What's Really Behind the Episcopal Controversy (Vanity)

August 6, 2003 | Miss Marple

[Miss Marple]

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.

[Tribune7]

Great observation, Miss Marple.

[cajungirl]

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.

[Guyin4Os]

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.

[MEG33]

I think you are correct.

[wideawake]

An excellent analysis. Episcopal bishops are probably the best-paid clergymen in America (not counting the Benny Hinn style charlatans).

[sc2_ct]

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.

[Woahhs]

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.

[Miss Marple]

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.

[MWS]

I agreed with your comments when I first read them on a seperate thread, and I still do so. Excellent observation, in my opinion.

[AnAmericanMother]

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.

[sinkspur]

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.

[Miss Marple]

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.

[plain talk]

you nailed it

[AppyPappy]

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.

[RJCogburn]

Interesting thoughts, Miss M.

The root of all evil.

[only1percent]

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.)

[Woahhs]

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.

[Huck]

Benny Hinn's a charlatan? By the way, here in NJ, Episcopal churches already give all their money to left wing causes.

[Miss Marple]

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.