What's Really Behind the Episcopal Controversy (Vanity)

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.

For faithful Anglican congregations who feel they can no longer remain within the ECUSA an intense period of suffering is about to begin, which is why they need all the support they can get from like-minded people in other denominations. They will lose their sanctuaries—often very old ones—because the Episcopal Church will turn to secular courts, as it has done in such cases in the past, claiming some very valuable real estate.

Per'zackly.

I suspect that the Conservatives of the Episcopalian Church would even be willing to part with their billions in "real-estate holdings" (which Presbyterians can only envy); it's the part about the "We're keeping the Church Building, we're keeping the Endowments, y'all are now going to hafta worship in the 57th street Homeless Shelter, and a century's worth of Tithes by the faithful Christians of your Church? We're keeping that, too!! Screw your I Corinthians 6:1-8 -- we want it all."

It sticks in your craw, just a tad.

Let me commend you all on your posts. I'd like to use them on a methodist website.

Being a methodist, I heartily agree with Marple. Also, the pension and church ownership issues are serious albatrosses around the necks of conservative evangelicals and do prevent them from leaving the church, especially the church ownership issue.

The pension issue is real, but the pensions of methodism are transportable even if one leaves the denomination. They fall under various federal laws that govern their use. The PIP (personal investment portion) is owned as one of the paragraph IRA's (501 3cb??? -- I'm unsure of the designation.) The individual pastor can remove that and invest it in EF Hutton at this moment if he so chose.

The MPP (minsterial pension plan) also "belongs" to the individual to the extent that even if the individual left the denomination, the portion in their name that had been invested by their churches they pastored would still be theirs to draw upon. They can annuitize it quickly and draw it down to about 30% in roughly five years with federal legislation determining amounts and taxes. That remaining 30% is for the use of the "spouse" retirement and is to be drawn upon until the spouse's death. Any remaining amount at that point would revert to the denomination.

My situation is unique in that I have a military retirement and am not dependent on their cash. It makes it possible to speak more forcefully. I don't say that as if it is a badge of honor; I say it as an observation.

I might point out that many of our facilities are old, rundown structures that would be better off abandoned. The congregations have been so decimated, however, that there's no financial vitality in them to even REPAIR their structures.

This denomination will insist on their temple tax money coming from a church EVEN IF it means that the church will have ZERO money to run program. I just received such a letter from our superiors this past month. What it ensures is the slow death of these anemic local congregations.

Sort of, "send the money or else."

"I would actually agree with you for the most part on this issue for the most part, and admit that this is likely a prime motivation. I also believe however these gays are also attempting to attack one of the last true obstacles that they face: the God-fearing religious folk. This is their attempt to strategically infiltrate the camp of their enemy, and they will try to sow dissent and discord within the chrurch to try to erode the only organizations left that hold sway over people in a way that they don't like. This is just the beginning, and they will next target the other Christian churches one by one."

This isn't about religion, this is about power. They view the chrurches as a threat because the church holds true to God's teachings, and in turn must, by default, be diametrically opposed to their agenda. This is a direct attack on God and the church."

Belated bump and ditto.

The homosexual community's infiltration of the church, in order to undermine and destroy its authority, has been part of a well planned and well funded campaign that has been going on for years.

An excerpt from: The Overhauling of Straight America:

"While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and word of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here..."

The homosexual community's focus will now shift to the destruction of marriage.

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:
...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely." "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

An excerpt from: Homosexual Priests: A Time for Truth:

"The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesn’t belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize perverse behavior. This is apparent in the all-too-common need of homosexuals to declare their sexuality rather than simply do the job they sign on to do.
This is extremely detrimental - first, it creates conflict with others as most believe homosexuality to be wrong, and it shows that the full efforts of the employed homosexual are not going towards performing the task at hand but largely to declaring their lifestyle. When it comes to serious concerns such as the Church, schools, and the Boy Scouts that involve our children, we can’t take the risk of giving them this power to destroy the values we as parents try to instill, nor can we put our country’s welfare at stake by turning these pivotal foundational institutions and our military into homosexual social experiments.
The homosexual movement is marked by two major tendencies: the tendency to continually infiltrate all good aspects of society; and once they have achieved that, the tendency to destroy this good. Public education, the Boy Scouts, the military, and now the Catholic Church have been targeted, and all have been hurt by the effects of homosexuality. The media and the Church must break its silence towards this enemy. If they do not, the people themselves must rise up and expose it..."

Thanks for that link to Gary North's book.

I forgot to relate that an SBC church in Kentucky or Tennessee (I think) just recently interviewed three candidates (two openly gay) and hired a lesbian as their pastor. When the local SBC association (statewide) found out about it, they started communicating and telling them that they could not be in fellowshop with them if they continued. As the local association investigated and sent delegates, it became clear that they would not recant their lesbo Baptist priestess nor would they vote to leave the SBC (some of the oldtime members refused to vote to leave) and a somewhat polite agreement with the local church was made that the local association would vote to disfellowship themselves from the apostate church. This occurred shortly thereafter. Once the apostate Baptists were expelled from the local association, they also automatically lost their Southern Baptist Convention affiliation as well.

The apostate church kept its properties and funds and local control over who they chose as their pastor/staff. But the SBC could not be brought down by this apostate bunch.

If only the mainstream liberal churches (e.g. Episcopalians among others) had had the organizational structure of the Southern Baptist Convention, it would have prevented the liberals from seizing control of the denomination assets, seminaries, properties, pension funds, etc.

We had a thread on this episode here at FR: Lesbian pastor ruffles Southern Baptist tradition in Tenn.

A thread that those who don't like Baptists might enjoy: Pastor of Baptist church in Virginia arrested for prostitution (photo included)

This Baptist church is not SBC as far as I can determine. This second thread shows how a Baptist church expelled its minister for soliciting a prostitute while dressed in women's clothing. If they were SBC and they allowed him to remain as pastor, their local association would almost certainly have expelled them from the association and, therefore, from the SBC as well. The knowledge of what the local association and the SBC will do to impious clergy serves to curb a lot of mischief and misbehavior.

And once you have the sort of 'denominational' solidaarity enjoyed by the SBC at present, your leadership can make statements like these:

The Rev. Jack Graham, elected the convention's president on Tuesday, said the Rev. Jerry Vines' comments about Islam were "accurate."

"Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives — and his last one was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you, Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people," Mr. Vines, pastor of First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Fla., said at a pastors' conference here on Monday.

Mr. Graham, of Plano, Texas, said that Mr. Vines' statement "is an accurate statement," and that he would not condemn his colleague. "I will not respond to Dr. Vines' statement, other than to say that anyone who follows any path, who wants to go to heaven, should look carefully at who they're following and what they believe," he said.

Now the Muslims didn't like hearing the truth about their false prophet. In fact, they were a little horrified that someone dared to speak the truth after all the petting and coddling they received from the Bush White House. But that's exactly why they need to confront the truth about their horrible false religion.

And a Baptist can still proselytize Jews as Christians always did, even if Rome and many Protestants have abandoned their responsibility for preaching the Gospel to Jews. And you can call sodomites to repentance in Christ as the Apostle Paul did. You can, in short, uphold the traditional message of orthodox Christianity without having to back down or apologize for it.

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.