Episcopal Church Problems

vanity | Sunday, August 10, 2003 | altura

[kittymyrib]

Where did I ever say that "there is something inherently sinful about being female?" You obviously do not accept the fact that there is something inherently sinful about being human. It's called "original sin," the spiritual birth defect we inherited from Adam and Eve, who thought they knew better than God what would make them happy. That original sinful pride has always prompted us sinners to ask along with Eve, "Hath God said?" Throughout Scripture, God has said He wants males to be responsible for the souls of His people. Jesus, close as He was to Mary and Martha, did not choose them to be in His circle of apostles. That's the way God wants it and for me to wish to change it would be a denial of the basic Christian creed, "Jesus is Lord." In our vernacular, we would say, "Jesus is Boss." Just as God created women to give physical birth, He chose men to give spiritual birth. Both are immutable. Jesus is Lord.

[utahagen]

Their celebrations are premature. This meeting the Archibishop of Canterbury has called may end up handing the ECUSA an ultiamtum: consecrate Robsinson, and you're out of the Anglican Communion.

My guess is that Frank Griswold, head of the ECUSA, is wishing RObinson's nominaiton had been derailed by the harrassment charges.

[hellinahandcart]

There is nothing inherently sinful about being female.

No one said there was. There is something inherently sinful about merely being human, you know. No human is sinless.

The qualifications for bishops are pretty clearly spelled out in the Bible, though, and one of them is being male.

I'm a woman and I do have a problem with female priests. Even with the concept, let alone the reality (which is, usually, that they're fuzzy-morality ultra-"caring" sometimes-sexually-ambiguous liberals).

[colorado tanker]

So, with the engine flamed out, the liberals are determined to ride the plane into the ground rather than restart the engine? I have never understood how those evil, destructive people get away with calling themselves "progressive."

[Humidston]

Christians are commanded by God's word to admonish our brothers and sisters in Christian love when they become confused. We are also provided with Bibles so that we can reference Biblical standards and use discernment when studying His word regarding worship.

I know I've trod the path these believers stumble over today. I went through it years ago and all alone and it was certainly painful, but well worth the outcome.

I say no more here than I would say if seated in a room with them. They are my brothers and sisters and I would only repeat, "Do NOT cast pearls before swine!"

This so-called church is empty UNLESS the Godly can separate themselves from the ungodly. And until the wheat is separated from the chaff, I would beg you all to withhold your money from the collection plate.

[brbethke]

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

"And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil [lengthy inventory of sins omitted here in the interest of brevity]. Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."

Paul's Letter to the Romans, chapter 1, lines 22-32
57 A.D.

[FreeRep]

Liberals do not care about others just their agenga. Jesus referred to them as vipers.

[hellinahandcart]

Since you started a separate thread, I'll post my observations from this morning over here too:

We had Ephesians today too. I think we all probably did. For some reason it made me so angry I almost didn't want to go up for communion. Then I actually started crying and all my energy went toward keeping it a quiet cry.

Bad timing for that particular lesson, I think. Or maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, someone on another thread said "unity is highly overrated sometimes" and I still think that's right.

There were fewer people than usual at nine o'clock. Probably due to the airconditioning system being out for the rest of the month (and it's a tropical swamp right now in NY).

Anyway, my aunt and uncle keep insisting that I shouldn't worry. They said our church hasn't sent a delegate to this convention since they voted to change the prayer books (we kept the old one), that they have no use for them, that we're big and rich enough as a parish to to just ignore them. I pointed out that our bishop (Mark Sisk) voted to confirm Robinson, and they insisted that didn't matter either because our church pretty much ignores Mark Sisk all the time. My uncle was a master of ceremonies at our church for the past twenty years, several services per week, and he's only seen Sisk there twice. The Bishop Vicar, Don Taylor, is the only one who visits with any frequency. He's a fairly conservative man from Jamaica.

I suppose I should feel better. They both assure me that nothing the convention ever decides will apply to my church, and that especially with our current rector, nothing will be done that isn't traditional. But I am still worried. My aunt and uncle left St. Bart's decades ago when it became too liberal for them to bear. It can happen anywhere.

[bluesagewoman]

Amen.

[Humidston]

Amen, amen and AMEN! Once you begin to hear the Word - as it is written and taught (by truly Godly men) it becomes so clear and unambiguous.

My God is NOT a God of confusion! (Neither is His message.)

[xring]

"I have to respectfully disagree with you about women priests.
There is nothing inherently sinful about being female. "


I sort of agree with you. I was initially totally against women as priests. Several years ago, during our interem between Rectors we had an woman assistant. She was the stereotypical liberal(socialist) 'God is female' kind. I was thoroughly disgusted but I hung in there because I knew it was only temporary.

We have since found our new Rector and Assistant Rector. Our Assistant Rector is of the 'Woman' variety and I love her dearly. We are truely Blest. Our Rectors make a fantastic complimentary team.

I fear I may still have some Problem with a woman Rector running the show, but now I know I will at least give one a fair shot if the situation arises.

[Jim Noble]

I have never opposed ordaining women in the Episcopal Church, but those who now argue that you must judge a thing by its fruits may have a point.

The fruits of departure from the original order of things in the Episcopal Church since 1976 are bitter indeed.

[brbethke]

I don't know. Griswold has shown plenty of willingness thus far to prostrate himself before the hermaphroditic deity of political correctness. I pray that he finds his spine sometime in the near future, but have little hope that it will happen.

[Humidston]

Years ago when I finally found a conservative priest whose message was scriptural, I asked him if any of the money from his church went to support the Anglicans or the National Council of (Collectivist) Churches. And his answer, sadly, was YES. He said he had no choice.

It was then that I stopped being an Episcopalian.

[hellinahandcart]

The fruits of departure from the original order of things in the Episcopal Church since 1976 are bitter indeed.

Yep. Change one thing, and they will never quit working on you to change every other thing.

Since I dont ever want a female priest anyway, I'd say that was one change that definitely wasn't worth it.

[hellinahandcart]

And his answer, sadly, was YES. He said he had no choice.

I am sure that is the case here as well. Something I'm going to have to keep in mind over the next couple of months.

[brbethke]

I tried to pin our pastor down on this and got a disconcertingly vague and circular answer. "Yes," Episcopalians follow Scripture, "but" we also believe that Scripture is subject to ongoing re-interpretation as the Holy Spirit moves.

So in other words Scripture means whatever the Council of Bishops says it means this month, which is to say, it means nothing.

I dunno. I'm sitting here with my Norton edition of The Writings of St. Paul, and he seems to be pretty clear and to the point and not leave much room for ongoing re-interpretation. But then, I guess that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, doesn't it?

[Humidston]

Just, please, keep those purse strings tightly drawn! ;-)

[AnAmericanMother]

My home parish is a training parish for our diocese; so I have seen a LOT of female priests.

I was not originally opposed to the idea (when it happened I was a twenty-something woman just out of a very liberal university), but having seen it in practice I am now generally against it. The vast majority of the female priests that have come through our parish are priests for all the wrong reasons. Some have something to prove; some are neurotic and want to share their pain around; some want to remake the church in a politically liberal way; some are frankly short-hair-mean-lesbians who as far as I can see have only the destruction of the church and family in mind. Of all the 15 or so that have come through recently, ONLY ONE was a humble, thoughtful, scholarly, intelligent woman whose purpose was to preach the Gospel and preside at the Lord's Table. I don't like that percentage AT ALL.

That said, I don't think female priests are the issue right now.

And I think we can even leave aside (for the moment) the homosexual issue. What we have here is a man who engaged in an extramarital affair and left his wife and family (even WITH their supposed permission -- and what else can they say that won't stymie his political ambitions?) to live in sin with another. This is absolutely forbidden by Scripture and church teachings -- yet General Convention, in its lust to be "with it" and up to date, ignores this central fact.

The fact that this bishop has compared himself to Christ (twice!) and would rather rend his church asunder so that he can be elevated in his pride, condemns him out of hand.

I attended my parents' parish in another diocese today. A locum was standing in for the rector who is on vacation. He basically preached a "the church will survive this" sermon, recalling all the threatened schisms over the prayer book, ordination of women, the 1928 prayer book (in 1928), slavery, etc.

I pointed out (very courteously because I was a guest), that I hoped he was right (leaving unspoken that I feared he was wrong, but he got the message). But this is the first issue on which there is absolute and unmistakeable Scriptural warrant from multiple sources against it.

[xring]

"The fruits of departure from the original order of things in the Episcopal Church since 1976 are bitter indeed."


Again, I sort of agree. The changes of the last two decades were certainly for the worse.

I suspect that the seeds of departure were planted long before 1976 and they were not limited to the Episcopal Church.

I believe they were the seeds of socialism and the socialist weeds have been slowly taking over not only the Episcopal Church, but all of Christianity as we know it in the United States, and not only Christianity but our Democratic/Republic form of government, our education system, etc.

The weeds of socialism are slowly choking the Tree of Liberty.