Va. Parishes Split From Episcopal Church

Praise God from whom all blessings flow. Finally, after years of trying to "just all get along" the reality for many Episcopalians seems to be that they have decided to stand by what the Holy Scriptures teach while many others continue to slide down the slippery slope of "trying to be all things for all people." I admire the courage of the Truro and Falls Church congregations. It seems that these fellowships have come to recognize that if you don't stand for something, you will more than likely fall for anything. That seems to be the course the Episcopal Church has chosen for many years now and the results are extremely sad.

Dale Seley says 'praise God'... well, I dunno ... "the courage of The Falls Church and Truro churches" actually shows how homophobic the leaders are there. They are both affiliating with the notorious Peter Akinola, Anglican archbishop from Nigeria and member of the House of Representatives in Nigera. Here are a few things Akinola hopes for soon:
1) gays put in jail.
2) no gay organizations allowed.
3) certainly, no gay publications permitted.
4) two or more gays gathered in one place are illegal.

Read the Washington Post from a couple days ago and the New York Times for today, Sunday.

The former Episcopalians in Virginia are represented by Martyn Mimms, rector at Truro Church.

No, I do not think you want to 'praise God' for this development; not if you have any compassion at all for gay people.

I'm not sure that "praise God" is the correct response for this split either. However, I find it interesting that Patrick Townson, along with others of his opinion, refers to those with whom he disagress as homophobic. That charge adds no clarity to this issue. Can not reasonable, compassionate Christians honesty believe that when the Bible speaks of God's opposition to homosexuality, it means that God actually is opposed to homosexuality? This certainly must have been a difficult decision to reach - based more on a view of the authority of Scripture, than on the application of Scripture to any single issue.

We are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.

So, we can not eradicate sin from the world by revising what sin is. We eraticate sin from the world by prayer, fasting, and realizing that there really is sin.

The Episcopal Church, in trying to welcome everyone, has forgotten that all people are sinners and should be ministered to as sinners.

Bill Altman wrote:

I'm not sure that "praise God" is the correct response for this split either. However, I find it interesting that Patrick Townson, along with others of his opinion, refers to those with whom he disagress as homophobic. That charge adds no clarity to this issue. Can not reasonable, compassionate Christians honesty believe that when the Bible speaks of God's opposition to homosexuality, it means that God actually is opposed to homosexuality? This certainly must have been a difficult decision to reach - based more on a view of the authority of Scripture, than on the application of Scripture to any single issue.

Hurling the term "homophobic" is just childish name calling by people who cannot logically or ethically justify their position.

The departure of these parishes may soon be relatively insignificant to the entire diocese that have departure in their plans. Many are discussing a return to the historic and biblical faith.

Bill Altman wrote:

I'm not sure that "praise God" is the correct response for this split either. However, I find it interesting that Patrick Townson, along with others of his opinion, refers to those with whom he disagress as homophobic. That charge adds no clarity to this issue. Can not reasonable, compassionate Christians honesty believe that when the Bible speaks of God's opposition to homosexuality, it means that God actually is opposed to homosexuality? This certainly must have been a difficult decision to reach - based more on a view of the authority of Scripture, than on the application of Scripture to any single issue.

Well gosh, please give me the chapter and verse where God says She is opposed to homosexuality? I must have missed that verse ...

Bill Altman wrote:

I'm not sure that "praise God" is the correct response for this split either. However, I find it interesting that Patrick Townson, along with others of his opinion, refers to those with whom he disagress as homophobic. That charge adds no clarity to this issue. Can not reasonable, compassionate Christians honesty believe that when the Bible speaks of God's opposition to homosexuality, it means that God actually is opposed to homosexuality? This certainly must have been a difficult decision to reach - based more on a view of the authority of Scripture, than on the application of Scripture to any single issue.

Do you actually oppose simple liberties -- nothing special or extra mind you, just simle liberties -- for gay people; i.e. being able to meet as a group, socialize, read publications they desire, etc.

And when I warn people that having Peter Anikola as the archbishop of (former) Episcopal churches in the USA will cause an erosion of those simple liberties is that some kind of extraordinary behavior on my part?

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>
Hurling the term "homophobic" is just childish name calling by people who cannot logically or ethically justify their position.
The departure of these parishes may soon be relatively insignificant to the entire diocese that have departure in their plans. Many are discussing a return to the historic and biblical faith.

The 'historic and biblical faith' as it is commonly understood has little place for women or gays. Note my key word: "AS IT IS COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD". Many of us do not accept your culturally biased interpretations of the word of God.

PAT

Dear fellow Episcopalians and other self-righteous sinners,

Paul B wrote:

We are all sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.
So, we can not eradicate sin from the world by revising what sin is. We eraticate sin from the world by prayer, fasting, and realizing that there really is sin.
The Episcopal Church, in trying to welcome everyone, has forgotten that all people are sinners and should be ministered to as sinners.

It seems that there is a movement afoot, in Virginia and other places, to try not to welcome everyone, forgetting that all people are sinners and should be ministered to as sinners.

I WAS a member of the Anglican Catholic Church in
northern Indianapolis Indiana.
In 1980, that break-away Communion started two
parishes.
From the start, the Anglican Catholic Churches
in central Indiana were overrun with homosexual
Bishops and "priests".
By 1985, after having my one-quarter Jewish and
Episcopal fiancee called a "dirty Jew" by the
President of the Vestry of St. Edward's the
Confessor parish in Indianapolis, I was, without
just cause or warning and behind my back, told
that since I brought a "dirty Jewess" to Church,
that I kicked out of that parish.
She had been Baptized and Confirmed in the
Episcopal Church.
She was Pro-Life, a Conservative politically,
and was NOT in favor of homosexuality.
I hope that your new FREE parishes do NOT join the
Pro-Gay Anglican Catholic Church.
May your new parishes be in God and Christ.
You have no choice but to quit the rotted-out
Episcopal Church.
Homosexuals, and Sodomy, are killing the
Anglican Catholic Church!!
I am with you. Come to Indiana. We are ready
to join-up.
Thank You. God Bless You. Merry Christmas!!
Mike.
My ex-fiancee, who is only one-fourth Jewish,
would like to join.
SHALOM--thru Christ Our Lord!!

kgc wrote:

Dear fellow Episcopalians and other self-righteous sinners,
<quoted text>
It seems that there is a movement afoot, in Virginia and other places, to try not to welcome everyone, forgetting that all people are sinners and should be ministered to as sinners.

kgc, I try not to be self righteous. I try to be loving and charitible to everyone.

My point was that welcoming everyone into church is indeed a good thing. However, revising what sin is so as not to offend those people you are welcoming is wrong.

What is sinful, sin being distancing oneself from God, does not change from year to year or generation to generation, or person to person.

Dear Paul,

Our understanding of Holy Scripture is like the tree of Life. It continues to grow and to spread. When the scriptural fundamentalists of Jerusalem encountered Jesus 2000 years ago, they were so distorted by his teachings that they had him killed.

You and I are here today, discussing the outfall of his resurrection, affirming life and the value of his teachings. He taught forgiveness was to be given to those that trespassed against us. He taught that we had no right to condemn others for sins that we perceived to be committed by others, while we remained sinners ourselves.

Our perception of sin has changed over the centuries. Our understanding of heresy has changed and is still changing. Today, we are learning about Jesus and those who became his disciples, including women, from texts recently unearthed and discovered and even only now being deciphered.

At the same time we are learning that children become homosexuals through no fault of their own and no fault of their parents. Why do we persist in condemning them? Why do we ostracize them as teenagers, abandoning them to commit suicide and to believe that they are destined to go to hell? We don't know this.

We say we believe Jesus. Well? Jesus said, "I am the Way... No one...but by me." Why do we insist that we can say whether or not someone, who we perceive to be a sinner, is going to be allowed to get ito heaven?

Why do we insist upon judging others, asserting that we completely understand the meaning of scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, once and for all, when we obviously do not have this understanding?

Paul, I sense that you stand on the threshhold of accepting guidance and discipleship under Jesus. Many who proclaim such acceptance and submission to such guidance, have never really done so. It doesn't happen all at once, generally speaking, anyway. I know for me, it's taking a lifetime. But, as we learn and grow in the Spirit, it becomes quite literally impossible to justify any measure of condemnation of another for their sexual proclivities.

As a heterosexual, I can say that homsexual behavior is repugnant to me. But, I am a heterosexual and have no understanding of sexual attraction to others of my own sex. Even so, I will follow the lead given by Jesus and simply refuse to condemn another on this basis.

kgc

kgc wrote:

Dear Paul,
Our understanding of Holy Scripture is like the tree of Life. It continues to grow and to spread. When the scriptural fundamentalists of Jerusalem encountered Jesus 2000 years ago, they were so distorted by his teachings that they had him killed.
You and I are here today, discussing the outfall of his resurrection, affirming life and the value of his teachings. He taught forgiveness was to be given to those that trespassed against us. He taught that we had no right to condemn others for sins that we perceived to be committed by others, while we remained sinners ourselves.
Our perception of sin has changed over the centuries. Our understanding of heresy has changed and is still changing. Today, we are learning about Jesus and those who became his disciples, including women, from texts recently unearthed and discovered and even only now being deciphered.
At the same time we are learning that children become homosexuals through no fault of their own and no fault of their parents. Why do we persist in condemning them? Why do we ostracize them as teenagers, abandoning them to commit suicide and to believe that they are destined to go to hell? We don't know this.
We say we believe Jesus. Well? Jesus said, "I am the Way... No one...but by me." Why do we insist that we can say whether or not someone, who we perceive to be a sinner, is going to be allowed to get ito heaven?
Why do we insist upon judging others, asserting that we completely understand the meaning of scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, once and for all, when we obviously do not have this understanding?
Paul, I sense that you stand on the threshhold of accepting guidance and discipleship under Jesus. Many who proclaim such acceptance and submission to such guidance, have never really done so. It doesn't happen all at once, generally speaking, anyway. I know for me, it's taking a lifetime. But, as we learn and grow in the Spirit, it becomes quite literally impossible to justify any measure of condemnation of another for their sexual proclivities.
As a heterosexual, I can say that homsexual behavior is repugnant to me. But, I am a heterosexual and have no understanding of sexual attraction to others of my own sex. Even so, I will follow the lead given by Jesus and simply refuse to condemn another on this basis.
kgc

Dear KCG-

I have been following these reports-

As a Catholic, my understanding is that private interpretation of the Scriptures is a fundemantal tenet of Protestanism; as such, does this not present difficulties for the Episcopal hierarchy when biblically affirming positions at odds with those of the flock, especially when said flock has arrived at a diffeering scriptural conclusion?

kgc wrote:

But, as we learn and grow in the Spirit, it becomes quite literally impossible to justify any measure of condemnation of another for their sexual proclivities.
kgc

KGC, I don't get this at all. Are you saying that it's natural for people to be attracted to children, animals, people of the same gender, people of the opposite gender, married people, single people, dead people and live people, and all of those attractions are equally relevant and "okay"?

On the issue of condemnation, I have an honest question. How do we as Christians believe in sin, develop an understanding of sin, try to purge sin from our lives, but not urge others to do the same? Is it condemnation to point out sin in another's life? If I love you in Christ, how can I not say something?

Dan,
As you are aware, there is much yet to be said and that has already been said about any interpretation of scripture. However strict and solid we would wish such interpretation to be, in order to be able to rely on scripture as a platform of guidance for personal behavior, we must realize that we are still interpreting and perceiving through the filters of our own makeup. So, we have the views of St. Augustine and we have the views of Aquinas and Tillich and others, some in the Roman church, some Eastern, some Lutheran, some Protestant, all Christian.

[Dan said]Dear KCG-
I have been following these reports-
As a Catholic, my understanding is that private interpretation of the Scriptures is a fundamental tenet of Protestanism; as such, does this not present difficulties for the Episcopal hierarchy when biblically affirming positions at odds with those of the flock, especially when said flock has arrived at a differing scriptural conclusion?

[kgc]Interpretation for Protestant leadership poses the same difficulties as it does for any other branch of leadership within the Christian church in its entirety, including the Roman leadership.
Today, the Episcopalians in the U.S.A. are grappling with a very specific problem. But, this problem is exhibiting itself in a couple of ways. Not only have we chosen to accept a homosexual priest as a bishop/leader, we have also chosen to accept a woman priest who has accepted the homosexual bishop. These choices have the leadership of the entire Anglican Communion up in arms.

But, at the congregation level, most parishioners are celebrating the choosing of a woman as an Archbishop. It is breaking the paternalistic grip on the heirarchy of the clergy that has prevailed since the Third Century. Many believe that we are actually coming full circle and into a form more like the very early church.

As to acceptance of a homosexual bishop, perhaps we should look to the Roman church for some guidance. At the very least, we need to focus on the causes of homosexuality from a modern medical and psychological perspective in order to come to reasonable conclusions. There is much to learn and not much to condemn.

kgc

Dear Paul,

paul b wrote:

<quoted text>
KGC, I don't get this at all. Are you saying that it's natural for people to be attracted to children, animals, people of the same gender, people of the opposite gender, married people, single people, dead people and live people, and all of those attractions are equally relevant and "okay"?
On the issue of condemnation, I have an honest question. How do we as Christians believe in sin, develop an understanding of sin, try to purge sin from our lives, but not urge others to do the same? Is it condemnation to point out sin in another's life? If I love you in Christ, how can I not say something?

[kgc] You have lumped all sexual deviancy into the same pile. Yet, we all intuitively know that reproduction through incest doubles up the likelihood for genetic error to manifest. Still, tribal influence often prevails, causing us to choose mates who exhibit similar genetic features.

You know that it is not natural for adults to be attracted to children. As you are aware, that type of a relationship cannot be conducted by a child. It is essentially understood in psychological terms, as predatory on the part of the adult.

Human attraction to animals, beastiality, is obviously out of bounds, as is attraction to dead bodies. But, as to equal relevance and Okayness, no one who has even a rudimentary understanding of the range of generally normal human behavior is accepting of these behaviors. They are regarded as human sicknesses. If you want to call such sexual behavior sins, you can and you may well be right in doing so.

But sin, in terms of sexual promiscuity, forceful and predatory trespass, adulteration of relationship and destruction of trust can be found in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

As to whether or not we can impose our own standards of behavior upon others, that is a social and lawful question as well as a religious question. As such, we are obliged to investigate and to understand human behavior, seriously challenging ourselves to come to grips with our own behavior first. Then, we are advised by Jesus himself to avoid condemnation and judgment of others.

kgc

kgc wrote:

Dan,
As you are aware, there is much yet to be said and that has already been said about any interpretation of scripture. However strict and solid we would wish such interpretation to be, in order to be able to rely on scripture as a platform of guidance for personal behavior, we must realize that we are still interpreting and perceiving through the filters of our own makeup. So, we have the views of St. Augustine and we have the views of Aquinas and Tillich and others, some in the Roman church, some Eastern, some Lutheran, some Protestant, all Christian.
[Dan said]Dear KCG-
I have been following these reports-
As a Catholic, my understanding is that private interpretation of the Scriptures is a fundamental tenet of Protestanism; as such, does this not present difficulties for the Episcopal hierarchy when biblically affirming positions at odds with those of the flock, especially when said flock has arrived at a differing scriptural conclusion?
[kgc]Interpretation for Protestant leadership poses the same difficulties as it does for any other branch of leadership within the Christian church in its entirety, including the Roman leadership.
Today, the Episcopalians in the U.S.A. are grappling with a very specific problem. But, this problem is exhibiting itself in a couple of ways. Not only have we chosen to accept a homosexual priest as a bishop/leader, we have also chosen to accept a woman priest who has accepted the homosexual bishop. These choices have the leadership of the entire Anglican Communion up in arms.
But, at the congregation level, most parishioners are celebrating the choosing of a woman as an Archbishop. It is breaking the paternalistic grip on the heirarchy of the clergy that has prevailed since the Third Century. Many believe that we are actually coming full circle and into a form more like the very early church.
As to acceptance of a homosexual bishop, perhaps we should look to the Roman church for some guidance. At the very least, we need to focus on the causes of homosexuality from a modern medical and psychological perspective in order to come to reasonable conclusions. There is much to learn and not much to condemn.
kgc

In my opinion, the Roman Catholic position on homosexuals is largely misunderstood; it is really no more than a variant on "love the sinner, hate the sin". Our position on homosexuality is not largely different than the position taken on any sexual behavior oustide the confines of marriage. The difficulty for the homosexual Catholic lies in the dilemma of not being able to marry, obviously, so it does place conditions on the homoexual not there for the hetrosexual.

Respective to clergy, the RCC mandate of celibacy is in place for all clerics, so it is hard to draw a parallel to Protestantism in that aspect.

Church hierarchy in the context of Protestantism has been difficult for me to grasp, as the movement itself eschewed a central authority in favor of congregational and even personal authority when applied to interpretation of Scripture. As this seems to be playing out in a real world sense, is "schism" really the right word for the events transipring? If personal judgement and/or congregational judgement can be applied to scripture by adherents, how can there be "schism"? Is it not simply private judgement by design?

KGC, I find it interesting that you so blithely join me declaring sinful the other forms of sexual deviance, but stop short at the attraction to people of the same gender. Why do you stop there? Why, in your book, isn't homosexuality regarded as human sickness?

If, in the next decade, society starts to view necrophilia as acceptable, is it no longer a sin?

I don't understand how you can have a church without defining the list of sins. That's not condemning people, it's defining your common belief of things that separate you from God's love. Jesus called a sin a sin and told people you are forgiven, now don't do that anymore.

paul b wrote:

KGC, I find it interesting that you so blithely join me declaring sinful the other forms of sexual deviance, but stop short at the attraction to people of the same gender. Why do you stop there? Why, in your book, isn't homosexuality regarded as human sickness?
If, in the next decade, society starts to view necrophilia as acceptable, is it no longer a sin?
I don't understand how you can have a church without defining the list of sins. That's not condemning people, it's defining your common belief of things that separate you from God's love. Jesus called a sin a sin and told people you are forgiven, now don't do that anymore.

Paul-

The other way to get to the same answer is to ask what DO you hold true? The three major attributes of a religion are the 3 C's-Creed, Code and Cult. I'm not Episcopalian/Anglican, but I assume there is a tract of beliefs the church holds, some type of canon law laying out practice, and obviously there is a following.

If everything is permissible, and there is no structure as to how to practice the faith in daily life, you simply have a situation where people have a place to kill a few hours on Sunday. I am sure that the Episcopal Church was not founded to be a debating society or coffee klatch; what does the Creed of the church tell the faithful? How does one define an Episcopalian?

Example-if the church teaches that theft is a sin, then unrepentant thieves may find themselves outside of full communion with the church. If the church has established a position on homosexuality, how has this become a wedge issue?

As a lifelong Episcopalian and member of our parish vestry, I am deeply saddened by the schism enveloping our Church. Hatred, selfishness and pride are in the driver's seat. Our lack of humility before God and lack of charity toward each other are appalling. Here's my suggested solution to the current crisis:

1. Archbishop Akinola and Gene Robinson should both resign. Now. Immediately. Today.

2. The church hierarchy (ECUSA and Bishops) should acknowledge immediately that there is NO clear consensus on the issue of homosexuality in the clergy as of this date.

3. Homosexuals should not be married or ordained in the Episcopal Church until a clear consensus develops, starting at the parish level, using objective third-party research and open, honest discussion at all levels.This will take at least 10 years, if not longer. If you're not willing to wait that long, you may have other motives than the sanctity and unity of the Church.

4. Conservatives should pray for forgiveness and humble themselves before God.

5. Liberals should pray for forgiveness and humble themselves before God.

6. We should open our hearts to the simple fact that we are ALL sinners. Greed (for money or power) is a sin. Vain pride and selfish stubborness are sins. Putting politics before God is a sin. Claiming to speak for God is a sin. Refusing to forgive each other is a sin. Ripping apart the Body of Christ is a sin.

7. Repeat steps 4, 5 and 6 as long as necessary.

God forvive us. Kyrie eleison...