Sunday, June 25, 2006
Signs of the apocalypse
Comments:
<< Home
"Yes, sexuality is a piece of that but a small piece compared to people who are die because they are hungry or don't have treatment for malaria or AIDS - or whose children can't go to school because there aren't any schools or teachers."
She said she firmly believed in "the need to refocus our attention".
You can see what their problem is with her and it's not her genitals. I'm sure that the issue of the gay bishop is just the spear head of hate to really go after people who might cause a rash of people taking things like this seriously.
If I didn't think I'd have to pledge to the articles joining might be a possiblity. They do tend to sing well.
She said she firmly believed in "the need to refocus our attention".
You can see what their problem is with her and it's not her genitals. I'm sure that the issue of the gay bishop is just the spear head of hate to really go after people who might cause a rash of people taking things like this seriously.
If I didn't think I'd have to pledge to the articles joining might be a possiblity. They do tend to sing well.
When it comes to the broader Anglican church, they have problems with both sexuality and gender. They have a liberal European/American wing and an intensely conservative wing in the former British colonies. The conservative wing takes St. Paul's directives and advice on women extremely literally.
The same problem occurs to a lesser extent in all churches, such that it is impossible to include certain passages in the liturgy. Include them and you are guaranteed of watching half your church walk across the street. The irony is that there are no passages in the New Testament that single out homosexuality as worse than other "hamartia." On women, there's only one passage, maybe two, where Paul invokes God's name to enforce gender discrimination. Even there, I suspect he's simply referencing passages of the Old Testament rather than claiming divine inspiration. Whole books of the OT have gone missing, so we just don't know.
At any rate, Paul did use women in very senior posts in the church, so whatever we moderns think Paul said, we need to look at what he (and Jesus) did: treat each person as individual and precious, not subject to immutable rules, but deserving of rising as high as their talents can take them.
Post a Comment
The same problem occurs to a lesser extent in all churches, such that it is impossible to include certain passages in the liturgy. Include them and you are guaranteed of watching half your church walk across the street. The irony is that there are no passages in the New Testament that single out homosexuality as worse than other "hamartia." On women, there's only one passage, maybe two, where Paul invokes God's name to enforce gender discrimination. Even there, I suspect he's simply referencing passages of the Old Testament rather than claiming divine inspiration. Whole books of the OT have gone missing, so we just don't know.
At any rate, Paul did use women in very senior posts in the church, so whatever we moderns think Paul said, we need to look at what he (and Jesus) did: treat each person as individual and precious, not subject to immutable rules, but deserving of rising as high as their talents can take them.
<< Home
More blogs about politics.
