NationStates Jolt Archive

When Anglican Church forefather Richard Hooker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hooker_%28theologian%29) wrote about 'inclusiveness' in church theology, he was attacked for not being orthodox enough with salvation through faith alone, and he simply meant that maybe even ignorant Catholics were saved by Christ sacrifice. What would Richard Hooker think now about his 'Inclusiveness' church coming to this?

Two gay priests 'marry' in London church (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080614/lf_afp/britainreligionanglicangays;_ylt=AllCRQDmqWJcUmD1NNDg8rQ7Xs8F)

Have they gone too far? Have they not gone far enough? Are the non Episcopalian Americans right*?

(*Americans think that the Anglican Church was really just founded so a monarch could be promiscuous and get rid of one too many wives, so the Anglican Church was always about sexual sin and immorality anyways and this just proves it?)

Is this preacher's nickname "Rich Hooker"?

Is this preacher's nickname "Rich Hooker"?

I don't think so. :p Makes me wonder if the American civil war general Hooker (the one that we get the name for prostitutes from) was related to this guy somehow though... Someone should look it up.

Have they gone too far? Have they not gone far enough?

I expect others will follow. And, hopefully, this will prompt the church leaders to reassess the issue before they lose many clergy to other churches.

Are the non Episcopalian Americans right*?

(*Americans think that the Anglican Church was really just founded so a monarch could be promiscuous and get rid of one too many wives, so the Anglican Church was always about sexual sin and immorality anyways and this just proves it?)

I'm not sure how two examples 'proves' the whole of the Anglican Church is immoral. Several churches in Britain, America, and other countries, are already giving marriage services for same-sex couples, this is not a new thing.

Maybe a split is the only way forward for the Anglican Church now. I've always said that a unified church is better than a split one, but it is clear that this issue has reached an impasse.

You're not going to convince the conservatives that homosexuality is not a sin, and we are continuing to compound an injustice by allowing them to hold the church back in the name of unity.

I say push forward with gay rights, and if they decide to leave as a result, then that is the sad consequence. But we are guilty by our inaction if we refuse to push the issue.

I don't think so. :p Makes me wonder if the American civil war general Hooker (the one that we get the name for prostitutes from) was related to this guy somehow though... Someone should look it up.

Historical Note:
The common term for prostitutes 'hooker' does not come from General Hooker's surname. The term originates from the 'hook district' in Baltimore MD that was frequented by women of the night.

no id have to say that it makes the anglican church LESS involved in sexual sins.

these men got married. that takes any sexual activity between them from a sin to sanctified by the church.

thats nice.

Historical Note:
The common term for prostitutes 'hooker' does not come from General Hooker's surname. The term originates from the 'hook district' in Baltimore MD that was frequented by women of the night.

No it originates from Corlears Hook in NY.

No it originates from Corlears Hook in NY.

I had the city wrong.. happens... *hides*

No it originates from Corlears Hook in NY.
No it's from Paris where prostitutes would pretend to fish so they didn't get arrested for loitering while waiting for clients.
I'm fairly sure this isn't true, just muddying the waters

There is some evidence to suggest that it really comes from a much older British low slang term for a specialist thief who snatches items using a hook. In 1592, in a book on low-life called The Art of Conny Catching (conny or cony, the old word for a rabbit, was then a cant term for a mark or sucker), Robert Greene says that such thieves, “pull out of a window any loose linen cloth, apparel, or else any other household stuff”. The implication is that the hooker catches her clients by similar, albeit less tangible, methods.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-hoo4.htm

Maybe a split is the only way forward for the Anglican Church now. I've always said that a unified church is better than a split one, but it is clear that this issue has reached an impasse.

You're not going to convince the conservatives that homosexuality is not a sin, and we are continuing to compound an injustice by allowing them to hold the church back in the name of unity.

I say push forward with gay rights, and if they decide to leave as a result, then that is the sad consequence. But we are guilty by our inaction if we refuse to push the issue.
I can understand this

Not being of faith it still seems logical to me, I understand there is a wish to keep the church unified but sometimes the cost is too high of doing so.

no id have to say that it makes the anglican church LESS involved in sexual sins.

these men got married. that takes any sexual activity between them from a sin to sanctified by the church.

thats nice.

I guess technically they were joined in a "Civil Union" and that distinctions seems to make some difference in how the issue is being addressed by those in the church.

"Married' can't be a cure all excuse for any sexual relationship you want to participate in though, or else 'marriage' will become synonymous with, everyone I've ever copulated with before, or hereafter.

Sidenote: saw this somewhere else...
"Tell me, Archbishop, what does the Anglican Church stand for?"
"Just about anything, really." :p