Layman Voices Criticism Over Turmoil In Episcopal Church

This letter is to voice my concern and distress over the current turmoil in the Episcopal Church. It is deplorable to see the Church splitting over a man who is undeserving of the ability to destroy the Church. He has, in my opinion, demonstrated throughout his life that the only person he cares about is himself and what he wants. He married as a gay man, had children, and then left them for another man.

How could this person be a Bishop in this Church; making policy and otherwise guiding our spiritual life? It is fine if the church he was attending made him a rector in the church and even made him a Bishop; I am certainly not upset with their wishes. My concern is that we had enough bishops in the national congregation that voted for him. This definitely sends a message about the Church in America and the direction that it is going.

Further, the aggressive approach against the local churches is frightening to all people who belong and support the churches. It is not Diocesan money that comes out of thin air that builds and supports these physical facilities. These parishioners should have a voice in what they want to do and how they want to worship within the bounds of the Episcopal doctrine.

I do not know the reasons for people being gay, but would guess that it is for the most part, a biological condition and not something chosen. Their talents are as varied as their gifts and should be recognized and respected. Nevertheless, it is not normal and does not fit in with the harmony of the universe and the manner in which man and woman were designed. There are many people born who do not fit into the norm and they are limited in some ways. It is not a right that everybody can do everything. In fact, we all have disabilities that limit what we can do; it is a matter of degree. In the rush to be correct and godly, it is being proffered that being gay is normal and it is discriminatory if we do not let them have children, be religious leaders, marry, and so on. What is happening is the thrust to make a homosexual relationship normal. This means it is abnormal for an individual to be repulsed, not by the person, but by the sexuality of the relationship. But why would you not be? It is possible to love the person, but still draw lines to remain in conformity with the harmony of the universe.

There obviously are some parishioners who do believe that it is the duty of religion to accept all people, therefore, it follows that it is godly to accept a gay bishop into the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church. Is that to say that all behavior is accepted; why not have a practicing prostitute as a Bishop if we follow that line of reasoning?

We as parents have to have limits on what we will allow our children to do and we as parishioners have to have limits on what the leaders of the church are allowed to do. For many, that limit has been reached. What has not been reached is a decision on what to do next. Many love the church and the godliness that is there and do not want to leave their church family or the Episcopal Church. On the other hand, your actions toward parishioners and priest who can not, in good faith continue, gives rise to the belief that nothing will be done except to force congregations to abide by something that is repugnant in our religious world. As uncomfortable as it is, there is a point where the line is drawn in the sand and for a lot of people, this is it. Yet, the hierarchy appears of the mind set that this will blow over and we will be good liberal Episcopalians and go indifferently along complaining but doing nothing. There are signs that this may not be the case this time.

No one wants this to happen. It seem that instead of going against the Episcopal doctrine and the majority of the parishioners by drubbing them out of the Church, taking the property they have paid and worked for, it is time for the Leaders of the Church to reconvene and reconsider the position that has been taken. For everyone that has left the fold, there are many more looking for some way to undo what has been done without being driven from the body of the Church. The Bishops who voted for this need to get beyond what appears to be "we voted him in, we know best what is good for the Church and the parishioners, now live with it." Would God want us to be passive? I do not think so.

There is still time for this to happen. If they cannot, then it is time for others to take their place as Bishops. It would certainly be less disruptive to replace Bishops who seem to have lost touch with the Congregation and God's teaching than to loose the Congregation or the monetary support that is needed to do many great things in the world because it is the latter that many have used to show displeasure. The authority flows from the top down, but the money flows from the bottom up. New church leaders who understand this are needed.

In closing, it has been three years and this has not gone away and it will not go away. Make no mistake: The Anglican Church in America is in inner turmoil and we have priests and bishops who voted for Gene Robinson to thank. Do not be lulled by the fact that most people remain in their churches. I have not taken any action other than to now verbally voice my beliefs and that has taken three years, but I am firmly opposed. I applaud those who have been willing to take the uncomfortable route of a definitive stand. In California they were rewarded by being able to keep their Church property. Who knows what may happen when all of us passive people get tired of listening to conciliatory addresses and decide that what is needed is action.

-- Bobbie S. Brown is a communicant at Christ Church, Ponte Vera Beach, in the Diocese of Florida.

This letter was sent to Florida Bishop John Howard, Rev. Frank T Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, The Executive Council of The Episcopal Church

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

It is fine if the church he was attending made him a rector in the church and even made him a Bishop; I am certainly not upset with their wishes.

She is half-nuts. No one who condones active homosexuality can be allowed to be in a position of authority in the Church. Especially one that has a centralized authority that should have stomped out any such active sin.

The same is true for someone who condones active adultery. Both are equally wrong and disallow ANYONE from leadership service.

The Kingdom of God is bleeding at its seams.

It is deplorable to see the Church splitting over a man who is undeserving of the ability to destroy the Church.

I notice that later on the author puts some of the blame (at least) on the people who voted for and supported the homosexual "Bishop."

The reality of it is that "Bishop" Vicki Gene did not destroy the Episcopalian Church but rather his elevation declared that the Church had been destroyed long before.

At the Bridgroom Service tonight, which is actually the Matins for Wednesday morning, I couldn't help thinking about this Robinson mess and the oft heard comment of the Episcopalian revisionists that Christ accepted the harlot, so homosexuality has likewise to be embraced.

S, FL already knows this, but at this service, the focus is on the harlot anointing Christ with myrrh, crying in her prayers for forgiveness and wiping Christ's feet with her hair. There is a long section where the Reader makes a comparison between the actions of repentence of the harlot and the actions of self aggrandizment of Judas. The contrast is so stark in the readings. At any rate, two things occured to me. First, that the whole point of the story of the harlot and the haunting, mournful chant of "Tis Kassiannis" is repentence of, not acceptance, of sin and second, by perverting the story of Christ and the harlot, Robinson and his fellow travelers are modern day examples of Judas.

The reality of it is that "Bishop" Vicki Gene did not destroy the Episcopalian Church but rather his elevation declared that the Church had been destroyed long before.

Sadly, I have come to much the same conclusion though I will note that there are many of the faithful still in that church. Some are acutely aware of what is going on and fight on, some remain in the dark.

"Sadly, I have come to much the same conclusion though I will note that there are many of the faithful still in that church. Some are acutely aware of what is going on and fight on, some remain in the dark."

The one thing that continues to amaze me is the lack of interest in this whole issue on the part of many lifelong Episcopalian friends, people who are still attending church regularly. The pressure not to even discuss the problem is intense. As long as they are "happy in my own parish" many seem oblivious to this whole controversy. The idea of actually leaving is not on the radar screen. I've never been able to decide if all this is just "secularism" in disguise (in other words, a completely lack of interest in "religion" except as a "social" thing), or if the topic is so contentious that these normally polite foks just want to avoid discussing it altogether for fear of being perceived as loudmouths or "troublemakers." From reading these boards you'd think that all lay Episcopalians are caught up in this. Not so. Many appear to be quite apathetic. And the folks at the top know that, and are counting upon it to sustain the "new thing" until it is just a basic, unspoken reality.

Here's the deal (having lived in that situation for many, many years.)

ECUSA has been very parish-oriented for decades. If your own parish is in pretty good shape and you have a decent rector, you can ignore what's going on at 815 and the House of Bishops. And so long as your own bishop isn't a screaming lunatic, you can ignore the diocese as well.

The problem with this thinking is the inevitable "trickle down" from 815, the HOB, and the seminaries. The liberal leaders control the seminaries, they discourage and push out the orthodox, they control who is accepted for ordination, and to a large extent they control the process by which priests are made available and recommended to vestry search committees.

So what inevitably happens is, a happy orthodox parish has a long-time rector grow old and retire. They set out to search for a new rector, find somebody who talks a good game, but after he's installed they discover that he's a loony lib in the mold of Robinson and the other heretics at 815. And that's when the excrement hits the rotating ventilation device.

It's what happened to our former parish.

ECUSA has been very parish-oriented for decades. If your own parish is in pretty good shape and you have a decent rector, you can ignore what's going on at 815 and the House of Bishops.

I will confirm this. Though a cradle Episcopalian, I had never heard of 815 or the House of Bishops. It wasn't until I attended a diocesan convention (ca. 1981) that I had any idea that things really weren't right in the church.

Since my parents are political animals from the word go, and we used to attend the local Cathedral, I knew as early as the 70s that things were running off the rails and there would be hell to pay someday.

But we just switched to a local parish with a (then) orthodox rector and ignored the problem for another 30 years . . . kinda dumb in retrospect, coulda joined the Catholic church back then and not had to make 45 years' worth of Confession all at once . . . < g >

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.