What's Really Behind the Episcopal Controversy (Vanity)

August 6, 2003 | Miss Marple

[altura]

Sorry to be so long in replying; sometimes (not often) there is life beyond the computer.

I wasn't saying that dealing with one (or several) good women priests changed my mind. I was never against women priests in principle ... I just didn't think I would want to be in the congregation of one. (Episcopalians don't like change ... or at least we DIDN'T)

Actually, the best two priests I ever had were homosexual ... but we didn't know it. They were totally in the closet and unavowed; we just found out later. Recalling how good they were does NOT make me approve of ordaining homosexuals.

You made a decent argument if I had been against the woman thing in principle but liked it in the particular, but that is not the case.

[Woahhs]

Everything about your response is designed to at least mitigate the culpability of women, and that is precisely the problem. Women keep trying to widen the pool of responsibility as the first step in attempting to dilute it.

If you can assert the man is suppose to lead, even when she won't follow, then I can assert women are suppose to follow, even when he won't lead. This nonsense about her rebelling because he's not holding up his end is nothing but a misguided attempt to convince yourself you actually CAN throw stones from your glass house. I doubt God is impressed by philosophical eye-batting and pouty-lip on the part of women who claim to be His.

I submit a search for the keyword "women" in your Bible will turn up a divine attitude towards women and their predilections (yes Virginia. If "men" can be pigs, "women" can be harpies) much different from the brown-nosing they receive from behind the pulpit from pastors financially dependent on keeping the congregants happy (most of which are usually female).

The problem is contemporary American women will only follow if you're leading somewhere they wanted to go anyway. That's one of the reasons I've said for a long time that there is very little difference between pro-life women and pro-choice women aside from their view on abortion.

[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."

You're telling me what you WANT to believe and randomly applying the GReek to suit your view. USUALLY is not equal to ALWAYS and the one verse you quoted to me makes NO mention of money.

Here's your Hebrew verse:

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.

Covetness just means to want something that doesn't belong to you. A POOR person can also COVET as well as a person of means wanting more. Worse yet it is referring to CONVERSATION.

1Tim.6:10, the verse that is closer to your concern:

[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 (NOT LOVE of 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. In the Bible ABraham and Job were tow of the wealthiest men in the Bible with God's blessing.

[AppyPappy]

I didn't write the Greek. I'm just telling you what it said.

[nmh]

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

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

Me: Did you notice you have PAUL as the head of the Church and NOT Christ? THAT is what I was questioning. Paul claimed NO authority over ANY church. He guided them but certainly did NOT head these churches.

You: "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. "

Me:Finally you supply a verse!!!

1 Corth. 5:3-5

[3] For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

[4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

[5] To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Me:Indeed Jesus Christ is the HEAD OF THE CHURCH not Paul. Paul was a sort of authority figure but by NO means headed ANY church. The Corthinans though especially troubled him.

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

Me: It's you who have been so childish and a tad confused. You never gave 1 COrth. 5:3-5 as a verse either. That is a lie. Name calling - a "heretic" is also childish as well as unChristian. Yeah, I'm real impressed with you ... .

[Marysecretary]

I understand what you are saying and I'm not saying you are wrong. Young women have been taught that they don't need men to survive. They're strong and independent. But I wonder what their fathers and grandfathers were like. It goes back generations when men don't take the headship of the home seriously. I know that not all families are like that but many, many are, where the woman is more or less made to take the responsibility of leading the family, in church matters or other ways. Men need to realize that God has given them the headship of their families. It probably would be difficult if you aren't Christian to make that happen, however. In many so-called Christian churches, it will never happen because men are made to feel like they're second class citizens for even thinking of being the head of the family. That's why I attend the church I do. Men are encouraged to be the heads and the women are encouraged to let them. We're so much happier when we do it God's way and not our own. We're not so far apart on this, my FRiend.

[Woahhs]

You never gave 1 COrth. 5:3-5 as a verse either. That is a lie.

See post 207.

Paul claimed NO authority over ANY church.

See post 207.

It's you who have been so childish and a tad confused. You never gave 1 COrth. 5:3-5 as a verse either. That is a lie. Name calling - a "heretic" is also childish as well as unChristian. Yeah, I'm real impressed with you ... .

"I know you are, but what am I" is the last gasp of a refuted sophist.

Furthermore, impressing you is not real high on my priority list. How convenient to retreat to the charge of name-calling when someone yells "stop thief."

Not once did I claim Paul was the head of the Church, yet you insist on imputing that to me. I'm pointing out the Church was intended to be a hierarchical structure with greater and lesser authorities not restricted to a local congregation. The examples in Scripture are myriad. That you refuse to acknowlege this fact is testimony to your a la carte approach to Biblical authority.

[Woahhs]

But I wonder what their fathers and grandfathers were like.

You can't do anything about what their fathers and grandfathers were like. You can do something about what "young women" think by strenuously opposing the "heads I win, tails you lose" character of feminine discourse.

It goes back generations when men don't take the headship of the home seriously.

How does one prove this assertion? If it were wrong, what evidence would you accept as conclusive?

I know that not all families are like that but many, many are, where the woman is more or less made to take the responsibility of leading the family, in church matters or other ways.

When was the last time you heard of a man being criticized as a control freak? In general, most men prefer much more autonomy than most women. Insisting women exercise that autonomy when she doesn't want to is not a failure of leadership; it's a exercise of prerogative.

I know that not all families are like that but many, many are, where the woman is more or less made to take the responsibility of leading the family, in church matters or other ways.

Thank you for the kind reply, but I think we are much farther than you think. I've read Proverbs 31 many times, and I've yet to see anything about the husband's leadership having anything to do with the wife's character. My personal observation is women "take responsibility" because they don't approve of the organizational structure men prefer. The "if you don't like the way I do it, you do it" mentality is closer to reality than any claim men are abdicating their role as head of the household.

[Woahhs]

Oops. That repeat quote should have been:

We're not so far apart on this, my FRiend.

Thanks again.

[George W. Bush]

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.

I don't know of any church properties owned by the SBC. I am aware of provisions that if a local Baptist (general, not SBC) should happen to close, the title is supposed to revert to the local conference which the closed church belonged to. Unless an evangelical or other Baptist church is willing to form and take over the property. But the conference is not generally interested in owning any local properties. It's so contrary to historic Baptist principle.

The SBC does have a strong church-building program. They take donations of materials for building a church and there are literally thousands of Southern Baptists who will assemble a construction crew to help build it at no cost to the congregation.

For Southern Baptists, local ownership of church property is so important that they will give their vacation time to help build and give money/materials. This helps to prevent a takeover by a liberal leadership.

Miss Marple, you didn't mention the holding of pensions by the denomination. This is a very powerful tool used by the liberals to control the clergy. You should review the details of how the Presbyterian clergy tolerated the liberalization of their denomination by the libs granting them a pension and then threatening to withhold it if they would not agree to liberalize their theology and policy. Machen, the last real Presbyterian, separated himself from the mainstream and created the Orthodox Presbyterians over this matter. There were many other Presbyterians who knew Machen was right but they wouldn't take a stand and jeopardize their pension. So ended the great and stalwart mainstream Presbyterian church in America, not with a bang but with a whimper. I found an online history book that described what happened to the Presbyterians in detail and I'll search it out again if you would like to look at it. Perhaps OPie still has a link to it.

[Marysecretary]

I'm not talking about men whose organizational structure is something women don't like. I'm talking about men who have no structure, who could care less about God's call on their lives to be the spiritual heads of their home. It matters a great deal generationally. If your grandfather abdicated his responsibility, it's likely your father did and it's likely you will. It doesn't always happen that way but many times that's exactly what happens. I believe women are looking for strong men to lead the family and they've been disappointed over the years when men haven't. I know this from first hand experience in my own family. It's no fun for a woman to have to carry the burden of responsibility because her husband's too drunk or on drugs or just too weak to do it. Things get out of order quickly when the woman is the head because the man won't do it.

You aren't going to find a lot of Proverbs 31 women in the secular world. They just don't exist. These young women today are being brought up in the world where men aren't needed.

[Woahhs]

Dear Friend...I'm not talking about the secular world.

[Woahhs]

Pro 30:20 Such [is] the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.

Do you have any doubt this characteristic is restricted to women only guilty of adultery?

[Woahhs]

Where were you given that discretion? If I understand correctly, your good deeds are suppose to sway your husband...not your refusal to submit.

[Woahhs]

I "was" a bible believing Christian, and knew I was supposed to submit. Most women out there don't even know that...or so it appears.

I couldn't agree more. It doesn't look that way because it isn't that way. Many will submit in concept, but rebel in practice...and quite frankly, men don't usually possess the verbal skills to contend with their wives in a debate. If she won't submit, she'll get her way...to her own detriment.

That always has been God's way though. If you rebel, you're on your own, and you will have perfectly reasonable excuses for rebelling.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Miss Marple, you didn't mention the holding of pensions by the denomination. This is a very powerful tool used by the liberals to control the clergy. You should review the details of how the Presbyterian clergy tolerated the liberalization of their denomination by the libs granting them a pension and then threatening to withhold it if they would not agree to liberalize their theology and policy. Machen, the last real Presbyterian, separated himself from the mainstream and created the Orthodox Presbyterians over this matter. There were many other Presbyterians who knew Machen was right but they wouldn't take a stand and jeopardize their pension. So ended the great and stalwart mainstream Presbyterian church in America, not with a bang but with a whimper. I found an online history book that described what happened to the Presbyterians in detail and I'll search it out again if you would like to look at it. Perhaps OPie still has a link to it. ~~ GWB

Good Post from GWB; a little "fast and dirty" as a summation but accurate in great part. I'd mention, in addition to Pastoral pensions, the matter of Church Titles -- not merely the extraneous billions of dollars in "real estate holdings", in which Presbyterians are not generally as wealthy as Episcopalians anyway, but rather the actual Worship Sanctuaries (the "church building") of the Congregation itself. In the Mainline Presbyterian Church, these Titles are owned by the Denomination. Leave the Denomination, and not only does the Parson lose his Pension -- but the entire Church is quite literally "out on the street"!

Take the Rivermont Presbyterian Church, the largest Church in Lynchburg VA aside from Jerry Falwell's 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist mega-church -- incidentally, both of which I attended very-irregularly during my "wandering years" (I was not a covenanted Presbyterian at the time) prior to joining the OPC. I think Rivermont's covenanted Membership runs about 4,000 (or more) -- far and away the largest Presbyterian Congregation in their Mainline Presby USA regional presbytery. The Congregation had discussed seceding from the Mainline Presby USA denomination for years, but always they faced an unpleasant choice -- leave the Denomination, and the Denomination keeps the church building: Suddenly they're begging the local High School to rent out their basketball gym and a few thousand folding chairs every Sunday Morning, and hoping the ACLU doesn't bust them for using "State Property". At initial glance, this reticence may seem "materialistic", but there's another way to look at it: how'd you like to be the Elder who has to tell a Presbyterian Widow that the $100,000 endowment her husband left to the Church for the expansion of the Church Library's section on Biblical Creationism, has just become the sole possession of the National Denomination's "Committee for the Invention and Advancement of Imaginative New Heresies"?? Not very palatable.

Eventually, in 2001, Rivermont decided to secede from the Mainline Presby USA denomination anyway, consequences be damned... I believe the final straw was the 213th General Assembly's vote in favor of recommending that the Presbyteries eliminate the "fidelity and chastity" provision from the constitutions of the Presbyterian Church. Will wonders never cease, I was amazed shortly thereafter when it was reported that the Denomination would allow the Rivermont Congregation to KEEP their $5 million+ Worship Sanctuary. Had the National Denomination (in the face of a virtually Unanimous secession vote on the part of Rivermont) deigned to show them Christian Mercy, and let them keep the "house" which they had built upon the Rock??

Well, apparently not so charitable as all that. I later came to understand that the "inside story" was that Rivermont was made to pay $1.5 Million in "ecclesial arrears" -- or some such horse-puckey -- as the price of secession (pure Blackmail; Rivermont was not "in arrears", they were the financial sugar-daddy of the entire Regional Presbytery). Basically (from what I understand), Rivermont ended up having to go into a Legal "mexican standoff" against the National Denomination, and the Denomination backed down and decided to "settle out-of-court" for 30 cents on the dollar.

A steep price for Rivermont to pay for an Investment which the Congregation, not the Denomination, had already paid off 100%; but that's the price of bucking the Liberals. You know, those nice Christian Socialists who "don't care about filthy lucre", and all.

Gary North's excellent book, referenced by GWB, is available online for free, here:

CROSSED FINGERS: How the Liberals Captured the Presbyterian Church ~~ by Gary North

Purely as a matter of Baptist-Presbyterian academic interest, I note in passing that the Orthodox Presbyterian Church has incorporated two substantive changes which differentiate us from 19th Century American Presbyterianism.

Both changes are (arguably) Baptistic in character.

• THEONOMY: The OPC incorporates the 1903 Revision of Westminster Article XXIII (Of The Civil Magistrate), which permanently rejects the Anglican Establishmentarian theory of a State Church in favor of the Baptist Disestablishmentarian theory of a separation between the functions of Church and State (in fact, this is the only 20th-Century revision retained by the OPC; all other 20th-Century Revisions have been rejected).
• ECCLESIOLOGY: The OPC incorporates the Baptistic commitment to congregational, not denominational, ownership of Local Church Property. What does the OPC National Denomination own? They own the National Denomination headquarters in Philadelphia, that's what. The Local Worship Sanctuaries are owned by the Local Church. The National Denomination still enjoys the Canon Law power over the Local Churches to define Communion (to permit or exclude them from calling themselves "Orthodox Presbyterians"), but the Local Churches are not financially enslaved to the Denomination if they come into disagreement.

So we OPC-ers must acknowledge our debt to the Baptists (or, together with Baptists, acknowledge our mutual debt to the Bible) in overcoming these Old Presbyterian deficiencies. Does this mean that the Baptists have all the right answers?

Well, I dunno about all that. I think that the diligent Baptist will find that many of the better Baptist Scholars endorse the Presbyterian theory of "multiple-elder" governance for the Local Churches, and not the "single-pastoral" model which is all-too-prevalent in many Baptist churches -- sheesh, even Jesus Christ had His under-shepherds. And I further suspect that, given the ongoing (and successful) Reconquista of the Southern Baptist Confession by the orthodox-calvinist "Founders' Movement", traditionalist Baptists like GWB may soon have reason to envy the OPC's Canon Law authority to define communion:

"Arminians, and Sodomites, and Bill Clinton, Oh My!! We're not going to claim title to your Church Property -- but if you vehemently reject the 1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith, then Res Ipsa Loquitur: YOU'RE NOT BAPTISTS!!"

I suspect that Baptists and Presbyterians still have much to learn from eachother (Indeed, as I admit, the OPC has adopted a small amount of "baptistic" thinking already). Maybe we have to -- John Calvin himself married a Baptist; and while, after 500 years, we still have our disagreements, it is in no way a vainglorious exaggeration to say that Presbyterian Calvinists and Reformed Baptists remain the only two Confessions to consistently uphold the essentials of the Reformed Faith.

Ever the Odd Couple; ever the Reformed. (grin)

best, OP