Skip to comments.Why is the Episcopal Church Near Collapse?
Posted on 07/12/2012 8:09:26 PM PDT by marshmallow
The headlines coming out of the Episcopal Churchs annual U.S. convention are stunning endorsement of cross-dressing clergy, blessing same-sex marriage, the sale of their headquarters since they cant afford to maintain it.
The American branch of the Church of England, founded when the Vatican balked at permitting King Henry VIII to continue executing any wife who failed to bear him sons, is in trouble.
Somehow slipping out of the headlines is a harsh reality that the denomination has been deserted in droves by an angry or ambivalent membership. Six prominent bishops are ready to take their large dioceses out of the American church and align with conservative Anglican groups in Africa and South America.
An interesting moment came at a press conference on Saturday, reports convention attendee David Virtue, when I asked Bonnie Anderson, president of the House of Deputies, if she saw the irony in that the House of Deputies would like to see the Church Center at 815 2nd Avenue, New Yorik, sold (it has a $37.5 million mortgage debt and needs $8.5 million to maintain yearly) while at the same time the national church spent $18 million litigating for properties, many of which will lie fallow at the end of the day.
This is no longer George Washingtons Episcopal Church in 1776 the largest denomination in the rebellious British colonies. Membership has dropped so dramatically that today there are 20 times more Baptists than Episcopalians.
U.S. Catholics out-number the Episcopal Church 33-to-1. There are more Jews than Episcopalians. Twice as many Mormons. Even the little African Methodist Episcopal denomination which broke away after the Civil War has passed the Episcopalians.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
This is one of those rhetorical question headlines, isn’t it?
Hollowed out by sodomites and one-world commies would be my guess. Do I win?
++This is one of those rhetorical question headlines, isnt it?++
HAHAHA! You beat me to it.
Apostasy is a terrible thing.
I resigned the church in 1991 over their presiding bishop’s position on the 1st gulf war. The leadership are godless communists. I recommend that all faithful Anglican’s walk away and leave them and their property to their fate. After all, what’s the real market for homosexual marriage ceremonies, even though the flower arrangements will a thing to behold.
Wait this is a blog exerpt..where’s Humblegunner?
Oh gee. Where do I start?
Catherine of Aragon was not executed.
They'll be FABULOUS! ;o)
Disposing of his wives. He could have legitimized one of his bastards, but he was smitten of Anne Boleyn—and probably he was the cause of his wives lack of fertility. And look at his children. Mary infertile and dead before 40 and Edward dead much younger. And Elizabeth? Was she even fertile? Henry did not die as miserably as Herod, but he did not die well.
VD + Lead poisoning. Yow!
Perhaps because it was killed by the cancers of PC and liberalism? That’s my diagnosis, but I’m not Anglican.
“I resigned the church in 1991 over their presiding bishops position on the 1st gulf war.”
I don’t know the position, but a serious Christian could oppose that war on valid grounds. Having US troops go to liberate a Muslim monarchy from another Muslim country that tolerates Christianity, while asking the US troops to keep any crosses inside their uniforms so as not to offend our Muslim “clients”, was debatable. I would hate to be a Christian American soldier and find out I had killed an Iraqi Christian soldier as a mercenary for Kuwait/Saudi Arabia...
Good point. Also, GWI brought our troops into SAudia and later the Saudis said that they didn't want us, while AlQa used this as a pretext for 9.11 (saying that "infidels" had "dirtied" the "holy soil of Arabia")
One of Osama Bin Laden’s demands was that US troops leave Saudi, and we acquiesced.
A friend has a son in Kuwait now with the Army; he enlisted recently and will be in Afghanistan soon. While she was understandably concerned for his safety there, I told her she should also be concerned that he didn’t do anything he’d spend the rest of his life regretting. As I understand it, there are such reservations by some of the Americans that attacked the Iraqi convoys leaving Kuwait; they understood too clearly they were attacking people who weren’t even combatants at that point. Finding out afterwards that many of the stories of Iraqi “atrocities” didn’t help, either, and while Saudi (our “ally”) supplied 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, Iraq supplied none.
The most westernized Iraqis miss Saddam, and the protection he awarded them, in the wake of that whole fiasco. If the US wanted a real war, they could have defended Georgia when Russia invaded - but that didn’t happen. We don’t defend Christian nations like Georgia or Serbia; we fight for Bosnia, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
Our policy has been for the last 20 years at least, drive out the Christians, set up the muslims, let them kill all the rest who won't or can't leave.
I like to think that for the first 16 years we were just stupid. A stupid hangover from Afghanistan — on hindsight it would have been better to let the Soviets crush the Mujahideen and then advance on Pakistan.
With allies like the Saudis and the Pakis (who sheltered Osama for 10 years), who needs enemies?
True. He was a devil, but a secular devil. And now we're making the same mistake with Assad
True. He was a devil, but a secular devil. And now we're making the same mistake with Assad
We dont defend Christian nations like Georgia or Serbia; we fight for Bosnia, Kosovo, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. -- for Bosnia, Kosovo -- what utter idiots we are....
Are you two done defending Al Qaeda and bashing the U.S. and our military? I sure do hope so.
huh? What are you talking about? Alq are islamic scum who need to be obliterated by us. I said while AlQa used this as a pretext for 9.11 (saying that "infidels" had "dirtied" the "holy soil of Arabia") --> as a pretext. We went to help a Moslem despot (Kuwait) against a secular despot and then got burned for our efforts (the burn being 9.11)
I'm doing nothing of that sort. Our government has made mistakes in GWI. Afghanistan was a just war -- retaliation and it got us back some respect. But GWI was a mistake imho. And supporting the Saudi and Paki scum IS a mistake.
Well, the Episcopalians Did It Again
Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2012 at 10:23AM Episcopalian leaders continue to guide their denomination into the abyssand no doubt, the Presbyterians (PCUSA) will soon follow.
As reported in the Huffington Post, the Episcopal denominations General Convention voted this week to make it illegal to discriminate against anyone. Specifically, that means it is now illegal to . . . bar from the priesthood people who were born into one gender and live as another or who do not identify themselves as male or female.
Readers of my columns and other pieces may remember my prediction that this fast train into the pit would not stop just with practicing homosexuals. It will inevitably lead all the way to pedophilia. I cannot help but think of Jesus words: Wide is the gate that leads to destruction. Those words became poignant when I read the jubilant quote from one of the Episcopal leaders:
"It is not just a good day for transgender Episcopalians and their friends, families and allies. It is a good day for all of us who are part of a church willing to take the risk to continue to draw the circle wider as we work to live out our call to make God's inclusive love known to the whole human family," the Rev. Susan Russell, a deputy from the Diocese of Los Angeles and an activist who supported the legislation, said in a statement.
That wide circle is certainly the wide gate that Jesus talked about. It is the place where people can enter with all their baggage, but then they proceed to go over the cliff of eternal destruction. If this decision doesnt cause Bible-believing Anglicans (who represent 90 percent of Anglicans worldwide) to sever ties with the Episcopal Church, I dont know what will.
For years, some of us have said that the Episcopal Church has ceased to be the Church of Jesus Christ. But if youre no longer the Church of Jesus Christ, then whose church are you?
There are only two waysGods and Satans. There are only two kingdomsGods and Satans. And there are only two churchesGods and Satans. For any faithful worshipper of Jesus Christ, there can be no doubt as to which camp the Episcopal Church now belongs.
I know, I know . . . many of the churchs remaining members will call me narrow-minded, homophobic, ignorant, and hateful. But I want them to know several things.
First, God knows, as do many of those church members, that I dont possess a hateful bone in my body.
Second, as long as Im pleasing God and obeying His Word, it makes no difference to me what people call me.
Third, and most important, I wear their words of attack and insult as a badge of honor. For Jesus Himself said, Woe unto you when all men speak well of you.
I may not possess a hateful bone, but I do possess a broken heartnot only for my former church, but also for the very few (and I do mean very few) remaining faithful believers in the Episcopal Church who misguidedly think they can stay and be a light.
Tragically, they have become an ember. The Episcopal fire has gone out, and I pray that those remaining believers will get out before their fire is extinguished also
Yeah, we ran in to defend a Muslim monarchy to free it from a country tolerant of Christians (military and US made a bad call) and AQ used that to attack us (if only we’d stayed away, they’d have left us alone).
Not to mention the insinuation that Soldiers are a heartbeat away from turning into war criminals.
Exactly what I said , (if only wed stayed away, theyd have left us alone). -- that's your conjecture, not mine. Specifically they would not have directly attacked the US so soon, they would have been attacking their neighbors
think of this -- if we hadn't get involved in GWI, AlQ's enemy would remain the House of Saud and the Secular dictators like Assad, Saddam, mubarak, etc.
Saddam would be super powerful and a threat to Saudia, Iran and Turkey.
right now there are 2 rival camps in the Moslem world: Saudia paid Sunnis with Alqaeda and Shia Iran with the Hizb'allah -- if not for GWI, there would be a third -- the secular types.
The terrorists would be focussed on the seculars while also fighting against the corresponding sunni/shia...
where exactly did I say that? Stop making up stuff -- nowhere have I said that and to me our soldiers are not war criminals. They did their duty, and well. Neither is Bush a "war criminal" if you want to call him that. Dubya did well in getting us out of Saudia. His dad got us into that mire....
and Kuwait was separated from Iraq by the Brits and also the Iraqis and Kuwaities share the same oil well...
Yep, here I am...making stuff up...
Googled the question, and it seems that even his bastards died young. Richmond, whom he recognized and honored, and Henry Carey, probably his bastard by Mary Boleyn both died in 1536, Richmond at 18, Carey at 8 or 9.
The answer is large trusts, left to the church by many generations of the faithful. They allow the lights to stay on in empty churches and salaries to be paid to flockless priests. The monies have been rapidly depleted in the current decade and will be exhausted soon in many dioceses. When that happens the Episcopal Church will crumble away in a twinkling like the bad guy in Indiana Jones.
“Our policy has been for the last 20 years at least, drive out the Christians, set up the muslims, let them kill all the rest who won’t or can’t leave.”
The facts are there for all to see, no doubt.
Even that whole charade was completely misrepresented to sell it to the American public. There was no Soviet “invasion” of Afghanistan any more than there was an American invasion of South Vietnam; the Afghan GOVERNMENT asked the Soviets for help (as Saigon did with us years before), and the government they were supporting lasted for years after the USSR collapsed (I believe it fell in 1996 - it lasted longer than South Vietnam did after our withdrawal).
Like Americans today, the Soviet troops worked in collaboration with the official Afghan army (though they were allowed to shoot back).
“Are you two done defending Al Qaeda and bashing the U.S. and our military? I sure do hope so.”
You probably would have said the same thing in 1939 to fellow Germans who questioned the morality of invading Poland in collusion with the Soviet Union.
Are there any points in particular you can refute?
Any actions we’ve criticized that you can defend?
Did anyone defend Al Qaeda?
I saw no such thing in our conversation either.
Future Snake Eater, remember that the Boston Massacre occurred when British troops fired on British citizens; blind faith in authority can have frightening consequences. This country was born from men who thought so as well.
You’re hours behind the power curve. Try again.
Spare me the 1770 talk. This is the 21st Century. Certain unpopular decisions have to be made for general stability purposes. That sometimes includes killing POS hajis and securing oil-producing nations for our future security and prosperity. The potential for offending terrorist organizations shouldn’t even factor in to the decision—because they’re terrorist organizations and no one cares what they think. Except you, apparently.
People like you are people like you because you can’t/won’t make those decisions. Because you think it’s still 1770.
That was an eloquent defense for the assault on the secular government of Iraq (we killed them for oil and future prosperity? - you sound like the anti-Busk lunatics); they were so stable we armed them to the teeth throughout the 1980s to fight Iran. Keep cheerleading meaningless killing; some of our servicemen were killed by weapons we sent there when Saddam was our friend. We did nothing but kill a lot of people (not terrorists - those are our friends, the Saudis - including Bin Laden himself), and completely DE-stabilized the region.
You can keep pretending I defended terrorists; it may distract from your complete ignorance. Don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions.
Of course we attacked over oil. Do you think anyone would give a damn about the Middle East if it wasn’t for the oil? I’m perfectly fine with that. Trying to teach them how to be us is where we failed miserably, because we are far better than they are. And I don’t give a damn what AQ thinks about our presence over there. And I don’t care if you or your buddies think that US service members are likely to “do something we’ll regret.”
I know who we are and what we did, and I’m proud of it.
I appreciate your candor, but throwing AQ and “terrorist” into discussions about Iraq is absurd.
My concern was for a particular family friend doing something HE would regret; I don’t have to answer for what other people do. I’ve never viewed the actions of our government as a reflection on myself in any case. At least you don’t even try to cloak it in anything noble; your logic is much the same as the hijackers - they did it because they could.
I can't possibly imagine what you mean by that.
They are completely unrelated, and you know it. Aghanistan was a war both parties (and the general public) could support because it was the source of the 9/11 attacks; Iraq was and is a completely separate thing, which is why many allies in Afghanistan didn’t participate in it. It overthrew the most stable, pro-Western government in the region, and turned it into a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism (which had always been successfully suppressed by Saddam - that is why we “liked” him in the 1980s).
What I know is that I fought AQ in Iraq. I also know that AQ felt that Iraq was it’s decisive effort—that came from their COO, Zawahiri. AQ was highly active in Iraq, I hit many targets with AQI personnel and they took some shots at me along the way as well. Destroying AQI was a tremendous setback for the entire organization. It will take them decades to rebuild from that loss.
And calling Iraq “pro-Western” shows just how off-the-reservation you really are. We supported Iraq in the 1980s because they weren’t Iran—they were killing our enemies for us. It was as simple as that.
Al Qaeda never showed up in Iraq until the man who kept them out was overthrown; stop pretending that was the reason for attacking them to begin with. After we invaded, it became a convenient place for AQ to kill Americans (and they did; so much so that we had a midnight retreat to avoid a repeat of any of those famous 1975 Saigon photos). If we really wanted to kill radical Muslims at this point, Iraq is the perfect place to do it - but we won’t; they’ve already won there (hardly destroyed). Iraq was a setback for the US, not Al Qaeda, and it delivered the White House to Obama.
I’ll let the Iraqis that fled to the US after Saddam was overthrown attest to his “pro-Western” stance; they can once again worship in peace here since Saddam’s protection of their churches died with his government. Unlike our beloved “allies” the Saudis, non-Muslims were allowed to worship freely in Iraq.
I must have missed that midnight retreat. When was this?
theyve already won there (hardly destroyed). Iraq was a setback for the US, not Al Qaeda, and it delivered the White House to Obama.
Really? Fascinating...you must be privvy to all kinds of intel and operational details that I'm not.
Your lame attempts to rewrite history won't work, especially since I was actually there and witnessed this stuff.
I want to axe of what faith will then be our future pale white RINO POTUSes once this country club denomination goes bah-bye?
This dyke Jefferts Schori is quite a number, isn’t he?!
I think the lead sentence answers the question. The Episcopal Church has become among Christian denominations what the Berkeley City Council or the San Francisco supervisors have become to governments, that is, more interested in following their own fancies than getting their business done, certainly more so than in preaching the old-time Christian faith. The layfolk have said, forget this nonsense, and either joined the Catholics, the evangelicals, the Orthodox, another Lambeth church, an independent Anglican church or just punched out of religion completely. And the remaining flock really can’t afford to keep the church at large in the manner to which it was accustomed when it was the (rich, patrician) Republican Party at prayer. I say this as an outsider, but if anybody can correct me on that, go ahead.
And speaking of corrections...Henry didn’t break away from Rome because Rome wouldn’t let him behead his wives. He broke away because Rome wouldn’t annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. He was already out, for all intents and purposes, by the time he started beheading wives.
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.