Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What's Really Behind the Episcopal Controversy (Vanity)
August 6, 2003 | Miss Marple

Posted on 08/06/2003 7:08:03 AM PDT by Miss Marple

With apologies for posting a vanity, but I wanted to put this theory up for serious discussion.

The gay movement in churches does, indeed force people out (along with other divisive liberal issues). I myself have left my life-long church, the Methodists, because of several doctrinal and political disagreements.

I have noticed that the gays are not lobbying in the Southern Baptists, nor in the Church of Christ, nor in the Assemblies of God. Now, one would on its surface think that it is because those churches are less susceptible to the message of "inclusiveness." That may be true, but there is another underlying reason as well, I think.

The mainline Protestant denominations, as well as the Roman Catholics, own a great deal of real estate and have fairly large bank accounts. The real estate (in Manhattan and Boston and other large cities across this nation) is owned by the denomination, not the individual congregation, and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. An entire Episcopal congregation who wishes to split from the church and go independent must LEAVE the building, abandoning it to the gay-friendly people. This holds true for the Methodists as well, and I believe for the rest of the mainline denominations and the Roman Catholics.

On the other hand, most Southern Baptist congregations own their property individually. They can withdraw without losing the building, nor would they lose control of their bank accounts.

It seems to me that this is a concerted effort to not only shape public opinion but, more importantly, to control real estate and money. Money is used to sway political beliefs, push certain social issues, and shape public discourse.

If I wanted to control a lot of real estate and church bank accounts, so that the money could go to causes I believed in but were not supported by most of the congregants, I would choose to infiltrate the church with people whose presence would FORCE OUT those who have less radical views, and I would also be forcing them to leave the very expensive real estate, bank accounts, and endowments behind. I could then funnel money to groups like anti-war organizations without any objection.

It seems to me that there is a plan afoot to rob people who have donated their time and treasure (in some families' cases, for generations) to a congregation and church building, and secure the land and money for their own purposes.

In other words, this is about money as much as sex. Otherwise, why wouldn't these people simply start their OWN churches? I have not forgotten how once before we were distracted from the real evil by a story about sex.

They don't want to start their own churches, because they want the land, the buildings, and the money. I think this needs to be looked at with more attention to the financial side.

I also would like to point out that manay mainline churches also control large universities, and this also supports my theory that the issue is financial and political control, not simply sex.

Let us not forget that Satan comes as a thief in the night.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: acceptance; episcopal; gay; gays; homosexual; homosexualagenda; landgrab; leftists; lesbian; money; power; queer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 next last
I would welcome any opinions about this. While I think that this ordination is blasphemous, I think it was used as the easiest vehicle to force people out, and quickly.

I would like to push back at the people in the mainline churches who have backed this, and ask them why they haven't started their own churches, if they feel so strongly.

The answer is money.

1 posted on 08/06/2003 7:08:03 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Great observation, Miss Marple.
2 posted on 08/06/2003 7:10:11 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
great observation. Seems to me the Episcopaliens ought to stay in their churches they love. Does make sense however. But I suspect few will leave. Episcopaliens are pretty much in their church for generations, they are the kind who stay no matter what. Just my opinion.
3 posted on 08/06/2003 7:13:21 AM PDT by cajungirl (no)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
You are exactly right. They are targeting denominations instead of Associations in order to gain control of the property and money. But I think the response of the godly individuals in those denominations should still be to leave... and leave all the property, bank accounts, and assets behind. "Come out of her my people" is God's plea to His people who are mired in false religions.
4 posted on 08/06/2003 7:14:02 AM PDT by Guyin4Os
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I think you are correct.
5 posted on 08/06/2003 7:14:15 AM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
An excellent analysis. Episcopal bishops are probably the best-paid clergymen in America (not counting the Benny Hinn style charlatans).
6 posted on 08/06/2003 7:16:51 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I would actually agree with you for the most part on this issue for the most part, and admit that this is likely a prime motivation. I also believe however these gays are also attempting to attack one of the last true obstacles that they face: the God-fearing religious folk. This is their attempt to strategically infiltrate the camp of their enemy, and they will try to sow dissent and discord within the chrurch to try to erode the only organizations left that hold sway over people in a way that they don't like. This is just the beginning, and they will next target the other Christian churches one by one.

This isn't about religion, this is about power. They view the chrurches as a threat because the church holds true to God's teachings, and in turn must, by default, be diametrically opposed to their agenda. This is a direct attack on God and the church.
7 posted on 08/06/2003 7:17:14 AM PDT by sc2_ct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I have to disagree. The elephant in the living room is mainline denominations are not Biblically literate, and the ones you credit with owning their own property are. The mainliners gave up sold out "good" for "nice" along time ago.
8 posted on 08/06/2003 7:19:41 AM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guyin4Os
Well, as a last resort people should leave. But my point is this: doing so leaves those people with more funds to promote their evil deeds further.

I want to know why these people expect the churches to force out the original members and let them have all of the land and money. If they believed their cause was just, why didn't they start their OWN churches?

They should not be allowed to paint themselves as victims seeking social justice; they should be pointed out for what they are: GREEDY THIEVES.

9 posted on 08/06/2003 7:20:22 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I agreed with your comments when I first read them on a seperate thread, and I still do so. Excellent observation, in my opinion.
10 posted on 08/06/2003 7:20:57 AM PDT by MWS (Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Good point. There is one wrinkle, however, that the homosexual activists may not have considered.

The church property is not owned by the individual parishes, but it IS owned by the bishop in the name of the diocese . . . NOT by the national church.

This consecration is so "over the top" that many BISHOPS are talking about pulling out of ECUSA. They would have a darned good argument for taking the property and money of their diocese with them. I'm sure the homo-activists will fight tooth and nail, and while the lay courts cannot decide ecclesiastical issues, they CAN determine where property goes. So this issue will wind up in court.

The conservative bishops DO have a chance to keep the property though, if they act as a group.

11 posted on 08/06/2003 7:21:32 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother (. . . there is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
The answer is money.

You're right, of course. Both the Episcopal bishops in Dallas and Fort Worth said they're not going anywhere (just as they went nowhere when women were ordained), but they're going to observe the historical doctrine of the Church and not ordain gay priests.

At first blush, it might be gratifying to stalk out the door, but, unless your own parish or congregation is adopting the liberal line, you should stay where you are and fight it out.

If you stay in, you can control how much these bishops get for their activities and special projects. Catholics are bringing some dioceses to their knees (Boston comes to mind) by withholding donations.

12 posted on 08/06/2003 7:23:18 AM PDT by sinkspur ("You want pajamas? Stripes, dots, or animals." Oscar Madison in THE ODD COUPLE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
In my opinion the two go hand in hand. I believe the first wave of this campaign was to "dumb down" the mainline churches in their approach to the Bible. The Methodist church of today is not the one of John Wesley, nor even the one of 50 years ago.

Once they had the people less literate in the Bible, they could incrimentally bring in people who accepted this kind of activity. Once a sizeable number had infiltrated the hierarchy, they made this move to force the rest out in order to control the power and financial wealth, because most people who are left, even if a bit shaky on the Bible, know that this is WRONG.

13 posted on 08/06/2003 7:24:57 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sc2_ct
you nailed it
14 posted on 08/06/2003 7:25:50 AM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
A lot of it is twisted reason. The churches think they are "reaching out to grow the church" but they ironically fail to see their numbers dwindling in direct proportion to their "reaching out". The more they reach out, the more people they lose. They think they are doing the "right thing". But the "right thing" is a loser for them.
15 posted on 08/06/2003 7:26:27 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Interesting thoughts, Miss M.

The root of all evil.
16 posted on 08/06/2003 7:26:35 AM PDT by RJCogburn ("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect."......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I am not sure that you're empirically correct on this point. Many Episcopal churches are corporately independent from their diocese. The really huge landowning Episcopal churches are actually in this category (I am almost certain this is the case with the downtown New York Episcopal church which owns a fair percentage of the land south of Chambers street.)

Although they are subject to the >doctrinal< authority of their bishop (and ulimately to the national body of the church), their legal property is controlled by the local board. A number of Episcopal churches, have, for instance, gone Catholic -- building and all.

When you go lower church from Episcopal, I think you'd be hard pressed to find >any< singificant property held on a district or denominational basis. It's all locally owned and controlled.

(Even with Catholic facilities, the bishop/diocese only owns diocesesan facilities. Religious orders own some of the parish buildings and elementary schools, most of the high schools, and some of the colleges. Indepednent non-profits own other high schools, some of the colleges, and so forth.)
17 posted on 08/06/2003 7:27:11 AM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I want to know why these people expect the churches to force out the original members and let them have all of the land and money. If they believed their cause was just, why didn't they start their OWN churches?

Don't kid yourself. The homosexual lobby has never been at a loss for funds. What they covet is respectability, which mainline denominations still possess a veneer of (undeservedly so).

No...it's a wheat and chaff issue.

18 posted on 08/06/2003 7:27:38 AM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Benny Hinn's a charlatan? By the way, here in NJ, Episcopal churches already give all their money to left wing causes.
19 posted on 08/06/2003 7:29:52 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
In the Methodist Church, you cannot control the assessment by the district. This is decided at the district level and is given to each church proportionally. Should you withhold money, the Methodists (who own the land) have the right to shut the church down and sell the land.

Should you only give to local funds (like the building fund) the minister usually directs a larger proportion of the general fund to the district, and makes up for your withholding money that way. The only way you can stop this is to withhold all money, which most congregations cannot do as they must donate to pay expenses and local outreach efforts.

20 posted on 08/06/2003 7:29:55 AM PDT by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I believe in scripture, Jesus say's,"behold, I shall come like a thief in the night..." and Satan will disguise himself as an "angel of light"...
21 posted on 08/06/2003 7:30:04 AM PDT by Zavien Doombringer (Ain't nothing worse than feeling obsolete....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I know. My sister-in-law belongs to an Episcopal church here in NJ.

But my local Episcopal church in Red Bank is openly decrying the decision!

22 posted on 08/06/2003 7:31:23 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
You've definitely got something there.

It has always rankled me that our little (Episcopal) church, which was started with contributions from our members, improved with same and so on, would have to be abandoned to the "Church" if we decided to split off.

It also bugs me that so much of our income has to be forwarded to the diocese and to the national church. It's about 16%, far more than a "tithe." Many of us don't like the way they spend it, but, although some churches refuse to send them money, we've never gone that route.

I don't intend to leave my church (Unless Bishop Stanton makes an unexpected decision.) It would be like leaving the country because Clinton (either Clinton) was elected.

I might want to, but I probably won't.
23 posted on 08/06/2003 7:31:25 AM PDT by altura (Despite many embarrassments, I steadfastly refuse to preview.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
But you can limit your giving. We give enough to keep the lights on. Our family has their own mission work.
24 posted on 08/06/2003 7:32:41 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I am no longer a methodist either for these exact same reasons. Now I practice my faith quietly. I won't bring my children into this crazy enviornment either. I guess they can have all the gay members they want, in 20 years they will be questioning the wisdom of turning out the people who raise children; the future memebrship.
25 posted on 08/06/2003 7:33:08 AM PDT by Diva Betsy Ross ((were it not for the brave, there would be no land of the free -))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I know the Newark Diocese is pink as it comes. I am a heathen out in the wilderness, shopping around for a spiritual home. I tried the Episcopal Church but I didn't like it. I don't want a female priest. Both Episcopal churches in my area have females in charge. Then I checked out the Diocese's political activity, and that was that. Still out in the wilderness.
26 posted on 08/06/2003 7:34:53 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
I didn't know that (about individual diocese being able to keep their stuff) ... I hope that's true.

There is a meeting scheduled for Dallas in October to discuss this issue, and, of course, Bishop Stanton will be an integral part. I would stick with him, whatever he decides.
27 posted on 08/06/2003 7:35:30 AM PDT by altura (Despite many embarrassments, I steadfastly refuse to preview.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
In large measure, I agree that this is about billions in property: the Episcopal Church is very wealthy in property. In every major city (save perhaps Boston) it owns significant amounts of commerical real estate. Trinity Church in lower Manhattan (I think still in that Church corporation, although it may now be diocesan) alone is said to own more than a billion dollars worth of commerical real estate, not counting the value of the Church grounds and cemetary on Broadway at Wall Street.

Most of the property is held, now, at the Diocesan level, so he who controls the hierarchy, controls the money. That's what the homosexuals want: control of the institution. They want control of the institution for two reasons. The first , of course is the money (and concomintant power) as you recognize.

I think equally important however, they want control on the ecclesiastical side to legitimise their pratices by saying "see, the Church says it's ok, why we even have gay Bishops and priestesses".

That's a powerful recruiting tool to use on confused teenagers (remember your own awkward stage?) Surveys suggest as many as 25% of teens are unsure of their sexual orientation at some point. Of course that could be anything from the tortured psyche of the 'born' homosexual to the normal kid's wondering 'well, if I don't like baseball (because I'm lousy at it), maybe I am queer like the other kids are teasing me. Virtually every kid get's teased at some point and called 'queer' (in our day) or 'gay'. What's important is how they react and what happens next.

The truth is that whatever the amount of normal or even abnormal teen angst over sexuality, most people end up straight. If 3% of the population is gay (a high estimate), and 25% of teens question their sexual orientation, that means of those who do question their sexualilty, about 88% of those who question their sexuality end up straight, and only 12% of those who question their sexuality end up queer! Grrrr.

The homosexuals want to use the Church to make it seem more OK to be queer. They fantasize about 10-15% of the population being queer, and would use the Church to up the number who end up queer for 10+% of the kids who are unsure to 50% of the kids who end up unsure. Very bad.

28 posted on 08/06/2003 7:35:34 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo [Gallia][Germania][Arabia] Esse Delendam --- Select One or More as needed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
That's a nice take, but I don't believe that "doing the right thing" really enters into their thinking.

29 posted on 08/06/2003 7:37:09 AM PDT by altura (Despite many embarrassments, I steadfastly refuse to preview.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Are you saying that they are hiding the fact that their greedy hearts are only interested in money? Why hide that fact with homosexuality? Why use that lightning rod scenario?

Why should the church have any overwhelming financial resources, shouldn't it be giving all it has back to the community? Isn't that like asking the church to serve two masters, the bank account, and God?
30 posted on 08/06/2003 7:37:19 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
If Christians and conservatives continue to bring a knife to a gunfight with LEFTIST political arms such as the Cult Of The Anus and other assorted Gaystapo organs, the Envirowhackos, the "mainstream "media, the DNC, etc., they'll continue to lose.

Christians and conservatives have been trained to always play by the rules and think inside the box; they have no stomach for the fight and no idea of the depths of depravity the LEFT will sink to in order to maintain control and power over others.
31 posted on 08/06/2003 7:37:37 AM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
There are good, conservative Catholic parishes in the Newark area. No female priests there. Our Lady of Fatima in Pequannock in particular.

I've never heard of a conservative Episcopal parish in that region, so I have no advice on that front.

32 posted on 08/06/2003 7:38:41 AM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
It seems to me that this is a concerted effort to not only shape public opinion but, more importantly, to control real estate and money

I think you may be right, but I *DOUBT* very much that the *people* involved have this as a conscious motivation. However I do think that it comes into play for the forces behind the corruption of the church at large. I am speaking with regard to spiritual warfare. That would be a valuable asset for the unseen adversary to control.

33 posted on 08/06/2003 7:38:51 AM PDT by Terriergal ("multipass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Ah the ever suspicious Hoosier.

I believe you are correct when you speak of the homo (I refuse the terms Gay or other such terms...call it waht it is) movement. It is clearly their intention to get their way, just as it is for NOW to force abortions down our throat. Any way for homosexuals to wiggle their way in (ugh ...the pun!) is their goal. Just look at the TV airwaves today. Network tv is full of Homosexual stories...Homo High in New York, this bishop thing, the homo network itself...Bravo and Hollywood, with its adulation and open promotion of the homosexual lifestyle. For one thing... and I know I will be flamed for this, I believe the majority of jewsih people think nothing of homosexuality (abortion either for that matter). They seem to be heavily involved in Hollywood and promote their beliefs freely and without any challenge.

So Miss Marple, in reality, I believe the real promoters are the unwitting executives in the news networks and Hollywood, who really carry they torch for NAMBLA and other awful organizations with serious homosexual agendas.

I love the theory.....signed ...a former, temporary Hoosier....

34 posted on 08/06/2003 7:38:53 AM PDT by irish guard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: altura
Most of the supports of gays I know believe that They think they are doing what Jesus would want them to do. Being loving and accepting of everything, except people they don't like.
35 posted on 08/06/2003 7:39:30 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Have you ever tried a 'less high church' church?
36 posted on 08/06/2003 7:39:43 AM PDT by Terriergal ("multipass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
lol!
37 posted on 08/06/2003 7:40:03 AM PDT by Terriergal ("multipass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I don't think it's that complex. I think it's simply homosexual people trying to change the world to the way they want it, with global acceptance (not just tolerance) of that way of life and everything it involves and making their behavior common practice.

People have been indoctrinated, especially in this country with the thinking that we cannot offend people, so we must tolerate their behavior....Given this inch, they take the mile by saying we must accept their behavior in all aspects of what we do in organizations and change our traditions accordingly or perish (Boy Scouts and Marriage are a good example of this).

I don't really think its as much an organized push as it is a common way of thinking amongst homosexuals.

The Baptists are way behind the "tolerance curve", so an event like this is not possible at the moment. Because of traditions and the power structure of the Catholic Church, it remains unadvertised to an extent, though there have been cases and seem to be more all the time where people want the traditions of the church changed. I think the Church of Christ and Assembly factions don't have these issues because many of those members have run TO those groups, not started out there, due to the changing of the older factions.

I think if you study the history of the Episcopal Church, you would see it is a slow chipping away of the standards day by day, year by year. Not over the last 10 years, but probably more over the last 100.

It is obvious to me that this new Bishop is not working in colusion with "The Homosexuals", but is instead thinking of himself in this situation. It's all about him. Look at his life, and you will see that he has adjusted his life by his rules, not God's. He was married, with a child, left his wife for a man. He has convinced them that, depspite the promises he made in the past in regards to fidelity/trust/etc, his action to leave his family is ok. (and has used them as pawns in this latest event). He has kept his religious standing instead of understanding its ways were not for him, and has pushed people to be "tolerant" of him so that he can maintain and increase his power within the organization. Now its at the point where to obtain more power for himself, he must fracture his Church. He certainly does not seem to have a problem with this.

38 posted on 08/06/2003 7:41:41 AM PDT by Jalapeno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I have to say that I disagree with people who equate women priests with this homosexual thing.

There is nothing immoral, per se, about being a woman.

And after the first wave of politically active, man-hating feminists who fought like cats to enter the priesthood, many of them without a religious calling, there are many fine, dedicated Christian woman in the priesthood.

We have one, and she is great.

I do think the church handled the ordination of women poorly, pushing it through before many members were ready, but it isn't the same thing at all as this gay priest thing.
39 posted on 08/06/2003 7:41:51 AM PDT by altura (Despite many embarrassments, I steadfastly refuse to preview.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: irish guard
I believe the majority of jewsih people think nothing of homosexuality (abortion either for that matter)

I do think that traditional Jewish law implies that the baby isn't equal to a full human life until a certain time laterin the pregnancy, but I'm not sure on that. But they certainly have no traditional legal 'excuse' if what you say about their attitudes toward homosexuality is true.

40 posted on 08/06/2003 7:42:26 AM PDT by Terriergal ("multipass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: altura
I am not equating homosexuality and womanhood. I just don't want a female priest.
41 posted on 08/06/2003 7:44:20 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: altura; Huck
I have to say that I disagree with people who equate women priests with this homosexual thing. There is nothing immoral, per se, about being a woman.

I think Huck is saying that they are both changes made that are not supported in Scripture, made just to make people 'happy.' -- That's where the parallel would be. If the criteria is "to make people happy" then any kind of horrible/immoral change is possible.

42 posted on 08/06/2003 7:44:51 AM PDT by Terriergal ("multipass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I would like to proffer another idea to the liberalization of many main line denominations.

Since many of these denominations long ago deviated from original teaching of a literal Bible it opened the door for deviants to slowly change church doctrine. I belong to one of the most conservative protestant denominations (LCMS) and the only thing that is keeping the Missouri Synod away from liberalistic teaching is the adherance to a literal translation of the Bible.

True, church property is a motivator, but I believe that Satan is using liberalism to destroy the church to deceive the faithfull as is profecied in the Bible.

The Episcopal church has reached a turning point where it is openly condoning and welcoming unrepentant sinners as teachers and pastors of their congregations. This is totally contradictory to the scriptures.

We are all sinners, but only those who recognize their sin and repent are washed clean. Unfortunately all others have a warmer destination ahead of them.
43 posted on 08/06/2003 7:44:51 AM PDT by boilerfan (Hoosier born and Boilermaker educated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal
What is a less high church church?
44 posted on 08/06/2003 7:44:57 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: boilerfan
Unfortunately all others have a warmer destination ahead of them.

You mean Cancun?

45 posted on 08/06/2003 7:46:40 AM PDT by Jalapeno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Terriergal
I think Huck is saying that they are both changes made that are not supported in Scripture, made just to make people 'happy.

To tell you the truth, I don't know why they made their decision to have female priests. I suppose I think of a male priest as more traditional, female priests as more modern. I have a somewhat old fashioned attitude about women. Anyway, I want a church with a male preacher. That will make me happy. I am a male chauvanist.

46 posted on 08/06/2003 7:48:18 AM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sc2_ct; Miss Marple
This entire episode is precisely as sc2_ct states. It is all about the demonic Nietzschean will-to-power of those deceived by the enemy.

As much as I love MM's posts, and as much as the enemy loves to gain material wealth, the real issue is the soul of the body of Christ.

For those so deceived, there is a visceral loathing of all that is Godly on their part. It is manifest in the social, political, ecclesiastical and other realms. The deceived do not really understand why they hate. All of their rationales and argumentation is a surface layer, obscuring the poisoned spirit contaminated by the dark realm.

Even the language/terminology I have used in this brief rant is alienating and incomprehensible to those deceived. For those of us sinners-saved-by-grace, we must press on in love: Love the sinner, pray for the sinner...but reject the sin.

Thank you for the post, MM.
47 posted on 08/06/2003 7:49:20 AM PDT by esopman (Blessings on Freepers Everywhere)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: boilerfan
True, church property is a motivator, but I believe that Satan is using liberalism to destroy the church to deceive the faithfull as is profecied in the Bible.

Kind of what I said - I don't know that any of these people have the real estate in mind when they challenge teachings on homosexuality or whatever, but Satan I am SURE does, so he uses them as his pawns to corrupt the most visible witnesses for God in society.

I send my kids to an LCMS school. If I didn't already belong to the local E. Covenant church I would go to an LCMS church. There are some unscriptural teachings in the Covenant church, e.g. women pastors, creeping in to the higher levels that are disturbing, but so far our local congregation is aware and opposed to them. I had to laugh at some of the articles that come in the denomination Magazine - about gun control (pro gun control) and lamenting the fact that 'women pastors' in the Covenant denomination are finding it hard to get called to a church! Boo hoo.

48 posted on 08/06/2003 7:49:32 AM PDT by Terriergal ("multipass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Okay, I respect that totally.

A lot of people do make that equation, though.

I have to admit, I didn't care for the idea, but, after dealing with several "Good" ones and having one in our own church, I've changed my mind.
49 posted on 08/06/2003 7:50:09 AM PDT by altura (Despite many embarrassments, I steadfastly refuse to preview.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: esopman
Even the language/terminology I have used in this brief rant is alienating and incomprehensible to those deceived.

Oh whew, glad I understood it then. :-)

50 posted on 08/06/2003 7:50:40 AM PDT by Terriergal ("multipass!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-277 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson