I shouldnt be suprised at this point...

[eclectics]

So folks, how do you resolve the Bible's endorsement of (or at least neutraility toward) slavery, concubinage, leverite marriage, etc. and prohibitions on homosexual relations? Do you think that it is okay to own your wife? Should you be able to own another woman and have sex with her? If you are unable to impregnate your wife, will you allow your brother to impregnate her to produce an heir for you? The Bible doesn't have a problem with these things, but I think most of us would agree that they are immoral actions and unacceptable within our society. Is it so outrageous, then, to have a scholarly person decide that maybe the prohibitions on homosexual behavior must be read in context --- with a mind toward our greater understanding of the human psyche and ultimately conclude that homosexual behavior isn't a deal-breaker?

Exactly. Do we take the Bible literally only when it's convenient?

 

[Saxsoon]

I do have a question. When was that some Christians started blowing the whole thing on homosexuality out of proportion. At my church, I am Methodist, it is never brought up in church or Sunday school for all I can tell. To tell you the truth, I have never met a Christian that went out of their way to make homosexuality an issue in anything or to make them feel bad. Never have I heard that they have a one way ticket to hell and are beyond God's grace to forgive.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Okay, but exactly who on this earth wins the prize and gets to determine what's right? The Episcopal BP is certainly a Christian and she thinks she is right. Who is anyone to tell her she's not?

She's wrong, because she's making rules contrary to the Word of God.

 

[nuttylawprofessor]

I do have a question. When was that some Christians started blowing the whole thing on homosexuality out of proportion. At my church, I am Methodist, it is never brought up in church or Sunday school for all I can tell. To tell you the truth, I have never met a Christian that went out of their way to make homosexuality an issue in anything or to make them feel bad. Never have I heard that they have a one way ticket to hell and are beyond God's grace to forgive.

Let's see...maybe the 2004 Presidential election?

Although the issue may not be brought up in your church, it is brought up in churches around the nation. There were discussion and study groups about homosexuality and ministry within many Episcopal churches both before and after the last General Convention. More generally, I've seen the protests at the pride parades in NYC and Chicago --- and the protesters are not confined to just Christians. It is my hope, however, that those who do hate homosexuals and homosexuality, those who wrap themselves in religious texts to support and advocate hatred, are really in the minority.

 

[MerryPoppins]

She's wrong, because she's making rules contrary to the Word of God.

No offense, but I bet there isn't a soul who has posted here that follows "the Word of God" to the letter, as written in the Bible. There are so many rules and regulations that are foreign to our society. It's not so much that I pick and choose, but that I realize that you have to take into consideration the time in which the books were written.

 

[Saxsoon]

It is my hope, however, that those who do hate homosexuals and homosexuality, those who wrap themselves in religious texts to support and advocate hatred, are really in the minority.

I hope so too, because it gives such a bad name to most Christians and does more to hurt the majority than does good. And yes, not just Christians are like that. I know some atheists that bash homosexuality every chance they get.

 

[eclectics]

She's wrong, because she's making rules contrary to the Word of God.

As you interpret them...... Back to that debate again. It's an unresolveable issue as far as I'm concerned.

 

[hamlet35_2000]

You win! Your agenda is clearly bigger than my agenda. Then again, my agenda only involves making a few more phone calls, picking up dinner and watching a DVD from Netflix.

Funny-- that's my agenda as well...

What is the gay agenda that I have heard so much about? Is that it...movies and dinner? Sounds less hateful than the Republican agenda.

 

[discernment]

She speaks even more. What a mess! Mother Jesus?

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=AMBROSE-06-22-06

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church decided this past week not even to vote on a resolution saying Jesus Christ was the "only name by which any person may be saved," but heard the newly elected presiding bishop of the church _ the first woman in that role _ give a sermon using the expression "Mother Jesus."

The Right Rev. Katharine Schori, the church's new presiding bishop, took the occasion of a homily at the closing of the Columbus, Ohio, session to use the phrase, "Mother Jesus," which had once been used by Juliana of Norwich. But Schori's context was different from that of Juliana, who was a 14th century mystic aiming in writings to describe her experience of the holy.

 

[NewJersey]

She's wrong, because she's making rules contrary to the Word of God.

Joe, the words your God says is clearly much different than what I think God says. Which is not even debateable.

 

[cardaway]

Anybody who wondered how the Christian hate mongers would take Christian churches coming to their senses has their answer. They'll attack their own.

Not that this is anything new. When you run out of witches, redefine and hunt your own.

 

[goofygirl]

The Right Rev. Katharine Schori, the church's new presiding bishop, took the occasion of a homily at the closing of the Columbus, Ohio, session to use the phrase, "Mother Jesus," which had once been used by Juliana of Norwich. But Schori's context was different from that of Juliana, who was a 14th century mystic aiming in writings to describe her experience of the holy.

I love Katherine more and more!! Good for her!! You GO girl!!


Do you have a problem with calling God "She" instead of "He", too?

 

[Saxsoon]

I love Katherine more and more!! Good for her!! You GO girl!!


Do you have a problem with calling God "She" instead of "He", too?

If Jesus was a female in society back then, she would never be taken seriously and most likely killed much sooner than Jesus the man was. It does say father in the Bible, but one could write that off as part of partiarchal society of that time. Even then, I believe God is beyond the boundaries of the sexes.

 

[zagafi]

If Jesus was a female in society back then, she would never be taken seriously and most likely killed much sooner than Jesus the man was. It does say father in the Bible, but one could write that off as part of partiarchal society of that time. Even then, I believe God is beyond the boundaries of the sexes.

I believe God is beyond *all* the boundaries we place on him. I think the fullness of God is so far beyond our human comprehension it's...well...beyond our grasp to comprehend! We try to package God Almighty in a way we can try to understand--and we fall painfully short.

 

[MerryPoppins]

"Mother Jesus" doesn't bother me. Many of the women priests in the Episcopal Church use this kind of language. Some also refer to God as mother. I don't think you can give God a gender, so this doesn't make a difference in my book.

In some respects I find it quite nice. Obviously, I am stereotyping here, but just listen for a minute. Mother's are seen as comforters. In our society, they listen to our problems and offer a shoulder to cry on. Fathers can be seen as more authoritative. They have been family disciplinarians. I think it's nice to think of God as among us and loving us, rather than just handing out rules and making sure we follow all of them. I don't think they mean that God or Jesus is a woman. It's just meant to make you see that again you can't put God in a box.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

"Mother Jesus" doesn't bother me. Many of the women priests in the Episcopal Church use this kind of language. Some also refer to God as mother. I don't think you can give God a gender, so this doesn't make a difference in my book.

In some respects I find it quite nice. Obviously, I am stereotyping here, but just listen for a minute. Mother's are seen as comforters. In our society, they listen to our problems and offer a shoulder to cry on. Fathers can be seen as more authoritative. They have been family disciplinarians. I think it's nice to think of God as among us and loving us, rather than just handing out rules and making sure we follow all of them. I don't think they mean that God or Jesus is a woman. It's just meant to make you see that again you can't put God in a box.

It will bother some, and not bother others. Personally, it bothers me, b/c nowhere in Scripture is God referred to as a "mother", only as a Father. When God became incarnate, through Jesus, what did He manifest himself as, a man or a woman? Jesus was a man. Can you attribute a human sex to God? Not sure, He seems beyond that, but the Bible always refers to Him as our "Father", never our "mother."

Now, we don't know exactly why some choose, or have chosen, to refer to God as "mother." It doesn't take a different pronoun for us to realize that we can't put God in a box. There are a myriad of reasons why it could have been done - attention, an attempt to elevate women in the church, a misunderstanding of Scripture - but without knowing exactly which is the true reason, we can't say for sure.

 

[MerryPoppins]

I agree. It will bother some. It's not my choice, I refer to God as Father. But like I said, it doesn't get under my skin and I can see that it's a different way of looking at the situation.

I will say that this is nothing new. I've heard "Mother" for a long time now. I don't think anyone is trying to get the whole church to change to this language. But I don't see anything wrong with them expressing what they see with the words that work for them.

 

[eclectics]

She speaks even more. What a mess! Mother Jesus?

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=AMBROSE-06-22-06

The General Convention of the Episcopal Church decided this past week not even to vote on a resolution saying Jesus Christ was the "only name by which any person may be saved," but heard the newly elected presiding bishop of the church _ the first woman in that role _ give a sermon using the expression "Mother Jesus."

The Right Rev. Katharine Schori, the church's new presiding bishop, took the occasion of a homily at the closing of the Columbus, Ohio, session to use the phrase, "Mother Jesus," which had once been used by Juliana of Norwich. But Schori's context was different from that of Juliana, who was a 14th century mystic aiming in writings to describe her experience of the holy.

Aren't you glad then that you are not an Episcopalian and it doesn't have to concern you.

 

[ncdisneyfan]

I will say that this is nothing new. I've heard "Mother" for a long time now. I don't think anyone is trying to get the whole church to change to this language. But I don't see anything wrong with them expressing what they see with the words that work for them.

For me, it is something new, I've never heard the term "Mother" ascribed to God, nor would I in my church. Again, we don't know what the motives were behind the use of the word, so until we know those, it's impossible to speculate on what to do. You have to be careful in a situation like this, b/c essentially what she did is assign a feminine trait/pronoun ("Mother") to God, who has never been described as anything but a "Father" in Scripture. There is no place in Scripture that she could have used for such a basis. So, in this particular instance, it can't really come down to the words that "work" for her, b/c "Mother" isn't a word that "works" for God. She could, as you said earlier, ascribe the attributes of comfort and love to Him appropriately, but not the term "Mother."

 

[ncdisneyfan]

Aren't you glad then that you are not an Episcopalian and it doesn't have to concern you.

I would say that it does. Remember, when the term "the church" is used in it's broadest sense, as the term "the church" is used in the Bible, it means the ENTIRE body of believers, not several bodies of believers broken down by denomination. The church is given 2 commandments in the NT - first, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and second, love your neighbor as yourself. Scripture is also clear that we are to lovingly confront other believers (i.e. other members of the general "church") when we see actions that are contrary to the teachings of Scripture. That doesn't mean that Catholics can only show Catholics, Methodists only show Methodists, or Episcopalians only show Episcopalians. That means that Methodists can show Catholics, Episcopalians can show Methodists, and Catholics can show Episcopalians (all just examples, of course). Since ALL are considered the body of believers, then ALL are subject to these. Since I am a Christian, and my fellow Episcopalians who have come to a saving knowledge of Christ are also Christians, then we are now identified together as one body (see Gal. 3:28, for example). Therefore, what affects the body affects all of it, not just one part of it. For example, when a non-Christian reads about all of this and then says, "See, the Christian church is OK with homosexuality", then that's not a true statement, b/c not ALL the Christian church is, only parts of it. But we're ALL identified as Christians, so attributes that I don't agree with, and that are not Scriptural, get associated with me anyways, b/c we are ALL Christians. So, it is incumbent on the "church" in general to continually seek to strengthen the body of believers.