wrong even though it’s OK in the bible.
Simple Corinthians was a written “Editorial” by an ultra conservative who was a militant atheist who convert into a Militant Christian. Oh BTW Paul the author of this letter NEVER MET JESUS. He came AFTER Christ’s Execution. 95% of the NT was written by a guy who Never Met Christ.
“Paul….NEVER MET JESUS”
Uh road to Damascus story in Acts 9?? A rather intense introduction I’d say. Christ was Paul’s very life (Col 3:3, Gal 2:20).
Could some antipsychotics please be your “very life”? Or at least a vow of Internet silence?
Yes… a seizure and psychotic episode TOTALLY counts as “meeting Christ”….
That might explain a few things, actually.
That is why I never believe you met jesus, let alone knew him or know him.
“1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.””
God “did it” to Mary, about to be married to Joseph pregnant with His child, is that consider sexually immoral?
Episcopalians tend not to be scripture only protestants instead they consider the Bible, Tradition, and Reason to be important hence a handful of Bible verses does not automatically trump Reason.
Good on her! Don’t let them get you down!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought there were female priests, bishops etc. in some of the older incarnations of the Church? (By older I mean ‘when this was first starting up’. IIRC, Christianity didn’t get seriously popular until that one Roman Emperor converted, and that was back before the schism between the Coptic Church (I think) and the whatever-they-called-the-Roman-Catholic-Church-then.)
The “Piskies” are one church I don’t have a problem with.
As a liberal woman, I should be happy. But, ladies and gentlemen, it’s all smoke and mirrors. A church with a lesbian at its helm is still a church.
Kind of reminds me of a time when they started to bring in folk groups to sing during the service (“Isn’t our church hip?!”). They did that to keep the young people coming back, ensuring another generation in the pews.
When churches get enough angry people boycotting, and they see their numbers dropping, they”ll do whatever they can to keep their flock.
It’s all so sad and useless and pretentious and shameful. If they want to be REALLY progressive, they should just shut the whole operation down.
As much as I’d like progress to make giant leaps, I’m happy to enjoy the small steps along the way. :)
Kind of reminds me of a time when they started to bring in folk groups to sing during the service (“Isn’t our church hip?!”). They did that to keep the young people coming back, ensuring another generation in the pews.
Some churches still do this to keep the boomers coming back. Only now it chases the kids away.
There might come a time when I go back to an Episcopalian church. But if I have to sit through one more “folk sunday” there’s gonna be more than the “Blood of Christ” on the floor …
John C,
When did you choose your sexual orientation? Why did you make the choice you made? How much time and thought went into your decision-making process?
There is no such thing as a ‘sexual orientation’, not in the spirit, not in truth. That same ‘book’ that this ‘Bishop’ says she believes, claims to represent (or some facsimile thereof) and even aspires to teach says that ‘as a man thinks in his heart, so IS he’ (or she in this case). Like I plainly stated, she thinks she is a lesbian, therefore she is one. Get it?
So Garrett, who would you be if you weren’t who you thought you were, but instead you thought and saw yourself as God sees you in truth, as he intentioned you? What if you agreed with Him about your true identity? Where would that lead you? This is the one thing we all must come to know, who we truly are, who God says we are (and no, it has nothing to do with ‘religion’) only God can make that known to you, in whose image you were (originally) created. All the best.
Oh John, stop pretending. You just think you’re a heterosexual.
John, GET BENT.
John: when you say “God sees you in truth, as he intentioned you” you fall into a familiar trap that many people do: You imagine “God” as a person up in the sky. Not only do you use the word “he” implying a male, but you use the word “intentioned”. Using the word intentioned implies time – thus limiting your god to our physical boundaries. A perfect, omnipotent being would have no intentions! Nor would such a being make choices. God would not make choices nor would God rank things….that is entirely human.
Take a long hard look at how you define your god, and how incredibly human, and personal, that god seems to be. The human like nature of god is your first clue to unraveling the fairy tale….
God does not live up in the sky, quite the opposite. God is spirit, is gender-less, has both male and female attributes, can not be defined in human terms yet indwells regenerated mankind in a mystery. We refer to God as ‘He’ only because it corresponds with the spirit (JC saying God is spirit) whereas ‘she’ represents the soul yet ‘the two shall be one’ in us, a type who are ‘made in His image’. Love (God) is creative, desired fellowship, hence would not dwell alone, ‘intentioned’ us to fellowship with Him in truth and love, His offer still stands via Christ.
Fairy tales are for the childlike. JC said that we’d have to become like little children if we wanted to enter in to the reality of the kingdom of God in the here and now.
“indwells regenerated mankind in a mystery”
huh?
Christ in you, the ‘mystery’ of the ages, Colossians 1:27. The ‘mystery’ of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh. 1 Tim 3:16.
Imagine there was no Colossians…there was no book. Imagine you were born into a tribe in the amazon or before Colossians was written….try to see how your idea of God is filtered through Colossians.
Colossians is only a physical/visible manifestation of an unseen, eternal truth and reality. It is not because it is in the bible that I believe it, but rather that it (JC saying ‘my words are spirit and they are life’) agrees with the indwelling spirit of truth in my inner man, it ‘testifies’ to its truthfulness, that’s why the Holy Spirit is given, the spirit of truth within.