WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Another diocese leaves the Episcopal Church
The Episcopal Church in the United States continues to grow smaller. Today, the Diocese of Quincy in Illinois voted to leave the increasingly liberal denomination, following the lead of fellow conservative dioceses in Fresno, Calif., and Pittsburgh. Next weekend, the diocese in Fort Worth, Texas, will decide whether to do the same.
Topic: Religion, WorldMagBlog
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
back to top69 Comments to “Another diocese leaves the Episcopal Church”
I believe that any groups who leave forfeit the church property.
If this trend keeps up the Episcopal Church will consist of one lonely gay bishop who will control a whole lot of property. In England, many churches have become bars and nightclubs. What will the bishop turn them into I wonder?
Report comment as offensive
Well, right off hand I’d imagine gay bars and gay nightclubs for you guessed it: gay Episcopalians.
When will the muslim homosexuals in the liberal west come out? Demand their own Metropolitian Community masjids etc??
Watch this space.
Report comment as offensive
I know that Worldmag has made it into an agenda to highlight the difficulties in the Episcopal church. Given how anti-gay they are, it’s no surprise that they’re gonna highlight churches that declare gays “persona non grata”.
But the fact is, the vast, vast majority of the Episcopal Church in America remains committed to remaining in the Anglican Communion and fully welcoming of it’s gay members. They recognize that all of their congregants are children of God and deserving of full participation in the life of the church.
Report comment as offensive
Anlir, I guess too many folks still cling to the need to repent from sin prior to affiliating with the church as the bride of Christ. Are their any Epi churches where they provide counseling and support to assist men and women out of that lifestyle?
This puts the church in the odd position of simultaneously proclaiming Biblical authority ( no sex outside of marriage) while celebrating homosexual sex. Even committed male homosexuals allow for an occasional outside the relationship foray. This vitiates the exclusivity required for trad marriage.
Report comment as offensive
Sawgunner,
Based on your comments, I don’t think you have a clue as to what gay people’s lives are really like.
If the church could find a way to live with divorced and remarried people, I’m betting they can find a way to live with gay people. In fact, many of them have.
Report comment as offensive
I’m glad to see those who know what the Bible says leave a Church which has strayed far away from what the Word teaches. The property or building means nothing when a church has lost its way.
Report comment as offensive
Anlir,
Based on your comments I don’t think you have a clue what the church really is.
Report comment as offensive
Anlir,
There are no real churches that treat gays as “persona non grata.” All are filled with former sinners who often still struggle with sin.
Gays are no different. The church is there with open arms.
What the church is NOT open to are members who continue to sin and are *proud* of it, and have no intention of reforming.
Report comment as offensive
There are, or course, many fine churches in addition to the Episcopal Church that welcomes gay people and includes them fully in their church life. They are to be commended.
Report comment as offensive
What will the bishop turn them into I wonder?
St. Judy’s over the Rainbow
St. Maggie Pick a Tricks
Sts. Peter and Paul in Chains
First Church of Christ, Athlete
Corpus Chris’
Report comment as offensive
WWNPS?
(What will Nick Peters say?)
Report comment as offensive
A Catholic, I’ve watched with regret as the Episcopal Church went from embracing contraception, to ordaining female priests, then female bishops, then actively homosexual bishops. Despite much posturing regarding ecumenical objectives with the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church has consistently placed ideological considerations ahead of Christian unity when a choice had to be made and is today reaping a predictable consequence from this choices: Pariah status. I congratulate the four Episcopal Diocese that have chosen separation and wish them well.
Report comment as offensive
John Lowell, I agree. The Episcopal Church has in recent years by degrees closed itself to ecumenical discussion with the Catholic Church. Christ’s hope, stated in John, of ut unum sint, that His Church be one has been defeated by the liberal Episcopal Church.
Report comment as offensive
Ironic really, is it not? They sought to be more inclusive and the net effect was there membership contracted. A good example would be the infamous Austin Tx Baptist church which began with ordination of a gay deacon and now may as well be a full-blown metropolitan church. Refer to ubcaustin dot org
Report comment as offensive
Jesus said that there will come a day when those who seek entrance into the kingdom of heaven will say, “we did this in your name and that in your name.” Those who know the word also know what he said next. When a church condones sin in the name of Christ, there can be but one ending result.
The people in these churches have made their choice. This is just the beginning. The first one took courage, the next one a little easier, and as the Episcopal church loses more congregations, they will close their doors, sell their buildings, and if the people who have saved their pennies, so to speak, they’ll be able to buy back their churches, they’ll be able to reunite. And maybe they should now to contact the Catholic Church and start their own conversations.
I give these people a tremendous about of credit for the courage to choose Christ over politics.
Report comment as offensive
The Episcopal Church, the Church of England, the Anglican Church began when Henry VIII wanted to kill his wives and remarry without obstruction.
I am surprised that Church survived even a single year. Well, it has been around since 1534. It began with sexual sin and will end with sexual sin. Let it die already. Let it die.
The true Christians within the Anglican Church should move on. It is time.
Report comment as offensive
As opposed to the “untrue Christians”. Next, they can get rid of all those pesky ordained wimmenfolk. Honestly, doesn’t anybody know their place anymore? Hmmph!
Report comment as offensive
Arcadia,
I know my place–at the feet of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, who is the only way to life eternal.
My earthly place is as His servant, which includes being a helpmeet to my husband.
Any other questions?
Report comment as offensive
There is one thing our lefty friends never seem to comprehend: the word “obedience.”
Report comment as offensive
Cameron:
Feel better now?
The simple truth is that your holy book is so utterly disrespectful of women that no woman should ever look to it for advice. Women were of no value to these people, and if these are your god’s word, have little or no value to your god himself. They were barely above, and mostly below slaves in value. And using cute little words like “helpmeet” won’t disguise the facts. Biblically, women are all condemned to inferior status. I doubt that I have to trot out for you the scores of biblical passages, both OT and NT that proove it.
Of course you proove it to yourself every week when you sit in a house within which you and all of your gender are not even allowed to speak or share your knowledge.
Report comment as offensive
Arcadia,
How is the woman in Proverbs 31 denigrated? How is Lydia viewed as a slave? What about Mary and Martha, Mary Magdelene, and the woman at the well?
I’m allowed to speak and share my knowledge when it’s appropriate–Sabbath School, Bible studies, and so forth. Just not in worship. Just like every unordained man.
I’m sorry I can’t explain it to you better; I still have much to learn from my Titus 2 sisters…
Report comment as offensive
No women are not condemned to inferior status, and (preemptive strike) any verses you “trot out” to support your assertion are misinterpreted and/or taken out of context. And you ignore clear evidence to the contrary. But I doubt an argument will get us anywhere.
Next discussion.
Report comment as offensive
Genesis 1:27 — “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Male and female both created in the image of God; so much for “no value.”
Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Male and female who are in Christ have equal standing. So much for “all condemned to inferior status.”
Acts 17:4 — “And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.”
Acts 17:12 — “Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.”
Women held leading/prominent positions in Greco-Roman society?!? So much for “barely above, and mostly below slaves in value.”
Report comment as offensive
There is nothing more beautiful in the universe than a woman agreeing to fulfill her role. All men would bow down, worship God and elevate her to the highest position possible.
Thank you Cameron for being a vessel of true inspiration.
Report comment as offensive
There is one thing our conservative Christian friends never seem to comprehend: the word “judgmentalism”.
Better to be a smaller church that welcomes all of God’s children than to be a large church with a “No gays allowed” sign.
Report comment as offensive
I consider murder, rape, theft, etc. as evil. Although some people rationalize these activities, and there are difficulties in the details, I think these standards are generally accepted by many people of different beliefs.
I consider actions that lead to harmful results as wrong. Sex without protection or basis for taking care of children who may result (and no protection is infallible) is harmful. Not washing hands after using the bathroom is harmful.
More and more the word “sin” as used here sounds to me to be “I don’t like this activity or belief, so I assign it to God (who may or may not exist) because that is more likely to convince other people to act and believe as I believe and claim to act.
I do not find this convincing as a sole basis for action or condemnation.
Report comment as offensive
Wow! Arcadia. You either have no knowledge of Christian churches, or you’ve been exposed to the Christian fringe.
I in no way feel inferior as a woman. My church allows women in all sorts of leadership roles — except for senior pastor.
My husband and I are equals. He only puts his foot down (and I submit as an equal who does so voluntarily) when we come to an impasse in which direction the family should head, which is a very rare circumstance.
Who hurt you so badly in the past in the name of Christianity?
For shame on them.
Report comment as offensive
The Episcopal Church has been declining at least since World War I. Certainly the divisions over homosexuality and the proper role of women have damaged it more, but that applies to every other denomination in the United States also. The real problem has been its ties to the Church of England, which has concerns which make no sense here. For example my friends in England just got through celebrating Guy Fawkes Day on November 5th, which serves to remind the people that Roman Catholics are all traitors. In this latest division it seems unlikely to me that those seceding have more of a future than the rest of the church. So far the secessionists include s mere five percent of the members in a denomination with fewer than two million members in all. So why should anyone care except those directly involved?
Report comment as offensive
Judgment belongs to Christ; obedience to His Word to mankind. The question isn’t what people think. The question is “What does God think?” God has condemned the participation in homosexual acts — in addition to many other things.
The thing the leftys fear the most about the Bible is that it sets a standard. Just think: if our friends on Wall Street understood “thou shalt not steal,” we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in right now.
Report comment as offensive
So why should anyone care except those directly involved?
Why indeed?
Report comment as offensive
Why?
Because we should support our brothers and sisters who follow the Word.
Report comment as offensive
And it isn’t what WE consider evil. It is what GOD considers evil. Humans have a tendency to excuse their own sins.
Report comment as offensive
I believe I’ve seen some complaints around wmb about the use of the acronym “CCR.” If I’m not mistaken, it stands for “Conservative Christian Republican.”
I don’t consider myself as either a “liberal” or a “conservative.” However, if you wish to insult me by using either of those terms, feel free.
I’m not sure if I have at any time used “CCR” in a comment. If I ever did, I have ceased using it. However, I would be more impressed by comments of conservative posters who would stop using terms such as “lefty” as a generic term of insult. I actually read some comments that may express a different point of view than mine with consideration that they may be including a useful fact or an opinion worth consideration. However, the use of words such as “lefty” strikes me as lazy, ill-intended, and in view of the complaints about “CCR” rather hypocritical. I pretty much stop paying attention when I come across it.
Though, I do wonder what the reason some posters share their comments is. There’s another thread this weekend that says something about “echo.” Maybe that’s a clue.
In any case, I would be more impressed by people who could expre
Report comment as offensive
I would be more impressed with myself if I could finish a comment before I post it. I meant to say:
In any case, I would be more impressed by people who could express their opinions on politics without engaging in lazy rhetoric and labels such as “lefty,” etc.
As I’ve mentioned, the political rhetoric around here resembles the diction of racism. Instead of “honky” (which I’ve been called when I taught in racially mixed schools) or “ni**er” (which you can accuse me of having a double standard because of my use of **- really they are “pasties”) we encounter “CCR” or “lefty”.
Report comment as offensive
Certainly churches should be free to run their own affairs without interference from outsiders. But what we’re witnessing is a group of outsiders (conservative Christians) attempting to dictate the internal affairs of a church they aren’t a part of (Episcopal Church). Make no mistake - the goal of these troublemakers is to destroy the Anglican Communion. Their demand for the Episcopal church to declare gays “persona non grata” and expel all of them is not going to happen. You’d think conservative Christians would have enough problems in their own churches to go sticking their noses in another church and telling them what to do.
Yes, there will be some churches that leave the Episcopal Church in America. But they are a small portion. We saw the same thing in other denominations over the full inclusion of black people and the full inclusion of women. There will always be a small minority who can’t accept people who aren’t exactly like them.
Report comment as offensive
TRS, Cameron: Listen to yourselves
except for senior pastor
to fulfill her role
vessel
Just not in worship
He puts his foot down and I submit
Women are stupid.
And listen to your holy book
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing
They are inferior and less important. (Unless of course you think the church more important that Jesus Christ, himself)
3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
A clearer statement of the utter worthlessness of women does not exist anywhere in literature. Except maybe here:
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Lucky girl! She gets to marry her rapist. Well, I guess it’s progress that you folks no longer practice this. Now she only has to bear her rapist’s child.
This utterly obscene and irrational denial of value to one half of the human race is your creed.
You are welcome to it. But don’t bring it anywhere NEAR my daughters and grandchildren.
Report comment as offensive
It began with sexual sin and will end with sexual sin.
XION is ignorant of history and delusional about the future.
Also, the Episcopal Church is at the forefront of religious conservation.
Report comment as offensive
Arcadia,
In many, many passages of the Bible CHRIST is compared to the woman and GOD THE FATHER to the man. Christ and God are equals, but Christ *voluntarily* submits to God the Father.
“Helpmeet” is the SAME WORD that God uses of himself in relation to US.
You forgot the verses that also say:
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;” Ephesians 5:25
and “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.” Ephesians 5:28
As for the damsel and that passage, please show me where it says ANYTHING about rape. It says that a man who lies with an unbetrothed virgin needs to take RESPONSIBILITY for her welfare and marry her.
In that culture, she was “damaged goods” — as in no longer a virgin. No one would marry her.
Rather than just have his fun with her, the man is required to marry her and care for her. He may NEVER divorce her. He is responsible in the eyes of the community to care for her until he dies.
Where does it say anything about rape? Do you know this woman wasn’t laying with him because she WANTED to??
Good heavens! You really were damaged at some point to be so off kilter in your understanding.
Report comment as offensive
Oh, and the word “submit” in the Bible in its original language always implies the *voluntary* submission of one equal to another.
Report comment as offensive
When the Bible was written women (and slaves) were considered property. A woman was the property of her father until he handed her off to her new owner, her husband.
Of course, modern day Christians reinterpret the Bible to fit modern sensibilities, so they can look at us with a somewhat straight face and tell us that “women are equal to men”. In actual practice, however, they don’t really believe that. They just don’t want to sound so retrograde.
And of course, on the “slave” thing, they’ve totally reinterpreted that to where now they claim that the word “slave” really means “employee”. Just a little historical revision is all.
Interestingly, though they’ve found a way to reinterpret the Bible for women and slaves in today’s modern world, they’re still holding out on the “gay” thing. Well, some are. Many Christians have also reinterpreted the verses on homosexuality in light of today’s knowledge.
However, they got there (to modernity) on women, slaves, and gays, they are to be commended for it.
Report comment as offensive
When the Bible was written, women were considered property. Which is why the Bible, with its assertion of the full dignity and humanity of woman, as the counterpart and soulmate of man, is so different from the dismally common relegation of women to servants and incubators, both then and now. Male and female created He them, and pronounced it good.
I was at an Episcopal diocesan convention yesterday, so I may perhaps speak with a little authority. The convention was overwhelmingly more interested in preventing emotional hurt to homosexuals than remaining in communion with worldwide Anglicanism, and voted accordingly. I assure Mr. Everitt that Guy Fawkes was not remotely an issue, much less a divisive one.
By the way, the decline of the Episcopal Church did not begin circa WWI. The first year of decline was 1967, when the Episcopal Church lost 62,684 members or -1.7%. http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2004GrowthReport(1).pdf
Report comment as offensive
Kwerna: “assertion of the full dignity and humanity of woman”??
When they are silenced, shunned, bought, sold, traded in and handed off at will? When their monetary value is 1/2 that of a man? When they have to be avoided, “cleansed” and treated like lepers depending on what time of the month it is or when they have provided their dominant male with a child (note: the period of cleansing is longer for a female child than a male because they are dirtier).
I have another word for it.
Property does not have dignity. It’s just property. The Christian god might as well have told men to love their puppies.
Report comment as offensive
TRS,
Am I right that you feel more loved and respected by your husband than many of your liberated female friends.
Report comment as offensive
Kwerna, you obviously have more information than I do.
Concerning decline, I am willing to believe the first decline in absolute numbers was in 1967. But I suspect the Episcopal Church had been declining as a percentage of the total population for some time before that, and declining in influence even earlier. In the 19th century, I believe quite a number of Presidents were Episcopalian, but rather fewer were Episcopalian in the 20th century. And the Anglican Communion now has most of its members in Africa, I think, where its members have quite different views from those in the United States. If the U.S. church breaks its ties to that, of course, it will no longer suffer from that incongruity. Anyway I wish it well.
Report comment as offensive
I simply do not know where Anlir gets these ridiculous ideas that Christians have reinterpreted the word “slave” to mean “employee.”
And this quote is absolutely outrageous: “Of course, modern day Christians reinterpret the Bible to fit modern sensibilities, so they can look at us with a somewhat straight face and tell us that “women are equal to men”. In actual practice, however, they don’t really believe that. They just don’t want to sound so retrograde.
I doubt that TRS feels retro about her relationship with her husband.
We haven’t “reinterpreted” anything. Paul’s verses on how a woman should be cared for by her husband, if today’s women expected it to be done which many of them don’t because they don’t even know this standard exists, puts a heavy responsibility on men. The best husbands do follow the standard, but they are few and far between in today’s world, though I have been privileged to know quite a few. The day women bought into feminism and let men off the responsibility hook and lowered the standard, they doomed themselves, not to mention the effect on their kids.
Report comment as offensive
The distinction is I believe between Christian egalitarian and Christian complementarian views of proper gender roles, plus a dispute over whether New Testament authors like Paul spoke their personal opinions as men of their times or expressed an enduring reality. Both views have some truth, as it seems to me; and couples should probably do what makes them happy.
Anyway I have just been slightly annoyed by a Jew in Tel Aviv telling me in effect that he knows more about the diversity of Christian belief in the United States than I do. But I feel that is more excusable than Anlir’s seeming ignorance of that diversity, although maybe he lives in Indonesia or somewhere else unlikely.
Report comment as offensive
Arcadia, you are trying to reinterpret history wearing 21st century blinders. I suspect you are a lousy ball room dancer, since you so strongly oppose anyone leading. Symphonies must really rile you since someone must play first chair.
I realize that gender roles is a very confusing subject for you. Look up the term matrimony. Why should a mother (matre) be financially and legally provided for? Why weren’t women throughout history the dominant ones going out on the hunt, being the providers?
Maybe you didn’t get the memo. Males and females are different. Generally speaking, we think differently. We have different interests. There is a natural order of things. Perhaps you should take a walk in the park and observe the birds and bees and get back to us. No culture elevated women like Christ did.
You ignore nature and history. Your misunderstanding of the Bible taints your view of the one who created us this way. He defines loves as putting others first. For husbands that means giving themselves to their wives even to death. Wives should put their husbands first as well. Eph 5:21-25
This mutual submission is not about dominance. It is what loving your spouse more than one’s self means. It is acting like Christ.
There is nothing more beautiful than watching ducks on a pond: the male slightly leads the female and the ducklings follow close behind. Have you seen a stallion slightly lead a mare as they gallop over a meadow? Should not God who made all these things not also delight in this dance of love between those made in his own image?
There is much beauty in this world that you miss by closing your eyes.
Report comment as offensive
XION,
Nicely said!
Report comment as offensive
Xion,
Beautiful -
I can envision the stallions leading over the meadow with the mare just slightly behind. Sometimes it takes a simple illustration like this to put it all in perspective.
Report comment as offensive
For the record, the diocese typically owns the church buildings. So if an entire diocese decides to align itself with a different arm of the global Anglican church then there’s no issue. Dispute arise when individual churches within a diocese try to break away. At least in some cases, the law has sided with the individual churches:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1728134,00.html
Report comment as offensive
Buddyglass
Almost all denominations own the buildings, land that their churches stand on -