some notes in revesing a third draft

african xianity is as old as anything else--augustine grew up in hippo which is in the northern sudan, the copts were missiomized by paul...and anglican africans are older or as old as canadians. (as well, the idea of a core idenitiy called homosexual is 100 yrs olf;the idea of a core idenity called anglican is 500 years old; the core idenitity of something called african christian is 1700 years old; and the core identity of something called christian is 2000 yrs old--chronology actually usually trumps in these cases)

you cannot deny that imposing a western order of sexaul orientation (and violating the first concept of the anglican union--ie the seperation of primacies, and the decentralizing of authority is massive) and non religous folks keep thinking that how people interept the bible doesnt really matter and those poor homosexuals are more impt. then that)

and no one has said outloud that gene robinson is a grandstanding fool, griswold is an arrogant prick, robinson doesnt seem to understand the subjective natu re of sexuality and alonski(sp--the nigerian) tends towards petty biogtry.

also, we tend to forget--when using the same seven proof texts--that the idea of pair bonding and patriachy, is infused in he scirpute, it is deeply important and difficult tradtion--and one tha sustains and makes holy the idea of how a man and woman love each other--like a river thru the old and new testemant (ie christ said nothing about sexual ethics, but he did attend the wedding feast of canna and he did bless the wine; or abram and sarah;the consquences of bathsheba and the heart break of anselem; adam and eve and the adulterus serpent; the song of songs...)

where this leaves me as a queer, i havent figured out---the other half is actually styming me...