The timing of this decision is also important. It came at a time of relative calm and good will in the Episcopal Church, and many people have questioned the reasons—or lack thereof—behind it. The Rev. William L. Sachs, director of the Center for Reconciliation and Mission at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Richmond, Va., told me that "since 2003 the Episcopal Church has worked very hard at listening to the Anglican Communion and trying to honor the Windsor Report and, in fact, there has been a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops. So, what have they got to complain about?" The election of a female presiding bishop with liberal views on gays and lesbians is the closest he could think of to a proximate cause for last Sunday's decision, but considering Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's recent efforts to accommodate those who don't share her more liberal viewpoint on homosexuality, and considering many people's support for women clergy in these breakaway churches, even that seems an unconvincing provocation.
This is the last paragraph. First paragraph the author is glad to see them go, but in the last, she still doesn't understand.
My guess is that this has been in the works for a while and the parishes were getting organized and lining up the lawyers.
The fact is, this would have happened a long time ago if not for the Episcopal church's hold on the property.
In her mind theological issues don't matter, because in her mind there is no such thing as truth. To her theology is virtually the same as ideology.
The appointment of the somewhat Christian bishopess is probably NOT rhe proximate cause of the secession. These things are normally not done on a whim or in response to any one act. Surely it has been discussed and debated for a year or two. The recent appointment most likely merely confirmed a decision already taken and may have been cause for no more than a raised eyebrow by the time it happened.