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 previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-277 next last
To: Redleg Duke
As are you. I will look forward to that meeting. It's a good thing that I seem to have some time left to clean up my own act so that I can get there. Thanks for your kind words.
201 posted on 08/06/2003 1:34:26 PM PDT by BlackElk ( So long Uday and Qucay! Dad should be right along any day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: judicial meanz
"Thats why this lifelong Episcopalian is now churchless."

As and ex-Episcopalain I have wandered for the last 8 years in Anglican split-offs and the start-up AMIA and I've been lost like you.

"Its about infiltration, power, influence"

I have seen the clipped-haired lesbians and the sweet talking men rejoice in the church that was once mine -- celebrating their sins rather than confessing their sinfullness. Now they celebrate "relationship anniverseries" when Joe and Mike come to the communion rail for a blessing. Everything glorifies the god of high self esteem.

I have a lot of anger because my grand daughter has no place to go to church.
202 posted on 08/06/2003 1:56:49 PM PDT by BeAllYouCanBe (Maybe this "Army Of One" is a good thing - You Gotta Admire the 3rd Infantry Accomplishments)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
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.

You hit the nail on the head with this one.
203 posted on 08/06/2003 2:03:15 PM PDT by FreeRep (Proud to be American: John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeAllYouCanBe
I have a lot of anger because my grand daughter has no place to go to church.

In the end, it is you and your family that must make the decision where to go to church. If your congregation has gone apostate (and it certainly sounds like it has) it is your job to find someplace where you can be fed from the Word of God and the sacraments, where you can worship, serve, evangelize and be discipled. These churches exist. You must find them.

I am speaking to you in a strong manner because the spiritual health of your family is at stake. Being without a place of fellowship and worship is simply not an option.

204 posted on 08/06/2003 2:30:03 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: BeAllYouCanBe
I have a lot of anger harbored at these people as well. Probably more than I as a Christian should.

How many more things are they going to reinvent the wheel over? Whats next: Pederasty? Druidism? Human Sacrifice? NAMBLA?

They will have plenty of money to move the agenda they pick. Money that dates back to Sir Francis Drakes Spanish galleon raiding, pre-colonial land grants, and so forth.

Its a scary proposition.
205 posted on 08/06/2003 2:33:07 PM PDT by judicial meanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary
I do believe one big reason why women are pastoring churches is because in many cases, the men just won't. Men have abdicated their responsibility to be priest, prophet and king in their own homes.

Well I believe women are pastoring churches because they are willful and rebellious. Men can't lead women that refuse to follow. Now answer the question "who has a vested interest in claiming a dearth of pious men: pious men or rebellious women?" Who has been steadily gaining influence for a hundred years: pious men or rebellious women? What does our country most closely resemble, the vision of pious men, or rebellious women.

206 posted on 08/06/2003 2:50:53 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: nmh
He didn't. He visited them to see how things were going and wrote them letters. What verse says he HEADED these churches and why did he ask INDEPENDENT churches to be considerate of the SEPARATE churches?

First, save your straw man obfuscation about heading churches. I didn't claim that, and your phrasing it that way is underhanded.

Next, you read 1 Corinthians 5: 3-5 and tell me that's not a claim of authority.

Wanna come to my church or stop in any Baptist church and meet one personally. What's your beef with "elders"?

I don't have a beef with Elders, and your Baptist church would be the first one I've ever heard of to have them. And don't act like I've never been to Baptist churches. That's a Florida flag on my homepage. I'll show you fifty Baptist churches without Elders for every one you show me with them.

Not to mention the Baptist penchant for congregationalism is unscriptural.

207 posted on 08/06/2003 2:52:54 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
re: How do you acount for those in powerful positions in the church who now openly discuss their disbelief in the virgin birth, the resurrection, and foundational doctrine such as that?

They've strayed from the Bible and by doing so they are creating their own religion on the fly. If I get to pick and choose what's right and wrong them I myself would be playing the role of God... and it's back to that original lie that Adam felt for.

If we can pick and choose what's right and wrong, then how would be be different from Shirley McClaine?

God wants us to obey Him and partial disobedience is still disobedience. On an item that's a gray area, then it's the Holy Spirit that will guide a person (e.g. drinking alcohol... you pick the hobby horse).

But on something that was black and white and both the old and new testaments... ? Man, I've got to scratch my head and wonder how far away from God we have fallen.

I saw some ministers/experts on McNeil/Lehrer tonight and I about vomitted all over my kitchen. They were trying to state that the church was finally 'maturing' along with society... blah blah. And that there were only a few references and since we don't follow the book of Leviticus part and parcel, it didn't apply.

If I ... a sinner saved only by God's grace wanted to vomit, then how much more would an almight holy and righteous God want to? I wouldn't stand near some of those men.... (afraid lighting might just come right down).

It was black and white multiple times in the new testament and those guys had better read about the Jesus that will judge the living and the dead. Eyes of fire, tongue like a sword, feet of bronze.... (that's from memory). But He's coming back and he ain't gonna be pleased with this blatant 'humanism' in His church.

208 posted on 08/06/2003 5:37:17 PM PDT by blue jeans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
"Homosexuals do not build civilization."

no they redecorate!
209 posted on 08/06/2003 5:53:17 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Hebrews 13:5 states this:

[5] Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

It says NOTHING about the love of money. It does say be content with what you have (weathy or poor) and do NOT COVET what someone else has for He will not forsake you.

A far cry from your statement:

Hebrews 13:5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."

You don't have to have doubts since the Bible clarifies itself; not that you verse needs clarification but mayge this will help you understand Him:

The appropriate verse is this:

(not Hebrews but 1Timothy 6:10)

1Tim.6:10

[10] For the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil: which while SOME coveted after, they have ERRED FROM THE FAITH, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Reading 1 Timothy states that the LOVE of MONEY (over God) which SOME coveted after has caused them error in their faith and lead to sorrow. SOME is not equal to ALL.

Job and Abraham are two of the WEALTHIEST men in the Bible and yet they remained true to GOD above and NOT distracted by their wealth. Money in and of itself is NOT evil. It is HOW you use the wealth - serve God or serve yourself. To teach otherwise in NOT Biblically correct.

How do you expalin the eztreme wealth with Abraham and Job WITH God's approval? I think you'll find that when you read the Bible for what it says and strip away prejudices, much can be learned about God and how He sees things.

210 posted on 08/06/2003 6:22:29 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: nmh
So your verse:
"In Hebrews, it says the LOVE of money is the root of all evil."

Is actually :

1Tim.6:10

[10] For the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil: which while SOME coveted after, they have ERRED FROM THE FAITH, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Reading 1 Timothy states that the LOVE of MONEY (over God) which SOME coveted after has caused them error in their faith and lead to sorrow. SOME is not equal to ALL.

Job and Abraham are two of the WEALTHIEST men in the Bible and yet they remained true to GOD above and NOT distracted by their wealth. Money in and of itself is NOT evil. It is HOW you use the wealth - serve God or serve yourself. To teach otherwise in NOT Biblically correct.

Since Hebrews 13:5 states this:

[5] Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

That's an easy mistake to admit. Don't let pride blind you.

211 posted on 08/06/2003 6:27:26 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
I'm still waiting for your verse from the Bible that states Paul was the head of all the churches.

Here's your statement:

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

Back it up and stop obfusgating.

212 posted on 08/06/2003 6:28:53 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
"You are certainly right that God's word does not evolve. Neither does God. Stop acting as though your mother was scared by a priest when she was carrying you." br>

You can stop the ridiculous personal attacks right now -It's also not amusing.

"Stop acting as though your mother was scared by a priest when she was carrying you.

That's low even from you.

"If you are a Southen Baptist, you would obviously be surprised at the respect that many Catholics hold for the courage and faithfulness of the Southern Baptist Convention and its magnificent leadership of the last decade or so."

I am not affiliated with any denomination so flattery will not work here.

"What we Catholics have a problem with is the preachiness in spreading YOPIOS that abounds here as though YOPIOS had any authority whatsoever compared to actual Scripture. If you don't think that gays have designs on the Baptist churches, you are quite naive."

It's not the "preachiness" that you dislike but WHAT is stated FROM the Bible. I use the Bible as ULTIMATE authority and I do NOT take verses out of context as I have demonstrated. You just don't like the message so you shoot down the messenger with the "preachiness" slur.

"Furthermore, IF some INDEPENDENT congregation, claiming to be Baptist, publicly denied the divinity of Christ, that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Christ, that God the Father so loved the world that He sent to us Jesus Christ, his only begotten son, that Jesus died on the cross in atonement for our sins, and that he resurrected on the third day according to Scripture, I am going out on a limb and betting that the good men who run the Southern Baptist Convention will find a way to turn such a congregation formally into separated brethren after due investigation and deliberation. No?????"

"publicly denied the divinity of Christ" is grounds for separating from the under ANY denomination since it is false.

Surely you are NOT suggesting that an independent or grouped denomination be found acceptable when they publically DENY the divinity of Christ?

Maybe I misunderstand your point. What you are saying contradicts itself. If Jesus IS NOT divine then how could someone accept the rest of what you say? Honestly, I'm confused and what you're saying and what your point it.

213 posted on 08/06/2003 6:42:44 PM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Great points. I also believe it is the last days, and Satan is doing everything in his power to sway the righteous from the straight and narrow. And one good way of doing that is deluding people into accepting sinful ways, but masquerade under a religious inclusion.
214 posted on 08/06/2003 8:44:57 PM PDT by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I'm still waiting for your verse from the Bible that states Paul was the head of all the churches.

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

Paul specificly says Christ is the head of the Church. Nevertheless, Paul's claim to authority is not restricted to any particular congregation, or do you dispute that? I gave the verse 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 to back it up.

If you want to be a heretic, that's your business, but asking for an answer that was already given is just childish.

215 posted on 08/06/2003 9:41:12 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I might have said "homosexuality" dosen't build civilization, as there actually are individual homosexuals who have made civilizational contributions.

Yet to posit it's moral equivalence with the heterosexual, monogamously married ideal, is not compatable with Western civilization's advance.

Hence, the agenda, as attack?

216 posted on 08/06/2003 10:44:59 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: nmh
I'm just telling you what it said. The Greek says the love of "filthy lucre" which is usually money.
aphilarguros
af-il-ar'-goo-ros
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G5366; unavaricious: - without covetousness, not greedy of filthy lucre.
217 posted on 08/07/2003 4:26:18 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 210 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
Yes, you're right as well. But if men had filled the seminaries, I do believe that women wouldn't have. I've seen this happen over and over again in the Methodist Church. They couldn't fill the pulpits with men so they allowed women in. It's a two edged sword. Men are not blameless in this, as much as men would like to think they aren't. Women are rebellious and insubmissive but men also have to take responsibility for some of that. When a man loves his wife, and shows it in palpable ways, I don't believe a woman has a problem submitting to him. When he treats her like a piece of furniture in his home, she does rebel. Men need to face their responsibilities in the home as well as in the church and too many of them just plain don't want to be bothered. Not all, of course, but you just look around and see what homes you know of where the man is the head of the home and leads his family spiritually. I hope you can find many of them. I don't see it much here.
218 posted on 08/07/2003 5:36:09 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD is still in control!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
No dog. Now I'll NEVER have one, darn.
219 posted on 08/07/2003 5:36:58 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD is still in control!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Marysecretary
Thought you might be interested in AMiA's Statement on Robinson. Their web site is:
http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org

The Rt. Rev. Charles Murphy, Chairman of the Anglican Mission.

The Anglican Mission in America, part of the worldwide Anglican Communion as an outreach of the province of Rwanda, has weighed in on the Episcopal Church’s decision to confirm the first openly gay bishop in the history of the Christian Church.

In voicing its disapproval, the Anglican Mission contends that the central issue is not, at its core, about homosexual practice or lifestyle, although the 1998 global meeting of Anglican bishops [Lambeth Conference] unambiguously declared the practice and lifestyle to be incompatible with Scripture.

“The real issue before us is a church, the Episcopal Church in this country (ECUSA), that is in direct conflict with the Scriptures” declared the Rt. Rev. Chuck Murphy, the Anglican Mission’s Chairman.

Murphy cited a December,1997 interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine in which the Episcopal Church’s Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, acknowledged as much, by stating:

“Broadly speaking, the Episcopal Church is in conflict with scripture. ... (One) would have to say that the mind of Christ operative in the church over time ... has led the church to in effect contradict the words of the Gospel."

Murphy notes that "it is this kind of confusion and presumption from the very highest levels of leadership in the U.S. Episcopal Church that has now produced both this latest vote to confirm the election of Gene Robinson, and the severe crisis of Faith and leadership that now exists within the worldwide Anglican Communion. The situation now before us within the U.S. Episcopal Church demands correction, and invites the outside intervention that will, I am sure, be forthcoming."

The Anglican Mission in America is a missionary outreach of the Anglican Province of Rwanda, established three years ago in response to the crisis of faith and leadership that exists within the Episcopal Church, to focus on reaching out to the 130 million spiritually-disconnected people in the United States. The Anglican Mission is a growing movement of churches now stretching throughout the United States.
220 posted on 08/07/2003 6:14:40 AM PDT by Gopher Broke (Abortion: Big people killing little people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 261-277 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