NEW YORK – The theologically conservative Diocese of Fort Worth voted Saturday to split from the liberal-leaning Episcopal Church, the fourth traditional diocese to do so in a long-running debate over the Bible, gay relationships and other issues.
About 80 percent of clergy and parishioners in the Texas diocese supported the break in a series of votes at a diocesan convention.
The Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians, an umbrella group for those who want to stay with the denomination, plans to reorganize the diocese. They promised that "the Episcopal Church's work of Christian ministry and evangelization will go forward" in the region.
A lengthy, expensive legal battle is expected over who owns Episcopal property and funds. The Fort Worth diocese oversees more than 50 parishes and missions serving about 19,000 people. The Steering Committee estimates that at least five parishes and hundreds of other churchgoers will remain with the New York-based national church.
The other seceding dioceses are Pittsburgh; Quincy, Ill.; and San Joaquin, based in Fresno, Calif., where a legal fight over assets is already under way. National church leaders are helping local parishioners reorganize each diocese.
All four withdrawing dioceses are aligning with the like-minded Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina, to try to keep their place in the world Anglican Communion.
The vote is the latest fallout from the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
The 77-million-member Anglican fellowship, which includes the U.S. Episcopal Church, has roots in the missionary work of the Church of England. Most overseas Anglicans hold traditional views of the Bible and Robinson's consecration has moved the global communion toward the brink of schism. Breakaway U.S. leaders hope to form an Anglican province in North America.
Years before Robinson's election, Episcopalians and Anglicans were already divided over how they should interpret Scripture on issues ranging from salvation to sexuality. That rift broke wide open when the New Hampshire bishop was installed.
"Some have encouraged us to stay and fight as the faithful remnant in (the denomination), to work for reform from within," Bishop Jack Iker said in his speech before the balloting.
"I can only reply by quoting the saying that `the definition of insanity is to keep on doing the same thing, expecting different results,'" he said. "The time has come to choose a new path and direction, to secure a spiritual future for our children and our grandchildren."
Of the four withdrawing dioceses, only Pittsburgh ordains women. In 2006, the Episcopal Church elected its first female leader, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Nationally, most of the 2.1 million Episcopalians don't consider their theological differences cause to leave the denomination, which has more than 100 dioceses. Outside the four that are splitting off, church officials estimate that about 100 additional parishes of a total of more than 7,000 have withdrawn on their own.
However, the secessions have a large cost to the national church, not only in legal expenses and lost donations from the dioceses, but also in damage to the Episcopal public image as the U.S. church struggles to keep its place in the global Anglican family.
RSS
sj, that aside are you ever going to answer online and my questions to you?
sj, at that time no since same-sex marriages were not legal, but what I saw was rampant drug abuse, male and female prostitution, a red light district touted as a tourist site, X-rated bookstores in business districts so that anybody walking by good see what was being sold, and so on. Plus now euthinasia is legal and in some cases being forced on people and of course abortion is legal and available throughout the entire pregnancy I've been told. Fortunately some of these things were limited to the large cities but by now who knows.
believer, I lived in Belgium for three years, where there is also recognition of same-sex marriages and I didn't see any widespread evidence of the Jester in the King's Court's fears. Did you witness a free-for-all in Holland, "where anyone can marry anyone else. male female sister brother mother husband as if it didn't matter"? I don't think so.
online, I hear you loud and clear brother!!
believer,
You will most likely not receive an answer since sj has repeatedly ignored giving a straight forward reply. He also never responded to my last post because it demanded a yes or no return. Not giving a direct answer is an answer, is it not?
sj, you don't consider Biblical Apologetics as the study of the Bible? Plus, you have yet to answer my question with regards to God being all-knowing?
sj, have you ever been to Holland, I have, in fact my family and I lived there for four years and I can tell you from a moral perspective they are indeed out of control.
sj, and you don't do the same thing with your Jewish scholars? But you take it a step further by saying their opinions rank higher than God's truth as clearly taught in God's Word. Anybody with common sense can clearly see God's original design for both marriage and sexual intimacy and especially every Christian who allows God's Holy Spirit to illumine their heart and mind with regard to the teachings and truths of God's Word. Maybe if you spent less time defending your denomination's stand on homosexuality and same-sex marriage God's Holy Spirit might be able to do that in your heart and mind.
believer, Dr. Norman Geisler's doctorate is in Philosophy, not Hebrew studies. He's taught theology and philosophy and apologetics, not Biblical Studies. You like him because he's an inerrantist and agrees with your position, not because he's an acknowledged and respected scholar in the field of Hebraic studies or the Old Testament. He comes to the conclusion you want, and you are more interested in just promoting your views than engaging in an objective discussion about the issue.
Jester in the Kings Court, none of your projected fears have occurred in other countries where same-sex marriage has been allowed for years. Are you suggesting that Americans will be more out of control than say the Dutch, or Swiss?
sj,
I was expecting a simple yes or no answer to my last post but you side stepped it once again; at least you are consistent in this regard.
i see johnny's point. we should just make marriage a free-for-all. anyone can marry anyone else. male female sister brother mother husband. it doesn't matter.
why not? that's where it will go anyway once the homosexual's right to marry has federal approval and is accepted in all the states.
sj, so all these Jewish scholars say that God's original design for marriage was polygamy? And because all these other Bible scholars like Dr. Geisler don't have the St. John's seal of approval their views are worthless? And you call online and myself self-righteous? Well if those Jewish scholars say that, guess what they're calling God a liar and calling Christ a liar as well. Because God declares His original design for marriage both through His creation of Adam and Eve and verbally He declares it in Genesis 2:24 and Christ affirms it in Matthew 9 as He quotes the words of His Father.
Most of the oral tradition represented in the Talmud, especially in the Gemara represent pre-Christian opinions. This is certainly true with both the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, so your attempts to simply dismiss them as Jews who rejected Jesus doesn't really work. Also Dr. Geisler is not a scholar of Hebrew studies. These Jewish scholars will argue that the Mosaic Law and Levitical code represent God's ordinance. They are almost uniform in their opinions about polygamy being a part of the Law. And finally, interracial marriage was opposed by 37 states until 1967, and polling interviews reveal that the majority of those who were opposed to changing the statutes were Evangelical Christians basing their vote on their Biblical interpretation, not unlike our current debate on same-sex marriage.
sj, how many of these Jewish scholars came to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Messiah? If they got that wrong why would they not get this wrong as well? Plus there are many Bible scholars such as Dr. Norm Geisler who do not see these laws as God ordaining or condoning polygamy so are all of them self-righteous to? Or could it be that the Jewish scholars you refer to are truly the self-righteous ones in this case?
sj, but opposition to inter-racial marriage has no biblical support.
sj, neither online or myself have disagreed with you on the fact that culture changes, our disagreement is believing that God has ordained or condoned these cultural changes and denying the fact that God's original and only design for marriage and sexual intimacy is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life and that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life through marriage. So even if the culture does accept same-sex marriages/unions in the sight of God as was polygamy He will see these unions as sin because they violate His design for marriage. And as it appeared to me that you and I both agreed that what the Bible records as a cultural norm does not automatically mean that cultural norm is either ordained or condoned by God.
I've heard people use that argument before, but I need to ask where in the Bible does it say that God condones polygamy, and disapproves of interracial marriages. I'm sure there are scriptures, but can someone point them out.
sj,
The point is; you cannot provide a passage from the New Testament that legitimizes same sex unions . . . can you?
Online4Him, the point is that the biblical concept of marriage has changed over the centuries. Women are no longer considered as chattel. Polygamy is no longer accepted and interracial marriage is now accepted, although each of these positions has a long history of biblical supporters. It is in this context that the questions about homosexual marriage are being considered. Pretending otherwise is to dismiss and ignore thousands of year of biblical discussions in favor of yours, and the ease with which you do that is just self-righteous.
Sj,
Again, You can accomplish much by simply posting a NT passage that legitimizes same sex unions!
Give us a New Testament passage please . . .
So for thousands of years Jewish scholars agreed that the Mosaic Law and the Levitical code established polygamy as the Biblical norm, but they were simply wrong, and you're extracting a couple of verses to support your interpretation dismisses theirs, without prejudices, and I am wrong to suggest that you are being self-righteous?
Sj,
You can accomplish much by simply posting a NT passage that legitimizes same sex unions! All of us, including you know that there is not one verse in the NT in which to build your case; right? Why not just conclude this discussion by providing the evidence or admit that you are incapable of doing so? By neglecting to do either or will be disingenuous, biblically irresponsible, and illogical.
Saint John,
There may have been many writings that the Jews used through the millenia, but the books of the Old Testament as we use today are the only writings that the Jews believed to be truly God-inspired. The Old Testament was the only Scripture that Jews used. Any other writing may have had some teaching value, but was never considered to be Holy inspired by God.
sj, plus it's not that we dismiss 2000 years of Jewish scholarship it's just that we prefer to believe God and the truths of His God-breathed, inerrant, and plenary Word. We put our trust in God while you put your trust in men.
sj, plus you never did answer my question, is God all-knowing or not?
sj, so when all else fails you play the self-righteous card!!
Online4Him and believer, I hope that the Holy Spirit lays heavy upon your hearts about the ease with which you dismissed 2,000 years of Jewish scholarship, as though you knew better the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. How sad? How outrageous? How self-righteous?
believer,
Thanks, you too . . . perhaps the Holy Spirit will take these questions and lay them heavy upon his heart.
prophet, I believe sj is an episcopalian, but there are a number of similarities between them and catholics especially in the area of extrabiblical writings.
The situation I see with Saint John is that he is catholic. And much of what the Catholics believe and teach cannot be supported by scripture.
online, plus he's never answered my question with regards to God being all-knowing. Have a great Lord's Day and continue to be blessed as you serve Him, believer
Believer,
I agree; there are no New Testament passages that can be given to support same sex marriages. This is why sj has willingly shied away from answering the question (can you provide a NT passage to supports your assertion); I imagine it to be frustrating for someone trying to defend a practice or custom that cannot be explicitly supported by Scripture. Instead of providing a NT passage, we are being given a deluge of secular references, obsolete laws, philosophical arguments and my favorite; a constant dismissal of texts which refute his claims.
The scriptures used by the Jews of Jesus' time (and for about 400 years prior) are the same ones we use today. No more, no less.
sj, why would I want to put any faith in the writings of people who totally reject Jesus Christ as the Promised Messiah? If they don't get that then how can we put any faith in their interpretations of God's Word since as a minimum they would not see that Christ was the fulfillment of every Messianic prophecy found in the Old Testament? If they misinterpreted them why wouldn't it make sense they misinterpreted other texts as well. Bot the bottomline is with regards to marriage God made it perfectly clear what His only design for marriage is and His Son, Jesus Christ totally affirmed it.
sj, take the word of scholars who for the most part reject Jesus Christ as the Promised Messiah or take God at His word? No rocket science needed here since this a complete no-brainer, I'll take God at His word and His Word anyday!!!!
believer, it is not MY reading of the Mosaic Law AND the Levitical code, it is the reading of the Jewish scholars for some 3,000 years. I am not the one picking out a verse from Genesis and Matthew and declaring that THIS is the original design and plan of God, and thus that these Jewish scholars were mistaken in their understanding of God's ordinance for thousands of years, you are! Read the Talmud, read Misnah. Read the Hebrew Scriptures! God's beloved children of Israel derive from Jacob having multiple wives and concubines! God didn't just favor the children of one wive over the others, God loved and cherished them all without distinction! You are the one reading into the Scriptures what YOU want to find there!
prophet, totally agree but sj totally disagrees basing it on what he reads in the mosaic laws.
What I want to know is if God supports polygamy, why does it speak in Genesis, and even Jesus repeats it, that marriage is between one man and one woman...and the TWO will become one. It doesn't say and the three, or four, or ten will become one. Jesus says the TWO will become one.
online, I think sj's whole argument is based on a faulty logic that says just because God established rules to ensure the well being of woman who were part of a polygamous relationship that He condones and even ordained polygamy and it sounds like that in his thinking the culture determined to go from polygamy to monogamy and it appears God must still be okay with polygamy because he cites no where that God changed His mind on this, nor has he answered my question as to whether or not God is all-knowing. As I've shared with him, his defense of polygamy is a feeble attempt to support his denomination's view of homosexuality and same-sex marriage/union. I doubt he can come up with verses to support same-sex marriage since there are none, but what he'll do is say since God ordained polygamy why would He not be okay with same-sex marriage/union and challenge us to show where God said no to it and since he has totally disregarded those passages from the Old and New Testament alike that teach and support God's original design for marriage which is one man and one woman he'll declare that we can't defend that because we have no verses to support that view. What's so sad is that there are so many who profess to be Christians who put more faith in the writings and teachings of men then they do in the Word of God.
Most of your posts have been focusing on polygamy; what about same sex unions? Can you give me a New Testament passage that legitimizes same sex unions?
sj, polygamy is never prescribed in the mosaic laws.
sj, neither does God condone or encourage polygamy in the Mosaic laws, He just ensures that women are treated properly if indeed they are part of a polygamous relationship. And several of the examples you site do not state that the male involved has a wife already. Plus, using your logic the comparison of child sacrifice and polygamy are right on target. Plus, another thing to consider is that we read no record of Abraham saying to God that child sacrifice is wrong.
John,
Just because certain people in the Bible, or in that era, may have been polygamists doesn't mean it was condoned by God.
Child sacrifice is not prescribed in the Mosaic Law as is polygamy, nor is child sacrifice found in the Levitical Code, nor was child sacrifice practiced by the Patriarchs, and Moses, and good Kings David and Solomon, nor is there any recognition of child sacrifice as an acceptable practice in the New Testament or upon the lips of Jesus, so, no, I don't think the comparison is fair at all.
sj, during my quiet time this morning God led me to this, if I were to use the logic you are using in this discussion I could say God condoned if not ordained child sacrifice. He came to Abraham and told him to sacrifice his son Isaac and at that time there were societies that child sacrifice was a norm and even though God stopped him from sacrificing Isaac and provided him with a sacrifice, no where do we read that God told Abraham that child sacrifice was wrong, so using your logic apparently God condoned if not ordained child sacrifice.
Forgive me, I misread and thought sj was saying God's marriage design was a cultural norm; he meant polygomy.
sj, so do you believe God is all-knowing?
sj, I never said polygamy was not biblically recorded as the cultural norm, what I've contended from the beginning is that GOD'S ORIGINAL AND ONLY DESIGN for marriage is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life and that GOD"S ORIGINAL AND ONLY design for sexual intimacy is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life through marriage. And as far as norms go it is normal in all cultures for people be it believers or not to sin, but just because that is the norm does not mean in any way shape or form that God designed us that way or that He condones it, using the argument your using because Christ gave us guidelines for handling sin in the church, our own life, and the life of others it must mean that our sinning was a part of God's original design for us and in fact He must condone it or why did He create us with the ability to do it.
What makes me saddened is that God's original design and plan for monogamy between one man and one woman can be reduced to a cultural norm by some.
Sj,
The Sadducees who did not believe in a resurrection came to Jesus tempting Him (Luke 20:27 -36); their focus is on the resurrection not the Levirate law. So, these passages do not support your supposition that polygamy was a legitimate practice in the New Testament. Are you serious . . . using Herod, who was not a true believer as your New Testament example? Also, I did not ask for historical references from secular authors, I asked for New Testament references which affirm polygamy and same sex unions.
Most of your posts have been focusing on polygamy; what about same sex unions? Can you give me a New Testament passage that legitimizes same sex unions?
Again, the New Testament reveals only Gods clear monogamous teaching for one man, one woman (Matt. 19: 4, I Cor. 7, Rom. 7: 3, 4, Eph. 5: 22).
believer, I am not intending to defend polygamy but to dispute your suggestions that monogamy is the clear and obvious biblical norm. It wasn't, though it has become our cultural norm. The change is more a result of the Greco-Roman culture than God's original design and plan.
sj, with regard to levirate marriages you make the assumption the brother is already married when in fact he very well may not have been and especially considering the fact he was living in the same estate as his brother and his brother's wife. And many Bible scholars believe these marriages were a very rare occurrence.
sj, so do you believe that God is all-knowing or not?
sj, you're getting to the point of being pathetic in your attempt to defend polygamy as being ordained by God, using Herod having many wives not being pointed out as wrong doing on his part to say that the New Testament justified the practice of polygamy, come on!
The homosexual agenda has been driven by a pseudoscience that the media has used to brainwash most of society. Homosexuals cannot help themselves, we have been told, because homosexuality is genetic...
When asked whether paedophilia , bisexuality, multisexuality are genetic... or bestiality, or necromancy...many have taken this as an insult and simply not discussed it. The taboo that the breakers of taboo will not touch...
But is homosexuality genetic?
Identical twins by definition have the same DNA. Yet, it will be found that while one of the twins may be a homosexual the other is not necessarily one also.
Can homosexuality then, simply be a result of a biochemical/brain disfunction -
Drug addictions are able to affect the way the brain functions at the basic level.
This isnt limited to drugs; it applies to anything that we become sensitized to, dependent and attached to for a long period of time...
Repeated behaviour creates a path which our brain cannot do without. A path, much like a railway track to a train, or a road to a car...where our brain has an extremely difficult time leaving it once it is built.
How else then shall we explain bisexuality, or paedophilia, or numerous other behaviours...?
The mind has been trained through repetitive and continued use of that path to the point where it cannot do anything else but travel on that road.
How else can we explain drive? the drive of a millionaire to become a billionaire, unable to stop...but to keep on piling up more and more.
Or the collector of rubbish who keeps on collecting more and more rubbish till the house and the yard and everything owned is totally filled with it, but wont stop bringing more in..
Or with anorexics...can we show that it is genetic? again, using the idea of identical twins, you will find that just because one is anorexic, the other does not necessarily follow...
And with anorexics there is a particularity that should be noted. We see that although they are in every respect truly thin...they completely see themselves as fat...undermining every reality that is flung their way
Homosexuals are the same. Although their sexual parts are there and they can bear children on their own without any problems...many have gotten themselves in a predicament where they will not admit to their true gender, or their ability to have children...
And yet, what is society to do? Shall society condone as marriage the vices of necromancy?
shall society condone as marriage the vices of those practicing animal love?!..
Shall society legislate paedophilia as marriage?!
Shall society legislate anorexia to be normal human behaviour that ought to be supported by the public?!
A society that will not discriminate will eventually become indifferent to all the vices that ultimately destroy it...
Ultimately God does judge these types of societies for their indifference, and their acceptance of human vice as a good thing….
Online4Him, King Herod is known to have had many wives and a harem, and though he is criticized in the New Testament for many things, he is not criticized for this. The Sadducees in their discussion with Jesus use the example of Levirate marriage, suggesting it is still practiced in NT times, and Jesus' response doesn't condemn the practice. There is other evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai.
...But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female...For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become 1.
Malachi also speaks against those that leave their wife for another...
Malachi 2: 13 ... And this again you do. You cover the Lords altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favour at your hand. You ask why does He not? Because the Lord was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant....For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel..
This is what Jesus says: (Luke 4:13)
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.
This is what Jesus has done, and this is what Jesus is doing.
I will yet ask this question for a third time; WHERE do you find polygamy and same sex unions as legitimate practices in the New Testament?
I can find in the New Testament Gods teaching for one man, one woman (Matt. 19: 4, I Cor. 7, Rom. 7: 3, 4, Eph. 5: 22). Can you post supportive passages for polygamy and same sex unions from the NEW TESTAMENT?
Sj,
The Levirate Law served its purpose for ancient Israel and is no longer a practice in the New Testament, so try as you may; there is no justification for polygamy or same sex marriage.
(You guys are reading into this text something that is not there)
It is the other way around my friend; do you not read into these texts something that is not there-Romans 1:27 and 1Corinthians 6:9? You either impose something into these texts or merely dismiss them all together.
sj, try as you will God's original and only design for marriage was and is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life, He declared it in Genesis 2:24 and Christ affirmed it in Matthew 19:4-6. And God also declared that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united in the sight of God for life through marriage and Christ affirmed that as well. So as much as you want to defend your denomination's view of homosexuality and same-sex marriage/union God's Word won't help you.
Online4Him, the Hebrew in Deuteronomy 17.16/17 for "multiply" both of horses, wives and money in each case is "Rabah", which means to be or become great, be or become many, be or become much, be or become numerous
1. (Qal)
1. to become many, become numerous, multiply (of people, animals, things)
2. to be or grow great
2. (Piel) to make large, enlarge, increase, become many
3. (Hiphil)
1. to make much, make many, have many 1c
4. to multiply, increase 1c
5. to make much to do, do much in respect of, transgress greatly 1c
6. to increase greatly or exceedingly
1. to make great, enlarge, do much
The context is clear that we are talking about 'many' here, not 'two'. The proscription is against having too many wives, horses, or too much money. You guys are reading into this text something that is not there, while dismissing Exodus 21.10 with its reference to "ordinances" of God in verse 1, using the Hebrew word 'mishpat,' which clearly means law or ordinance or legla priviledge, Strongs: judgment, justice, ordinance
1. judgment
1. act of deciding a case
2. place, court, seat of judgment
3. process, procedure, litigation (before judges)
4. case, cause (presented for judgment)
5. sentence, decision (of judgment)
6. execution (of judgment)
7. time (of judgment)
2. justice, right, rectitude (attributes of God or man)
3. ordinance
4. decision (in law)
5. right, privilege, due (legal)
6. proper, fitting, measure, fitness, custom, manner, plan. This last meaning might even suggest that THIS is God's plan, or custom, or design!
sj, are you saying now that God is not all-knowing, He knew for all eternity He would create Adam and Eve and He allowed Adam to discover for himself that it was not good for him to be alone. God was making a statement of truth not declaring something He just thought of, plus man was the last of His creation and then He made woman from the rib of Adam.
Online4Him and believer, in Genesis 2 after God decided that it is not good for man to be alone (v. 18), God immediately created all the animals (v. 19), and only AFTER it was determined that there was no fit helper for man among the animals (v. 20b), did God create the woman. I presume that you are not suggesting that bestiality was God's original design for sexual intimacy. What is important about the woman was that she was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.
sj, plus if polygamy was God's original design why did He change His mind and why did He not create multiple wives for Adam?
sj, Deuteronomy 17:17, "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he GREATLY increase silver and gold for himself." (NASB) In Webster's Dictionary one meaning of the word multiply is more than one, every reliable translation of the Bible uses a term like greatly or large in speaking to the issue of silver and gold, so your argument of only one piece of silver and gold holds no water the same as your attempt to defend your denomination's view of both homosexuality and same-sex marriage holds no water.
Also, this verse says multiply, not excessive:
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold (Deuteronomy 17:17).
Sj,
God knew that it was not good that Adam be alone and God provided for Adam a (help meet) (a counter part to complement Adam, Gen. 2: 18). Observe how God did NOT simply provide another man, but for Adam God made WOMAN, the (glory of the man) (Gen. 2: 18, I Cor. 11: 7). Hence, same sex marriage is not part of Gods arrangement for the marriage bond (again, see Rom. 1: 22, 27). Moreover, appreciate the fact that when God instituted marriage, it was one man and one woman (Gen. 2). If polygamy and same sex marriages are (ideal) as some are teaching, why, then, did NOT God create Eve, Sue, Jane (multiple wives), or David, Bill, John (same sex marriages), etc. for Adam?
Again, where do you find polygamy and same sex unions as legitimate practices in the New Testament?
Gods teaching remains one man, one woman (Matt. 19: 4, I Cor. 7, Rom. 7: 3, 4, Eph. 5: 22). God no longer (winks at ignorance, but now commandeth all men every where to repent) (Acts 17: 30).
Online4Him, Deuteronomy 17 is warning against having excessive horses, wives and money. It is NOT a proscription to have only one horse, one wife and one piece of silver and gold. It is definitely not a verse that dictates polygamy.
Notice the three (shall nots), multiply horses, multiply wives, multiply silver and gold. Solomon is often cited as proof for the practice of polygamy being right, but Solomon was wrong in all three areas. Solomon had a vast number of horses; he had riches unparallel; and seven hundred wives (I Kings. 4: 26; Eccl. 1-10; I Kings. 11: 3). Hence, to use the example of Solomon and his seven hundred wives to argue for polygamy is an example of how simplistically a subject can be approached and dialectically presented.
Polygamy is expressly denounced pertaining to the leaders of Gods people.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly (I Tim. 3; Tit. 1).
Where do you find polygamy and same sex unions as legitimate practices in the New Testament?
Sj,
No, my friend; it is the other way around. Where do you find the homosexual movement here in America before the late 1950s?
Anyway, those who contend that the Bible never negatively treats polygamy are wrong. Consider the warning given to prospective and actual kings of Israel:
But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17:16, 17).
The Bible is filled with examples of people struggling against their fallen-state (free-will) and God's will for their lives. God allows us the opportunity to come to Him and live in Him from that same free-will.
sj, the beloved King David and Solomon whose family lives were a mess as a result of practicing polygamy, sure sounds like a God ordained practice to me! Just looking at the consequences of polygamy should convince a person that it was certainly never ordained or designed by God. And yet you willfully choose to ignore God's own words in Genesis 2:24 and the very work of His creation as well as the words of Christ in Matthew 19:2 to try an legitamize your view of polygamy being created and ordained by God which in essence is calling both God and Christ a liar and doing all this in a feeble attempt to defend your denominations view and practices with regards to homosexuality.
Online4Him, you and believer are the ones searching for some form of biblical legitimacy for certain customs and practices, finding a passage in Genesis, which by the way never mentions marriage and a discussion about divorce and eunuchs where Jesus quotes this passage, and some passages from the epistles Timothy and Titus where the Greco-Roman norm of monogamy is finally taking effect, and declare that this is God's original design and intent, ignoring 3,000 years where polygyny was established in the Torah, in the Levitcal code, in the lives of the great Patriarchs, Moses, and the beloved Kings David and Solomon, and then dare to accuse those who are paying attention to the whole of Scripture as calling Jesus and God liars!
believer,
Thank you for yours. It is apparent today that many are searching for some form of biblical legitimacy for certain customs and practices . . . stay encouraged my friend.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).
online, thanks for your support in this and with regards to the example of Noah, sj knows this already in fact he appears to believe that what may appear to be a biblical norm may not necessarily be by God's design or plan.
Romans 1:27 says nothing of pagan orgies but simply says men with men working that which is unseemly and calls it an error. Here is another NT example that does not speak of same sex unions in a positive light:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 1Corinthians 6:9. Also, see my previous post with its NT passages that speak of one man and one woman as Gods ideal model for marriage.
It is more like the case of divorce and slavery which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts, but was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matt. 19:8). But whenever the Mosaic Law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional (If he takes another wife to himself, Ex.21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations of the husband towards the additional wives which would discourage polygamy. It is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.
sj, to be lifelong and between one man and one woman only as God intended ever since He created Adam and Eve!
Sj,
Thanks for posting scriptural references for me; reviewing this subject a little bit deeper was interesting. Exodus 20:15 refers to the eighth commandment which says, thou shalt not steal . . . how is this relevant with the subject at hand; and the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 are never referred to as ordinances?
The Levirate law: the reason for this law was to keep the distinction of tribes and families, primarily so that the Messiah might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to proceed from (the tribe of Judah), also for inheritances, that the dead might not be forgotten, and to keep the family lineage going.
This is similar to what I had previously posted, namely that women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. However, I do not see polygamy as something that God ordained but something that had culturally developed over time. Just because the Bible mentions a trait or act of an individual, even a godly person, does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorsed such. The mentioning of Noah becoming drunk and disgracing himself is mentioned, but certainly not condoned (Gen. 9: 20).
sj, you amaze me that you would call Jesus Christ and His Heavenly Father both a liar! God the Father and Christ, His Son both clearly state that God's original and only design for marriage is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life and yet you say they were both lying and yet you show no scripture that clearly states God's original design for marriage was polygamy but yet you provide no scripture where God the Father or Jesus Christ present that design as God's plan for marriage.
believer, Jesus is repeating a passage from Genesis in the midst of a discussion about divorce to show that the physical relationship between a man and a woman is intended by God to be lifelong, but not necessarily exclusive.
believer, get real, if the Mosaic law and the Levitical code do not count for God's endorsement, what does?
the Deuteronomic passage 17.17 is not about monogamy but about the dangers of having too many wives, just as having too much silver and gold is not good. You're reading into this stuff what you want to find. Is God suggesting in this passage that his people should have only one piece of silver and gold?
Monogamy was more an influence of the Greco-Roman cultural over against the Semitic culture than anything God taught.
believer, with that kind of thinking God taught polygamy in several ways, by Mosaic Law, by Levitical code, by example of the Patriarchs, Moses and the good Kings David and Solomon, and by the word of Jesus.
sj, from Norman Geisler's "When Critics Ask", "Monogamy is taught in the Bible in several wasy: 1. by precedent, since God gave the first man only one wife; 2. by proportion, since the amount of males and females God brings into the world are about equal; 3. by precept, since both the OT and NT command it (Genesis 2:24, Deuteronomy 17:17, Matthew 19:4); 4. by punishment, since God punished those who violated His standard (I Kings 11:2); and 5. by prefiguration, since marriage is a typology of Christ and His bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32).
sj, Deuteronomy 17:17, "He shall not multiply wives for himself, or his heart will turn away.... (NASB)
sj, why would Christ state an untruth in any discussion regardless of the subject? God did not and you cannot show and have not shown where God did personally endorse and approve polygamy.
St. John's wrote: "Your Romans passage is about heterosexual men engaging in homosexual pagan orgies."
So , is it your opinion the homosexuality is only sin when it is preformed by heterosexual men/women?
Online4Him, I referenced Exodus 20:15 earlier, and note in 20:1 that these "ordinances" of God are given to Moses to be set before God's people. In Judaism, a levirate marriage (Hebrew: yibbum) is mandated by the Torah (Pentateuch) (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) which obliges a brother to marry the widow of his childless deceased brother whether he is already married or not, with the firstborn child being treated as that of the deceased brother. Jesus acknowledges Levirate marriage in his conversation with the Sadduccees (cf. Mk. 12.20). Your Romans passage is about heterosexual men engaging in homosexual pagan orgies. There are numerous other references as well.
sj,
Can you please give the specific verses that you are using to support your assumptions; I would like to look them over?
Also, why does Romans 1:27 say that men left the NATURAL use of the WOMAN and describes the union between men with men as an ERROR?
believer, to take Jesus' reference to the Genesis passage in the midst of a discussion about divorce and eunuchs as evidence of God's original plan and design is no more valid than to take Jesus' reference to Levirate marriage as evidence of God's original plan and design.
Online4Him, if the Mosaic law and the Levitical code don't count for God instituting something, what does? You are the one engaged in wishful thinking.
sj, and with regards to my sinning post, nor does He ever approve of our sinning.
sj, oh but yes it does in Genesis 2:24 and it is affirmed by Christ in the New Testament as well as well as by other writers in the Old and New Testament.
sj, would you agree that since all of us are sinners and that each of us sin by either acts of omission or commission every day then sinning is a norm and since it was also true during biblical days it would also make sinning a biblical norm, but would you agree that sinning was certainly never a part of God's original design for mankind?
yes, believer, but Scripture doesn't clearly tell us that.
sj, if the norm is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life, then Scripture clearly tells us that indeed is God's will since that is His original and only design for marriage.
In the New Testament; 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 clearly gives the model of (the husband of one wife) in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership. Ephesians 5:22-33, is speaking of the relationship between husbands and wives; when referring to a husband and wife, we see that both are mentioned in the singular. It is interesting to hear some people trying to use polygamy to justify same sex unions; this is nothing more than wishful thinking.
The Bible does not say that God ever instituted polygamy. It also does not say why God allowed it. So, at best; all any of us can do is speculate as to why He permitted this. Could it be that it was part of Gods command to (be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth) (Genesis 9:7)?
Or could it be that within a patriarchal society it was nearly impossible for an unmarried woman to provide for herself? Women were often uneducated and untrained. Women relied on their fathers, brothers, and husbands for provision and protection. Again, this is all speculation; nevertheless, it is clear that this was never Gods original plan.
When we turn to the book of Genesis, we read of Adam and Eve (not Eves), so polygamy cannot be Gods original intent for marriage. He seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it was His desire for the problem never to have occurred. Since the introduction of sin, it has no doubt marred Gods design for us and this present creation.
believer, I am happy to agree with you that polygyny was the biblical norm for marriage and that that norm has changed, hopefully in accordance with God's will.
sj, a biblically recorded norm for the society of that day and yet not a part of God's original and only design for marriage.
believer, so then are you acknowledging that polygyny is the biblical norm, while arguing that it was not God's original design?
sj, so are you then saying what appears to be a biblical norm is therefore the design or intention of God?
sj, once again you show no teachings from God that shows His approval or permission for polygamy only the proper treatment of the wives and the children who are the result of polygamous relationships.
sj, because we serve a longsuffering, patient, and forgiving God who chooses as I said to work through us in spite of our sinfulness. What I am saying was the brothers jealousy of Joseph was based on the fact that he was the child of Rachel and his father treated him better than his other sons as a result. And all the brothers who turned on Joseph were his half-brothers.
believer, clearly Joseph was referring to his brothers' selling him into slavery, NOT the polygamous marriages of his father! If God's original design was obviously monogamy, one wonders why God honored ALL the children of Jacob as his beloved, and not just the children of one of the wives (as God favored Isaac over Ishmael and Eliezer of Damascus). Polygyny is evident throughout the Hebrew Scriptures without any hint of condemnation, e.g. in the lives of the Patriarchs, with Moses, and with the great Kings David and Solomon. Suggesting problems in their families discourages an acceptance of polygamy is no more valid than suggesting the problems in monogamous families encourages celibacy! Polygyny is recognized in the Deuteronomic Law (cf. Dt. 21:15) and in the Levitical Code. Indeed the practice of Levirate marriage is found on the lips of Jesus without any condemnation. You are reading into your text to find what you want.
Nice, believer!
God has truly blessed you with some great understanding!
sj,
Again, Can you post a passage which supports your suggestion; that God instituted polygamy? It would be helpful for everyone here if a specific biblical reference was given.
sj, if I'm not mistaken Joseph's own words to his brothers from other marriages were, what you intended for evil God used for good. While God can work through any circumstances to include sinful ones that in no way implies His approval for sin or sinful lifestyles such as polygamy.
believer, Jacob's polygamy, which of course includes not only multiple wives but also concubines, led to the 12 tribes of Israel who are repeatedly said to be beloved by God. Sounds like a ringing endorsement for polygyny, not a condemnation.
sj, a better statement would the problems were not caused as a result of being married to one person as the polygamous ones were.
sj, but there are plenty that didn't and to the best of my knowledge the marriages that had problems were not a result of the marriage as opposed to the polygamous ones. Jacob's polygamy led to 10 of his sons selling Joseph into slavery, Abraham's polygamy led to the Arab and Israeli conflict still going on today, David's polygamy led to the premature death of 3 of his sons and the rape of his daughter, and Solomon's heart strayed from God as a result of his polygamy. That's exactly why God never ordained polygamy in the first place, plus as we agreed upon last nights things that appear to be a biblical norm are not necessarily God's design or will.
Forgivensinner,
I am sorry; must have misread your previous post. After a vigorous workout last night, I am sort of dragging today.
Online,
I am still missing something here.
I understand the passage and the emphasis on unbelievers.
Forgivensinner,
The emphasis is on (unbelievers); it is not racially motivated-
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14).
St. John's
I'm sorry, did I miss something?
Forgivensinner, the Scriptures also declare that one part of the Body cannot tell another we have no need of you. We can all pick and choose our verses; that's a child's game.
believer, that's just a fallacious argument. There are plenty of monogamous relationships that had negative consequences in the Scriptures, does that affirm monogamy was not part of God's original and only design for marriage? Of course not. Is a silly argument. Polygamy was recognized and governed by Mosaic law and the Levitical code, and is found on the lips of Jesus in the story of the Levirate marriage. You are being overly simplistic and wishful in reading Genesis and Matthew for some clear and original purpose for marriage and sexual intimacy, when both the Jews and Christians have interpreted it differently for centuries. I guess you got it right, and they didn't?
Online wrote: "The New Testament also tells us that we should not be unequally yoke with unbelievers."
And this is racial-blind.
I was reminded of the vs in 1 Cor. 15:33 "Do not be decieved: "Bad company corrupts good moral."
Sj,
Can you share a passage of Scripture where polygamy was Gods clear design? It appears that polygamy became a culturally accepted practice but was never instituted by God. Also, interracial marriages were forbidden at that time not because of racial differences but because of spiritual differences; remember that the people of God were surrounded by pagan nations and God did not want his people to go astray from him. The New Testament also tells us that we should not be unequally yoke with unbelievers.
sj, yes, but like those who are trying to twist God's Word to allow for same-sex marriages God's truth inevitably won out and His truth on these matters was there all along, but people simply chose to ignore it as those who are trying to pass same-sex marriages/unions and condoning the sexual practices of homosexuality are trying to do in our society and churches today.
sj, in Genesis 2:24 God clearly lays out His one and only design for marriage and Christ in the New Testament affirms that design as well. Please share a polygamous relationship that didn't have negative consequences? Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon are prime examples that affirm polygamy was not part of God's original and only design for marriage.
believer, polygyny was once considered God's clearly spelled out design for both marriage and sexual intimacy, but we 'gotten around' that. Women as man's possessions were once considered God's clearly spelled out design for both marriage and sexual intimacy and we have gotten around that. Indeed prohibitions of interracial marriages was once considered God's clearly spelled out design for both marriage and sexual intimacy, and we have gotten around that. Do we just pretend that it wasn't so?
Sj,
Personally, I would not be part of any church in which the pastor claimed to be a fornicator, adulterer, or homosexual. I understand and agree with those who are separating themselves from some of these liberal churches and would encourage them to continue to stay true to what has been written in the Scriptures. It seems that in some of these churches-across denominational lines have succumbed to our current culture instead of staying true to their original calling by being in the world but not of it. So, I take it that you have no problem with having homosexual clergy in the church?
sj, but how do they get around God's clearly spelled out design for both marriage and sexual intimacy?
believer, you understand of course that there are many faithful Christians who study and interpret the Bible differently than you do in regards to the sin of homosexuality, just as there were in the past with usury, slavery, Divine Right of Kings, and interracial marriage, for instance.
sj, while it may be true there are some in the ministry who are homosexual there is a difference between a person being homosexual and a person engaging in the sexual practices of homosexuality. All ministers are sinners, but would we tolerate them willfully living in sin and showing no desire to confess and repent of their sin or sinful lifestyle? I think not.
Online4Him, there are, I suspect, homosexual clergy in all of the denominations and always have been. We are just being a little more open in our discussions about it. At the moment, the Episcopal Church seems to be refraining from ordaining any more openly gay Bishops and from officially blessing same-sex marriages as requested by the Windsor Report, which also asked foreign bishops to stop crossing church lines, activity which they have only increased, as this article reveals. So which side is acting more appropriately here? What do you think?
mburrell,
Welcoming someone to church is the right thing to do; I was just curious about how sj felt about homosexual clergy and same sex marriages taking place in some of these churches. How does faith in Gods Word, repentance and obedience fit into the equation?
online,
i think that st. john will still welcome everyone who shows up at church - as will my wife and i.
sj, hopefully someone did it by accident, but if not even though I didn't necessarily agree with all of it I don't understand why anybody would.
sj,
Are you for or against same sex unions/clergy in the Episcopalian church?
I can't believe that my blog of biblical references to slavery was flagged. Someone here is very afraid of the Scriptures. My Episcopal parish was founded in 1748 and survived the divisive debate about the Divine Right of Kings clearly defined in the Scriptures and the American Revolution; then it survived the Great Awakening and a torrent of self-righteousness on the part of some Christians' then it saw a small group split off within the debate about the Biblical heresy of the Abolitionists before the Civil War and go start a 'pure' church of pro-slavery (much like the Southern Baptists did); we also survived the crisis of interracial marriage in the sixties, when 37 States opposed it on Biblical grounds (we are gladly a multi-racial and multi-cultural church as a result); we also survived women's ordination debate in the seventies, when far more Episcopal sought to abandon ship. We'll survive this one too, and remembering Gamaliel's advice, I will leave it to others to judge whether we are spiritual healthy or not.
mb, a church being physically alive and even growing is no guarantee it is spiritually alive and as a matter of fact there are many crowded spiritually dead churches throughout our land who continue to tolerate sin and tickle the ears of their members.
everyone i know remembers this. you may just have friends who don't know their history. the church was pulling away from rome anyway. Henry's wife just gave him a good excuse. as far as dying, the episcopal church is far from dying. the 19th century stink over the wearing vestments was worse than this gay clergy fight. many fights in the church have been worse than this. the episcopal church will survive. i expect all these many roadside churches of the extremist protestants won't. even if they are prominent megachurches. these congregations are form from being 'against' something (like modern culture). the episcopal church has history and momentum. it will flourish.
The Episcopal/Anglican church is falling apart. Not only are dioceses breaking away, but people are refusing to make this church their home. To compound this, you even have some clergy in the church refusing to follow the basic -- the very basic -- tenents of Christianity... which is where most of this problem started.
History tells us this denomination was born from Henry VIII and his driving need to discard his wife and marry someone who would give him a male heir.
What a way to found a church!
No one seems to remember this.
sj, if you want to continue to hide behind the smokescreen of slavery to condone the sexual practices of homosexuality go for it, but it doesn't change God's view of it one bit. God hates sin and as a result He hates the sexual practices of homosexuality since they willfully violate His design for sexual intimacy. If you want to support same-sex marriage go for it, but it won't change His view on that either since it to violates His original and perfect design for marriage. But also remember that your support of sin might very well be the stumbling block that keeps someone from coming to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. There is always a price to pay when we compromise or willfully violate God's truths as taught in His Word.
sj, please read the book of Philemon and tell us how can a Christian treat a slave as a brother in Christ without setting them free from their slave status either legally or relationally.
st johns
It seems to me that both you and Jefferson Davis hold to the same creed. Yet, it is not a Christian one.
For Davis wished to keep slavery of one kind, and you wish to keep the other form of slavery (spiritual). Both of which the Gospel addresses as I have noted in my previous post.
sj, you need to really do a word study on the term self-righteousness because it is just the opposite of what you are accusing those who adhere to the inerrancy of the Word of God. A denomination that promotes feeling good and looking good is far closer to being guilty of self-righteousness than one that promotes knowing good and doing good. Denominations that endorse the homosexual lifestyle are promoting both the feeling good and looking good concept as they want to make themselves acceptable to the world by allowing for a sexual lifestyle that clearly violates God's design for both marriage and sexual intimacy.
God was never pro-slaveery. those ignorant on the subject use this to counter what the Bible teaches concerning homosexuality, but it won't work.
There was a time when Slavery was the law of the land. But God never condoned such garbage.
But rather God instructed Slaves, and Slave owner's how to behave toward each other. Especially when both claimed to be Christian.
Slavery was sin, God moved to abolish Slavery, and to God be the Glory.
But one cannot use Slavery as a way of condoning homosexuality, which is sin also.
Elijah once said, " Choose ye this day whom ye will serve."
To be a friend of the world is to be the enemy of God.
One cannot eat from the Lord's table and the devil's table at the sametime.
People must choose who they will serve. If Jesus be Lord, Then serve Him, But if baal, then serve him.
But you can't do both. You can't have it both ways.
If the Bible is the Word of God, Then give heed to it.
If God says in that Word, That homosexuality is isn, Then give heed to that, or just be honest and say, you won't accept it.
But don't pretend to love God and at the same time reject all that God says on homosexuality.
steiner, very poetic, but slavery is mentioned in every book of the Bible and on the lips of Jesus with nary a word spoken against it. Thus it is not at all surprising that Jefferson Davis could declare in his inaugural address as President of the newly formed Confederate States that “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.†Sounds a bit like some today defending other social customs.
For in the end, even slavery holds some attractions. Men enslaved to sin can allow themselves to be driven by sin. Their members following the law of depravity which in the end has also its own sweet fruit
The Gospel speaks of slavery in Egypt; a place where men were bound by other men. These called upon God to save them and God answered them through Moses. Though, later on, some still wished to return to Egypt...
The Gospel speaks of slavery to sin. These, God has sent Christ His Son, to free them from sin. Yet, many still wish to return to spiritual Egypt...
believer, the exact same thing was said 150 years ago to those who supported the Abolition of slavery, departing as they were from God's truth taught in His Word, cf. http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/string/string.html. I hear your voice and the self-righteousness of others in the writings of Thorton Stringfellow and so many others like him.
It is not enough to secede.
The church must commit itself to saving the lost, and that includes those that are bound by homosexuality.
Those who cling to the name Christian and yet are not willing to call homosexuality a sin must be asked to leave.
They must not be allowed to remain.They have believed in another gospel, and to that end will earn its reward.
sj, the departure of churches and individuals from your denomination who hold to the inerrancy of the Word of God is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result of the leaderships departure from God's truths taught in His Word. And eventually if it has not happened already your denomination from an evangelistic perspective will die, a fate that could have come to our denomination as well had it not been for the conservative resurgence of the mid 80s.
believer, do you simply not hear the self-righteousness in your comment about the willful violation and opposition to God's Word, or do you just not care? To dismiss or demonize those who disagree with your interpretation of the Scriptures is the exact tactic used by the pro-slavery party of the Church, or the pro-Divine Right of Kings, or many others, with whom I presume you would be embarrassed to be associated today. You don't need to change your opinions, you just need to add a little respect, because there is little doubt that self-righteous is a sin.
mb, the better word might be death as opposed to rebirth as long as the leadership continues to willfully violate and oppose God's Word.
the episcopal church is undergowing a painful rebirth into a church that really has room for everyone. it has secretly been such for years. many of my family are episcopalians. they are proud that their church is leading the way (though unitarians and congragationalists did it years ago) to greater acceptability. my cousin said he will miss pittsburgh, he's not sure about quincy or fresno (two places he never wanted to visit anyway), but he certainly will not miss any knee-jerk, gimme-that-ole-time-religion Texans! Look what Texans have done recently to the white house and to protestantism. good riddance.
i do believe that biblical illiteracy and a blatant disregard for the word of God is the reason for the current crisis in the ainglican church.My grandfather who served as a missionary with the anglican church in Nigeria as one of the indeginous missionaries will surely be turning in his grave.what a sorry state the church is in.