Bishop's ouster stirs controversy

Oct 23, 2012 Full story: Post and Courier 14

This diocese and Bishop Mark Lawrence have worked strenuously to stay in the Episcopal Church while maintaining the historic faith and doctrine as this church has received it ...

Full Story

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1 Oct 24, 2012
from Post and Courier:

"... With all its claims to inclusion, the increasingly intolerant Episcopal Church has excluded this diocese from its fold. Bishop Lawrence has now been accused of abandoning the church by those who themselves have:

1) abandoned the historic independence and sovereignty of dioceses by an unprecedented and illegal invasion of dioceses by the presiding bishop.

2) abandoned the teaching of the Anglican Communion in violation of Lambeth Resolution 1:10 which maintains marriage as the context for sexual expression.

3) abandoned the constitution of the church by passing canons that invade the sovereignty of dioceses and replace the historic canonical rights and protections for clergy and laity.

4) abandoned the rights of bishops by illegally deposing Bishops John David Schofield, John Iker, Edward McBurney, William Wantland, William Cox, and Robert Duncan.

5) abandoned the Christian faith by failure in their duty to correct and discipline those bishops who have denied the very oaths they made at their consecrations.

6) abandoned responsibility for Christian leadership in the example of the Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori’s explicit favor towards Marcus Borg ('he has opened the scripture for me') who reduces Jesus Christ to a 'shaman'..."

If Borg has "opened" the scriptures for Schori, it explains why she no longer considers Jesus as unique.

“The Kingdom of God Begins NOW!”

Since: May 07

The Mountain Empire

#4 Oct 24, 2012
"So let me get this “straight.” Former Episcopal Bishop Mark Lawrence and the former Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina believe that it is OK to perform blessings for pets, book bags, and bicycles, but not for loving, same-sex relationships?

And they hold this belief so strongly that they are willing to leave their denomination? Yes, literally speaking, at a minimum, the Bible speaks against at least some types of homosexual relations. The last time the diocese pulled a similar stunt it was over slavery.

And the Bible clearly is in favor of slavery. An entire New Testament epistle is about a slave doing the right thing by returning to his master.

However, 150 years ago the diocese was wrong and later came back into the fold. They are wrong now.

May God forgive them and may She continue to show them the love, compassion, and mercy they are failing to show to their LGBT brothers and sisters."

Included in the article....

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#5 Oct 24, 2012
If there was such a thing as a god and religion, this story would be relevant.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#6 Oct 24, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
from Post and Courier:
"... With all its claims to inclusion, the increasingly intolerant Episcopal Church has excluded this diocese from its fold. Bishop Lawrence has now been accused of abandoning the church by those who themselves have:
1) abandoned the historic independence and sovereignty of dioceses by an unprecedented and illegal invasion of dioceses by the presiding bishop.
2) abandoned the teaching of the Anglican Communion in violation of Lambeth Resolution 1:10 which maintains marriage as the context for sexual expression.
3) abandoned the constitution of the church by passing canons that invade the sovereignty of dioceses and replace the historic canonical rights and protections for clergy and laity.
4) abandoned the rights of bishops by illegally deposing Bishops John David Schofield, John Iker, Edward McBurney, William Wantland, William Cox, and Robert Duncan.
5) abandoned the Christian faith by failure in their duty to correct and discipline those bishops who have denied the very oaths they made at their consecrations.
6) abandoned responsibility for Christian leadership in the example of the Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori’s explicit favor towards Marcus Borg ('he has opened the scripture for me') who reduces Jesus Christ to a 'shaman'..."
If Borg has "opened" the scriptures for Schori, it explains why she no longer considers Jesus as unique.
LOL!!!....

I think I had better write Fitz a letter. He is clearly getting off the track.

Then, YOU, DeCaro, conveniently quote part of the Charleston Paper's editorial letter and leave off the comment by its author. Your purpose for doing this is obvious. So, here,.... I'll do your "editorial" work for you as you should have done it:

From the Charleston Newspaper Article's editorial letter:

...
"So let me get this “straight.” Former Episcopal Bishop Mark Lawrence and the former Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina believe that it is OK to perform blessings for pets, book bags, and bicycles, but not for loving, same-sex relationships?

And they hold this belief so strongly that they are willing to leave their denomination? Yes, literally speaking, at a minimum, the Bible speaks against at least some types of homosexual relations. The last time the diocese pulled a similar stunt it was over slavery.

And the Bible clearly is in favor of slavery. An entire New Testament epistle is about a slave doing the right thing by returning to his master.

However, 150 years ago the diocese was wrong and later came back into the fold. They are wrong now.

May God forgive them and may She continue to show them the love, compassion, and mercy they are failing to show to their LGBT brothers and sisters."

There you have it. THAT is the basis for the Article editorial.

As to the points given by Fitz:

#1 Nice try at establishing the right of any Episcopal Diocesan bishop to throw the Teachings of the Church overboard. No can do.

#2 The Lambeth Commission of the Anglican Communion wimped out in passing its Resolution 1:10. The Resolution preserves institutionalized hypocrisy and bigotry by confirming a "catch-22" that prevents marriage.

#3 Same as #1.

#4 Same as #1 again. But, the twist is an attempt to decry the fact that the listed bishops chose to abandon their Church and the authority that it provides. No one can take away the ordination of the priest. But, the priest can choose to deny his or her own connection to that channel of authority.

#5 A laughable claim and an open admission that those bishops actually have denied their source of authority.

#6 "Shaman." Priest. Even "High Priest." Read your scripture. After the Order of Melchizedek. Consider your Creed and Doctrine:

God AND Man. Jesus Himself did not present Himself as unique, saying, "All these things that I do, so shall you do and even greater."

Get a grip, Fitz.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#7 Oct 24, 2012
Ouja wrote:
If there was such a thing as a god and religion, this story would be relevant.
Relevance is a matter of your personal perception, Ouja.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#8 Oct 24, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
from Post and Courier:
"... With all its claims to inclusion, the increasingly intolerant Episcopal Church has excluded this diocese from its fold. Bishop Lawrence has now been accused of abandoning the church by those who themselves have:
1) abandoned the historic independence and sovereignty of dioceses by an unprecedented and illegal invasion of dioceses by the presiding bishop.
2) abandoned the teaching of the Anglican Communion in violation of Lambeth Resolution 1:10 which maintains marriage as the context for sexual expression.
3) abandoned the constitution of the church by passing canons that invade the sovereignty of dioceses and replace the historic canonical rights and protections for clergy and laity.
4) abandoned the rights of bishops by illegally deposing Bishops John David Schofield, John Iker, Edward McBurney, William Wantland, William Cox, and Robert Duncan.
5) abandoned the Christian faith by failure in their duty to correct and discipline those bishops who have denied the very oaths they made at their consecrations.
6) abandoned responsibility for Christian leadership in the example of the Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori’s explicit favor towards Marcus Borg ('he has opened the scripture for me') who reduces Jesus Christ to a 'shaman'..."
If Borg has "opened" the scriptures for Schori, it explains why she no longer considers Jesus as unique.
LOL!!!....

I think I had better write Fitz a letter. He is clearly getting off the track.

Then, YOU, DeCaro, conveniently quote part of the Charleston Paper's editorial letter and leave off the comment by its author. Your purpose for doing this is obvious. So, here,.... I'll do your "editorial" work for you as you should have done it:

From the Charleston Newspaper Article's editorial letter:

...
"So let me get this “straight.” Former Episcopal Bishop Mark Lawrence and the former Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina believe that it is OK to perform blessings for pets, book bags, and bicycles, but not for loving, same-sex relationships?

And they hold this belief so strongly that they are willing to leave their denomination? Yes, literally speaking, at a minimum, the Bible speaks against at least some types of homosexual relations. The last time the diocese pulled a similar stunt it was over slavery.

And the Bible clearly is in favor of slavery. An entire New Testament epistle is about a slave doing the right thing by returning to his master.

However, 150 years ago the diocese was wrong and later came back into the fold. They are wrong now.

May God forgive them and may She continue to show them the love, compassion, and mercy they are failing to show to their LGBT brothers and sisters."

There you have it. THAT is the basis for the Article editorial.

As to the points given by Fitz:

#1 Nice try at establishing the right of any Episcopal Diocesan bishop to throw the Teachings of the Church overboard. No can do.

#2 The Lambeth Commission of the Anglican Communion wimped out in passing its Resolution 1:10. The Resolution preserves institutionalized hypocrisy and bigotry by confirming a "catch-22" that prevents marriage.

#3 Same as #1.

#4 Same as #1 again. But, the twist is an attempt to decry the fact that the listed bishops chose to abandon their Church and the authority that it provides. No one can take away the ordination of the priest. But, the priest can choose to deny his or her own connection to that channel of authority.

#5 A laughable claim and an open admission that those bishops actually have denied their source of authority.

#6 "Shaman." Priest. Even "High Priest." Read your scripture. After the Order of Melchizedek. Consider your Creed and Doctrine:

God AND Man. Jesus Himself did not present Himself as unique, saying, "All these things that I do, so shall you do and even greater."

Get a grip, Fitz.

Rev. Ken
Priest, after the Order of Melchizedek.
Listen to the Word

Bullhead City, AZ

#9 Oct 24, 2012
Now we know REvKen's real problem. He identifies himself as "Priest after the Order of Melchizedek." If he had even an ounce of biblical knowledge he would know that is a title reserved for Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest. He evidently thinks he is Jesus Christ -- sort of a Rev. Moon thing.

He complains that Aist is diverting the issue by using the title "Gay Theology" to descrine the "Teachings of Jesus Christ." Possibly he means his own teaching as the current priest after the order of Melchizedek. RevKen and his ilk want people to believe that the Bible is the most pro-gay book in the world -- inspite of its obvious meaning. The pro-gay aspect of the Bible is so concealed and hidden behind the obvious words that one needs super intelligent people -- like the new priest after the order of Melchizedek -- to tell the stupid laymen that there are hidden meanings and contexts behind the words. Like the pope in the Catholic church, RevKen and his ilk believe that the average person cannot read the Bible and gets its obvious meaning. Official and clever interpreters are needed.

Like liberal politicians and judges who destroy obvious meaning of the Constitution, so also the liberals have destroyed the meaning of the Bible. With their premises, they can make the Bible say anything -- even say that God loves homosexuality, even while calling it a sin. What other sin gets that high status -- even among the liberals.

Who gives a rip what the Anglican or TEC has written and voted on. It is the Bible that counts -- not the hidden and obscure Bible which no one can understand of the liberals, but the Bible that anyone can read and understand for himself.

I am sure RevKen cannot even begin to understand the blasphemy of calling himself a priest of the order of Melchizedek. He is that far away from understanding the Bible.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#10 Oct 24, 2012
Listen to the Word wrote:
Now we know REvKen's real problem. He identifies himself as "Priest after the Order of Melchizedek." If he had even an ounce of biblical knowledge he would know that is a title reserved for Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest. He evidently thinks he is Jesus Christ -- sort of a Rev. Moon thing.
He complains that Aist is diverting the issue by using the title "Gay Theology" to descrine the "Teachings of Jesus Christ." Possibly he means his own teaching as the current priest after the order of Melchizedek. RevKen and his ilk want people to believe that the Bible is the most pro-gay book in the world -- inspite of its obvious meaning. The pro-gay aspect of the Bible is so concealed and hidden behind the obvious words that one needs super intelligent people -- like the new priest after the order of Melchizedek -- to tell the stupid laymen that there are hidden meanings and contexts behind the words. Like the pope in the Catholic church, RevKen and his ilk believe that the average person cannot read the Bible and gets its obvious meaning. Official and clever interpreters are needed.
Like liberal politicians and judges who destroy obvious meaning of the Constitution, so also the liberals have destroyed the meaning of the Bible. With their premises, they can make the Bible say anything -- even say that God loves homosexuality, even while calling it a sin. What other sin gets that high status -- even among the liberals.
Who gives a rip what the Anglican or TEC has written and voted on. It is the Bible that counts -- not the hidden and obscure Bible which no one can understand of the liberals, but the Bible that anyone can read and understand for himself.
I am sure RevKen cannot even begin to understand the blasphemy of calling himself a priest of the order of Melchizedek. He is that far away from understanding the Bible.
Wrong again, Mr. He Who Does Not Listen.

All of the priests of Jesus Christ are ordained after the Order of Melchizedek. Read your Bible.

Genesis 14
Matthew 10
Mark 6 & 9
Luke 10
John 3, 4
Acts 1,2,6
Hebrews 6 ...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#11 Oct 24, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Relevance is a matter of your personal perception, Ouja.
It's relevant because it is not based on supernatural, invisibility, speaking in tongues, appearing to a select group etc, etc. Mostly based on facts.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#12 Oct 24, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!....
I think I had better write Fitz a letter. He is clearly getting off the track ...
Fitz is fine, but you and TEC have clearly jumped the rails.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#13 Oct 24, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Fitz is fine, but you and TEC have clearly jumped the rails.
LOL!!!....

Sez you!

What I wrote stands.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#14 Oct 25, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!....
Sez you!
What I wrote stands.
We'll see how well it "stands" at Judgement Day.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#15 Oct 25, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
We'll see how well it "stands" at Judgement Day.
I have some questions about your religion, when I ask them, no one seems to be able to answer them, so I will try asking them here in this forum.

Your religion has a 'judgement day'. Buddhism doesn't. It cant be both ways. That leaves approximately 1198 other gods that the world recognizes as 'real'. What happens if one of the the other gods decides to have a 'judgement day' before your particular god does? It is impossible to have more than one 'last day'.

Hoping for more of an answer than, it's a spiritual thing, or that we will be whisked away to another planet, or as in case of the mormon god, a planet is being prepared.

Thank you.

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#16 Oct 25, 2012
Ouja wrote:
Your religion has a 'judgement day'...
... so does all three major monotheisitic religions, none of which practices, or even takes into account, polytheism.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who Is Allah? (Aug '07) 4 min bmz 211,930
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min StarC 573,663
Officer in gay pride parade incident speaks out 4 min Rizzo 52
Why this obsession with what gay people do in b... (Jan '13) 8 min Rizzo 146
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 13 min Eagle 12 4,765
Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 15 min CantHideTheTruth 412,377
Finnish Public Broadcasting To Read Entire Qura... 15 min bmz 14
More from around the web