Posted on 11/20/2006 11:35:33 AM PST by Paladin2b
How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?
About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children.
Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?
No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I guess that's by comparison to real evangelization, which apparently involves converting the unsuspecting and innocent into sophisticated, refined people who "wisely" contracept their progeny out of existence, or something like that.
"Discover the love of Jesus in the Episcopal church, but don't share it with many children; that would be 'passive' evangelization."
"Passive"? Christian parenting can be many things, but "passive" is definitely not one of them.
Looking down his WASP nose at the "little people," no doubt.
Reminds me of the libs of my youth who would roll their eyes and announce that they would never dreeeeem of bringing a child into "such a world." I always wanted to suggest that if it was that bad, they should do themselves a favor and leave, but I was usually too polite or too sober to do so.
Marking
Oh, I guess that we should just forget that command, by some deity to go forth and multiply, or that promise, that that same deity would always provide, if asked. Stupid me. Let me go off now and use my "portion" (Question, who determines what my portion is, me, or the politburo?)
Under the Episcopalian theology that says that the Gospel is the Millenium Development Goals: the United Nations.
"We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion."
"Of course, being Episcopalian, one knows with precision what one's portion is."
Makes you wonder what part of the earth the robber barons and the likes of JP Morgan didn't use..I guess their portion is wayyyyy more than this papist breeder's.
Yes, we do. We have our country place, and our place in town, and that's enough. :)
(Actually.... I'm not kidding.)
Ah, yes, the UN (and their underling organizations). Who wants to be WCC's "Bishop of the World"?
So do Christians! They have a terrible history. Look at history in the Dark Ages. Charlemagne converted whole tribes by the sword. I think Muslims are poorly understood by the West, and it is easy to latch onto that which we do not understand and demonize it.
I'ts kind of interesting that Jefferts-Schori would focus on Charlemagne. The Frankish "Holy Roman Empire", cooked up by Charlemagne and whoever was Pope at the time, was rneant as an attack on the true Roman Empire, the one we call "Byzantine". If it weren't for Charlemagne, the West would be Orthodox (but not necessarily using the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), and there would have been no need for the Reformation.
Of course, I would not expact an ignorant theolgical liberal like her to know anything about that, or its contemporary implications. Her implying that Catholics, etc. are "less educated" is truly ludicrous!!!!
Yes, both islam and Christianity have a history of violence. However, the Qu'ran sanctions violent jihad, conquest, and murder and oppression of non-muslims. The Bible does not. islam got its empire mainly via violent conquest, and Christianity did not. We can go on all day on this subject, but KJS is wrong and very shallow as usual!
"If it weren't for Charlemagne, the West would be Orthodox (but not necessarily using the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), and there would have been no need for the Reformation."
Many of us Orthodox have tried to make this very point to Protestants, though with little notable success.
"We can go on all day on this subject, but KJS is wrong and very shallow as usual!"
As the Greeks say, "But she is not a serious person." accompanied by a dismissive wave of the hand. Frankly, I think she's just a silly, self-absorbed woman playing dress up in a particularly unflattering frock and hat surrounded by a group of equally silly, self absorbed people.
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.