Posted on 08/03/2008 1:55:39 PM PDT by Graybeard58
As you aptly point out, the Catholic Church does NOT approve of ordaining active homosexuals, whereas the Episcopal Church goes beyond approval to active promotion and even in some cases enforcement.
I've been trying since 2003!
It's like the old Plain Truth magazine, once you got on their mailing list, you could never get off!
I'm a lawyer too, but I haven't sued them . . . yet. I was trying to figure out some less contentious way.
Someone suggested finding a sympathetic rector, transferring membership to his parish, and then dropping off . . . .
“Oh, no, the Episcopal scandals are already here, and have been for some time. They are just being swept under the rug by a complaisant media. I know, because I used to be an Episcopalian. Our (former) local cathedral is well known as a “meat market”, I am sorry to say.”
Yes, we have an Episcopal “church” here, next to the entertainment district, that is a well known hookup spot. Every Friday evening they have an after work dinner, and it’s known as one of the places you can find a new boyfriend for the evening, and then go out to the gay nightclubs.
Before all this liberal nonsense got started (back in the 50s and early 60s) it was a very nice church, but things started going downhill with Bishop Spong and Bishop Pike.
You would think they'd have to hit bottom sometime, but they just keep digging . . . . .
I suggest peppering the diocese with hard copy letters (firmly) requesting a response. They are a bureaucracy, and every one of those letters will have to be read and go in a stack; it's not so easy to delete a piece of paper.
If you really want to get results, address it to the TEC bishop, write "Personal" on it, and (politely) demand a written response. That should get you removed (see Luke 18:2-5).
And that would be absolutely correct, too. The real issues have to do with authority, including but probably not limited to the following:
1. The authority of Scripture, and how properly to address it;
2. the authority of bishops individually and as a group;
3. and also the authority of the Communion with respect to the individual provinces.
And let us never forget -- the most serious issue of all is the fact that the blame for this mess lies, not with the "liberals," who did nothing more than what they always do; but rather with us "orthodox" folks who have been -- and remain -- too blind and lazy to deal with this issue as it should be dealt with.
There was a concerted effort to use Episcopalians' good will and reluctance to "make a fuss" or to go to law, to infiltrate the church. The liberal feminists and homo-activists were openly discussing this while Louie Crew was still playing with dolls.
In my mind it started when they dumped the Book of Common Prayer and replaced it in 1979 with a Book of Assorted Services full of non-Christian theology. Especially bad was dumping the 39 Articles as part of that process, which among other things said it was unlawful for the Episcopal Church to do anything contrary to Scripture. Now the 39 Articles are merely an historical document. The result is today’s cult.
Once the individual could follow his own beliefs without reference to Scripture or Tradition, without penalty, then any crazy belief or "social justice" construct could be run into the church. First feminism, then homosexuality. What's next (shudder)?
And whose fault was that? You can't blame the liberals for the fact that the orthodox were too blind and lazy to recognize, much less properly deal with, the incursions of the nice folks you mentioned.
As Jesus Himself put it,
Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Matt. 24:44-46
The unpleasant truth is that we are NOT ready, and haven't been for a long time. Were we truly ready, the liberals would never have stood a chance.
What's more, we need to recognize that the liberals didn't create the situation themselves; rather, they took advantage of problems that already existed. Could the liberals really have made such inroads into a vital, aware, and active church? I seriously doubt it -- I think the orthodox lost the bubble a long time ago. We became lazy, arrogant, and too focused on the things of this world. We lost the bubble ... and most (if not all) of the "orthodox" still haven't found it: this scurrying off to Africans simply reinforces the point that we're still not facing our own culpability in this mess.
It is quite true that the liberals are essentially peddling lies. But the best lies are the ones grounded in truth. The power of the liberal agenda is that it has a healthy dollop of truth in it. Their agenda addresses real problems that affect real people -- and folks respond to that. The orthodox response has generally been to preach against the liberals, rather than to address the very real problems the liberals (for all their faults) have been addressing.
The liberal solutions are, of course, wrong ... but that doesn't mean we're offering the right solutions. Just look at the typical "orthodox" responses, even on this thread. We tend to preach theology, and when folks don't respond we resort to dehumanizing real, troubled people to nothing more than a label or a political position -- look at the tired old joke about "queens and bishops," at the top of this thread, for instance. Or, for another example, how seriously do we orthodox folks really take our Christian duty to help the poor -- especially when we see it in opposition to our perceived duty to defend orthodoxy?
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I see us looking like the Pharisees in John 9. To them, the "man born blind" was nothing but a sinner -- his very condition confirmed it for them. Jesus, on the other hand, healed him -- and through that act revealed the true power of God ... and it wasn't "orthodoxy" in the sense that the Pharisees defined it. If one takes nothing else from John's Gospel, one cannot avoid his exposition of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, which was that they valued their doctrine far more than they valued the people around them. Jesus understood that theology is for folks who are comfortable -- it doesn't feed or clothe or heal anybody. If you read your Bible, you'll find that Jesus generally healed first, and the theology came later. That's a lesson that I think we orthodox have forgotten (if we ever learned it at all).
If we really want to get our church back, we need to reassess what our church really ought to be about. I've seen (from a more up-close perspective than I ever wanted) that the kind of "orthodoxy" being peddled these days simply is not it.
The problem with the Episcopal system is that it encourages laypeople ignorance. The denomination discourages any sort of Bible literacy, teaching instead you can depend on what your priests and bishops say, and that all you really need to know is the liturgy on Sundays.
This distinguishes Episcopalianism from other denominations such as Presbyterians and Baptists which traditionally put a high value on knowing and studying the Bible. (Although PCUSA and the American Baptists have been “dumbing” people down also over the generations.) Biblically literate people are called “fundamentalists” by TEC.
So a lot of Episcopalians were dumb sheep totally dependent on the shepherds to keep them safe, to use the Biblical analogy. And it turned out the shepherds were wolves and false prophets who are now eating the sheep. To continue the Biblical analogy. They didn’t know they were being led to slaughter until it was too late.
Even if they wanted to, I bet you at least 90% of the people in the pew in an Episcopal church couldn’t find the verses in the Bible that say homosexuality is wrong and an abomination to God, for example. They spout out all sorts of nonsense they have been taught by their wolves about “shellfish” and the Jewish “Holiness Code” that has supposedly been repealed by the New Testament so that sexual immorality is now perfectly ok, when any Christian would point out to you the first Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, which reasserted that the requirements of the old Testament regarding sexually moral conduct continued for Christians. (As well as the numerous other passages in the New Testament that emphasize the need for Christians to flee sexual immorality and to be sexually pure (i.e., chastity in singleness or monogamous marriage).) Nor could they find the other passages of scripture that contradict what the Episcopal Church teaches about being Universalist, that there is no sin, that we are all acceptable in the eyes of God, and all sorts of other non-Biblical and New Age heresies it has embraced. Other examples would be practices of witchcraft such as worshipping the Labyrinth, which has become very common as well as in other lefty churches, calling the Holy Spirit “she,” and the classic of course is the Presiding Bishopess’ invocation of “Mother Jesus.”
So in the end I blame TEC’s problem on spiritually corrupt priests and bishops. Unfortunately for them, scripture also says they will be condemned when called to account by the Lord as to how they shepherded, protected and taught the flock. None of these priests and bishops acknowledge the Bible expressly says they are going to Hell.
Says you. Sounds to me like you have a personal bias on the matter. The truth is rather different. For example, if one follows the Daily Office and/or the Lectionary (which is a prominent part of the Episcopal liturgy), one will end up reading a very large percentage of the entire Old Testament every two years -- and the New Testament twice per year.
Biblically literate people are called “fundamentalists” by TEC.
Again, that's your bias talking. Speaking from my own experience, I've found that Episcopalians are very often quite Biblically literate, and can argue very effectively using Scripture -- and those folks are generally not considered to be "fundamentalists." The people who are typically derided as "fundamentalists" are those who spend a lot of time quoting Scripture, but typically refuse to descend to the merely practical level of actually doing something. For example, a "fundamentalist" might correctly argue from Scripture that homosexuality is a sin, and simply stop there; and thereby fail to address the practical issue of how to minister to homosexuals -- which, again, is the difference between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus did not ignore the messy practicalities of what He taught. We orthodox often do, though ... and I think the so-called "fundamentalists" tend to be among the worst offenders.
So in the end I blame TEC’s problem on spiritually corrupt priests and bishops.
Well... no. While it's true that there are plenty of spiritually corrupt priests and bishops, the fault does not lie with those people, but rather with those who place them in positions of authority; i.e., vestries and congregations.
Don't you wish that bishops kept their sins quiet like they used to? I think the Bible has a nice progression (Rom. 1:24-32) that some churches are leading down ending in, "they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.