It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Episcopal church in LA to ordain 2nd gay bishop

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:45 AM

Episcopal church in LA to ordain 2nd gay bishop

LONG BEACH, Calif. - Seven years after the Episcopal Church caused an uproar by consecrating its first openly gay bishop, it's set to do the same thing again — only this time with a woman.

The Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool, of Baltimore, will be ordained and consecrated on Saturday, making her the second openly gay bishop in church history and one of the first two female bishops in the Diocese of Los Angeles' 114-year history.

The Rev. Canon Diane M. Jardine Bruce, of San Clemente, Calif., will also be ordained Saturday
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:45 AM
It's always nice to see religion updated to the times we live in.

I think it's great that they are willing to realize that you can be close to God and be a homosexual. These things should not conflict with each other.

What are your thoughts ATS?

Should religion continue to stick it's head in the sand, or should be encourage this sort of openess and acceptance.

After all, let he who has not sinned cast the first stone right?

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:49 AM
I don't see a problem with it, at all. The person being ordained is a human.

I don't think, however, that sex, in any way shape or form should have anything to do with religion.

Tolerance is one thing, and that comes with realizing that it takes all kinds to make up the human race.

Sex, or any issues pertaining to it, belong in the bedroom, not anywhere near a church, or any other religious institution.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by tothetenthpower

I never knew I would end up liking the Episcopalian's so much. They rock!

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:57 AM
I know I'll be stepping in it but us old schoolers should be entitled to our opinions, too. So please respect it.

I am against this for a few reasons. Yes, it is politically correct. But no matter how we roll the dice, it is not sound doctrine. We're told church leaders are to be 'above reproach.'

I see this as no different, in terms of what is identified as a sin according to our faith (I'm not going to debate that side topic- it's been done to death on ATS and I am firm in my stance after reviewing scripture) than a pastor openly engaged in adultery.

We all have our struggles and our temptations to over come- the Bible is very understanding of this, tells us to carry each other's burdens, do not judge each other until we remove the plank from our own eye, etc.

But things become very different once you assume a role of church leadership. This is why scandals involving church leaders become so huge- it's because biblically they are held to much higher standards than the regular congregation member.

Not that they will not be prone to temptation and fall just like the rest of us. But when you are openly flaunting it, it really does go against Biblical teachings concerning the strict standards of church leaders.

The above opinion is not politically correct but neither is the Bible.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by AshleyD


You say it's in the "doctrine" of the faith yet do I need to go down list by list what your doctrine says you should do that we don't do anymore?

As much as stoning people to death for a variety of idiotic reasons isn't done anymore, the fear and hate for homosexuals shouldn't be done anymore. And don't say it's because of your faith. It's because of your worldview that you refuse to evolve.

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by SpectreDC

Those are Old Testament Jewish laws. Another debate that has been done to death so I'm not going to get into here in length but the basic explanation is this. When Jesus fulfilled the law, we came under grace instead of the Law once He fulfilled the role of the ultimate sin atonement. So the laws about Kosher diets, legal punishments, priestly regulations, and the rest do not apply.

The Law was a legal rule for the Jewish people. It was not necessarily 'doctrine.' However, in the New Testament with the law fulfilled, we still see the only relationship ordained is between a man and a woman in the bonds of marriage. Not even just 'heterosexual' relationship which is why I used adultery as an example above.

So your reference to the Old Testament legalities does not apply here since that is not what I was referencing.

Oh, and it has nothing to do with 'fear and hate.' Sorry. Homosexuality doesn't faze me on a personal level. But I can objectively acknowledge sound biblical doctrine and the high standards that are set church leaders. This ordainment does not qualify.

Your arguments are emotion-based. I am setting aside my emotion and personal feelings to review this church action and how it compares with scripture. In this case, it is at odds. Sorry that offends your sensitivities.

[edit on 5/15/2010 by AshleyD]

new topics

top topics


log in