Written by Michael F. Bird |
Monday, July 15, 2024
I got several earnest messages informing me that my facts were out of date. The motion went to TEC’s legislative committee where it was rejected, it did not reach the house of deputies or bishops for a formal vote. If I had known that, I would certainly have said so, but none of the research I found gave me the result of the legislative committee. Also, I should add, that many episcopalians have criticized the motion and affirmed monogamous relationships as the norm. So TEC is not going to affirm polyamorous relationships any time in the immediate future!

Polyamory is wrong!
Why? Because it combines a Greek prefix with a Latin suffix.
It should be polyphilia (Greek) or multi-amory (Latin).
You can’t put Greek and Latin syllables together, stick them in a 1970s lounge with some Barry Manilow playing, and watch them have group sex! Who wants to cuddle up with a guy called Georgio Berlusconipopodoplous and his girlfriend Stephani Metaxacelli? I say, keep your Greek and Latin separated by the Adriatic Sea!
Forgive the humour, but The Episcopal Chuch (TEC), that house party of progressive boomers, has now reached the point where they are considering polyamorous relationships even among their clergy.
A resolution for TEC’s general convention was that:
That the 81st General Convention urge Bishops, Standing Committees, and disciplinary authorities to exercise pastoral compassion and discretion during the 2024-2027 triennium with those clergy and laity who disclose the diverse ways in which they are forming family and household structures that seek to be holy, faithful and lifegiving, pending a review by the Task Force to Study Household and Relationship Diversity of the application of Canons I.17.5, and III.1.2 across the Episcopal Church with respect to marital status and family status.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Michael F. Bird |
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
The Parable of the Prodigal Son is striking in how it exemplifies Jesus’ overall mission and message. For Williams, Jesus was more than a religious talent and literary master. His teaching was part of a messianic career, climaxing in his death and resurrection, a career that was part of the story of God’s plan to create and renew the world. As Williams suggests, Jesus’ genius if rooted in both his identity and his origin: he came from God and he is God. 

It’s wrong to reduce Jesus to a moral teacher or mere philosopher. Jesus was not a wordsmith selling word salads, nor a crank peddling new ideas, nor a sophist showing off his rhetorical verve, nor an intellectual establishing his own academy à la Plato. Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, even “Immanuel.” Be that as it may, while Jesus is more than a teacher, he is certainly no less than one, and his teaching remains poignant, powerful, and challenging even today. This is where The Surprising Genius of Genius: What the Gospels Reveal About the Greatest Teacher by Peter J. Williams comes in. Williams’ thesis is that Jesus is just as much a genius as Aristotle, Mozart, or Einstein. Jesus’ teaching contains “impressive factual knowledge” along with an “impressive depth of insight, coherence, and simplicity.” For Williams, the Christian revolution that rocked the Roman world and birthed western civilization goes back to the “genius” of Jesus.
Williams takes as Exhibit A Jesus’ Parable of the Prodigal Son found in Luke 15:11–32. The genius of Jesus is evident, claims Williams, by virtue of three things found here. First, the sheer cleverness of the parable itself. It’s the third of three parables about lost things: lost sheep, a lost coin, and then a lost son. These parables serve to defend why Jesus dines with the “deplorables,” sinners, and tax collectors, much to the consternation and disapproval of the Pharisees and scribes. Williams points out that the story is both brief and beautiful, creates tension, and mentions family, a farm, famine, pigs, poverty, and a fattened calf. The ingratitude and indulgence of the younger son makes us angry; we’re then shocked and surprised by the mercy of his father, and even sympathetic to the anger and jealousy of the older son. Yet, as Williams notes, the story is not really about the prodigal but about the older son, because he, just like the Pharisees and scribes, refuses to join the celebration that someone lost has been found, as in Jesus’ fellowship with sinners. The lost son’s redemption is not the main point; he is but a prop to show the hard-heartedness of Jesus’ critics, who think they possess “a greater share of God’s favor”—a brilliant narrative bait and switch.
Second, the parable alludes to and echoes various Old Testament stories. Jesus was no trained scribe, but he was able to weave in allusions and echoes of the Old Testament in ways that might have impressed even the “experts.” In particular, Jesus’ parable rehearses many themes and key motifs from the Book of Genesis. To begin with, there are a number of OT characters who had two sons, most notably Isaac (Esau and Jacob).
Read More
Related Posts: