Conservative episcopals voting on alignment with a fascist archbishop

[dewdrop_world]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/us/17episcopal.html?hp&ex=1166331600&en=70416e45f97b7238&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Emphasis mine:

In Virginia, the two large churches are voting on whether they want to report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant. Archbishop Akinola presides over the largest province in the 77-million-member Anglican Communion; it has more than 17 million members, dwarfing the Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million.

:eek:

Not that American churches would try that in the US, but if they see a worthy role model in a spiritual leader who essentially advocates fascist suppression of gays and lesbians, then it reflects a moral compass gone horribly wrong.

I become more and more convinced that such religionists (I can't call them Christians) are so shrill about others' morality so as to deflect attention away from the rot in their own souls.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"... it's hard to imagine a much less Christian moral calculus than that. Indeed, I think this is why Jesus warned against thinking in terms of friends and enemies -- because it leads to this precise, deeply depraved point of view.

James

[suzer1013]

As a lifelong Episcopalian (minus a brief foray into the Methodist church), I have followed these stories with interest. The structure of the Episcopal church and its relationship to the Anglican communion is almost more than I can comprehend.

Those voting for schism should realize who they are aligning themselves with. I see in this the work of the IRD and other related groups. And, sometimes, I care not whether a small percentage of the Episcopal church decides to break away -- then the rest of us can get back to furthering Christ's teachings instead of arguing about GLBT people all the time.

What the schismatics should realize, though, is that they are aligning themselves with bishops in countries where things like epilepsy and autism are still considered witchcraft (and children with these diseases are routinely banished from villages), where female genital mutilation is accepted (though some officially denounce it, they turn their heads at the actual practice), and where people are jailed or executed for being gay. I'm not sure the average churchgoer in the U.S. realizes the implications of this alignment, or if they just are so uncomfortable continuing to welcome GLBT people in the church that they prefer the likes of Akinola.

If anyone is interested in following the Episcopal church workings more closely, I can recommend a few excellent blogs on the subject.

Susan

[BenL]

All this is couched in theological terms, but I can't help but feel that it sounds so much like a playground argument. Instead of taking one's ball and going home, it's church property. Larger scale, same difference.

The genius of the Anglican tradition has been for centuries that it is neither Catholic nor Reformed, but a combination of both. There was much blood shed to get to this "agreement to disagree agreeably," often credited to Elizabeth I. It was under her reign that the question was settled politically in England, but it was Richard Hooker's theology that gave it its shape, still recognizable in the Anglican Communion today.

George Washington served on the vestry of one of the churches mentioned in the article. As a product of the Enlightenment, he would not have recognized the conservative brand of Anglicanism favored by the current rector of the church. As a slaveholder he would have been aghast at the thought of being under the rule of an African bishop. Not that that is right or makes any difference in the current situation, but it does make for an ironic twist or two.

It is conservative evangelicals who are complaining now, but the argument has tipped back and forth between conservatives and progressives for years. But seceding from a diocese or from the national denomination is a new kind of hardball.

Neither extreme -- rabid conseratives or rabid liberals -- will win the day with the broad middle of the church. In my opinion, it is important for gay Episcopalians to remember this if they want to swing the denomination in favor of their inclusion at every level of hierarchy. The best way to convince folks that you belong is to take your place in ministry, shoulder to shoulder with other Episcopalians. Hatred of a class is most often overturned by love and respect for individuals. The strident tone of most conservatives is alienating the majority of people in the pews, who do not want to be so boxed in theologically.

The thoughts of an active gay Episcopalian.

BenL

[Daniel]

If anyone is interested in following the Episcopal church workings more closely, I can recommend a few excellent blogs on the subject.



Thanks Susan- Yes- interested. Please post away!

[suzer1013]

Hi Daniel! One of the best blogs I read is "Father Jake Stops the World." There's alot of interesting posts and much (often argumentative) commentary on his blog. I've found it very informative, though sometimes the comments keep beating a dead horse, so to speak.

http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/

Another good site, which hasn't been as active of late (I think simply because the bloggers are busy!) is The Episcopal Majority.

http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/

(I just looked, and it seems they've posted quite a bit today!)

For more "personal" takes on the situation, I enjoy Susan Russell's and Elizabeth Kaeton's blogs:

http://inchatatime.blogspot.com/

http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/

To be fair and present an opposing view, you can go to Kendall Harmon's blog. Though I can't stomach some of the commenters, his is one of the more tolerable sites from the conservative side. Be warned, it can get brutal there at times, but I think he does have someone "policing" the site for any comments that get too ugly.

{edit -- I forgot the link to Kendall Harmon's site: http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/ }

For a completely hilarious, witty and observant "take" on all things Anglican, go to Mad Priest. I've gotten many a chortle from him when things get to "hot" in the Episcopal waters.

http://revjph.blogspot.com/

Mad Priest also has fabulous taste in music. :)

Susan

[dewdrop_world]

After one of the usual suspects at umc.org cited the secession of the two Virginia congregations without any criticism of Akinola's extreme positions, I thought it was time for a little discourse over there on what passes for integrity in certain conservative circles.

---

Yes, the beginnings of a conservative Episcopalian alignment around Archbishop Akinola is one of the recent noteworthy news items of late. The other is James Dobson being caught in a lie in the pages of Time Magazine.

In the first case, it's certain that the archbishop holds many positions that American conservatives would find appalling and inhumane. But, it seems they are willing to latch onto the archbishop's intolerance of gays and lesbians, and because of this intolerance, they suddenly find room for plenty of tolerance of facets of his belief that could be called, frankly, fascist.

That smacks of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- which is about as cynical and un-Christian a moral calculus as I can think of.

The other observation to draw from this is that, as with former Congressman Foley, conservatives love to preach intolerance of what they perceive to be immorality in others, but when it's a fellow conservative, a member of the club, they're quite content to look the other way. Yes, I'm well aware that liberals do this too, but liberals don't make a big deal about how this kind of intolerance makes them morally superior, either. (Foley was not the only Republican hypocrite on Capitol Hill.)

In other words, intolerance, supposedly a sign of a morally upright believer, is corrupted by its linkage to ideological concord. The true Christian both challenges the presence of sin, and also forgives it -- for everybody, equally. She does not first decide who is a friend and who is a foe, and treat the two differently.

Now, Dobson -- in a recent editorial in Time magazine, he cited the work of two developmental psychologists, Carol Gilligan and Kyle Pruett, as evidence off the absolute need for a two-parent, heterosexual upbringing. Perhaps he thought that quoting liberal scholars would lend bipartisan support to his position. What happened instead is that both researchers have publicly denounced, vehemently and in no uncertain terms, his misrepresentation of their work.

Carol Gilligan wrote to Dobson:

Dear Dr. Dobson:

I am writing to ask that you cease and desist from quoting my research in the future. I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine. Not only did you take my research out of context, you did so without my knowledge to support discriminatory goals that I do not agree with. What you wrote was not truthful and I ask that you refrain from ever quoting me again and that you apologize for twisting my work.

From what I understand, this is not the first time you have manipulated research in pursuit of your goals. This practice is not in the best interest of scientific inquiry, nor does bearing false witness serve your purpose of furthering morality and strengthening the family.

Finally, there is nothing in my research that would lead you to draw the stated conclusions you did in the Time article. My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can’t raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households.

I trust that this will be the last time my work is cited by Focus on the Family.

Sincerely,

Carol Gilligan, PhD
New York University, Professor

Kyle Pruett wrote:

Dr. Dobson,

I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission. You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles.

There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, "What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex."

Kyle Pruett, M.D.
Yale School of Medicine

I can anticipate that conservative voices here will leap to defend Dobson, because, after all, gay parenting is so heinous that a small lie in its opposition must be morally justifiable. They will probably also change the subject to deflect attention away from the plain, indisputable reality that Dobson did, in fact, lie. He knows very well that these researchers don't support his views, and he deliberately made it sound like they do.

If the social science evidence in favor of his position is so strong, why would it be necessary to risk charges of intellectual dishonesty? If one is "proclaiming the truth" about homosexuality, wouldn't it be wise to avoid even the appearance of distortion? In the end, it only weakens his position and is self-defeating -- but he keeps on doing it, time and time again. Think carefully before trying to defend this.

It is, again, evidence of a cynical moral calculus: anything, even moral error, is justifiable if it opposes that which one believes God hates.

I think Jesus had it right: pray in secret, give alms in secret, keep your nose clean and don't cast the first stone unless you are without sin yourself. If someone acts in a way that suggests true Christians should point fingers at others to keep their neighbors from seeing their own faults, it is exactly the same thing as Dobson's misuse of the research -- fixating on one or two trees and missing (or willfully ignoring) the forest.

James

[BruceChris]

And I can only hope that such sarcasm is acceptable to God, even when laid on so thickly, as long as it's for a good purpose.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[novaseeker]

I know both of the congregations involved, they are both here in the Northern Virginia area. The saddest part of the tale is that now there will be massive, expensive litigation about the church buildings and facilities (which, in the case of these two particular churches, are worth quite a lot of money) between the Diocese of Virginia and these two congregations, and that will lead to sowing much, much bitterness and ill-will on all sides.

[revtj]

I would just like to point out that this alignment of African theological conservatives with western homophobes (in this current Episcopal fracas) disturbs me on a level that goes beyond equal rights and full communion for lgbt people in society & churches. It disturbs me that an unnatural fear of same-gender love can unite 2 very dissimilar cultures in a way that poverty, civil war, genocide, or rampant disease never could.

What does it say that some christians can unify and and work together across class, race and national boundaries to try & 'rid' the church of homosexuality when they could never find the same kind of unity to address these other other vital social issues?

As a professor of mine in seminary said, "5000 children dying every day from poverty & disease is a moral crisis. Two men who love each other is not."

How did the body of christ arrive at such a warped sense of values?

[Deb]

. It disturbs me that an unnatural fear of same-gender love can unite 2 very dissimilar cultures in a way that poverty, civil war, genocide, or rampant disease never could.

As a professor of mine in seminary said, "5000 children dying every day from poverty & disease is a moral crisis. Two men who love each other is not."

How did the body of christ arrive at such a warped sense of values?

YUP... Very disturbing in deed.

[Emproph]

...It disturbs me that an unnatural fear of same-gender love can unite 2 very dissimilar cultures in a way that poverty, civil war, genocide, or rampant disease never could.

What does it say that some christians can unify and and work together across class, race and national boundaries to try & 'rid' the church of homosexuality when they could never find the same kind of unity to address these other other vital social issues?

As a professor of mine in seminary said, "5000 children dying every day from poverty & disease is a moral crisis. Two men who love each other is not."

How did the body of christ arrive at such a warped sense of values?
From The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements:

Unifying Agents – Hatred:
Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents. It pulls and whirls the individual away from his own self, makes him oblivious of his weal and future, frees him of jealousies and self-seeking. He becomes an anonymous particle quivering with a craving to fuse and coalesce with his like into one flaming mass. Heine suggests that what Christian love cannot do is effected by a common hatred.

Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil...

For the record I recognize this effect within myself as well and I'm not proud of it.

[Daniel]

Susan- Thank you for the links. Interesting- and- at times- funny reading. MadPriest is a hoot! The following analysis seems about right to me, as someone who has watched this less than epic struggle (more like a tussle for power) take place over the last year or so. The bold is my emphasis.

http://episcopalmajority.blogspot.com/

There is another thread as well. It is the contempt for a church which in its own makeup mirrors something of the plurality of the nation, in which dialogue - even within difference - is honored, in which some (but not all) secular modes are treated with respect. It is no accident that many of our adversaries use a rhetoric dotted with anti-Western slogans or with flagrant attacks on secularism. The bishop-elect of South Carolina himself criticized the "ethos of democracy" in the church.

What we do see lurking behind these infamous attacks is a wholesale rejection of modernity, its messiness, its permissiveness (against which our adversaries are guaranteed the right to say no), its unwillingness to sign on one truth, its tolerance of differences. Many of us have learned to live in this climate and without selling out remain faithful to the gospel. But for our adversaries this unstable climate has brought out a different response. They naturally gravitate to older forms - those dealing with one faith, one church, one rule, with order and hierarchy. And to get this they are not hesitant to use every lever of power they can come across. Hence the manifest impatience in their recent statements in which seek to pre-empt the process set up by the Archbishop of Canterbury - the creation of an Anglican Covenant - to try to adjudicate our present difficulties. They prefer by bluster or intimidation some shortcut, in which they will control the Anglican Communion - along lines we shudder to contemplate.

Who are these people who will not talk with us, who attack us incessantly and who envision a pure church of order and discipline (where according to Canon Anderson the guilty are punished)? Who then are these people? We have a descriptive phrase, harsh indeed, but by now it fits. These are ecclesiastical fascists.

Eccesiastical fascists indeed.

The two Virginia congregations that broke away undoubtedly believe they are acting as the tugboats which will steer the big mothership church in another direction. I have no fear of that.

Gay people aren't going to go back to in the closet. Far from it.

And those same churches may be in big trouble: the courts have, up until now, sided with the Anglican Church as far as who owns the property. And apparently, Uganda will no longer accepting assistance (money) from the US church. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[suzer1013]

Daniel -- that's actually the quote that I thought summed it up best, too. It seems very clear that the problem is that some cannot live without the personal discomfort that tolerance and inclusiveness often brings, and so they gravitate toward older forms of religion in which the safety blanket of black and white rules. I understand it -- sometimes I long for certainty, too, but I realize the world is not so neat or perfect, and that God is more complex and undefinable than we could ever grasp. It is hard to live in the gray, but preferable, I think, to living any other way. One does not have to lose the Gospel message in order to live authentically and inclusively, and that, I think, is the fear of those who are more fundamentalist in nature.

TJ -- Even more interesting and ironic, is two Southern (and rather fundamentalist and Baptist in nature -- a commenter on another site mentioned how Truro and Falls Church are essentially Southern Baptist in the way they are conducted) churches in what historically was a slave holding state running to Africa for their primatial oversight. And yes, how sad that hate can bring people together more strongly than the need to overcome poverty and disease, etc.

Bruce Chris -- Glad you like Father Jake! I've enjoyed his blog for about 6 months now. Sometimes things get heated and I take a break, but I've generally enjoyed his commentary and insight.

Susan

[Emproph]

This is uglier than I thought.

From the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/us/17episcopal.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1166331600&en=70416e45f97b7238&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin) article:

“Our Anglican tradition has always been a very large tent in which people with different theological emphases can live together,” Bishop Lee said in a telephone interview. “I’m very sorry some in these churches feel that this is no longer the case for them. It certainly is their choice and their decision. No one is forcing them to do this.”

~~

The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, said in an e-mail response to a request for an interview that such splits reflect a polarized society, as well as the “anxiety” and “discomfort” that many people feel when they are asked to live with diversity.

“The quick fix embraced in drawing lines or in departing is not going to be an ultimate solution for our discomfort,” she said.*coo* Even her cogent assessment of division is unifying. The sound of schism coming from her lips is practically romantic...I think she’s officially my new hero.

Brace for FOF spin (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000003459.cfm):
The Rev. Canon David Anderson of the American Anglican Council said the breakup was "breathtakingly exciting" -- but it wasn't caused by the churches in Virginia. They were simply being faithful.

"The perpetrators of schism are, in fact, the top levels of leadership of the Episcopal Church," Anderson said. "They have taken up another Gospel. They believe now that there are many ways to God -- and Jesus is simply one of them. We argue that that's not the case -- that what the Bible says is still accurate."
So true Canon Anderson, I’ve never seen such a flagrant abuse of the will to unite. Surely they waste God's unusurpable Love.

~~

The members of Truro and the Falls Church have now declared that belonging to a church that permits gays and lesbians to become bishops is too great a tax on their conscience, while belonging to a church that believes gay people should be imprisoned for eating together in public is not...

...But, if Bishop Minns and his followers do, indeed, believe that gay Nigerians should be imprisoned for visiting a restaurant together, they need to inform us whether they believe gay Americans should be imprisoned for similar activities. And if they do not support the criminalization of such behavior in the United States, they need to explain why they favor--or, at the very least, acquiesce--in depriving Nigerians of rights that Americans enjoy.

Jim Naughton (http://blog.edow.org/weblog/2006/12/dining_while_gay_and_other_cri.html)

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121700289.html):

The Rev. Martyn Minns of Truro Church, who is missionary bishop of the splinter group known as CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America), said that although the dissident Virginia churches believe that homosexuality is banned by Scripture, they do not support criminalization of gay sex.

Akinola's spokesman and his advocates have said he does not advocate aggressively pursuing the jailing of homosexuals.

His advocates say he is trying to navigate an explosive cultural situation in Nigeria and appease Muslim leaders.


The Church of Nigeria (http://www.anglican-nig.org/home.htm) .. (<this and the link below were working earlier)
..met for the Standing Committee on Thursday 14th and 15th September, 2006 (http://www.anglican-nig.org/PH2006message2nation.htm), with the Most Revd. Peter J. Akinola DD, CON presiding.

Human Sexuality

The Church affirms our commitment to the total rejection of the evil of homosexuality which is a perversion of human dignity and encourages the National Assembly to ratify the Bill prohibiting the legality of homosexuality since it is incongruent with the teachings of the Bible, Quran and the basic African traditional values.

From what I can tell this is the bill (http://download-v5.streamload.com/6858b079-bee8-4903-8201-b6ac46ee6b1b/mvthomster/Hosted/nigeria_gay_bill.pdf) in question – their version of a "constitutional amendment." (pdf file) A couple monsters in it:
A BILL FOR AN ACT TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR THE PROHIBITION OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONS OF THE SAME SEX, CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE BY THEM AND FOR OTHER MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH
7. Prohibition of Registration of Gay Clubs and Societies and Publicity of same sex sexual relationship.

(3) Any person who is involved in the registration of gay clubs, societies and organizations, sustenance, procession or meetings, publicity and public show of same sex amorous relationship directly or indirectly in public and in private is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.
8. Offences and Penalties.

(2) Any person performs, witnesses, aids or abets the ceremony of same sex marriage is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a term of 5 years imprisonment.

One might even call it a criminal act to make an act criminal.

~~

Criminalizing Homosexuality the Nigerian Way (http://www.whrnet.org/docs/issue-uhuru-0605.html)
Interestingly, homosexuality is already criminalized in Nigeria. Depending on whether the accused is Christian or Muslim, the penalty is either 14 years imprisonment or death by stoning.

Furthermore, the Nigerian government proposes to criminalize any organization that works on gay and lesbian issues, even if it doesn't do so overtly.

Effectively, the new law will isolate gays and lesbians from community and from legal recourse.

From the looks of the political landscape, it isn't hard to imagine why Nigerians might need some distracting.

While disagreeing on many issues, Muslim and Christian leaders in Nigeria seem to agree on the nefariousness of homosexuality.

There but for the love of hatred go I.

~~

[Edit] P.S. Thanks for the links Suzer – 'lot a good thinkers in there, though I haven't gotten past the first one yet. From that – one thing lead to another – and then all the above. :)

[novaseeker]

Apparently the diocese and congregations involved have agreed to a month long cease-fire while trying to settle the property-related issues. Hopefully this can be done without resorting to a rancorous lawsuit.

[revtj]

Emproph: re: hatred and mass movements...I do not disagree, but hastily add that the power of resurrection created the greatest mass movement in history. As I have been discussing these subjects on other blogs I have been amazed at christians who see the crucifixion as far more significant than the resurrection. Huh? One person replied to me Jesus' resurrection would have no meaning without his crucifixion.

It is hard for me to understand but it seems like a choice to ground their theological perspective in violence and death rather than in hope and new life. And the consequences seem to be that those obsessed with the crucifixion also have a shopping list of people they hate and people they reject. Sends a shiver up my spine!

I also want to say the African christians are getting used by American Anglicans as much as they are using the Americans. I say this because the rubric which reconciles them is mutual hatred of homosexuals, a common enemy.

But are the African churches not also hoping it will bring them access to American privilege, material goods, and an uplifting of their standard of living? It's a wicked arrangement, isn't it, to say, in essence, 'We'll help you get food to eat, clean drinking water and housing, if you help
us defeat these awful homosexuals.'?

[dewdrop_world]

More coverage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/africa/25episcopal.html?hp&ex=1167109200&en=ed16045828e5ecba&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The story in the first paragraph illustrates exactly what I was saying about 99% hating the sin and 1% loving the sinner.

The way he tells the story, the first and only time Archbishop Peter J. Akinola knowingly shook a gay person’s hand, he sprang backward the moment he realized what he had done.

Archbishop Akinola, the conservative leader of Nigeria’s Anglican Church who has emerged at the center of a schism over homosexuality in the global Anglican Communion, re-enacted the scene from behind his desk Tuesday, shaking his head in wonder and horror.

“This man came up to me after a service, in New York I think, and said, ‘Oh, good to see you bishop, this is my partner of many years,’ ” he recalled. “I said, ‘Oh!’ I jumped back.”

Well then. Good to know he's got the spirit of Jesus in him, you know, the one who treated hookers and lepers with respect. Did he spray his hand for cooties afterward?

It recalls Eddy berating Saffy in AbFab: "You may dress like a Christian but the similarity ends there."

James

[Zerbie]

Slight tangent, but we have a state legislator like that. She refuses to shake hands or in any way touch anyone lobbying for LGBT causes: we met her once, she shook my hand, and we went home wondering if we should tip her off - maybe an anonymous phone call - and see if she has her hand amputated. :rolleyes:

[BruceChris]

And if thine hand afflict thee, Chop it off"? I think a biblical literalist could make a case for that.

P&L, BC

[Emproph]

Slight tangent, but we have a state legislator like that. She refuses to shake hands or in any way touch anyone lobbying for LGBT causes: we met her once, she shook my hand, and we went home wondering if we should tip her off - maybe an anonymous phone call - and see if she has her hand amputated. :rolleyes:Thanks, I needed that – a good cackle. :tup:

And if thine hand afflict thee, Chop it off"? I think a biblical literalist could make a case for that.

P&L, BCYou guys are great, I forgot all about that part.

"Shouldn't thou be plucking thy brain out about now..."

[nmwolfboy]

i'm sure this news story flipped Archbishop Williams' mitre around. Wonder how the conservative Episcopalians will react to this?

51 Church of England priests have married their same-sex partners in the past year (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524441,00.html)

[Daniel]

Interesting article!

The figures on clerical civil partnerships come from Changing Attitude, a gay campaigning organisation in the Church of England. The figures show that at least 51 priests, including four lesbians, are now in partnerships. Colin Coward, director of Changing Attitude, said: “Civil partnerships have helped to increase the stability of same-sex relationships and reduced the social exclusion to which lesbian and gay people are often subjected.”

George Curry, chairman of the Church Society, the oldest evangelical organisation in the Church of England, predicted a “crunch moment” at the General Synod.

“Many of these people have defied the guidance. These are men and women who are in active sexual relationships,” he said. “These figures expose the bishops’ failure of leadership.”

Let them 'react'. For that is all they do: react, rather than act as men of the cloth should (guilt word that) in the presence of love.

The perspective of Mr. Curry is rather antiquated, revealing that there are those who still believe that 'they' actually have the right to control how and whom same-sex people should love.

Not!

The time is long past where gay citizens should postpone their happiness and love with others of their kind just to satisfy the misgivings and discomfort of those who cannot comprehend that love.

"As Rose is a Rose is a Rose."

Love is Love is Love.

[novaseeker]

An interesting article. Apparently, the drift of these two parishes away from mainstream Episcopalianism has been long coming, and has to do with a drift towards more fundamentalist beliefs, and members self-selecting to churches that match their own approach to Christianity (rather than basing that on denominations per se).

Episcopal Churches' Breakaway in Va. Evolved Over 30 Years

By Alan Cooperman and Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 4, 2007; A01

Parishioners say it happens quietly, unobtrusively: As the sick make their way to the altar, some worshipers begin speaking in tongues. Occasionally, one is "arrested in the spirit," falling unconscious into the arms of a fellow congregant.

The special faith-healing services, held one Sunday night a month at The Falls Church in Fairfax, are a rarity in the Episcopal Church. But members of The Falls Church have long felt at odds with fellow Episcopalians, who they believe have been drifting theologically in an ever more liberal direction.

Shortly before Christmas, The Falls Church and neighboring Truro Church -- which in Colonial times belonged to a single parish -- vented those feelings by voting overwhelmingly to break away from the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church.

The vote reverberated across the country because Truro and The Falls Church are two of the Washington area's most wealthy, historic and prestigious congregations. Their pews are studded on Sunday mornings with such regulars as Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and former CIA director Porter J. Goss.

Moreover, they are reversing the usual relationship between Christians in the United States and the developing world by joining seven other Northern Virginia congregations in a new missionary branch of the Anglican province of Nigeria.

The decision was emotionally wrenching and fraught with legal issues, not least of which is a potential battle with the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia for control of the two congregations' land and buildings, conservatively valued at $25 million.

But the votes appear less sudden or surprising when one realizes that for more than 30 years, Truro and The Falls Church have been part of a "charismatic revival" within mainline Protestantism, said the Rev. Robert W. Prichard, professor of Christianity in America at the Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria.

Charismatic, in this case, refers to an ecstatic style of worship that includes speaking in tongues, a stream of unintelligible syllables signifying that the Holy Spirit has entered the worshiper. It is a hallmark of the fast-growing Pentecostal movement but unusual for Episcopalians, who are so thoroughly associated with solemnity and tradition that they are sometimes referred to teasingly as "the frozen chosen."

Prichard, who grew up attending Truro, said many of its members and almost of all its lay leaders spoke in tongues in the 1970s. "There was a kind of coaching in which people who had spoken in tongues would surround a person who was praying for the gift of tongues," he said.

Parishioners say the practice continues today in both congregations, though not at Sunday morning services. Some members have never seen it.

"It's very much a part of our experience and lives," said Truro Rector Martyn Minns, a new bishop in the Nigerian Anglican Church. But "we've grown up. We integrate it rather than focus on it."

Dean Miller, pastor of the young adult ministry at The Falls Church, said some members also have "visions of the Lord" during healing services. "I don't. I'm not gifted that way. But there are people in the community who do," he said.

Prichard contends that charismatic worship is vital to understanding these congregations because it paved the way for them to join the broader evangelical movement, which emphasizes being "born again," having a personal relationship with Jesus and reading the Bible as the wholly true word of God.

Unlike many Episcopal churches nationally, neither Truro nor The Falls Church was active in supporting the civil rights movement or in protesting the Vietnam War.

"I don't remember any political sermons at all," said Al Long, 80, who has been a member of The Falls Church since 1959. "We go there to find out what the Bible says and how we're supposed to live and relate to each other and the Lord. . . . And that's it."

Beginning in the 1970s, though, Truro embraced the antiabortion movement. It also started a program to help those who wanted to leave what it calls the "homosexual lifestyle."

"These emphases have never been mainstream within the Episcopal Church," said Joan Gunderson, a Pittsburgh scholar who is writing a history of the Virginia Diocese. "But there is a movement they are tapping into that is larger than just the Episcopal Church."

As Truro and The Falls Church adopted a conservative approach, dissenting members retreated to more liberal Episcopal churches in the area, such as Christ Church Alexandria. New worshipers, many of them born-again Christians who had grown disillusioned with their denominations, streamed in.

At Truro, "we don't have to water down the Gospel," said Mary Springmann, a member of the vestry and a born-again Christian who was raised Catholic.

These days, Truro is a magnet for conservatives across the Washington area, and the percentage of "cradle" Episcopalians among its 2,000 regular worshipers has dropped steadily. In the 1980s, more than two-thirds of its members had been raised Episcopalian, according to church surveys. Today, fewer than 40 percent grew up in the church.

Truro's red brick campus sprawls over four leafy acres at the intersection of two of Fairfax City's busiest arteries. In the vaulted main sanctuary, the church embodies the centuries-old traditions of its Anglican heritage -- stately rows of candles, organ pipes set into the wall behind an ornate crucifix and wooden pews equipped with fold-down kneelers.

In the labyrinthine hallways, shelves of books reflect the church's conservative bent: advice on evangelizing to "unbelievers" and "liberal secularists," how to "engage the culture with absolute Biblical truth" and tracts against the "occultism" of the New Age movement.

The Falls Church, whose historic sanctuary dates from 1769, draws almost 2,500 worshipers to its services on an average weekend.

Goss has attended with his family for years. He said he draws spiritual sustenance from the church's strong emphasis on the teachings of Jesus. "It's a congregation that really exhibits the love of Christ," he said last week. He declined to comment on the current controversy.

At least two-thirds of the worshipers are Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists, and there is no pressure on them to be confirmed as Episcopalians, said the Rev. Rick Wright, associate rector.

Wright said the diverse membership of both congregations illustrates one of the great changes in American religion of the past half-century: The divisions between denominations are far less important today than the divisions within denominations.

"I tend to feel very comfortable rubbing shoulders with folks at McLean Bible** or Columbia Baptist . . . that are real orthodox, evangelical, biblical churches," said Truro's chief warden, or lay leader, Jim Oakes, referring to two Northern Virginia megachurches. "We share core beliefs. I think I would be more comfortable with them than with anyone I might run into at an Episcopal Diocesan Council meeting."

In some popular services, Truro and The Falls Church blend the traditional liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer with such megachurch touches as huge choirs, bass guitars and drums. Neither offers "smells and bells," the incense and chimes favored by "high church" Episcopal congregations. But some parishioners affectionately describe Truro as "McLean Bible with candles."

Attitudes toward homosexuality are one of the brightest lines between the liberal and conservative camps. But few members of Truro or The Falls Church say the division is, fundamentally, about whether to bless sex-same couples or whether to ordain gay ministers -- the issues that have strained relations between the Episcopal Church and the rest of the 75 million-member Anglican Communion, the worldwide family of churches descended from the Church of England.

Many say the rift involves something deeper -- whether the Bible is the word of God, Jesus is the only way to heaven and tolerance is more important than truth. When he was a newly ordained priest almost 20 years ago, Wright said, he talked with several other priests about how to respond to a teenager who asked, "Do you really believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?"

"The rest of the priests agreed that it was a sticky question, and they felt that way because they didn't believe in it, but they didn't want to say so," he said. "That's where the Episcopal Church has been for the last 20 years. It's not where we are."

----

** McLean Bible Church is, I believe, the largest megachurch in Northern Virginia, about 10 miles away from downtown Washington DC. It's a fundamentalist church (pre-mill, pre-trib, rapture, etc.).

[rainbowdog]

I know some things about the episcopals. My mom grew up episcopal but now she is is Southern Baptists and she takes their stand on their history involving their stand on homosexuality which you know that we are sinners but we can be cured:lol: My aunt, however has been an episcopal all her life and she believes that it is not a sin but a gift from God.:D Most baptist down here believe that the episcopals are schizephrenic because the sevice is very conservative but their beliefs are liberal. It also depends on what the members of that church believes. In Columbus we have 2 episcopal churches one is conservative and the other is liberal. The conservative church even threaten to not support the Diosecise because of the episcopals had a gay bishop. that is ridicalous. i fear that the church will split over this. a good support group www.integrityusa.org

[novaseeker]

And here is the latest on this, from the folks at The Falls Church ....

Why We Left the Episcopal Church

By The Rev. John Yates and Os Guinness
Monday, January 8, 2007; A15

When even President Gerald Ford's funeral at Washington National Cathedral is not exempt from comment about the crisis in the Episcopal Church, we believe it is time to set the record straight as to why our church and so many others around the country have severed ties with the Episcopal Church. Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves, to speak for themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.

The core issue in why we left is not women's leadership. It is not "Episcopalians against equality," as the headline on a recent Post op-ed by Harold Meyerson put it. It is not a "leftward" drift in the church. It is not even primarily ethical -- though the ordination of a practicing homosexual as bishop was the flash point that showed how far the repudiation of Christian orthodoxy had gone.

The core issue for us is theological: the intellectual integrity of faith in the modern world. It is thus a matter of faithfulness to the lordship of Jesus, whom we worship and follow. The American Episcopal Church no longer believes the historic, orthodox Christian faith common to all believers. Some leaders expressly deny the central articles of the faith -- saying that traditional theism is "dead," the incarnation is "nonsense," the resurrection of Jesus is a fiction, the understanding of the cross is "a barbarous idea," the Bible is "pure propaganda" and so on. Others simply say the creed as poetry or with their fingers crossed.

It would be easy to parody the "Alice in Wonderland" surrealism of Episcopal leaders openly denying what their faith once believed, celebrating what Christians have gone to the stake to resist -- and still staying on as leaders. But this is a serious matter.

First, Episcopal revisionism abandons the fidelity of faith. The Hebrew scriptures link matters of truth to a relationship with God. They speak of apostasy as adultery -- a form of betrayal as treacherous as a husband cheating on his wife.

Second, Episcopal revisionism negates the authority of faith. The "sola scriptura" ("by the scriptures alone") doctrine of the Reformation church has been abandoned for the "sola cultura" (by the culture alone) way of the modern church. No longer under authority, the Episcopal Church today is either its own authority or finds its authority in the shifting winds of intellectual and social fashion -- which is to say it has no authority.

Third, Episcopal revisionism severs the continuity of faith. Cutting itself off from the universal faith that spans the centuries and the continents, it becomes culturally captive to one culture and one time. While professing tolerance and inclusiveness, certain Episcopal attitudes toward fellow believers around the world, who make up a majority of the Anglican family, have been arrogant and even racist.

Fourth, Episcopal revisionism destroys the credibility of faith. There is so little that is distinctively Christian left in the theology of some Episcopal leaders, such as the former bishop of Newark, that a skeptic can say, as Oscar Wilde said to a cleric of his time, "I not only follow you, I precede you." It is no accident that orthodox churches are growing and that almost all the great converts to the Christian faith in the past century, such as G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis, have been attracted to full-blooded orthodoxy, not to revisionism. The prospect for the Episcopal Church, already evident in many dioceses, is inevitable withering and decline.

Fifth, Episcopal revisionism obliterates the very identity of faith. When the great truths of the Bible and the creeds are abandoned and there is no limit to what can be believed in their place, then the point is reached when there is little identifiably Christian in Episcopal revisionism. Would that Episcopal leaders showed the same zeal for their faith that they do for their property. If the present decline continues, all that will remain of a once strong church will be empty buildings, kept going by the finances, though not the faith, of the fathers.

These are the outrages we protest. These are the infidelities that drive us to separate. These are the real issues to be debated. We remain Anglicans but leave the Episcopal Church because the Episcopal Church first left the historic faith. Like our spiritual forebears in the Reformation, "Here we stand. So help us God. We can do no other."

The Rev. John Yates is rector and Os Guinness is a parishioner of The Falls Church, one of several Virginia churches that voted last month to sever ties with the Episcopal Church.

Warning ... rant following ...

While the letter is entertaining in that it raises many a straw-man (i.e., references to John Spong's speculations and writings), and denies the reality of what made them feel like leaving (the double problem of a female primate and a gay Bishop in NH), the cutest part of the letter is the following:

Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves, to speak for themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.

Now, this is the bee's knees, isn't it? Here we have a bunch of anti-gay, anti-woman conservatives who are soooooo uncomfortable with having a gay man as NH's bishop and a woman primate that they felt the need to align with a Bishop in Nigeria who supports laws forbidding gay people even to meet in public for dinner ... and they are the ones asking for the freedom not to be "dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others...."

Excuse me??

It amazes me how out-to-lunch these folks are about how they themselves have dehumanized and distorted the reality of others -- namely the many LGBT members of the Episcopal Church, the many women serving as priests, canons and, yes, now as the Primate. It seems like their own distortions do not matter, but yet when someone calls them on how objectively wierd it is for the parish of which George Washington was a member to align itself with a radically conservative anti-gay African Bishop, they cry foul and demand that they not be "dehumanized" and then pull the self-pitying Martin Luther routine at the end of the letter.

One thing is for certain, Rev. Yates: You are no Martin Luther!

[Emproph]

I thought the “out-to-lunch” bit was an especially tasteful touch.

[Daniel]

Great analysis aka rant! The whole thing reeks of 'but we're the real victims!' Next they'll be saying they are the true Christians. And they have the gall to quote Oscar Wilde. Defies imagination.

My coda of a rant is now over.

[nmwolfboy]

Amen to that rant! And, you managed to use "bee's knees" too!

:smashy:

[nmwolfboy]

Off on another tangent, but it directly relates to the current situation in the Episcopal Church. Bruce Gardner is a member of the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, and he is quoted on this blog posting:
http://admiralofmorality.blogspot.com/2007/01/no-authority-to-diminish-personhood-of.html

Reading his thoughts really soothed my heart about what's going on in the Episcopal Church. What do you think?

-scott

[novaseeker]

Oh, certainly. The article reflects the majority of Episcopal congregations today, I think (and that majority is getting stronger as more congregations who are anti-gay leave).

There's no question in my mind that the anti-gay people are outnumbered now in the Episcopal Church ... the Falls Church/Truro people knew that as well, which is why they left. If they thought they would win on the national level, they probably would have stayed.

[dsdrane]

...that's what I say.

This is precisely when I love being an American. F@%k 'em..and the horse they rode in on.

EXCUSE ME?!?! Tail wagging the dog much? Since when did the Bishop of Nigeria carry such weight in the Anglican Communion? And since when has the Archbishop of Canterbury been such a complete wuss? If he, in fact, has no power, why is there a Communion at all?

Is it just me??

Hear me now, believe me later: the Episcopal Church in America should leave the Anglican Communion as a matter of conscience. F@%k 'em! I hope Archbishop Rowan has a blast with his buds in Nigeria. What a fun time they'll have. Woohoo! I'm so sorry we'll miss it.

Didn't we break away for a reason? Didn't we have to go to Scottish bishops to get our own American bishops consecrated? (Loving the Scottish!)

Bottom line: let Rowan deal with the conservative throng in Africa and elsewhere in the name of Anglican unity. Yuck! I'm so over it. The Episcopal Church in America needs the rest of them much less than they need us.

They'll figure it out eventually.

Until that day comes, they should be kicked to the curb.

Harrumph!

[Daniel]

Ouch! :smashy:

[dsdrane]

:smashy: Harumph!

[nmwolfboy]

Fr. Matthew is an Episcopalian priest in Yonkers who video-blogs regularly. His latest was a balm this morning, when i was stressing over some recent articles from troublesome anti-gay Anglican leaders about the upcoming Primates' meeting in Tazania.

Here's a link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHflxOJbQS4) to Fr. Matthew's latest video.

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/us/11bishop.html?hp&ex=1171170000&en=db146594d0ee7cca&ei=5094&partner=homepage

New Episcopal Leader Braces for Gay-Rights Test

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: February 11, 2007
At a book party last week at the New York headquarters of the Episcopal Church, a line of more than 100 fans waited to have the church’s new presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, sign copies of her new book of sermons, “A Wing and a Prayer.”

Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, a leading conservative.
Bishop Jefferts Schori, the first woman presiding bishop in the history of the Anglican Communion, appeared a bit surprised at the celebrity treatment but clearly enjoyed the sentiment.

She is about to head off to a hostile reception.

This week, Bishop Jefferts Schori will represent the Episcopal Church at a meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, with the presiding bishops of the 37 other provinces in the global Anglican Communion, the world’s third-largest church body. Some of those bishops, known as primates, have broken their ties with the American church after it ordained an openly gay bishop and permitted the blessing of same-sex unions.

Some primates have said they will not sit at the same table with Bishop Jefferts Schori. Some have threatened to walk out of the meeting.

In an interview in her office last week, Bishop Jefferts Schori said the conflict was more about “biblical interpretation” than about homosexuality.

“We have had gay bishops and gay clergy for millennia,” she said. “The willingness to be open about that is more recent.”

She said that what she wanted to convey to her fellow primates was that despite the highly-publicized departure of some congregations (a spokesman said 45 of 7,400 have left and affiliated with provinces overseas), the Episcopal Church has the support of most members, who are engaged in worship and mission work, and not fixated on this controversy.

“A number of the primates have perhaps inaccurate ideas about the context of this church. They hear from the voices quite loudly that this church is going to hell in a handbasket,” she said. “The folks who are unhappy represent a small percentage of the whole, but they are quite loud.”

In the global picture, however, those unhappy with the Americans are a significant bloc, and some are ready to cut off the American branch of the Anglican Communion. Conservatives were emboldened recently when an influential bishop, N. T. Wright of Durham, England, said in an interview, “Even if it means a bit of pruning, the plant will be healthier for it.”

Bishop Jefferts Schori said the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, had accommodated the conservatives because he also presides over the Church of England, where the conservatives are a more substantial presence than in the United States, and are increasingly assertive.

Bishop Jefferts Schori, who is 52, exudes a cool presence, sitting erect in a crimson shirt and white clerical collar. She uses few words to make her points. In her previous career, she was an oceanographer, specializing in squid and octopuses.

Ordained a priest only 13 years ago, she is the former bishop of Nevada, where she permitted blessings for gay couples and voted to confirm the Rev. Canon V. Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. She was elected presiding bishop last June, a nine-year assignment.

She said opposition came primarily from a “handful of primates,” led by Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, with support from those in Uganda and Rwanda. She said they had made it appear as if the bulk of the Anglican Communion was arrayed against the Americans, when that was not the case.

“It’s abundantly clear that there’s a diversity of opinion in the provinces of the Communion” she said. Asked why they are not more vocal, she said, “I think that has to be tenderly nurtured. You don’t want to put people in a precarious situation” by encouraging them to speak out against their own primates.

One African bishop recently did so. After the House of Bishops in Tanzania voted in December to cut ties to the Episcopal Church and stop accepting its donations, Bishop Mdimi Mhogolo, who leads the Diocese of Central Tanganyika, wrote a letter saying, “The issue of homosexuality is not fundamental to the Christian faith.”

At the meeting in Tanzania, Bishop Jefferts Schori is to sit down with the primates of 13 provinces that do not ordain women as priests, not to mention as bishops. But she said her sex was not the reason some primates were preparing to shun her. The problem is that some bishops say the Episcopal Church has failed to repent or to declare a moratorium on gay blessings, steps required by a committee of officials commissioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 2004.

She is likely to be face to face with Archbishop Akinola, who has created a rival network of conservative churches in the United States.

Bishop Jefferts Schori said that if she is rebuked at the meeting, it will not be anything new; she experienced that before as an oceanographer: “The first time I was chief scientist on a cruise, the captain wouldn’t speak to me because I was a woman.”

Asked how she would respond if primates walked out on her, she said, “Life is too short to get too flustered.”

[dsdrane]

"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."
++KJS

Golly, just one [I]more season?! Well, that doesn't seem like so much to ask for, does it? I mean, we wouldn't want to make anyone feel uncomfortable, would we? And it's not like we Americans have any problem with being dictated to from abroad or anything, right?

Well, just as long as it's only one more season, I guess.

:headbang: :whistleblower: :shield: :smashy: :x :injured: :sick: :mad:

:cool:

[suzer1013]

With all the goings on in the Episcopal blogosphere, it's easy to feel blue about the recent developments. Leave it to MadPriest (http://revjph.blogspot.com) to find an answer to the whole mess! If y'all have been following the whole Anglican mess, go here for a bit of a laugh:

http://revjph.blogspot.com/2007/02/we-feel-your-pain-and-we-are-here-to.html

Susan :lol:

[Diane Vera]

How many Anglicans does it take to change a light bulb?

Shhh! The verger is changing it now.... Don't mention change in front of the Nigerian archbishop!

[WillySF]

How many Anglo-Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?

None. We use candles.

[bryanf]

I hate to burst some of y'alls bubble but many of the churches that are a part of the more "conservative" wings of the American Anglicanism places an emphasis on that a large branch of The Episcopal Church is undermining creedal faith, tradition, and scripture. Yeah many of them are oppossed to homosexuality. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. However if you go to any of the national meetings or participate much in the discourse its not the primary issue. The primary issue for them is that they believe The Episcopal Church has abandoned or greatly weakened the authority of Scripture, Tradition, and The Creeds for a greater focus upon Reason and perhaps Experience.

Honestly the reason I am so split between The Episcopal Church and churches a part of the ACN is that:

--> I do believe that The Episcopal Church does allow much room for those who have abandoned creedal faith, and even allows them to stay ministry. Perfect example of this is Bishop John Shelby Spong. In strongly believing in the authority of the church and that there is orthodoxy, I have a real problem with much of The Episcopal Church. Particularly I would have a problem with submitting myself to The Episcopal Church because of the current leadership under Bishop Katherine Schori.

So in part I agree with the churches that are splinterring off from The Episcopal Church. There comes a point when unity most be broken. Here it is when that which is good is forsaken.

-->I do believe much of the churches in the ACN are fundamentalist and this provides also a chance for them to express the hatred and fears of their heart. What is going on with the current Archbishop of Nigiri is a perfect example of someone doing something they think is good when indeed it reaks of the devil.

However righ tnow I am casting my lot with the conservatives. Though I am a gay man, I still believe in orthodoxy. But I will admit it makes it really hard right now in the church at large. Mainly because the crisis induced by many of those who have abandoned creedal orthodoxy is going to set back individuals like me who still believe in the authority of the creeds but will/is seeking to dialogue about homosexuality from a faith perspective.

But basically I think alot of this thread has completely missed out what is the issue for the Anglican right.

[Daniel]

However right now I am casting my lot with the conservatives. Though I am a gay man, I still believe in orthodoxy. But I will admit it makes it really hard right now in the church at large. Mainly because the crisis induced by many of those who have abandoned creedal orthodoxy is going to set back individuals like me who still believe in the authority of the creeds but will/is seeking to dialogue about homosexuality from a faith perspective.

But basically I think alot of this thread has completely missed out what is the issue for the Anglican right.

Hi bryanf- you may the right- in that this thread has missed out on the conservative perspective. My own 'reading' of the matter is that it isn't so much a matter of abandonment of creedal authority as it is a widening of scope and vision. But of course, that' the 'liberal' view, is it not? :rolleyes: :lol:

I find that fact that two people can look at the same thing and see different things fascinating.

Just now, I'm reading Elaine Pagels & Karen L. King's book Reading Judas- which is about the Gospel of Judas, which is putting some interesting thoughts in my brain. But then, I like the historical perspective- especially the history of thought as it applies to matter of faith.

I mention this because the gay and conservative Rector at the church where I sang for many years once went out of his way- during a casual conservation- to poo-poo an earlier book I was reading by Pagels. And I thought to myself then: "why do you have to demean someone else's work and viewpoint? What is it about this kind of viewpoint that frightens you so? Why the all or nothing approach?"

Being a polite person, I didn't ask him that question. Mind you, I don't hear you doing anything of the sort here- nor do I mean to insinuate that you are- that is- poo-pooing liberal views.

But at the risk of being impolite here, but I'd like to ask a similar question: what bugs you about anything that falls outside Orthodoxy? Is it the simple fact that it is unorthodox?

If so, this seems a rather circular point of view.

It must sound like a pretty stupid question- I know.

Maybe this is a better question: What makes Reason and Experience so terrible in the first place?

It seems to me that they are the vehicles by which gay persons will attain full rights within the Anglican Church.

Am I missing something here?

[WillySF]

Bryan,

I agree that this thread has missed the point. Yet I strongly disagree with you that is orthodxy at stake. I believe the real issue is one of power, authority and good ol' money. I wouldn't exactly cast my lot with the conservatives, not just yet anyhow.

Peace,

Geoff

[bryanf]

And Geoff there are plenty of days where I am heavily tempted to cast my lots on the other side. Heck sometimes Rome seems even good to me.

[bryanf]

It must sound like a pretty stupid question- I know.

Maybe this is a better question: What makes Reason and Experience so terrible in the first place?

It seems to me that they are the vehicles by which gay persons will attain full rights within the Anglican Church.

Am I missing something here?

Actually I am not trying to demean Reason or Experience at all. In our tradition we have often used Hooker's 3 legged stool as a rule in Anglican thought. Basically following Hooker's module we have placed the authority of Tradition, Reason, and Scripture all on the same level. Not one should exist in more authority than the other two. Personally I found of the Wesley Quadrilateral (reason, experience, scripture, and tradition) which is an adaption of Hooker's.

But anyhow we as Anglicans place a high degree on the traditions of the church. This is partly why one of our key signature documents, The Lambeth Quadrilateral, identifies and values scripture and the creeds as core foundations which we are to unite upon. For many of the conservatives they view that the value of Scripture and the Creeds has been marginilized by those on the so called "left." Because of their breaking of the Lambeth Quadrilateral they believe they have violated the tenents of what it means to be unified. So for many they believe they have no choice but to depart. And believe decisions aren't quick in the Anglican church. It takes about 40 years to decide to change out a light bulb(j/k).

Anyhow I hope that helps a bit.

[dsdrane]

I hate to burst some of y'alls bubble but... .

Fear not; there is no bubble to burst.

I read loud and clear that you are uncomfortable with what you believe is the general direction of TEC and that you, therefore, are inclined to sympathy with the American churches who aligning themselves with "foreign" Anglican churches.

What I still don't understand is what exactly is troubling you, platitudes, generalizations and over-arching terms like "orthodoxy" aside.

I do believe that The Episcopal Church does allow much room for those who have abandoned creedal faith, and even allows them to stay ministry. Perfect example of this is Bishop John Shelby Spong. In strongly believing in the authority of the church and that there is orthodoxy, I have a real problem with much of The Episcopal Church. Particularly I would have a problem with submitting myself to The Episcopal Church because of the current leadership under Bishop Katherine Schori..

Could you please explain precisely how TEC has "abandoned creedal faith"? What do you mean by "authority of the church"? TEC has no authority to answer to but itself (and by that I mean the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies)...and God, of course -- but certainly not to England or Nigeria or anywhere else.

And "orthodoxy"...whose? What does being "orthodox" mean to you, specifically, and how, specifically, is TEC unorthodox?

Why are you uncomfortable "submitting" to the current presiding bishop? Her positions? The fact that she's a she?

However righ tnow I am casting my lot with the conservatives. Though I am a gay man, I still believe in orthodoxy. But I will admit it makes it really hard right now in the church at large. Mainly because the crisis induced by many of those who have abandoned creedal orthodoxy is going to set back individuals like me who still believe in the authority of the creeds but will/is seeking to dialogue about homosexuality from a faith perspective.

But basically I think alot of this thread has completely missed out what is the issue for the Anglican right.

Again, I understand that you obviously feel this way, but you don't spell out how you think a dialogue about homosexuality "from a faith perspective" would look. We've all read in the media what the the issues are for the "[American] Anglican right", but what are your personal issues as a gay Episcopalian thinking of leaving your country's church? You still haven't said.

:confused:

[bryanf]

Do not I am not trying to cause any discord. However my reply that follows are my humble opinions. If the moderators think that is best if we take this to private or cease, then I am willing to submit.

Fear not; there is no bubble to burst.

I read loud and clear that you are uncomfortable with what you believe is the general direction of TEC and that you, therefore, are inclined to sympathy with the American churches who aligning themselves with "foreign" Anglican churches.

What I still don't understand is what exactly is troubling you, platitudes, generalizations and over-arching terms like "orthodoxy" aside.


Could you please explain precisely how TEC has "abandoned creedal faith"?


I did not say the entirety of the TEC has abandoned creedal faith. However there are several in the governing roles who are anything but true to the creeds. TEC has through the year allowed the continue ministry of those who deny the resurrection, that Jesus was divine, the virginity of Mary, that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, etc. etc.

And I do think the Athanasian Creed expresses itself rightly that there are somethings that are necessary to be believed in order to be saved. ("This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.")


What do you mean by "authority of the church"? TEC has no authority to answer to but itself (and by that I mean the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies)...and God, of course -- but certainly not to England or Nigeria or anywhere else.


One we as Anglicans do believe ourselves to be in the great tradition. We are still answerable to the councils of time past. We embrace it proudly. We have always since the conception of the TEC in America have believed it to be important to be in communion with other churches. A perfect example of this being that if we were only accountable to ourselves we would of not had the issues of getting bishops consecrated when we were first forming in this country. We believe we are with the other churches in the line of the apostolic succession.


And "orthodoxy"...whose? What does being "orthodox" mean to you, specifically, and how, specifically, is TEC unorthodox?


I did not say the entirity of TEC is unorthodox. Most of it is orthodox. However I personally refuse to participate in TEC because of leaders who deny the things very much expressed in the creeds. To deny these things are in my opinion to be apostate. These are the things we as the Church have declared to be the fundamentals of our faith.

Orthodoxy as I have continued to express it is confirming to the solidified beliefs of the church, which so aptly are expressed in the Creeds. To deny any element of the creeds is to be in my humblest opinion outside of orthodoxy.


Why are you uncomfortable "submitting" to the current presiding bishop? Her positions? The fact that she's a she?

Actually I am very much for women in ministry. And its funny how you automatically presumed that is my problem with her. Thanks for the assumption.

Problems I have with her. One her character and methods are lacking. Her tactics in targetting those who disagree with her, much like several other bishops in TEC, are fascist at best. Pat Robertson has nothing on them. How many Bishops in TEC have removed moderates or conservatives via displacing them out of the pulpit for a certain period of time till they can declare that they have abandoned it? To many. Thats a perfect example of in the tradition of fascism of capitalizing on the differences in order to make an attack against any intruders.

Another aspect of fascism they part take in is that the capitilize on those who are socially frustrated in order to advance their own 'cause. And I am not even going to go into it, but I really do have a gut feeling that many are trying to exploit the LGBTs as a way to gain power from within.

Another example of the ongoing TEC is that is developing a xenophobia of sorts. It is the TEC and this is us mindset. The mindset of superiority to everyone else. Yeah strife has been in the TEC since its conception. But particularly now, even more so than the AngloCatholic vs Evangelical strife (which surprisingly so many of them are uniting now in a common 'cause against the "liberals"; I don't think many ever expected AngloCatholics and Evangelicals to walk hand in hand in much of anything but here we are now agreeing that the creeds are being jeopardized and putting our differences aside for the common good).

I could keep going on but I am afraid I have gone to far in possibly offending people to the point of discord as it is. I will simply say again these are my humble opinions. I do believe them. I am not saying you do. But to understand what I am saying then it is helpful to know some of my thoughts.


Again, I understand that you obviously feel this way, but you don't spell out how you think a dialogue about homosexuality "from a faith perspective" would look.


Now that could be a whole book. *lol* Alright the quickie essential version is that:
#1 Living a sanctified that is exemplary of Christ.
#2 Continue in the community of the church with those who may disagree with me on the issues of sexuality. Sex in general is viewed as a "non-essential" and thus is opened for debate. So I respect those who disagree with me and hope by living a thoughtful and good life I may persuade them to come to a point of agreeing to disagree or coming to a point of agreement.
#3 In regards to still upholding the Scriptures as the rule of our faith; I do not believe the Scriptures to condemn us as lgbt, so with reason I still am able to submit to scripture as a rule by which to live and learn by. I do believe it to be more than a historical document good for edification but a collection of writings that have been inspired by God and vested with the power of the Church via the Holy Spirit as a rule of faith unto our lives. By submitting to this rule of our faith and able to embrace this text yet still give an adequate defense of my life, I am able to dialogue with those who may disagree with me.

Anyhow I am still working through this. And I am getting tired of typing at the moment.


We've all read in the media what the the issues are for the "[American] Anglican right", but what are your personal issues as a gay Episcopalian thinking of leaving your country's church? You still haven't said.
:confused:

Well for one I am not underneath the TEC at this moment. I am actually a part of a church whose Archbishop is from another province. My problem with this country's church is that unlike the Donatists, I believe that many of the leaders of the TEC are apostate. The donatists had to deal with folks who came back to the faith. We are dealing with folks who have abandoned the faith yet are still attempting to administer the grace. In a sense much of our actions are very reformational. We are having issues with the church at large because of the corruption.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone here. But since my personal opinions were asked for, this is what I do believe.

I do hope and pray that there will be a day when we as LGBT will no longer be oppressed. However as an individual of faith, I am unwilling at this point to make compromises to the point where I would be delivered from the oppression. So I plan to keep fighting and try to remain as true to the faith as I can.

[dsdrane]

You make a number of accusations -- enough, in my view, to make your protests of not wanting to cause discord disingenuous. You clothe them as "humble opinions" and then conveniently fail to cite any evidence or proof.

However there are several in the governing roles who are anything but true to the creeds. TEC has through the year allowed the continue ministry of those who deny the resurrection, that Jesus was divine, the virginity of Mary, that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, etc. etc.

Really...who?

Problems I have with [++Jefferts Schori]. One her character and methods are lacking. Her tactics in targetting those who disagree with her, much like several other bishops in TEC, are fascist at best. Pat Robertson has nothing on them. How many Bishops in TEC have removed moderates or conservatives via displacing them out of the pulpit for a certain period of time till they can declare that they have abandoned it? To many. Thats a perfect example of in the tradition of fascism of capitalizing on the differences in order to make an attack against any intruders.

Please elaborate. Also, I find your use of "fascism" ironic in the extreme.

We have always since the conception of the TEC in America have believed it to be important to be in communion with other churches. A perfect example of this being that if we were only accountable to ourselves we would of not had the issues of getting bishops consecrated when we were first forming in this country. We believe we are with the other churches in the line of the apostolic succession.

And we can thank the Scots for our continued apostolic succession after the English cut us off. If anything, TEC continues to be true to its tradition and "councils of time past" by refusing to be dictated to by others. And I agree with you; I don't think this is particularly Anglican of us...and thank God for that.

I really do have a gut feeling that many are trying to exploit the LGBTs as a way to gain power from within.

This is patently absurd.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that our points of views are very different and that we are aligned with groups of like-minded people. Interestingly, the one thing we most likely do agree on is that Episcopalians have really ceased to be Anglicans.

[nmwolfboy]

Dear B.Ryan.F,

Respectfully, i must say that the TEC i'm engaged with does not resemble what you describe in the slightest. Just for a bit of background, i attend a very progressive parish within an Anglican Network Diocese (Rio Grande). Though my parish is very progressive, the liberals therein do not in any way fit the picture of liberals that you seem to be painting. Neither do the conservatives in my parish resemble those that many others in the wider community, especially the blogosphere, seem to have encountered.

i've not run into any of the liberal TEC apostates that i read about. i've not encountered any TEC liberals who deny the creeds or the divinity of Christ or any other basic church traditions. i have found liberals who understand those TEC basics differently than the conservatives do.

To consider probably the most maligned TEC progressive, +Spong, what i find when i read his books is someone who is asking uncomfortable questions about the basics of faith. While in his arguments he has stated some challenging things that on the surface deny basic traditional assumptions about church teachings, when he reaches the the end of his arguments he often ends up affirming those same teachings, but from a different perspective.

i wonder if some who so strongly speak out against him have ever actually read his works in their entirety and taken the time to prayerfully consider what he says. Or have they just perused snippets of his works and jumped to repeating the judgments of others without engaging their own prayerful discernment?

Now, don't get the idea that i agree with everything +Spong posits, but i must admit that my reading & consideration of his arguments have greatly enriched & deepened my faith in Christ, Christianity, and the Anglican tradition. I do find some of his scholarship suspect, but not enough to invalidate the thought-provoking questions he raises. Besides, faith that fears hard questions is hardly an effective faith.

Enough gabbing on my part. B.Ryan.F thanks for taking time to share your thoughts, even though i can't say my experience in any way mirrors what you outline. C'est la théologie!

Pax :dove:

scott

[bryanf]

I would encourage us to take this conversation to private messages if it is to continue on Anglicanism. In the end I think we are going to disagree no matter what. But I very much do apprecriate your thoughts on this subject. If we chose to continue this conversation in plublic let us go to one of the many other forums that exist for the purpose to discuss these issues in Anglicanism.

And let us not lose sight. For we are all here because we do believe and hope for the day when we might be freed from oppression. We may disagree in a number of venues, this is fine. We do not even have to be of the same faith. What we can do is to share the burden with one another in this journey. And with one another we can come together in hope of a good day.

So if anyone cares to continue this discourse on TEC, lets take this to private messages.

And the main reason I participated in this thread was to express that homosexuality is not the primary concern of those on the right in American Anglicanism. We in the right view that that much of The Episcopal Church are departing from orthodox faith. (IF this was a simple issue that could be resolved in one thread then we would not be in the crisi American Anglicanism is currently in.) And I do want to say that working reasonably within the bounds of Anglican thought, I do think that a reasonable hope for conversation to be held within the American Anglican right. Whether this ever happens, God only knows.

And finally to my to my brothers and sisters here who are from the TEC, I am very greatful in your company as we strive for a better day. It is sad that though in one world we may be parting ways, it is indeed a good thing that in another we are able to unite for a common cause.

[u-dog]

Why do you want to take this conversation private? everyone is behaving themselves and its interesting reading. have your disagreement out where the rest of us can listen in. Thats what the fora are fora (heh heh) :lol:

[bryanf]

I was hoping for it not to degrade into flame thread. I have seen a number of these threads on this subject in other forums errupt into something quite nasty. And though I think all of us could behave ourselves, there is no point in flirting deviciveness.

Plus a little bit of peace in not having to hear or discuss this would also would be quite nice. ;o) I hear enough of it as it is from both sides. ;o)

[u-dog]

We won't start flaming here. You can trust us. we can get hot under the collar but seldom do we burst into flames. Dave and Scott are two very smart and insightful members of the group. They may vehemently disagree with you but they won't disrespect you. Trust them.

(Okay you guys! Don't make a liar out of me!)

Our moderators are very good at slapping peoples wrists if they get out of line... in fact they occasionally get their wrists slapped for slapping too many wrists. This is a safe place.

[nmwolfboy]

We can get hot under the collar but seldom do we burst into flames.

i beg your pardon! i burst into flames on a regular basis; occasionally my head even explodes. :hissy: That is, after it stops spinning around uncontrollably! Harumph!!!

Seriously, i don't expect everyone to agree with me. Frankly, it would creep me out if it ever did happen. B.Ryan.F., i'd really like to keep the conversation going though i certainly understand if you'd prefer some peace. :dove: If you are willing to slog on, i've a question relating to this:

Problems I have with her. One her character and methods are lacking. Her tactics in targetting those who disagree with her, much like several other bishops in TEC, are fascist at best. Pat Robertson has nothing on them. How many Bishops in TEC have removed moderates or conservatives via displacing them out of the pulpit for a certain period of time till they can declare that they have abandoned it? To many. Thats a perfect example of in the tradition of fascism of capitalizing on the differences in order to make an attack against any intruders.


i'm not quite following your comments about ++Katharine here. What conservatives or moderates have been removed? i'm aware of some who have been inhibited by their Bishops after voting to leave TEC, which i think is completely in keeping with the canons; other than the one who's been accused of financial malfeasance in Colorado (?) i'm not aware of others. Can you give me some specifics, or point me toward info relating to your statements about both the affected clergy and ++Katharine's actions?


Another example of the ongoing TEC is that is developing a xenophobia of sorts. It is the TEC and this is us mindset. The mindset of superiority to everyone else. Yeah strife has been in the TEC since its conception. But particularly now, even more so than the AngloCatholic vs Evangelical strife (which surprisingly so many of them are uniting now in a common 'cause against the "liberals"; I don't think many ever expected AngloCatholics and Evangelicals to walk hand in hand in much of anything but here we are now agreeing that the creeds are being jeopardized and putting our differences aside for the common good).

Again, i'm not seeing this, at least not in my parish. All my parish clergy and most of the laity are very vocal that a diversity of understandings of faith and belief (i.e. Anglo-catholic, Evangelical, Broad Church, liberal/conservative, etc) are not only welcomed, but central to our tradition. While it's recognized that individuals within the parish may value one strand of the Anglican tradition over another, corporately we go to great efforts to ensure that a variety of Anglican opinions are recognized. In our new members' class quite some time is devoted to discussing the Anglican tradition of valuing seemingly contradicting opinions and recognizing that doing so can yield a dynamic tension that deepens faith.

Perhaps my progressive parish is even more unique than i thought, as well as being in the minority in an historically conservative, Network diocese.

Pax :dove:

scott

[dsdrane]

At the risk of creeping out NMWBoy, I completely agree with him.

:rolleyes:

My parish in the Diocese of Southeast Florida also spans a wide range of ideological/political views and thought but maintains a commitment to "walking together".

Interestingly -- and I don't know if this is a good or bad thing -- I don't believe there has been any public conversation or debate about TEC remaining in the Anglican Communion. My impression is that most are saddened by the current state of affairs but feel that the die has been cast. C'est la guerre!

[Semi-private aside to u-dog: Oh, u!]