Skip to comments.Schism, and soon (Episcopal Church Crisis)
Posted on 08/11/2003 11:58:06 AM PDT by The Right Stuff
Schism, and Soon
by Jennifer King, Managing Editor
August 11, 2003
"The Heretical Housewife"
As a practicing Episcopalian, I am dismayed and horrified at the recent vote to promote the Reverend V. Gene Robinson (right) to the Bishopric of New Hampshire. Surely, the church has gone mad.
Explicit warnings against homosexuality in the Bible go back to the earliest known texts. Homosexuality has been regarded as a grevious sin, an abomination and a particular sin against God, who created the institution of marriage between men and women. The Episcopalian clergy who voted for this man seem to have ignored both Scripture and historic Church teachings willfully. Appearing on the Today Show, Bishop Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts and Bishop Edward Salmon of South Carolina argued the points. In opposition, Bishop Salmon said, It would violate the traditions of the Church, the teachings of Scripture and the Constitution of the Church. Bishop Shaw, a strong supporter of Robinson, replied with a barrage of liberal goobledygook, We dont only respond to Scripture. We respond to reason and to Jesus message of love. Shaw further asserted that, It is time. It is a new day. A new day indeed when the desires of men outweigh the Word of God.
The pro-Robinson prelates seemed to exhibit a vast moral and theological confusion which makes one wonder why they picked their chosen career. The Reverend Carol Flanagan, when asked if she believed that the Bible was the incarnate Word of God, replied that she wasnt sure. Other Episcopalian Bishops, like Bishop Shaw, asserted that they werent that concerned with Scripture because they were being led by the Holy Spirit. A Spirit may indeed be leading them, but I highly doubt that it is holy.
The troubling aspects of the Robinson case unfolded rapidly. Bishop Robinson, in 1986, abandoned his wife and two young daughters in order to move in with his homosexual partner, Mark Andrew. Surely, such pure selfishness and egotism should be enough to disqualify anyone from posing as a humble man of God. Hubris, however, appears to be Bishop Robinsons strong point. The Bishop described his divorce from his wife as involving a bizarre ceremony in the church, where they disavowed their vows and shared communion - thereby blatantly breaking yet another Church injunction against profaning the Lords Table.
Most egregiously, Bishop Robinson is not posing as a sinner in desperate need of Gods redemption. Rather, Bishop Robinson is living openly with his partner, in an active homosexual lifestyle which further defies the churchs teachings on extramarital sex. Far from being ashamed and penitent, Bishop Robinson appears defiant and boastful. Greed, lust and pride - three of the Seven Deadly Sins - were never previously viewed as qualifications for promotion in the Church.
Pride, in particular, is regarded as the deadliest of the sins, for it involves vanity and the glorification of the self. St. Thomas Aquinas said, Inordinate self-love is the cause of every sin. A Christian is supposed to subdue his will to that of Gods. It is difficult to believe that God would have Bishop Robinson leave his family in order to live as an open Sodomite, much less to profane the church with his unrepentant sin.
The willingness of Bishop Robinson to subject the church he supposedly loves to this trial provides another illustrative point. Apparently, it was more important for Bishop Robinson to have a justification of his lifestyle than it was for him to step down and save the church from schism. Further selfish action from an exceedingly self-indulgent man. A man whose egotism and heresy should have precluded him from being even nominated as a candidate for Bishop, or priest, for that matter. Proving his apostasy further, Bishop Robinsons first act as Bishop was to repair - not to New Hampshire - but to New York where he spoke at a U.N. panel which denounced Catholicism for not embracing deviancy the way the Anglicans have.
So schism it is, sooner rather than later, with determination and faith. Devout Episcopalians must not rollover for this outrage against the Church. Some have argued against schism - after all, most Episcopal real estate is owned by the denomination, not individual congregations. Those who split must leave, and very valuable real estate is thus left in the hands of the apostate lavender lobby which has infiltrated and poisoned it. It is a fallacious argument. Are we eager to embrace Mammon, or be like the Apostles - who left everything behind when Jesus said to follow him. It is time. It is, indeed, a new day. ***
© 2003 Jennifer King
Might I ask where they learned of the expresssion "The Holy Spirit?"
From scripture, no doubt.
They're worse than heretical....they're also stupid.
Is the Episcopal the denomination, or is Anglican the denomination? If it is Anglican cannot the Archbishop of Canterbury ORDER the property to go with any congregation that wishes to align itself with the African provinces?
This says it all in a nutshell!
Imagine your local (heterosexual) pastor residing with his 'live-in' lady friend. Is this where we're headed?
I mean, after all, it's not about money, is it?
The Archbishop of Canterbury (who, by the way, is sympathetic to the cause of sodomy) has only "moral" authority and not direct jurisdiction over the Episcopal Church in America.
I believe each Diocese has control over the property of the Episcopal Church in its territory. The Abp of Canterbury does not.
Although I can not asswer this question I can at least give a SWAG. Before 1968, graduate students could get a student deferrment from the Draft Board. In 1968, this was changed and only divinity majors (and maybe one or two other majors) could get deferrments. Divinity schools opened their doors to people whose only reason for being in divinity school was to dodge the draft. Unfortunately, many stayed and rose in the ranks of the denominations.
Bingo! And the only sin recognized by either religion is that of voting republican.
Didn't Charles Manson say more or less the same thing?
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.