Drell’s Descants

No, the point is that there have been at least five posts so far that failed to recognize that the Bible does have something to say about polygamy, and it is negative. This is the same type of logic used in how we have gone about other issues in the church - divorce after remarriage, marital relations for clergy (like the serial monogamy issues we constantly glaze over), homosexuality, sex before marriage, you name it.

We just say nothing in the Bible prohibits this. We just ignore the inconvenient passages of the Bible.

Yes, polygamy is degrading for women and is not good for society. But, guess what, the Bible supports that position, and even iterates that it isn’t too good for the man, either.

Brad Drell
Lay, Western Louisiana

In light of the latest debacle on polygamy. No, there is nothing in the Bible that speaks against that…

They aren’t revising anything.  Not in any conventional sense of the word.

For years, it has been bandied about on this listserv and in the Anglican blogosphere by Episcopal liberals that Archbishop Peter Akinola was full of baloney because he took the stance he did on homosexuality but had glazed over the polygamy in his midst.  Both were as unbiblical as each other, and so on.

Additionally, I have personally pointed out that the acceptance of homosexuality in the church per se required that acceptance of polygamy (or polyarmory as we like to call it in our church)by the same theological logic.

Now, the list is complaining that Archbishop Akinola is banning polygamy.  Oh, and doesn’t see anything wrong with polygamy.  What happened to “holy pairs” and “upholding fidelity in relationships outside of marriage”?  Out the window.

Oh, My God.

I told you all that polyamory would be next.  And so the time has come.  I can’t wait to read the proposed blessing of the quad liturgy at GC2009.

Brad Drell
Lay, Western Louisiana

Oh, and just in case you really thought the Bible had nothing to say about polyamory/polygamy:

“Each man should have his own wife (singular word), and each woman her own husband (singular word). [I Corinthians 7:2]

“He must not take many wives” [Deut 17:17].

Moses’ law said, the king “shall not multiply horses to himself… Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold” (Deuteronomy 17:16-17).

If the Bible is so groovy about polygamy, how come:

Abraham’s household was fractured because of jealousy between Hagar and Sarah.
Jacob also endured spousal rivalry.
David’s adulterous tendencies was his downfall, as he approached Bathsheba.
Solomon’s many wives were a snare to him and drew him into idol worship:

1 Kings 11:1-11 reads as follows

1    King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s
daughter–Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.
2    They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites,
“You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn
your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to
them in love.
3    He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines,
AND HIS WIVES LED HIM ASTRAY.

There is not one passage in the Bible that blesses polygamy, while the problems are pointed out at length.

Not everything recorded in the Bible is approved by the Bible.

In Memory of Bishop H.B. Dehquani-Tafti

Alice C. Linsley

The first Iranian Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Iran, the Rt.Revd Dehquani-Tafti died on Tuesday, April 29 at his home in Oakham - England. He was consecrated in Jerusalem on St. Mark’s day, April 25, 1961. I remember him from my time at St. Luke Anglican Church in Isfahan, Iran. The Bishop’s residence was on the grounds of the same complex that housed the church, a hospital, and a school for blind children.

Some may remember the story of Bishop Dehqani-Tafti’s miraculous escape from death in October 1979 when he and his wife were shot at while still in bed. The Bishop had barely awaked to find the barrel of a revolver pointed at his head. Shots rang out and his wife, Margaret, was wounded as she threw herself across the bishop. Then she pursued the fleeing attackers, her wounded left hand dripping blood through their house. The Bishop looked at his pillow and saw four small bullet holes surrounding the place where his head had been.

Months later, Margaret was shot in the side and left to die on her bed, but she survived when her neighbor, Paul Hunt, the C of E priest who catechized me in 1976, was able to get her to the hospital.

The chief priest in Isfahan, Arastoo Syah, had been brutally murdered in the parish church in February 1979 and most of the missionaries who ran the hospital and schools had been forced to leave. Church properties and files were confiscated and false charges were brought against many Iranian Anglicans. Then in May 1980, the Bishop’s only son, Bahram, was carjacked and driven to the desert where he was executed.

Bishop Dehquani-Tafti was a good man who suffered much for the sake of the Gospel. In his book The Hard Awakening, he wrote: “The Cross of Jesus Christ . . . has often been misunderstood. Instead of being a symbol of suffering and sacrificial love, it has been regarded by some as the symbol of possessions and power. Christians must reverse this, and the only way of doing so is to be ready to suffer for love’s sake, in weakness not in power. The only remedy for a false view of the Cross is the Cross itself.”

Bishop Dehqani-Tafti’s funeral will be held at Winchester Cathedral on May 14th. May God grant him a place in his eternal Kingdom with all the saints. Amen.

For more information:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2008/5/2/ACNS4397

From here:

MEMORANDUM TO: Working Group April 21, 2008

FROM: [Redacted]

RE: Canonical Violations

This memorandum evaluates whether the Presiding Bishop has violated the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church and what procedures would be applicable for charging her with a presentable offense. This memorandum identifies at least eleven violations of TEC’s constitution and canons by the Presiding Bishop in her dealings with Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin. Taken together, these actions demonstrate willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor. In the case of DSJ, the fundamental polity of TEC as a “fellowship of duly constituted dioceses” under the ecclesiastical authority of the diocesan bishop has been subverted. The memorandum then addresses the procedural requirements for filing charges against the Presiding Bishop.
I. Canonical Violations By the Presiding Bishop

This memorandum does not address the possibility of charges against the Presiding Bishop for “[h]olding and teaching publicly or privately, and advisedly, any doctrine contrary to that held by this Church” under Canon IV.1(c) or the “open renunciation” of the discipline of the Church under Canon IV.9.1, both of which have different procedures than those discussed below. This memorandum is limited to whether the Presiding Bishop has violated the constitution and canons of TEC in recent actions she has taken against Bishops Cox, Schofield and Duncan and the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Canon IV.1 provides that:

“A Bishop, Priest, or Deacon of this Church shall be liable to
Presentment and Trial for the following offenses, viz.:
…
(e) Violation of the Constitution or Canons of the General Convention.”

This memorandum outlines several violations of the constitution and canons that would provide a basis for filing charges against the Presiding Bishop. For purposes of discussion, these violations are considered in three groups: first, those related to Bishop Cox; second, those related to Bishop Duncan; and third, those related to the Diocese of San Joaquin.
Bishop Cox

Because the issues related to Bishop Cox involve a close reading of Canon IV.9, this canon is quoted here in full for ease of reference:

Sec. 1. If a Bishop abandons the communion of this Church (i) by an
open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of this
Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in
communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising episcopal acts in and
for a religious body other than this Church or another Church in
communion with this Church, so as to extend to such body Holy
Orders as this Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such
religious body Confirmation without the express consent and
commission of the proper authority in this Church; it shall be the duty
of the Review Committee, by a majority vote of All the Members, to
certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop and with the certificate to send
a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment,
which certificate and statement shall be recorded by the Presiding
Bishop. The Presiding Bishop, with the consent of the three senior
Bishops having jurisdiction in this Church, shall then inhibit the said
Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the
matter and act thereon. During the period of Inhibition, the Bishop
shall not perform any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts, except
as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese
of which the Bishop holds jurisdiction or in which the Bishop is then
serving.
Sec. 2. The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith
give notice to the Bishop of the certification and Inhibition. Unless
the inhibited Bishop, within two months, makes declaration by a
Verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts
alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon
IV.8 or Canon III.12.7, as applicable, the Bishop will be liable to
Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the
statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or
acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a
good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed
the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the
advice and consent of a majority of the three senior Bishops consenting
to Inhibition, terminate the Inhibition. Otherwise, it shall be the duty
of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops
at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by
a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give
its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the
Ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more
Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

Facts Relevant to Bishop Cox

The Review Committee identified in Canon IV.9 certified to the Presiding Bishop on May 29, 2007, that Bishop Cox had abandoned the communion of TEC. This certification was based on a letter from Bishop Cox to the Presiding Bishop offering to resign from the House of Bishops. Upon receiving the certification from the Review Committee, the Presiding Bishop did not confer with the three senior bishops of TEC or seek to inhibit Bishop Cox as required by the canon. She took no action until January 8, 2008, seven months later, when she sent Cox a letter advising him that he would be deposed under Canon IV.9 absent a retraction or denial within two months. Unlike the cases of Bishops Schofield and Duncan, none of the above facts was disclosed publicly by the Presiding Bishop.

Continue reading ‘The Memorandum Regarding The Potential Presentment Against The Presiding Bishop’

Perhaps she learned something from her Easter debacle about cow flatulence leading to drowning Fijians:

In this season: Pentecost 2008
A Letter to The Episcopal Church

My brothers and sisters in Christ,

As we come to the end of Eastertide and the feast of Pentecost, we shift to an awareness of God present with us in Holy Spirit. The early church marked that gift as inspiration, fire, and language — the breath of ever-new life and the burning desire for ongoing relationship with God. That gift of Holy Spirit keeps us lively and moving, bears us into new territory and challenges unsought.

In this as in every age, we face issues of identity, vocation, and mission as members of the Body of Christ. Entering the long season of Pentecost brings our focus to how we, too, will follow Jesus inspired by Holy Spirit. I would like to offer a few reminders about identity, vocation, and mission that I shared recently with the people of the Diocese of San Joaquin:

1) Jesus is Lord. In the same sense that early Christians proclaimed that Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord, remember that no one else — not any hierarch, not any ecclesiastical official, not any one of you — is Lord. We belong to God, whom we know in Jesus, and there is no other place where we find the ground of our identity.

2) We are all made in the image of God. Even when we can’t see that image of God immediately, we are challenged to keep searching for it, especially in those who may call us enemy.

3) In baptism we discover that we are meant to be for others, in the same way that God is for us. This means that God’s mission must be the primary focus, not anything that focuses on our own selves to the exclusion of neighbor. For when we miss the neighbor, we miss God.

4) None of us is alone. We cannot engage the fullness of God’s mission alone, nor know the fullness of God’s reality alone. Together as members of the Body of Christ, we can begin to try. And the Spirit, burning fire, inspiring breath, and speaking in many tongues, is present in that Body, empowering and emboldening and strengthening our work. Thanks be to God who continually makes us new.

Your servant in Christ,

+Katharine Jefferts Schori

Good for them.

However, with a vote of 501-417, the United Methodist Church is not out of the revisionist woods yet.

“Thus speaketh Christ our Lord to us,
‘You call me Master and obey me not;
You call me the Way and walk me not;
You call me life and live me not;
You call me wise and follow me not;
You call me fair and love me not;
You call me rich and ask me not;
You call me eternal and seek me not;
If I condemn you, blame me not.’”
-Engraving on the wall of a German cathedral

“Do all the good you can. By all the means you can. In all the ways you can. In all the places you can. At all the times you can. To all the people you can. As long as ever you can.”

John Wesley