What's Really Behind the Episcopal Controversy (Vanity)

August 6, 2003 | Miss Marple

[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.

[nmh]

Having said all that I will disagree that the issue is centered around money. It's centered around PEOPLE who misuse their power and perhaps money to better themselves and not use it for God's purposes.

It's often misquoted - money is the root of all evil. Often it is however Abraham and Job were VERY wealthy. They used their wealth to glorify God. Many don't. So it depends on the MOTIVATION of the individual, not simply on the wealth factor.

Another verse wrongly used is this:

Matt. 19:20-24

[20] The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

[21] Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

[22] But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

[23] Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[24] And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Clearly Jesus knows what is a priority ("great possessions") with this man. Jesus is God in the flesh so He sees into this man's heart. This man is very wealthy which is what is meant by "great possessions". Jesus knows that material things are more important to him than God however maybe He wants this man to reconsider his idol - money over God. At the very least maybe others can learn what God wants. So Jesus calls him on his materialistic outlook by saying to sell all he has and give it to the poor, have treasure in heaven and follow Him. The wealthy man couldn't give up his "great possessions" and "went away sorrowful". This "rich man" made his choice. He chose NOT to seek the kingdom of God. He chose "great possessions" instead which violates:

"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you" (Mat. 6:33)

The above verse is the KEY to what God wants and will bless you when you follow this. It may or may not be with wealth - that is given at HIS discression.

This is also emphasized in another form later in the Bible through this verse:

Matt.22:37

[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Mark.12:30

[30] And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

It's the most important commandment as well.

[33] And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Luke.10:27

[27] And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

The above article expands on this problem through this paragraph and why I suspect you put out a knee jerk reaction without reading the entire post.

Excerpt:

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke of blessings, money, worrying about material necessities, and so on. As He concluded His teaching on worrying, He stated, "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you" (Mat. 6:33). Jesus clearly pointed out that the focus should not be God's material blessings (or the outcome), but God's kingdom (or the means to the outcome).

The end result of a proper focus will be the natural consequence of being obedient to God's law. Deuteronomy 11:13-15 states:

And it shall be that if you earnestly obey My commandments which I command you today, to love the Lord your God and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, then I will give you the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the latter rain, that you may gather in your grain, your new wine, and your oil. And I will send grass in your fields for your livestock, that you may eat and be filled.

End of excerpt.

By now it should be painfully clear that wealth is okay however some make wealth an idol and refuse to give it up and follow Christ.

Jesus is obviously brilliant. Another verse that is often short changed on money is this one:

Matt.22:21
[21] They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Mark.12:17

[17] And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Luke.20:25

[25] And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

What most clergy fail to emphasize is this:

(Another excerpt from the posted article)

7. The Lord owns all wealth

The ownership of wealth is often misunderstood. Some Christians think that Satan owns all this wealth because wealth is evil; therefore, Satan uses his wealth to entice people. Others think that they, themselves, own the actual possessions, and that the Lord has given them the wealth for them to keep. Still others may say that God owns ten percent, and the rest is for us, as long as they give the tithe to the Lord. None of these views, however, are biblical.

The Scriptures clearly teach us that God owns all things. He has given us stewardship, not ownership, over His material possessions. The Apostle Paul quotes Psalm 24:1 when he writes to the Church in Corinth, "the earth is the Lord's, and all its fullness" (1 Cor. 10:28b). Moses reinstates that the earth is the Lord's when he confronts Pharaoh in Exodus 9:29.

We must understand that the farmer does not own any of the cattle that graze on the hills that have his name attached to the deed of that piece of land. For the Lord said, "For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are Mine" (Ps. 50:10-11).

The farmer is a steward of the cattle and the land, just as we are stewards of the material possessions that have been entrusted to us. Jesus makes it clear that people who are not righteous stewards of God's talents (which can be physical or non-physical) will be cast out into outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mat. 25:14-30). Therefore, the Lord will make us give an accounting of how we use and grow his entrusted wealth.

End of excerpt.

Bottom line is God OWNS what is rendered to Caesar. So, it doesn't matter if you"render it to Caesar in ONLY a steward for God.

Also like our government the larger it is the MORE corrupt it is. SO when churches are tied together headed by one or a few the greater the possibility of corruptness.

[AppyPappy]

In Hebrews, it says the LOVE of money is the root of all evil.

[Woahhs]

Wouldn't that be a Deacon?

Nope. Different classification with different qualifications...both Biblically mandated.

[irish guard]

>>>>>Is StormFront down or something? The Jews that control Hollywood. Sheesh.<<<<

My bad....too all encompassing, but let's at least admit they heavily influence the goings on in Tinseltown.

[wjcsux]

You are absolutely right! I belong to a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) church. We are a firm church that believes in Gods Word as it was originally written. Our buildings and property are owned by the local congregation. The Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA), on the other hand, is a far-left denomination. The local congregation pays the bills but all of the church property is owned by the denomination. If you have a conservative local PCUSA congregation that doesn't want to foster a "fag friendly" environment, too bad. If you want to split from the PCUSA, you have to either leave the property, or buy it at current value, even if the local congregation originally bought and paid for it.

This is the way the plantation owners keep their slaves from being too uppity.

[Zack Nguyen]

Miss Marple, this is one of the keenest observations I have seen on FR in many a moon. (A little Indian lingo there.)

Heirarchical denominations have a disadvantage in that their power is concentrated at the top. Capture the leadership and you can capture the churches after a generation or so.

Non-heirarchical denominations (SBC, AOG, etc.) are more difficult to take over. The Southern Baptist Convention exists essentially to spend missions dollars and administrate the seminaries. They have no control over churches or their doctrine, or what pastors and staff are hired at local congregations. That is why, in the late 1970's, the leadership at the SBC had gone liberal but the grassroots Baptists remained very conservative.

The result? For the first and only time in Protestant history a denomination that had begun to trend left was snatched back and turned back to the Bible.

The SBC has a total annual budget of around $480 million per year, a truly staggering sum. They have six seminaries as well. Both of these are like holding up signs that say "Hey Libs! Come and take me over!" But given the non-heriarchical nature of the denomination, that will be more difficult to do than it was in the Episcopal church.

[AppyPappy]

Let's say that many of the people who are in upper management are Jewish. A Jew living in a trailer in Macon Ga has no influence in Hollywood. It's like saying the Presbyterians control the Scotch industry. If most serial killers are white, it doesn't mean that whites are serial killers. Nor does it mean that race has anything to do with serial killing just like religion has nothing to do with Hollywood.

[ModelBreaker]

I agree. But it would pain me to see the beautiful St. Johns Cathedral in Denver become a gay bath house. And those Bishop's robes are just so camp.

[Miss Marple]

You know, I think that the gay lobby is simply one arm of a larger effort. It is being used to control populare culture and the political agenda.

Ask yourself this: are gays and lesbians drawn to the democrats or the Republicans? PETA or NRA? ANSWER or Free Iraq? NOW or the Concerned Women of America?

They are a vocal and creative arm of the leftist movement.

Not all are leftists, of course. But a large number are, and it is the most vocal group.

I still say that these groups are after not only societal approval but also control of the discourse, the land, the money, and the power.

While searching through Methodist Church financial information on-line (and what a byzantine and difficult way they have of allowing you to access the information) I came across a statement about how Nelson Mandela got his start and financial support from the Methodist Church in South Africa, funded by the American church. I wonder how many people are aware of that, particularly Methodists?

[Woahhs]

The Bible mentions the different church but they are INDEPENDENT of one another.

Then how did Paul claim authority over the various churches he wrote to...not the least of which was the Corinthian church?

[TexanToTheCore]

Some of our seminaries had become liberal but we cleaned them out over a period of several decades. Dr. Crisell and Dr. Young were instrumental in this turn back to conservative values.

[ModelBreaker]

This is a great point. Do you know whether the Diocese or the national Episcopal church owns the money and buildings. If its the diocese, we may see entire diocese defecting from the national Church.

[longtermmemmory]

that would be a comedy skit, queereye for the episcopal priest. Five homosexuals teach a priest to act homosexual only to discover one of their own.

[TexanToTheCore]

that would be Dr. Criswell, not Crisell. Sheesh.

[Zack Nguyen]

The following is an excerpt from a book that you should consider reading. It is free (!) on the Internet and is available here:

http://www.freebooks.com

It is called "Crossed Fingers", and is the story of the liberal takeover of the Northern Presbyterian Church. It hits on many of the same themes that you have hit on.

The author is a guy named Gary North. You might not agree with all of his theology (covenant, theonomic) but his research is excellent.

The excerpt is taken from the FOREWARD.

**EXCERPT BEGINS HERE**

Rotten Wood

This book is about a conflict between two mighty religions, Christianity and humanism. It is also about a third religious tradition that was caught in the middle, whose adherents were forced by circumstances to decide which side to support: experientialism-pietism. Some of them were Christians; others were humanists. This book is about a number of confusions, both theological and institutional, and their subsequent clarification. It discusses heroes and villains, and it acknowledges that the vast majority of the participants were somewhere in between. This is true of every turning point in history except the rebellion of Adam and Eve, in which there were no innocent bystanders. It is the story of a turning point in the history of the United States.

This is a history of the liberals' strategy of infiltration and conquest of the Northern Presbyterian Church. A similar strategy was carried out in the public schools, the judiciary, the colleges, and the media, but this ecclesiastical battle was the most important battle of the war. It had to be won. Why? Because the fundamental covenantal issues of life are always at bottom theological, not political, educational, or economic. The public testimony of the Presbyterian Church was by far the most theologically rigorous testimony in the country--indeed, in the world. Humanists had to silence this denomination, for it was too influential. The capture of the most theologically articulate large conservative Protestant denomination in the United States was modernism's best-publicized success story of the era. The strategy the modernists used to take over the Presbyterians was used, with modifications, to capture the other large denominations.

**ANOTHER EXCERPT FROM THE FOREWARD**

I write for those Christians who fully recognize that in this, the final decade of the second millennium after the birth of Jesus Christ, His Church is in a full-scale war against an implacable enemy: humanism. There can be no permanent cease-fire. This book is written for those Christians who understand this and who are ready to act accordingly. Any other reader is entitled to come along for the ride, but he is not my target. Ethically self-conscious Christians are my targeted audience. Their needs and, more to the point, their vulnerability are my concern. There are still conservative Protestant denominations, and similar liberal strategies are still in effect. The problem is, the conservatives, then as now, have had no strategy.

This book is a strategy manual. It is a manual tracing how an earlier institutional battle was lost. It is not written in the spirit of detached academic inquiry. It is written in the spirit of institutional conquest: to recapture lost ground from the spiritual heirs of the invaders. When the invaders surrender cultural territory, we will regain it--not inside the four walls of liberal churches but in the culture at large. As for liberal churches today, let the dead bury the dead. Large brick churches in declining sections of town are not worth re-capturing. The heating and cooling bills alone would strap us.

Had it not been for the defection of earlier generations of Christians, we would not be in the place we are today: looking in from the outside on institutions that once belonged to God and His people rather than to the covenant-breakers who now occupy positions of institutional authority. But their authority is now fading. The flow of funds--a primary mark of authority--has begun to flow elsewhere.

So has political power. From the foundation of the Federal (later National) Council of Churches in 1908, theological liberals exhorted theological conservatives to get involved in social action and politics. Now that conservatives have begun to do this, great is the anguish inside the hallowed halls of liberalism. God has granted the liberals their request, and like the Israelites after the quail feast in the wilderness (Num. 11), the liberals are now paying dearly for it. They do not have the votes. The Christian Right has the votes. The action today is in places like Colorado Springs and Orlando, not 475 Riverside Drive, New York City.

Liberals committed their strategic resources to capturing mainline Protestant churches at the peak of these churches' influence, 1920 to 1940. They have seen this influence wither away since 1960. They bought close to the top of the market and are now hanging on for eternal life to their portfolio, hoping against hope for a recovery. It has been a primary bear market for a generation, and today looks weaker than ever. The Protestant Establishment peaked with Dwight Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles (d. 1959). It has been all downhill since then.

Liberals still seek to recoup their losses however they can. If your church has assets, it is a potential target. If it also has the same judicial and educational structure that the Presbyterian Church had in 1869, it is surely a target. Your denomination has a large neon sign flashing brightly: "Come and get us!" Somebody will. In all likelihood, the subversion is already in progress.

I know, I know: "It can't happen to us." That's what they all say.

[Woahhs]

Home of Jerry Vines bump!

[Zack Nguyen]

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.

In my opinion, the battle is over and has been for a long time. The Episcopalian Church has been walking toward this apostasy for decades, in little baby steps. Conservative Bible-believing Episcopalians should have left decades ago. Frankly many have. Why fight over fallow ground? Strong language, but I think it is true.

[Straight Vermonter]

As a Catholic I have observed the changes withing the Episcopal Church with interest. The Episcopals have bowed to the demands of the left for women priests, gays, etc. For years those of us in the Catholic Church have been told this is what we must do if we are to "save" the Church. Seems from the data below that those folks are just plain wrong. Table 2
The 15 Largest Religious Groups in America
Ranked by Decadal Growth Rates, 1980-1990

Assemblies of God 34.04%
Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints 31.89%
Catholic Church 12.39%
Christian Churches and Churches of Christ 7.56%
Southern Baptist Convention 6.33%
Churches of Christ 5.20%
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church 4.51%
Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) -0.73%
American Baptist Church -2.45%
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -2.85%
United Methodist Church -3.99%
United Church of Christ -4.89%
Presbyterian Church (USA) -11.45%
Episcopal Church -13.39%
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) -14.45%

[BeAllYouCanBe]

"Personally, I think they are attracted to churches where there is high-liturgy"

My sad story: I was an Episcopalian for over 20 years I left in 1995 after my local church was taken over by the left-wing Gays and I was no longer welcome because I spoke out. In the early 90's I was a vestry member and Sunday school teacher and was voted out and made to feel unwelcome. Family values just weren't important anymore.

As you point out the liturgy and the choir was one major draw and soon the choir was "infested" with Gays who loved the beauty of the church. From where I sat these people were coming from all over the US and they would infiltrate a local church and then move on after recruiting local gays in high enough numbers.(I'm not a conspiracy nut just stating the fact that it wasn't local Gays first demanding to take part in parish life it was "outted-out-a-state" Gays first demanding to be part of our local church life.)

So how is this take-over movement controlled -- my guess is that many bishops and clergy encourage the Gays and get them to be visible -- I don't think they want the property just your children.

[Outer Limits]

I just don't want a female priest

That would be a "priestess" would it not?

Only pagan religions employ those.