Mensch und Kirche

Diskussionsforen für Themen des Alltags mit Schwerpunkt religiöse und soziale Fragestellungen
Aktuelle Zeit: 16. Juli 2020 03:53

Alle Zeiten sind UTC + 1 Stunde [ Sommerzeit ]




Ein neues Thema erstellen Auf das Thema antworten  [ 46 Beiträge ]  Gehe zu Seite Vorherige  1, 2, 3, 4  Nächste
Autor Nachricht
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 21. Februar 2007 20:29 
Offline

Registriert: 2. Februar 2007 17:22
Beiträge: 1401
"Sollen die Alt-Katholiken einfach zuschauen -- oder doch die Ärmel hochkrempeln und die Verbündeten unterstützen?"


Da kann ich dir nur recht geben! Eine solche Unterstützung setzt aber voraus, dass die Altkatholiken eine KLARE Position einnehmen, die dem aktuellen Stand der humanwisenschaftlichen Forschung in Ländern wie den Niederlanden, der Schweiz und Deutschland entspricht.

Keinem ist damit geholfen, wenn die AKK aus kirchenpolitischen Überlegungen heraus schweigt, wenn zum Beispiel Homosexuelle in afrikanischen Ländern als "verhext" bezeichnet werden.

Es gibt einen "point of no return"!


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 21. Februar 2007 21:25 
Offline
John Der Echte

Registriert: 6. Oktober 2005 15:33
Beiträge: 3003
Wohnort: Mitten in Deutschland
Aldo1 hat geschrieben:
Da der Erzbischof von Canterbury aus kirchenpolitischen Gründen vor den Afrikanern eingeknickt ist, wird es in der Anglikanischen Gemeinschaft zu diesem Punkt keine Fortschritte, ja stattdessen sogar nur Rückschritte, geben!


Geduld, Geduld. Wir haben gerade mal seit gut zehn Jahren Frauen als Priesterinnen in der C of E, man kann auch keine Wunder sofort erwarten.

Daß der Erzbischof eingeknickt ist, stimmt so übrigens nicht. Das Primates Meeting wird von ihm einberufen, aber er ist nicht der "Chef", der bestimmen könnte, was und wie entschieden wird. Remember: This is NOT the Roman Catholic Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT the Anglican Pope!

Seine Aufgabe ist nicht, seine eigene theologische Überzeugung durchzusetzen, sondern nach Möglichkeit den Laden zusammenzuhalten...

Gruß
JHN


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 21. Februar 2007 22:10 
Offline
techAdmin
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 2. Oktober 2005 14:58
Beiträge: 2669
Wohnort: Potsdam
Aldo1 hat geschrieben:
"Sollen die Alt-Katholiken einfach zuschauen -- oder doch die Ärmel hochkrempeln und die Verbündeten unterstützen?"

Da kann ich dir nur recht geben! Eine solche Unterstützung setzt aber voraus, dass die Altkatholiken eine KLARE Position einnehmen, die dem aktuellen Stand der humanwisenschaftlichen Forschung in Ländern wie den Niederlanden, der Schweiz und Deutschland entspricht.

Keinem ist damit geholfen, wenn die AKK aus kirchenpolitischen Überlegungen heraus schweigt, wenn zum Beispiel Homosexuelle in afrikanischen Ländern als "verhext" bezeichnet werden.

Es gibt einen "point of no return"!


Nun, man kann Stellung auf diversen Arten nehmen. Als Beispiel, ECUSA kann zwar einerseits auf die Bischofsweihe von Homosexuellen in Partnerschaften vorerst verzichten, aber doch die Wissenschaft in diesen Fragen fördern und verbreiten, Stellungen zur Homosexualität beziehen -- und aus pastoralen Gründen Homosexuelle in allen sonst möglichen Wegen willkommen heißen, allerdings nicht "offiziell". (EDIT: Damit meine ich z.B. die Einführung neuer Liturgie, Bischofsweihen usw., nciht aber offizielle Stellungnahmen.)

Die Weihe eines offen homosexuellen Bischofs (einer, der auch noch geschieden war) war die reinste Provokation. Das war in Hinsicht nicht besonders klug, egal wie nett oder spirituell +Gene sein mag. Das hat uns Liberalen also recht wenig gebracht. Hätte man etwas vorausschauend gedacht, hätten wir diese ganze Bunkermentalität auf beiden Seiten vermieden, vielleicht sogar so weit, dass die Segnungsliturgie einfach durchgegangen wäre. Wer weiß?

Also "kirchenpolitisch" ist ein dehnbarer Begriff. Man kann einerseits auf bestimmten geistlichen Handlungen für eine Zeit verzichten (etwa die Veröffentlichung einer offiziellen Partnerschaftssegnung-Liturgie), damit man die anderen nicht provoziert, aber andererseits kann man trotzdem seine Position klar machen -- und "unter uns" aus pastoralen Gründen einfach weitermachen. Das scheint mir schlauer zu sein und hält den Ball flach.

Daher denke ich, es wäre ein Fehler, wenn Alt-Katholiken die Annäherung mit Anglikanern meiden, geschweige davon, auf Distanz zu Anglikanern gehen. Nicht nur wegen der Einheit der Kirche, sondern gerade in Krisenzeiten brauchen sich Freunde umso mehr.

Cheers,

John

_________________
Meine Website /// My blog (in English) – theology and other things
Der Beweis, dass Gott einen Sinn für Humor hat: Er hat die Menschheit geschaffen.


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 24. Februar 2007 01:59 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 1. Oktober 2005 20:17
Beiträge: 1928
Wohnort: Notzingen
Die Vorsitzende des "House of Deputies" der Episcopal Church weist darauf hin, dass die von den Primassen verlangte Stellungnahme durch das "House of Bishops" bis September gegen die Verfassung der Episcopal Church verstoßen könnte:

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_82783_ENG_HTM.htm

House of Deputies president Bonnie Anderson issues statement on Primates' communiqué

Friday, February 23, 2007
[Episcopal News Service] Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, has issued a statement on the recently concluded Primates' Meeting and the resulting communiqué.

The full text of Anderson's statement follows.

As I read the Communiqué from the Primates' Meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, I am deeply troubled by its implications for the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion.

I continue to offer the Primates my affection, prayer and companionship along the way of the Cross and I respect their leadership of our Communion. Their Communiqué, however, raises profound and serious issues regarding their authority to require any member Church to take the types of specific actions the Communiqué contemplates and whether they have authority to enforce consequences or penalties against any member Church that does not act in a way they desire. The type of authority for the Primates implicit in the Communiqué would change not only the Episcopal Church but the essence of the Anglican Communion.

The polity of the Episcopal Church is one of shared decision making among the laity, priests and deacons and bishops. The House of Bishops does not make binding, final decisions about the governance of the Church. Decisions like those requested by the Primates must be carefully considered and ultimately decided by the whole Church, all orders of ministry, together.

Some are asking whether the Primates can ask our House of Bishops to take certain actions and put a deadline on their request. Yes, they can ask. There are larger questions that need to be addressed, including: Is it a good idea for our House of Bishops to do what they have asked? Is the House of Bishops the right body within the Episcopal Church to respond to the Primates' requests?

Our baptismal promise to seek and serve Christ in all people must be very carefully considered when we are being asked as Episcopalians to exclude some of our members from answering the Holy Spirit's call to use their God-given gifts to lead faithful lives of ministry. Our promise to strive for justice and peace and respect the dignity of all people binds us together. The Episcopal Church has declared repeatedly that our understanding of the Baptismal Covenant requires that we treat all persons equally regardless of their race, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities, age, color, ethnic origin, or national origin.

To honor all of the Primates' requests would change the way the Episcopal Church understands its role in the Communion and the way Episcopalians make decisions about our common life. Our church makes policy and interprets its resolutions and Canons through the General Convention and, to a lesser extent, the Executive Council.

As president of the 800-plus member House of Deputies, it is my duty to ensure that the voice of the clergy and the laity of our Church will be heard as the Church discusses and debates the Primates' requests and that that process will not be pre-empted by the House of Bishops or any other group. I have already begun to work toward that end.

All Anglicans must remember that the second Lambeth Conference in 1878 recommended that "the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members."

This has been the tradition of the Anglican Communion. To demand strict uniformity of practice diminishes our Anglican traditions.

Our tradition of autonomous churches in the Anglican Communion, that come together because of our love of Christ and our common heritage, has allowed us to focus on mission and evangelism to our broken world which is in desperate need of the Good News of God in Christ. In recent times, however, we have spent too much of our time, talent and treasure debating if we ought to deny some people a place at the table to which Jesus calls us all. Instead, we must listen to each other – really listen and not just read reports – so that we can hear the voice of the Holy Spirit moving through all of us and calling us to be more faithful.


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 24. Februar 2007 02:13 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 1. Oktober 2005 20:17
Beiträge: 1928
Wohnort: Notzingen
Und eine weitere Stellungnahme dazu, nämlich des Bischofs von Rochester:

-----Original Message-----
From: rochesterepiscopalchurches@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:rochesterepiscopalchurches@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
revcarolyn935
Sent: 23 February, 2007 11:31 AM
To: rochesterepiscopalchurches@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [rochesterepiscopalchurches] From Bishop Jack M. McKelvey

Friends:

Much has been written and many questions have been asked in the aftermath of
the meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion in Tanzania.

No one at this point can state categorically what all this means. I
acknowledge a feeling of having been buffeted one more time by bishops who
don't understand the call or polity of The Episcopal Church.

Allow me a few comments.

• What is asked of The Episcopal Church in the Communiqué is
something the bishops of the church cannot deliver. We are governed as a
church not just by bishops, but by bishops in concert with laity and clergy
in our General Convention. We are much more democratic in polity than many
understand. We are different than other parts of the Communion.

• Some of what is asked of us would violate our canons. Our
canons do not restrict who will be ordained as it relates to human
sexuality. As a matter of fact, many of us are pleased and have worked hard
to be a broad church. I will continue to work to maintain that.

• Our Standing Committee has, along with me, affirmed that we
desire to be governed by our national canons.

• I continue to be impressed and encouraged by the ministry of
our gay and lesbian members, and I will support them and their work. Their
ministry enriches us all. I will not abandon them.

• My experience indicates that our gay and lesbian clergy and
lay people are encouraged and emboldened by their caring partners in
relationship. Their quality of life and commitment stands up well beside
that of heterosexual couples in a marriage relationship. I will work to
help other people appreciate the gifts of our gay and lesbian clergy and lay
members and their ministries.

• We must continue to do all in our power to help others
appreciate the theological work we have done in regard to our understanding
of marriage and human sexuality. There are aspects of our church's
teachings and polity which we cannot compromise.

Finally, I heard a wonderful quote by Leonard Cohen, a respected songwriter,
at our Ash Wednesday Service at Diocesan House. It speaks well to our
situation when it states "All of us are cracked people, and yet it is
through the cracks that light shines."

Let us all hold on to our faith commitments, and hold on to one another.

Faithfully,



The Rt. Rev. Jack M. McKelvey
VII Bishop of Rochester


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
BeitragVerfasst: 27. Februar 2007 20:45 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 1. Oktober 2005 20:17
Beiträge: 1928
Wohnort: Notzingen
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_82669_ENG_HTM.htm

A Season of Fasting: Reflections on the Primates Meeting

Tuesday, February 20, 2007
[Episcopal News Service]

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori offered the following reflections following the February 15-19 meeting of Anglican Primates near Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

- - - - - - - - - -

A Season of Fasting: Reflections on the Primates Meeting

The recent meeting of the Primates in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, was a challenging one. Fourteen new primates joined the group; three longer-serving primates were unable to be present. It was a great joy to meet and begin to know a number of the primates, and to renew friendships with others. While much of our time and energy was focused on the Episcopal Church, several other agenda items were of considerable interest to many of those who gathered.

The Design Group for an Anglican Covenant submitted an initial draft for consideration by the Primates' Meeting, which in turn commended it to the Communion for consideration, debate, and revision before the Lambeth Conference next year. This covenant is a further step in the Windsor process, engaged in the understanding that all human communities need boundaries in order to function. Anglicanism has always valued a rather wide set of boundaries, and boundaries are a central issue in the current debate - where are they, and how wide a space can they contain? The Covenant in its current draft attempts to define what the essentials and non-negotiable elements of Anglicanism might be, and how the Communion might live together in diversity.

The new United Nations observer, Hellen Wangusa, was installed during our meeting, and also led a discussion on the Millennium Development Goals. The Goals are directed primarily toward the governments of this world, both those in the developing world, who will have to design the systems to implement the goals, and the governments of the developed world, which are asked to contribute 0.7% of their annual incomes. She challenged us to recognize that these goals only go part way toward achieving full healing in the world, and that our own vision is of a world entirely reconciled and healed in God.

We also heard about the work being done on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion (TEAC). This body has produced thoughtful and creative, outcome-based guidelines for theological education of our baptized and ordained members.

The highlight of our meeting was the visit to Zanzibar and the remembrance of the end of the slave trade. We worshiped at the Anglican Cathedral in Zanzibar, built over the old slave market. Slavery was outlawed in British Empire in 1807, but it took another 90 years for the trade in Zanzibar to finally come to an end. Anglicans were a profound influence all through that period, and the Sultan of Zanzibar only signed the final treaty when faced with British warships in the harbor. David Livingstone is commemorated here for his tireless efforts to put an end to the ancient and inhuman practice of slavery. The struggle to end slavery has some parallel with our current controversy, and we can note the less than universal agreement about the moral duty of Christians over a lengthy period. The United States also experienced major division over slavery, even though the Episcopal Church did not fully divide. Some see that part of our history as shameful, while others see it as a sign of hope, and that, too, has current parallels.

We traveled home from this meeting at Carnival, the farewell to meat (carne vale) that comes just before Lent begins. That is an image that may be useful as we consider what the Primates' gathering is commending to the Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has been asked to consider the wider body of the Anglican Communion and its needs. Our own Church has in recent years tended to focus on the suffering of one portion of the body, particularly those who feel that justice demands the full recognition and celebration of the gifts of gay and lesbian Christians. That focus has been seen in some other parts of the global Church, as inappropriate, especially as it has been felt to be a dismissal of traditional understandings of sexual morality. Both parties hold positions that can be defended by appeal to our Anglican sources of authority - scripture, tradition, and reason - but each finds it very difficult to understand and embrace the other. What is being asked of both parties is a season of fasting - from authorizing rites for blessing same-sex unions and consecrating bishops in such unions on the one hand, and from transgressing traditional diocesan boundaries on the other.

A parallel to this situation in our tradition might be seen in the controversy over eating meat in early Christian communities, mentioned both in the letter to the Romans and the first letter to the Corinthians. In those early communities, the meat available for purchase in the public market was often part of an animal that had been offered (in whole or in part) in sacrifice in various pagan religious rites. The troubling question in the Christian community was whether or not it was appropriate to eat such meat - was it tainted by its involvement in pagan religion? Did one participate in that religion (and thus commit apostasy) by eating it? Paul encourages the Christians in Rome and Corinth to recall that, while there may be no specific prohibition about eating such meat, the sensitive in the community might refrain if others would be offended. The needs of the weaker members, and the real possibility that their faith may be injured, are an important consideration in making the dietary decision.

The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict understanding of the biblical tradition and to the main stream of the ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters, and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol. Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.

God's justice is always tempered with mercy, and God continues to be at work in this world, urging the faithful into deeper understandings of what it means to be human and our call as Christians to live as followers of Jesus. Each party in this conflict is asked to consider the good faith of the other, to consider that the weakness or sensitivity of the other is of significant import, and therefore to fast, or "refrain from eating meat," for a season. Each is asked to discipline itself for the sake of the greater whole, and the mission that is only possible when the community maintains its integrity.

Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice, others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics. Each is being asked to forbear for a season. The word of hope is that in God all things are possible, and that fasting is not a permanent condition of a Christian people, nor a normative one. God's dream is of all people gathered at a feast, and we enter Lent looking toward that Easter feast and the new life that will, in God's good time, be proclaimed.


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
BeitragVerfasst: 27. Februar 2007 20:47 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 1. Oktober 2005 20:17
Beiträge: 1928
Wohnort: Notzingen
A Response to: A Season of Fasting: Reflections on the Primates Meeting,
the Presiding Bishop’s message to the Church


FROM: The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire

I have the utmost regard and respect for our new Presiding Bishop. Her
leadership in these difficult times, not to mention her sheer courage,
continues to inspire me. As I vowed at her investiture as Presiding
Bishop, I will do everything I can to support her in this ministry. That
includes disagreeing with her views when I think it would build up the
Body. What follows are my responses to those portions of her
communication to the American Church dealing with the demands/threats made to The
Episcopal Church related to those members of Christ’s Body who happen to be gay.
Allow me to offer a different reading/critique of our Presiding Bishop’s words,
and then propose a different way forward.

“What is being asked of both parties is a season of fasting – from
authorizing rites for blessing same-sex unions and consecrating bishops in
such unions on the one hand, and from transgressing traditional diocesan
boundaries on the other.”

I am reminded of the joke about the chicken and the pig, each asked to
contribute to breakfast – the chicken’s eggs require a significantly
smaller sacrifice than the pig’s bacon! Let us be clear: what is
being asked of both parties is “a season of fasting from” accepting
the Church’s gay and lesbian people as full members of the Body of
Christ, a season of fasting from “respecting the dignity of every human
being.” If The Episcopal Church decides to do that, let’s call it
what it is: a sacrifice borne most sacrificially by its gay and lesbian
members.

[In citing the early church’s debate over dietary laws] “The needs of
the weaker members, and the real possibility that their faith may be
injured, are an important consideration in making the dietary decision.”

If there ARE “needs of the weaker members, and the real possibility that
their faith may be injured,” they belong to the faithful members of the
Church – in The Episcopal Church AND around the Anglican Communion –
who are being denied full membership in the Body of Christ because of
their same gender love. Is there even a single instance in which Jesus
was willing to forego ministry, love and inclusion of the marginalized in
order to protect the “sensitivities” of the Pharisees and Sadducees?!
What would Jesus’ reaction have been to those same Pharisees and
Sadducees if THEY had claimed to be the victims of Jesus’ insensitivity?

“The current controversy brings a desire for justice on the one hand
into apparent conflict with a desire for fidelity to a strict
understanding of the biblical tradition and to the main stream of the
ethical tradition. Either party may be understood to be the meat-eaters,
and each is reminded that their single-minded desire may be an idol.
Either party might constructively also be understood by the other as the
weaker member, whose sensibilities need to be considered and respected.”

There are MORE than TWO parties here. I would maintain that NEITHER the
Episcopal Church NOR the vast majority of the Churches represented by the
Primates are the “weaker members.” Rather I would say that the
“weaker members” are those gay and lesbian members of the Church of
Nigeria, whose Church is supporting the criminalization of all association
between them in their country. The “weaker members” are the gay and
lesbian members of the Episcopal Church, who have to go looking –
sometimes in vain – for a congregation who will accept them as full
members of the Body of Christ. The stronger/weaker dichotomy is NOT
between The Episcopal Church and the rest of the Anglican Communion, but
between the Anglican Communion in all its manifestations and the gay and
lesbian Christians around the world trying to find a place within it. For
the first time in its history, and at the hands of the larger Communion,
The Episcopal Church may be experiencing a little taste of the irrational
discrimination and exclusion that is an everyday experience of its gay and
lesbian members.

“Each party in this conflict is asked to consider the good faith of the
other, to consider that the weakness or sensitivity of the other is of
significant import, and therefore to fast, or ‘refrain from eating
meat,’ for a season. Each is asked to discipline itself for the sake of
the greater whole, and the mission that is only possible when the
community maintains its integrity.”

I certainly believe Paul when he says that no part of the Body can say to
another, “I don’t need you.” On the other hand, I don’t ever
recall Jesus saying that the “greater whole” is the be all and end
all. Doesn’t Jesus challenge the greater whole to sacrifice itself for
those on the margins? Preaching good news to the poor, binding up the
broken hearted, releasing the prisoners and proclaiming the year of the
Lord’s favor involves SACRIFICE on the part of the greater whole.
That’s part of what angered his own hometown synagogue when he preached
these powerful words from Isaiah. Touching the leper required SACRIFICE
of ancient and firmly held beliefs. Eating with sinners was a SACRIFICE
of the greater whole’s sensitivities. I would humbly submit that such
sacrifice is the only way that our “community maintains its
integrity.”

“Justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy always go together in our biblical
tradition. None is complete without the others. While those who seek
full inclusion for gay and lesbian Christians, and the equal valuing of
their gifts for ministry, do so out of an undeniable passion for justice,
others seek a fidelity to the tradition that cannot understand or
countenance the violation of what that tradition says about sexual ethics.
Each is being asked to forbear for a season.”

Where is the “justice, (steadfast) love, and mercy” for the Church’s
gay and lesbian people in this threat from the primates? While the vast
majority of the Anglican Communion AND the vast majority of Episcopalians
may be willing to “forbear for a season,” the world’s gay and
lesbian Anglicans long to hear the words spoken to Jesus at his baptism:
“You are my beloved. In you I am well pleased.” Who will speak those
words to them, while the rest of the Church forbears for a season? How
will we explain this “forbearance” to all those gay and lesbian
Christians who have come to The Episcopal Church because, for the first
time ever, they have believed that there is a place for them AT God’s
table, not simply BENEATH it, hoping for fallen scraps? Are THEIR souls
not worthy of salvation too? Does anyone relish the notion of trying to
explain all this “forbearance” to GOD?

Allow me to offer an additional reading of scriptural references to
“fasting.” In addition to St. Paul's “pastoral” fasting, should
we not also consider Isaiah’s notion of “prophetic” fasting?

4Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to strike with a wicked fist.
Such fasting as you do today
will not make your voice heard on high.

6Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of injustice,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
7Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover them,
and not to hide yourself from your own kin?
(Isaiah 58: 4, 6-7, NRSV)

Fasting that focuses only on the self is not, in Isaiah’s mind, the most
pleasing to God. For the past many months, the Episcopal Church and the
Anglican Communion has spent far too much time and money and focus on this
debate. I believe that the majority of us – certainly in The Episcopal
Church, and possibly in the Anglican Communion as well – want to set
this aside and get on with the work of the Gospel. What would it be like
if we fasted in the way that God, through Isaiah, suggests: to fast from
our internal squabbling for a season, and turn our focus to the world’s
homeless, hungry and poor, in this and every land? What if we focused on
what we say is our top priority – ministry to a world in pain through
the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals – and simply fasted
from this self-focus?

The changes in our polity proposed by the Primates can only properly and
canonically be responded to by the laity, clergy and bishops gathered in
General Convention in 2009. The Primates’ demands can be seriously,
prayerfully and thoughtfully considered at that time. What if we stated,
simply and calmly, that the Primates’ September deadline is impossible
under our polity, and pledge ourselves to feeding, housing, and clothing
the poor and binding up the physical and spiritual wounds of the world’s
neediest for this season, until 2009? What if we gave up our internal
squabbling for a season, took no precipitous action, and turned our focus
to the world that Jesus Christ gave his life for?

This way forward may not be acceptable to many in the Communion who want
this settled now, once and for all. So be it. Nothing we do will settle
this once and for all. Does anyone believe that our full compliance with
the Primates’ demands, our complete denunciation of our gay and lesbian
members, or my removal as bishop would make all this go away?! We cannot
determine what the response to our actions will be. We can only decide
what our faithful response will be to the demands made of us.

If the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury to our prophetic fasting
should result in our not being invited to the Lambeth Conference, then let
us offer that denial as part of our fasting. Let us dedicate the diocesan
and personal resources that would have been spent on Lambeth to projects
involved in furthering the Millennium Development Goals.

During the debate over the consent to my election, I am told that the
Bishop of Wyoming noted that not since the civil rights movement of the
60’s had he seen the Church risk its life for something. Indeed, I
think he is right. This is such a time. A brief quotation hangs on the
wall of my office: “Courage is fear that has said its prayers.” Now
is the time for courage, not fear.

I pray that in the days ahead, as the Executive Council meets in Portland,
the House of Bishops meets in Texas, and the General Convention (the ONLY
body which has the authority to respond to the demanded changes in our
polity) meets in 2009, that we contemplate our call to “proclaim the
year of the Lord’s favor” to those who have been denied it for so long
and commit ourselves to the kind of fast that is pleasing to the Lord.

------------------------------------------------------------

A Word of Hope to my lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters in Christ:

From: +Gene Robinson

================

In light of the recent Primates Meeting and our Presiding Bishop’s
communication to the Church, I received the following plea from a dear and
trusted sister:

“Gene, I don't know how you are this night, or if you can summon a word
of hope, but the eyes of many LGBT people and our faithful allies are
looking to you, tuning the ears of our hearts to hear where you see the
hand of God in what feels like deep, deep betrayal.”

After a good number of sleepless nights and prayerful days, let me tell
you where this gay man and Bishop of the Church stands, with respect to
our beloved Church and our trustworthy and faithful God:

Let’s remember that, for now, nothing has changed. The Episcopal Church
has been bold in its inclusion of us, “risking its life” for us in
dramatic ways over these last few years. Not perfect, but bold. Just
because The Episcopal Church has been invited to subvert its own polity
and become a Church ruled by bishops-only, a Church that is willing to
sacrifice the lives and ministries and dignity of its gay and lesbian
members on the altar of unity, does not mean that we are going to choose
to do it. That is yet to be determined. Let’s not abandon hope simply
because that is possible. The Primates have the right to make requests of
us (nevermind the threatening tone of those requests). We do not have to
accede to those requests in exactly the terms in which they are made.

Nothing is surprising in this development. None of us thought this issue
was settled, did we? None of us expected our detractors to stop their
efforts – whether their goals be genuinely about the authority of
scripture and its playing out in our lives as Christians, or whether those
goals have more to do with power and money and influence. (BOTH are
represented in the actions taken.) We are fighting a larger battle here.
As you have heard me say before, we are engaged in the beginning of the
end of patriarchy. Did any of us believe that such a battle would be won
without resistance? Did any of us believe there would be no more bumps in
the road? Did any of us foresee smooth sailing into the future?

We still have countless allies. We are not engaged in this struggle alone.
There are countless heterosexual members of this Church who now “get
it.” They have heard our stories, felt our pain and taken up our cause
as their own. There are countless heterosexual families who have joined
The Episcopal Church (they are numerous in my own diocese) because they
want to raise their children in such an inclusive Church. There are
countless lgbt people who have come to our churches for the comfort and
solace and grounding in Christ that we offer – and we dare not lose hope
or momentum for them as well as ourselves.

Most importantly, God is still with us. And by “us,” I don’t just
mean gay and lesbian people. God is still with God’s Church – frail,
cowardly and misguided as it can sometimes be, human nature being what it
is. The Church is not ours to save or lose – the Church belongs to GOD,
and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I believe that we are
meant to use the institution of the Church – yes, even boldy risk its
existence – to further NOT our own agenda, but the agenda of God. I do
not equate the two. Our vision of the Church is only partial; our grasp of
what God wants is as susceptible to our self-focused distortion as anyone
else’s. But we are called to witness to OUR vision of God’s will and
combine it with all the other imperfect visions of God’s will (yes, even
those of our detractors), and come up with as perfected a vision as we can
muster. The Church has been wrangling over those different visions since
its inception – and that will never change. The question for US,
however, is: Will we continue to put forward faithfully and respectfully
and tenaciously OUR vision into that mix, or will we be intimidated into
doubting our own vision of God’s will for the Church – or worse still,
leave?

God will continue to show forth God’s glory and God’s goodness in our
lives. The reason that we have made progress with our brothers and sisters
in the Church is that GOD has shown forth God’s glory and goodness in
our lives so strongly, that God cannot be denied at work in us. Many of
the faithful have changed their views on homosexuality because they see
GOD showing up in our lives, our ministries, our relationships and our
families. That is the witness we can and must continue to make to the
Church – not pointing to ourselves, but to the God we know in our lives.
As I have said before, and will continue to say: JESUS is our agenda –
the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins,
and the sins of the whole world, so that we might know God’s love and
goodness in our lives. In the end, God will reign, and all will be well. I
believe that with my whole heart.

Lastly, I give thanks every day to God for the fellowship we share. Part
of what gives me relentless hope is my fellowship with YOU. What an honor
and privilege it is to hold you in my heart as brothers and sisters in the
faith, colleagues in ministry and faithful members of the Church. Can you
imagine a more wonderful, fun and courageous group of “companions along
the way?” Let our joy, our humor, our devotion to the Lord and to His
Church be signs of the abundant life given to us in Christ. Let gay and
lesbian people everywhere witness our joy, let them wonder how we can be
so hopeful in the face of such overwhelming odds against us, that they
want what we’ve got – a relationship with the living God that brings
deep joy and abiding peace. Let us be ready to tell them the story of our
own salvation at the hands of a loving God. And let us welcome them into
our blessed fellowship, the Church.

I don’t know if this is the “word of hope” my friend asked for. It
has little to do with events in Tanzania or even the Episcopal Church, and
everything to do with God. But it is the hope that keeps me going. My
faith is not in myself or in our “cause.” My faith is not in the House
of Bishops or the General Convention to get it “right” anytime soon.
It is, rather, the faith that people of countless generations and
innumerable circumstances have found in our loving and trustworthy God. It
is the faith Jesus said it was “blessed” to be persecuted for. It is
the faith that Christians have always found in the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ – and God’s desire, willingness and power
to bring an Easter out of ANY Good Friday. It is the faith that in and
through the Holy Spirit, God continues to fulfill God’s promise “to
lead us into all truth.”

I may utterly fail; I will undoubtedly disappoint God in my inability to
be the person God created me to be; I will predictably confuse my own will
with God’s will. But whatever the next weeks, months and years may
bring, whether the Episcopal Church “comes through” for us or not, GOD
will not fail, GOD will never disappoint, and GOD will never cease to
pursue God’s will for my life – and yours – and for the world.


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
BeitragVerfasst: 6. März 2007 10:55 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 1. Oktober 2005 20:17
Beiträge: 1928
Wohnort: Notzingen
ein sehr lesenswerter Beitrag des Bischofs i.R. von New Hampshire
(Bischof Douglas Theuner ist der Amtsvorgänger von Bischof Gene Robinson, dessen
Wahl ein Anlass für die ganze Streiterei war)


The “Other” Issue … Or is it the Primary Issue?
by the Rt. Rev. Douglas Theuner, retired bishop of New Hampshire

[An earlier version of this essay has appeared on some blogs and websites. We have
Bishop Theuner's permission to post this revised version here.]

http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/2 ... euner.html

While the world is watching the issue of full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgendered people in the life of the church being played out in the back
rooms of the Anglican Communion, another, and for the Anglican Communion perhaps
more important, issue is rising to the fore. As the world to which the church is
called to bear witness moves slowly but inexorably toward greater understanding
and acceptance of a variety of sexual orientations and behaviors, the most
significant long-term issue for the Anglican Communion may actually be that of
authoritarianism; an element of Christian communal life long distrusted in
Anglicanism. In today’s world the death throes of authoritarianism and its
partner, patriarchy, seems to have focused for the churches in the area of full
acceptance of women and men, regardless of their sexual preference or orientation,
as well as their race, ethnicity, age or abilities and even creed.

The Anglican Communion was born in the rejection of monarchical and aristocratic
authority in the American Revolution – a rejection fostered not by the church but
by the political milieu in which it existed. A large portion of the Church of
England’s devotees in the American colonies were Loyalists, opposed to the
overthrow of the British monarchy as the legitimate power in this country.
Deprived of a functioning episcopate for two centuries, the English-speaking
church in America was faced with effective separation from the Church of England
by virtue of the fact that the hierarchy of that body refused to pass on to the
church in the newly independent colonies its historic episcopate. After all, those
colonies had just successfully rebelled against the King of England, the head and
Governor of the Church of England. No matter that perhaps a majority of the Church
of England clergy had remained Loyalist during the Revolution, including Samuel
Seabury, a Revolutionary War chaplain to the British Army, who was refused
Episcopal ordination by the English hierarchy. The English bishops could not
accede to the American request, thereby necessitating Seabury to seek ordination
from the non-juring bishops of Scotland – a move that was successful more for
political reasons than specifically religious ones. Once the American Church had
received its own episcopate from Scotland with possible further implementation
from the established Church of Denmark and the Moravians, the English had no other
option than to have parliament waive the political aspects of the ordinal (i.e.,
subjection to the crown as head and Governor of the Church) and provide further
ordination for American bishops by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Thus was what came to be known as “the Anglican Communion,” founded essentially as
a result of American initiative. The Church of England decided that it would be
more expedient to retain a relationship with the now independent Americans that to
let them go off on their own; a lesson from history which today’s Archbishop of
Canterbury and the other provinces of the Communion might well find instructive
today. The sun set of the British Empire in the United States a long time ago, yet
the Episcopal Church there has retained the “bonds of affection” for its mother
institution.

Now after some two centuries of collaboration, the Anglican Communion, a
world-wide group of autonomous provinces in communion with the Archbishop of
Canterbury, we begin to hear talk of new and hitherto unimagined entities, the
so-called “Instruments of Unity”; the Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative
Conference and, most recently, the “Primates’ Meeting,”, in addition to the
Archbishop of Canterbury. From whence did these entities spring and why are they
necessary? The answer to the first question is that they initially sprang, as
“Instruments of Unity,” from a reaction to the Episcopal Church’s decision to
ordain women to the priesthood and, ultimately, the episcopate – the clearest
threat yet to the patriarchy with which the communion had so comfortably rested
for centuries. And, as those who were opposed to the ordination of women from the
beginning so clearly and correctly pointed out, that factor opened the door for
questioning the whole basis of sexuality as the determinative factor in acceptance
and leadership.

The answer to the second question follows easily. The first and most obvious
reaction to any institutional threat is authoritarianism. The patriarchs have
“circled the wagons” in response to this threat to their authority.

But authoritarianism has always rested uneasy within Anglicanism. Historically,
the Archbishop of Canterbury has been respected among those who identify
themselves as Anglicans as “the first among equals." He has had no control over
the actions of any autonomous province, much less does any newly created identity
like the “Primates’ Meeting”; a new comintern with the obvious purpose of control
and through the enforcement of conformity. It has cut its eye teeth in Dromantine
and Dar es Salaam, by fashioning itself effectively as an “Instrument of
Disunity”. If there is indeed anything “new under the sun,” it is certainly not
homosexuality within the church’s life but it may well be the so-called
“Instruments of Unity”! Not even honesty about its life is wholly new in the
Church. It is this fundamental change in the exercise of authority – and
patriarchy – that is the long-term issue facing the Anglican Communion.

But the immediate concern is presented as the full acceptance of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered people in the life of the church. Because the lives of
individual people must always be of foremost concern to the Church, as it was to
our Lord Jesus Christ, these people cannot simply be “put on hold” until the
communion works out its ecclesial problems, as important as they are. But, at the
same time, until the church deals with the issues of patriarchy and
authoritarianism it will never be a body in which" . . . there may be no
dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one
another.”…”if one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is
honored, all rejoice together with it.” (1 Corinthians 12:25-26)

I have always been one to caution against the facile use of the term “homophobic,”
as it seems there are many reasons why some people refuse to affirm gay, lesbian,
bi-sexual and transgendered people other than “fear of homosexuals.” But
homophobia is very real in many cases as, I believe, in the current actions of the
Archbishop of Nigeria in championing the criminalization of homosexuals in his own
country. I simply cannot understand how some American Episcopalians willingly
place themselves under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of a person who espouses
such egregious evil. For years the American Episcopal Church and the Lambeth
Conference have passed resolutions decrying discrimination of the basis of sexual
orientation, as have other provinces of the Anglican Communion. Why are the
primates not calling Archbishop Akinola to task for his blatant and hurtful denial
of the dignity of every human being?

I suspect that if the “Instruments of Unity” were to call the Archbishop of
Nigeria to account for his behavior, it would be left, once again, to the American
Episcopal Church to initiate such action. But, the American Episcopal Church does
not see the Anglican Communion as an “Instrument of Conformity." We must bear
witness to that which we hold but it is not ours to use authoritarianism to try to
force others to bend to our understanding. Archbishop Akinola does not understand
this, but we do. That is who we are and where we stand. We are not just a church
of gay, lesbian and transgendered people; we are a church committed to “respect
the dignity of every human being,” according to the primary covenant which ought
to govern our lives, that of our baptism into the Body of Christ from which no one
can exclude us except our Lord Himself.

Fasting from decision making during this period of Lent is an excellent
penitential discipline. Then, I think the House of Bishops meeting in September
ought to pass a “mind of the house” resolution asking the Presiding Bishop to
convey to the Primates of the Anglican Communion that it has received their advice
and counsel from Dar es Salaam and has given it prayerful and thoughtful attention
and that it looks forward to being with them at Lambeth in 2008 for further
discussion of these matters and others relating to the mission of the Church
today. Nothing further should be required or is likely to be either helpful or
honest.


Revised 3/4/07 -- Douglas E. Theuner


Nach oben
 Profil  
 

R.I.P.
BeitragVerfasst: 21. März 2007 23:33 

Registriert: 7. März 2007 13:11
Beiträge: 2
Wohnort: Paderborn
Am 20.3. wurde die offizielle Antwort der Bischofskonferenz ("House of Bishops") der Episcopal Church (USA) auf das Communique (man kann es auch Ultimatum nennen) von Daressalam veröffentlicht, siehe den englischen Original-Text auf der Webseite http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_84148_ENG_HTM.htm

Ich halte dies für einen sehr bedeutsamen Text, er ist wohltuend klar. Für die Webseiten der HuK (Ökum. Arbeitsgruppe Homosexuelle und Kirche) habe ich in Eile eine deutsche Übersetzung gemacht und an die Webseite mit dem Text von Daressalam angehängt. Wer will, kann auf http://www.huk.org/texte/anglikaner-dar ... e-2007.htm
nachlesen. Morgen werde ich es noch einmal durchsehen und wahrscheinlich noch kleinere Flüchtigkeitsfehler korrigieren, heute bin ich dazu zu müde.


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 22. März 2007 00:41 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 20. März 2007 21:58
Beiträge: 20
Wohnort: Leiden (NL)
Heute haben die amerikanische Bischöfe drei 'mind of the house'resolutions publiziert, worunter ein 'request' um Treffen mit dem ABC.
Ich hoffe, es kommt zu solchem Treffen. Übrigens, eine interessante Frage: wann ist Rowan Williams zum letzten Mal in Amerika gewesen und wie oft seitdem in den Diözesen von 'Global South'?

J.R. Kubacki Mitglied Anglican Church in Haarlem (Die Niederlande)


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 22. März 2007 02:07 
Offline
techAdmin
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 2. Oktober 2005 14:58
Beiträge: 2669
Wohnort: Potsdam
Wild OT, aber:

jaroslaw hat geschrieben:
J.R. Kubacki Mitglied Anglican Church in Haarlem (Die Niederlande)


Hurrah! Noch ein Anglikaner! Bald haben wir das Forum in fester Hand, und dann erobern wir die Welt! Muahahahahaha*kaff*kaff*

Äh, willkommen im Forum also! :-D

Cheers,

John

_________________
Meine Website /// My blog (in English) – theology and other things
Der Beweis, dass Gott einen Sinn für Humor hat: Er hat die Menschheit geschaffen.


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 22. März 2007 11:32 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 20. März 2007 21:58
Beiträge: 20
Wohnort: Leiden (NL)
Aber natürlich :wink: . Die Frage ist nur wie wir den Alt-Katholischen das gute Singen des Evensongs beibringen sollen :lol:
Danke für die herzliche Begrüssung :D


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 22. März 2007 13:49 
Offline
techAdmin
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 2. Oktober 2005 14:58
Beiträge: 2669
Wohnort: Potsdam
jaroslaw hat geschrieben:
Aber natürlich :wink: . Die Frage ist nur wie wir den Alt-Katholischen das gute Singen des Evensongs beibringen sollen :lol:


Ich werde nicht ruhen, bis die Alt-Katholiken ihre gesamte Liturgie in Anglican Chant machen! :-D

jaroslaw hat geschrieben:
Danke für die herzliche Begrüssung :D


Gerne! :)

Cheers,

John

_________________
Meine Website /// My blog (in English) – theology and other things
Der Beweis, dass Gott einen Sinn für Humor hat: Er hat die Menschheit geschaffen.


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags:
BeitragVerfasst: 22. März 2007 14:32 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 20. März 2007 21:58
Beiträge: 20
Wohnort: Leiden (NL)
Good luck :lol:


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
 Betreff des Beitrags: „Nazis gegen Heiden“
BeitragVerfasst: 23. April 2007 19:00 
Offline
Benutzeravatar

Registriert: 1. Oktober 2005 20:17
Beiträge: 1928
Wohnort: Notzingen
http://www.faz.net/s/RubFC06D389EE76479 ... ntent.html

Anglikanische Kirche

„Nazis gegen Heiden“

Von Matthias Rüb, Washington

11. April 2007
Alle Aufrufe zum Burgfrieden während der Fastenzeit vor der Karwoche waren umsonst. In Virginia, Colorado und anderen Bundesstaaten fechten verfeindete Gemeinden der amerikanischen Episkopalkirche Rechtsstreitigkeiten aus, in denen es um Liegenschaften und Kirchenbeiträge im Wert von Hunderten von Millionen Dollar geht.

Im Internet haben sich Blogger der beiden Fraktionen des amerikanischen Zweigs der Anglikanischen Weltkirche in einen weltanschaulichen Kampf verbissen, in dem die Konservativen von den Liberalen als Nazis und die Liberalen von den Konservativen als Heiden beschimpft werden. Während einige Bischöfe händeringend die Vertiefung des Risses aufzuhalten und die Einheit der Kirche zu bewahren suchen, kann anderen die Spaltung gar nicht rasch und tief und lautstark genug vonstatten gehen.

Die unaufhaltbare Dynamik des Streits

Der Dissens in der Episkopalkirche ist nicht neu, doch seit der Jahrestagung der Primasse, der Vorsitzenden Bischöfe der 38 Kirchenprovinzen der Anglikanischen Weltkirche, vom Februar in Tansania hat der Streit eine Dynamik bekommen, die nicht aufzuhalten scheint. Die Primasse stellten der Episkopalkirche ein Ultimatum, die konservativen Gemeinden des amerikanischen Zweigs der Anglikaner bis Ende September unter die Autorität der Primasse der Weltkirche zu stellen. Bei einem Treffen im texanischen Houston wiesen die amerikanischen Bischöfe die Forderung schroff zurück, weil damit die Prinzipien der Einheit, Unabhängigkeit und Selbstbestimmung der Episkopalkirche verletzt würden.

Zwischen der konservativen Anglikanischen Weltkirche, die 77 Millionen Seelen zählt, und der liberalen amerikanischen Episkopalkirche mit 2,4 Millionen Mitgliedern schwelt seit Jahren ein theologischer und politischer Streit, der zuletzt wegen der Weihe des offen homosexuellen Priesters Gene Robinson zum Bischof von New Hampshire im Jahre 2003 eskalierte.

Ein Gegenbischof wird gefordert

Zudem wählten die Bischöfe der Episkopalkirche im Juni 2006 Katharine Jefferts Schori zum ersten weiblichen Oberhaupt (Primas) der Kirche, während 13 konservative Kirchenprovinzen der Anglikanischen Weltkirche etwa in Afrika die Priester- oder gar Bischofsweihe von Frauen ablehnen, geschweige denn die von Homosexuellen.

Mindestens sieben der 110 amerikanischen Diözesen verweigern Bischöfin Jefferts Schori die Anerkennung und fordern den Ehrenprimas der Anglikaner, Erzbischof Rowan Williams von Canterbury, zur Einsetzung eines amerikanischen Gegenbischofs auf. Mehrere Dutzend der insgesamt 7600 Gemeinden - die Angaben reichen von knapp 50 bis zu mehr als 100 - haben in den vergangenen Jahren die Episkopalkirche verlassen.

Kaum Aussicht auf Erfolg

Die abtrünnigen Gemeinden, die sich als Hüterinnen des wahren Glaubens der Episkopalkirche und der Anglikaner in aller Welt verstehen, wollen ihre oft jahrhundertealten Kirchen und sonstigen Liegenschaften behalten. Doch bei den anstehenden Gerichtsprozessen dürften sie nach bisheriger Rechtsprechung kaum Aussicht auf Erfolg haben.

Erzbischof Williams bezeichnete die Zurückweisung des Ultimatums der Anglikanischen Weltkirche durch die Episkopalkirche als „entmutigend“ und sprach von „großen Herausforderungen“ für die Anglikanische Kirche, die sich im 16. Jahrhundert vom Vatikan abgespalten hatte und heute - nach der Römisch-Katholischen und der Orthodoxen Kirche - die drittgrößte christliche Kirchengemeinschaft der Welt ist.

Millonenschwere Kirchenprovinz

Zwar gehört die amerikanische Episkopalkirche zu den kleinsten unter den Kirchenprovinzen der Anglikanischen Weltkirche, aber sie ist reich und unterstützt mit ihren Dollarmillionen die seelsorgerische, karitative und soziale Arbeit der viel größeren und zudem dynamisch wachsenden Kirchen in Afrika und auch in Asien. Die Überweisungen vom Hauptquartier der Episkopalkirche der Vereinigten Staaten in New York in Höhe von jährlich mindestens 18 Millionen Dollar machen ein gutes Drittel des operativen Jahresbudgets der Anglikanischen Weltkirche aus.

Hinzu kommen weitere Millionen, die direkt von den amerikanischen Diözesen zu deren Schwesterdiözesen in der Dritten Welt für deren Kirchen, Schulen, Krankenhäuser und Missionarsstationen fließen. Bisher hat allein die Ugandische Kirchenprovinz das Geld aus Amerika zurückgewiesen.

Begräbnisfeiern für verstorbene Präsidenten

Die Episkopalkirche hat in der politisch-gesellschaftlichen Geschichte der Vereinigten Staaten eine bedeutende Rolle gespielt, die sie freilich allmählich zu verlieren droht. Fast jeder vierte amerikanische Präsident gehörte der Episkopalkirche an. Die „National Cathedral“ in der Hauptstadt Washington, die als „Nationales Haus des Gebets“ allen Konfessionen offensteht und auch als Ort von Begräbnisfeiern für verstorbene Präsidenten dient, ist zugleich und zuvörderst der Sitz des Primas der Episkopalkirche und des Bischofs der Diözese Washington.

Doch die Episkopalkirche - wie auch die anderen traditionellen protestantischen Kirchen wie Unierte, Methodisten und Lutheraner - stagniert seit Jahren oder verliert gar Seelen, während in den Vereinigten Staaten die freikirchlichen Megakirchen sowie Pfingstler, Mormonen und selbst die Katholische Kirche wachsen. Auch die afrikanischen Diözesen der Anglikaner gewinnen an Zulauf, etwa die inzwischen 17 Millionen Seelen starke Anglikanische Kirche in Nigeria unter dem führenden konservativen Bischof Peter Akinola, der sich als geistlicher Hirte für die abtrünnigen Gemeinden und Diözesen der Episkopalkirche angeboten hat.

Antikolonialistischer Impuls aus Afrika und Asien

Das geistliche Gravitationszentrum des Anglikanismus hat sich im vergangenen halben Jahrhundert vom Norden in den Süden verlagert, was dem Aufbegehren der ärmeren und „schrifttreuen“ Kirchen in Afrika und Asien gegen die reiche und „aufgeklärte“ Episkopalkirche in Nordamerika einen antikolonialistischen Impuls verleiht.

Obwohl Ehrenprimas Williams, der anders als der Papst nicht über doktrinäre Autorität in der Anglikanischen Weltkirche verfügt, und auch Bischöfin Jefferts Schori nach dem Treffen von Tansania eine Zeit der Einkehr während der Fastenzeit vor Ostern forderten, eskaliert der Streit innerhalb der Episkopalkirche weiter. Ende März verließ die „Grace Church St. Stephens“ in Colorado Springs, die größte anglikanische Gemeinde im Bundesstaat Colorado, die Episkopalkirche und schloss sich - wie die meisten abtrünnigen Gemeinden in anderen Bundesstaaten - der vom nigerianischen Erzbischof Akinola gegründeten und geführten Missionsdiözese „Versammlung der Anglikaner Nordamerikas“ an.

Wie im Bundesstaat Virginia, wo einige der ältesten und größten Gemeinden sich seit Jahresbeginn von der Episkopalkirche getrennt und Bischof Akinola angeschlossen haben, werden Gerichte den Streit ums Geld und um Immobilien in bester Stadtlage zu regeln haben.

Text: F.A.Z.
Bildmaterial: picture-alliance / dpa/dpaweb, REUTERS

Bild
Gene Robinson ist offen homosexuell und seit 2003 Bischof

Bild
Katherine Jefferts Schori wurde 2006 zum ersten weiblichen Oberhaupt gewählt


Nach oben
 Profil  
 
Beiträge der letzten Zeit anzeigen:  Sortiere nach  
Ein neues Thema erstellen Auf das Thema antworten  [ 46 Beiträge ]  Gehe zu Seite Vorherige  1, 2, 3, 4  Nächste

Alle Zeiten sind UTC + 1 Stunde [ Sommerzeit ]


Wer ist online?

Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 9 Gäste


Du darfst keine neuen Themen in diesem Forum erstellen.
Du darfst keine Antworten zu Themen in diesem Forum erstellen.
Du darfst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht ändern.
Du darfst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du darfst keine Dateianhänge in diesem Forum erstellen.

Gehe zu:  
Impressum

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Deutsche Übersetzung durch phpBB.de
Hosted by Uberspace