Replies

I'm an Episcopalian by choice. It was the church that brought me to Christ, so I believe it is where God wants me to be. My husband was raised a Catholic, and I could not accept Catholic doctrine regarding the ordination of women, the reading of the Bible, the primacy of the Pope, and many other things. I was a reform Jew before I converted, and to me Anglicanism was the "reform Catholic" church. It made sense to me.

But the consecration of a gay bishop does not make sense to me. And especially the way the gays used an end run to change the Church's doctrine, when there is a specific process for determining doctrinal changes of this magnitude, was unconscionable to me. The Church went through years of discussion and an official process to change its doctrine on the ordination of women. They would never have done this just by allowing one diocese to elect a woman bishop. Surely the ordination of homosexuals is as significant a doctrinal change. Yet it was allowed to happen, merely by the ordination of a homosexual bishop. And we are all supposed to just accept it or be called bigots. It's wrong on biblical principle, and it's wrong on procedural principle.

I really don't know what to do here. My husband disagrees with me on this. I do not want to join a different church from him.

My husband was raised a Catholic, and I could not accept Catholic doctrine regarding the ordination of women, the reading of the Bible, the primacy of the Pope, and many other things.

How is Catholic doctrine on "the reading of the Bible" different from the Episcopal?I really don't know what to do here. My husband disagrees with me on this. I do not want to join a different church from him.

I'm a bit confused. Did your husband apostatize from Catholicism and join the Episcopals?

And now that the Episcopals are abusing your conscience he wants to remain an Episcopal?

My advice to you, other than to advise you both to become Catholic, is to point out that Mr. Akinola's version of Episcopalianism is open to you. There are Episcopal congregations that are already in his camp in the US and the Episcopal church in the US has not, to my knowledge, excommunicated Mr. Akinola or his supporters.

Technically, you and Mr. Akinola are in the same church still - or is your husband so dedicated to the left wing of the Episcopal church that he would refuse to listen to Mr. Akinola?

If your husband's basic belief is that sodomy is a good thing and that Christian bishops should leave their wives and take on live-in boyfriends, then there isn't much you can do. Does your husband have a view on Paul's Epistle to the Romans? How does he reconcile that Epistle to current situation of the ECUSA?

The Church went through years of discussion and an official process to change its doctrine on the ordination of women. They would never have done this just by allowing one diocese to elect a woman bishop.

That's not entirely true. Women's ordination was raised as an issue and defeated (I am unsure whether it was at the House of Bishops or at General Convention). Dissident women then presented themselves before Bishop Moore in New York City and he refused to ordain them. It was certainly a put up job - Moore sanctimoniously proclaimed "my hands are tied", and there is now a statue of that sacred moment in the Cathedral of St. John the Diviner.

The dissidents then found a bishop who would ordain them in Philadelphia. Several of this group later came out as lesbians.

Presented with a done deal, the next General Convention (1976) ratified the ordinations, and did not require the women to be re-ordained.

Until recently I was for women's ordination, or at least I did not think it that important an issue compared to other things going on in the church. The Robinson scandal caused me to reexamine my position. Many heretics I debated on Robinson stated that gay ordination was just like women's ordination. I usually responded that this position was a straw man as well as a slur on women. I did, however, go back and study the history of how women's ordination happened. I discovered there was some truth to what the heretics said. I found the same sort of egotistical, prideful sense of political entitlement was behind those pushing for women's ordination as is demonstrated by today's gay advocates. In both cases there was a lot of rhetoric about one's "right" to hold a position of authority and to be a priest. There was little or no expression that God was calling one to the priesthood.

Regardless of the theological difficulties presented by women's ordination, how it was done smacked of sinful pride, contempt for tradition, and power politics in its worst form. I cannot see the hand of the Holy Spirit in it.

Actually, women were ordained illegally in Philadelphia in 1976 and the General Convention then regularized those illegal ordinations. So, no, the gay movement is not all that new in terms of tactics. And the women's movement has become mostly a feminazi juggernaut driving out anyone who doesn't agree with them. The ordination of women -- a mostly Lesbian-driven event -- paved the way for the gay take over of the Episcopal Church. Take a look at all the women priests and bishops -- nearly every one supports the gay agenda.