A Senior Warden's Lament: "Why I left my liberal parish" [Danger to other churches noted]

VirtueOnline-News ^ | 2/12/2005 | Bill Boniface

[sionnsar]

"The failure of the Episcopal Church or its decline into near irrelevance will be the jumping off point for attacks on other churches until there no longer exists a moral authority which can challenge the elevation of human desire and experience."

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this list.
This is a moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-7 pings/day).

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[xJones]

Wow! That was great, and the best overall summary I've read to date.

[mel]

Count me in as one of those 40,000 who left i 2004 and glad I did.

[ken5050]

Should be nailed to every red door next weekend..

[Kolokotronis]

This fellow is a Man, a Good Christian Man! AXIOS!

[PAR35]

And now the members of his former parish will proceed to yawn, roll over, and go back to sleep. They just don't want to hear the truth.

[Raycpa]

Since my wife and I left with our family last year, we always wanted to write a letter explaining why we left. This letter does it well. I just might send it to our ex-church family.

[bonfire]

I'm so tempted to send this to my brothers and sisters in the Epis. church, but I think they would dispel it.

The thing I hear all the time is "Can't we just get back to business?" This ex-warden is right on the money.

[Rosie405]

This is absolutely brilliant! I wrote a similar - but much shorter - letter, explaining to my former parish why I, a cradle member, no longer considered myself an Episcopalian. I will attend my first RCIA class this week. As with this person, the big issue was not only the "new thing," but also the complete and total unwillingness to discuss anything related to it, or to take a stand. So many Episcopalians are reluctant to speak out. The rhetoric displayed towards those who disagree has been so biting, so accusatory, and so ungracious. Who wants to subject themselves or their family to it? Whether we write a letter such as this one or not, we are nonetheless slowly driftng away, one by one, family by family.

[hiho hiho]

"Most changes - like women's ordination - come about by the presentation of theological arguments that show how they line up with Holy Scripture. No such case has been made for the Episcopal Church's "new thing." They simply did it "with good intentions" by a vote at a convention."

This confuses me -- what are the "theological arguments" for women's ordination? Was this not the beginning of the present problem? Does the church now have the right to tell the next "oppressed" group that the theology and traditions of the church will not change for them like it did for women?

I personally have changed my mind about women's ordination, it was easy then to get into the argument of rights without understanding how it was just a continued step away from the gospel.

The Episcopal church will split in to many fragments, I fear the age of "Common Prayer" is over.

[sionnsar]

This confuses me -- what are the "theological arguments" for women's ordination? Was this not the beginning of the present problem?

This was certainly bound up in the origins of the present problem. If you're into researching this, this blog might start you on the way.

This fellow understands the current issue, but may not know or recognize its roots.

[walden]

Excellent, thanks for posting this.

[Kolokotronis]

" This confuses me -- what are the "theological arguments" for women's ordination?"

I don't know that there are any real theological arguments for the ordination of women to the priesthood, much less the Episcopacy, but as a matter of historical fact, there were female deacons, ordained female deacons, in the early Church in the East. They had a very specific and circumscribed role and were drawn only from a certain category of women. There is a story about that the Synod of the Church of Greece has recently voted to reinstitute the female diaconate.

[walden]

"This confuses me -- what are the "theological arguments" for women's ordination? Was this not the beginning of the present problem? Does the church now have the right to tell the next "oppressed" group that the theology and traditions of the church will not change for them like it did for women?"

I agree-- female priests are clearly and plainly disallowed by scripture, and this WAS the first real issue where we departed from the traditional faith. And, whenever I've heard a female priest give the sermon, I would have to say that they simply didn't have the same impact that most of the male priests I have heard have had. I think women, being less agressive than men, experience less than the whole nature of God (He doesn't usually stomp on us as badly as He does on men, simply because He usually doesn't have to-- it's similar to the difference in disciplining boys and girls) so women tend to preach less than the whole gospel. Christianity is a tough faith, and women priests seem to me more likely to lose that toughness. The loss of the toughness has a whole lot of ramifications, but one of the most important is that it tends to drive men away from the church, which is a REALLY bad effect. Our society is crying out for more strong, Christian men.

Oh, by the way, I am a woman. ;)

[Bat_Chemist]

What an incredibly well-written piece! This guy is dead on.

Thanks for posting it!

[sunshine state]

bump!

[gscc]

"You should know that at that same convention in Minneapolis in 2003, 60% of the Episcopal church's bishops voted against - yes, against - a resolution to reaffirm the beliefs of their ordination vows and the agreements of belief of the Anglican Communion signed by our presiding bishops over the years."

The real problem is that if you asked these Bishops if the Bible is the unerring and inspired Word of God you will find that at least 60% will say no. If you do not believe the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, in it's 66 books from Genesis through Revelation, is the only verbally inspired written Word of God [I Cor. 2:7-14; 2 Pet. 1:20,21], and is without error in its original autographs [Matt. 5:18; 24:35, Psalm 119:89], that it is the full and complete revelation of God's will for the salvation of man, and the Divine and final authority for Christian faith and conduct [John 10:35; 16:12-13; 17:17; 1 Cor. 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12]; If you do not believe that the Bible is God's objective [Exodus 17:14] propositional revelation [1 Thessalonians 2:13], and is verbally inspired in every word [2 Timothy 3:16], then you can believe and preach anything. You can make up it up as you go along - after 2000 years you can find it sound doctrine to ordain women, or openly unrepentant homosexuals. Never forget - the only way to come to these conclusions is to ignore scripture as inspired.

[polymuser]

Good to hear your view. We need more voices like yours. The lack of authentic Christian men (men with God to serve, work to do and a woman to love) is hurting all areas of our society. Especially our boys, IMO. Thanks.

[Huber]

Oldie but goodie thread, referenced by Sionnsar in a post today. Worth reading and forwarding to some "less defensive" friends wh remain in ECUSA.