Riff Raff Welcomed at Pomotheo!

It appears the problems over in the States with conservative Anglicans and their liberal counterparts (the leader of the Anglicans is a far far far left liberal) is heating up. (BTW, Anglicans in the states are called Episcopalians in case you were wondering.)

Bishop Katharine Boots Conservative Nominee.

Let's face it, we don't know the particulars behind why he was booted. Obviously he doesn't enjoy marrying same-sex couples (which the bishop loves to do). I think it's funny that left-wing Episcopals use the bishop's middle name 'Jefferts' instead of Katharine as if it makes her more manly....

Careful, pastors, the world is watching

If you're pastor hold 5.5 million dollars in estate off your back then you can guarantee a) he will be judged severely, b) your church has no idea how to help the poor, c) you don't do mission work ($500 a year?!), d) you should find another church. It appears some from the Prayer Palace in Toronto are getting duped.

Canadian Benny Hinh Link

The majority of Anglican leaders demanded that the US Episcopal Church unequivocally bar official prayers for gay couples and the consecration of more gay bishops to undo the damage that North Americans have caused the Anglican family.

After a tense six-day meeting, the leaders said that past pledges by Episcopalians for a moratorium on gay unions and consecrations have been so ambiguous that they have failed to fully mend "broken relationships" in the 77 million-member Anglican Communion.

The Episcopal Church, the U.S. wing of world Anglicanism, must clarify its position by Sept. 30 or its relations with other Anglicans will remain "damaged at best." The debate erupted in 2003 when Episcopalians consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Let's get this straight, Gene Robinson (forget he's gay for one minute), is a BISHOP (meaning in charge of pastors), admits he has a relationship outside of marriage and it's OK?! Please, regular people can see through that problem and I am willing to make the jump that the Episcopal church will slowly die out like all the rest of the mainline denominations.

Anglican traditionalists believe gay relationships violate Scripture and they have demanded that the U.S. church adhere to that teaching or face discipline. Funny thing is, Episcopals (some not all) will use the same passages to support their case.

Supporters of ordaining gays believe biblical teachings on justice and inclusion should take precedence.

The convention rejected proposals for a churchwide liturgy for gay partners. However, a small number of US dioceses have moved toward developing local prayers and some dioceses have allowed priests to conduct the ceremonies privately.

The advocacy group Integrity, which represents Episcopal gays and lesbians, accused the leaders of bigotry, and urged Episcopalians to lobby their bishops to reject the demands.

Anglican leaders called on all sides in the conflict to end their lawsuits and recommended the creation of a pastoral council and a special vicar to oversee the minority of conservative U.S. dioceses and parishes that feel they cannot accept Jefferts Schori's leadership. Among the goals of the plan is to create an alternative so U.S. parishes stop affiliating with overseas Anglicans — a violation of communion tradition.

Sanctity of Marriage Lost in Lutheran Church

Another gay minister plays by his own rules.

We've all heard the stories of the gay minister popping up here and there. They found out they were gay and everyone accepted them for who they were. Well, I'll go out on a limb and say, 'fine, you want to play that game fine'.

Struggling with homosexual tendencies is one thing, but when is it OK for Christian ministers to be gay AND to have a gay partner? The same people who are supposed to uphold the sanctity of marriage are themselves acting against it. I can imagine how the spirituality of these congregations are thrown for loops cause their leaders/shepherds run amok with heresy.

Southern Baptists issue doctorate to woman then fire her.

Let me get this straight, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary provided theologian Sheri Klouda with her doctorate, provided her with a teaching position, and later fired her for being a woman. I guess somebody with a lot of money feels women (in this case woman) are incapable (based on the Bible I'm sure) to teach theology and/or original languages.

I can't help but note a hint of hypocrisy going on, not only with SBT but throughout evangelical denominations in general. You'll also note the progression of this whole 'females in ministry' debate. Before, women couldn't teach anything, then they could teach kids. Before women couldn't teach men, and then recently they could teach in Bible Colleges and even seminaries. Now, women can't teach theology and original languages.... Sorry if this sounds strange, but clearly the 'paradigm' shift will slowly move to accept women as suitable teachers.
In my opinion, if the Lord bestows the spiritual gift of teaching to a woman there's nothing in Scripture preventing her from doing so and nothing a church committee can determine that trumps the gift of God.

You know, this debate kinda sounds like, among other examples, a bit like the Jehovah Witnesses? Right now they won't allow blood transfusions--many have died. In the past they wouldn't even allow vaccinations! Of course that changed as time moved on, one expects the same to occur with blood transfusions (maybe even birthdays). I surmise so will this topic of women in ministry/teaching.

One bit from the article that caught my eye was the last paragraph. "Sheri Klouda is not a pastor, she has not been ordained or licensed, she does not perform ministerial duties. She is a professor, for heaven's sake," Wade Burleson said. "The same institution that conferred her degree and hired her has now removed her for gender. To me, that is a very serious, ethical, moral breach."

This brings up a very good point. Why would you grant a degree to someone if they can't teach anywhere? Is that not theft by the institution, taking the money from students when they know very well they'll never have opportunity to get at job? If women can't be ordained/teach then why on earth do denominations take their money in Bible Colleges and Seminaries?

To further complicate the matter, many women who can't get ordained here move to mission work overseas. Funny thing is, in the mission field they act as ministers in the absence of men performing the normal duties of ordained male ministers with full blessings from denominations. However, once they come back to the 'cultured' first world nations with the 'we know better here' attitude, they are relegated to backbenchers.

Your thoughts? Further discussion to be held in the Pomo Forum.