from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor
Katharine Jefferts Schori kicked things around with NPR a while back. First off, insists the Presiding Bishop, Resolution D025 wasn’t an emphatic repudiation of the Anglican Communion at all. No, no, no, no. Certainly not. Heaven forfend:
The archived segment began in mid-sentence as Bishop Jefferts Schori answered a question about General Convention’s Resolution D025. That resolution said that God “has called and may call” gay and lesbian persons to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church.
“It does not represent a change. It represents a reaffirmation of what church law has said for a long time,” the Presiding Bishop said.
“The conversation’s been going on in the Episcopal Church for 45 years,” the Presiding Bishop said. “The reality is that same-sex unions are blessed in many churches of the Anglican Communion; not just in the United States or Canada, but also in England — not officially, but that is also reality.”
Care to name names, Kate? Provide some figgers perhaps? And a lot of weird stuff goes on in Episcopal churches, Kate. But that’s no grounds for legalizing it. Not to actual Christians anyway.
Give reporter Denis O’Hayer props. He wasn’t lobbing her softballs. Got a Scriptural basis for all these resolutions of yours, Bishop?
O’Hayer asked the Presiding Bishop about a scriptural basis for General Convention’s decision.
“The scriptural basis for what the convention affirmed about our discernment process is that each human being is made in the image of God,” she said.
Oh my effing…please tell me that I didn’t just read something that unbelievably stupid. Kate? There are folks “made in the image of God” who get their sexual gratification all sorts of digusting ways. Doesn’t mean you write each of them a liturgy. To his credit, O’Hayer wouldn’t let her get away with it.
O’Hayer than asked if there is a distinction between how one is made and one’s behavior. The Presiding Bishop’s answer suggested that seeing people as made in the image of God includes seeing their sexual orientation as God-given.
Kate proceeded to begriswold herself.
“My experience in talking to people about this is that some people who object to the ordination of gay and lesbian people really begin with their orientation. They cannot see beyond that,” she said. “Others will admit that gay and lesbian people might be created in the image of God and be fit matter, whatever their orientation, but object to the fact that some live in partnered relationships.”
No I don’t know what she means here and I don’t think she does either but cut the woman some slack. She’s the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Organization so it’s not like she’s trained in actual Christian theology or anything or believes that all of us sin all sorts of sins and all of us desperately need what Christ did for us on the Cross.
“We do not reject people who give evidence of gluttony. We do not, prima facie, reject people who give evidence of excessive consumerism. I think those are far more challenging issues than a long-term, committed relationship with a person of the same gender.”
“I think [gluttony and excessive consumerism] are far more challenging issues than a long-term, committed relationship with a person of the same gender.” Really. Katharine Jefferts Schori thinks that a “far more challenging issue” for the Christian church is fat people who buy too much crap.
But what about a fat homosexual who buys too much crap? Would you have a problem ordaining him? What should TEO do about two fat homosexuals who both buy too much crap and want to get married?
You obviously haven’t thought these things through, Presiding Bishop. And by the way, does J. Jon Bruno know about TEO’s upcoming anti-gluttony project?
Kate was asked about the lawsuits.
O’Hayer asked if the Episcopal Church is diverted from its ministry when it engages in lawsuits on ownership of church property.
“The reality is that this is a portion of our mission,”
To our lawyers.
Bishop Jefferts Schori said. “Preserving the assets of the church"
To eventually sell in order to pay our lawyers.
"is part of our responsibility."
To our lawyers.
"It’s certainly not the whole of our responsibility."
To our lawyers.
"There are abundant resources"
For our lawyers.
"for the work of the gospel."
My bad.
"Our task is to focus them in the ways that can be most productive.”
For our lawyers.
No comments:
Post a Comment