Karen:

Pardon for asking, but does "getting on with it" mean trying to ignore the issues that have caused thousands of people to leave the Episcopal Church? I'm not asking to be flippant or insensitive, but I wonder how renewal will come in the face of what appears to be an insurmountable disagreement over matters of principle. I'm not sure where in your post you address this.

At any rate, may God's blessings be with you as you try and sort this all out.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 12, 2007 1:37 PM

Um...isn't it the case that the dissident congregations are leaving because they do not consider themselves to be "one in Christ" with TEC? How can Christians be one in Christ with apostates?

Posted by: Ben Wheaton | December 12, 2007 2:30 PM

I discovered TEC a couple of years ago, on Easter Sunday. I had never knelt for communion before nor taken part in such a beautiful liturgy. I fell in love with it and would have loved to raise my children there. Unfortunately, the fighting and controversy scared off my wife, and we ended up in another denomination whose tradition doesn't speak to me in quite the way that the Episcopal Church does. I wish all of you well who have chosen to stay, and I hope those who have felt shut out of many other churches will find the Church welcoming.

Posted by: I and I | December 12, 2007 3:03 PM

I have some good friends who attend a local Episcopal Church . They are quite Traditional in their theology . Their church is one that has separating from the United States Episcopal Church , I believe they are aligning themselves with the African Church . I know its been very hard on them , anyone who has ever been involved in a church when it splits knows it just tears your heart up and spits it out .

I was confirmed in an Episcopal Church and have adeep respect for their reverence and respect for the Trinity and traditions .

The Apostles Creed I recall reciting with a spirit of reverence .
Denominations have a right to do what they believe they are called to do , but it is a shame in this matter it they could have not had more tolerance for individual congregations .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 12, 2007 3:13 PM

First of all, there really are not that "many" who are leaving TEC.

Second of all, people who are leaving are violating their ordination vows and have chosen to make sex and gender a dividing line for themselves. For TEC to say "Take the property.. it is just worldly posessions" would be like me inviting the thieves who walk around in my neighborhood into my house and handing them stuff. The churches and property do not "belong" to them- they belong to TEC and the diocese. I don't see anything "traditional" about any of the schismatics theology- I think that it is narrow, ignorant and literalistic.

"How can Christians be one in Christ with apostates?" I do just that every time I go to church. We are all "apostates" to some extent, I believe, because we all fall short of God's glory, don't we?? The schismatics in my church are doing so because of power... plain and simple.

If they had any integrity, they would walk away and meet in another church or a school lunchroom, like my friend's AMiA congregation does.

I just wanted to correct some faulty assumptions.

Posted by: timmah | December 12, 2007 4:38 PM

The churches and property do not "belong" to them- they belong to TEC and the diocese.

True only in a technical sense. In most cases, especially the ones I'm most familiar with (and I am married to an Episcopal priest's daughter, may he rest in peace; his former congregation has gone the route of the San Joaquin congregation and left the ECUSA), the church buildings were erected and paid for by the congregations, not the diocese.

Timmah, which action would best demonstrate the love of Christ to the separatists: to give them the keys to the property that they all had worked so hard to erect and maintain and wish them well in the future, or to engage them in long, drawn-out legal battles over a legal technicality?

Your analogy of letting the thief into your house is a false one.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 12, 2007 5:20 PM

As an Anglican who remains a member of an Episcopal congregation, I know enough to say that the split concerns far larger matters than human sexuality and is necessary for reasons of basic honesty and fidelity to the faith delivered to the saints.

I also know that a lot of good, faithful Christians remain in TEC. I wish Ms. Ward well, and hope that in a better day we can all be reunited and our church restored.

Timmah:

Last weekend an entire diocese voted to leave TEC. There are three other dioceses that are almost guaranteed to do likewise, and a host of congregations who have already broken away from TEC or are considering doing so. There is an alternative structure taking shape for orthodox Anglican in the US, in communion with Canterbury. Once this is established, the flow of people away from TEC is likely to accelerate.

If conservatives had any integrity, they wouldn't do anything all that different from what they are doing right now: they are doing their best to discern God's will in a church where a lot of good parishes remain but the national leadership has virtually no regard for the Gospel. Some are, just as you suggest, leaving and taking nothing with them. Others are fighting legal battles over property in order to keep faith with Christian who long ago dedicated those properties to the propagation of the Gospel. (Whether they will succeed depends on questions of property law that in many states remain to be settled.) Still others are staying, hoping that the Episcopal Church can somehow be put back on the right course, or at least that they will be allowed to carry out their ministries with a minimum of interference.

Ngchen has it just about right: Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop, cannot bring herself to affirm the deity of Christ, and that more than anything else is what is driving this split. If this were just about homosexuality, the debate would be heated, but I don't think we'd be opening up a schism.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 12, 2007 5:33 PM

I'm glad that other brothers and sisters from outside TEC are speaking into this situation, as I believe that we need to gain perspective from those with fresh eyes, as hyperopia can easily set in, and we can see no way out or light at the end of the tunnel.

We are a people of light. It is not pretty to have our laundry aired in public, but light can enters when there are cracks, and new possibilities opened up in the breakage.

We need your prayers...

And even on a blog, we need love to be shown to one another as we share our views, and maybe even more so in cyberspace, where is way too easy to be overly sharp with our words.

I now know why we emergents love to gather in pubs and coffee houses, as it is easier to have conversations, even with those most different from us, in a more human and social setting.

Let us image a good cup of joe in our hands, or let us go get one to sip on as we write! - I do believe blogging can be a tool for conversation and discernment, and not just missives aimed at one another.

A reality, as I see it anyway, is that many mainline denomination and evangelical groups are struggling with their identities in our post modern post Christian landscape. Many of us need to ask ourselves what are we here for? what is church for in general? ... It is healty to ask these questions to help us clarify our own purpose and God's purposes for us...

Does the world really need 32 flavors of waring Anglicans? (maybe, maybe not...) and 67 flavors of 'independent' Baptists?, or do we need more of 'the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Love of God and communion of the Holy Spirit?

I'm with Bono here... when I say some emergent Anglicans want to'get on with it,' I mean to get on with the above (the grace, the love, the communion) not asking God to 'bless our mess,' but to see what God is doing in the world, to get behind that and know it is already blessed.

For Advent my small mission church community (made up of mostly twenty-somethings) has taken up our diocesan bishop's challenge to purchase one malaria net for each member of our diocese.
We have purchased almost 70 nets in our little community in two weeks with two more to go.

This is 'getting on with it,' (in servanthood) and we also will share 'the hope within us' to anyone who will listen, and this is also getting on with it (evangelical outreach) so we are not modern liberals, as we see no difference or distance between social action and evangelical outreach, as both are needed and with great passion and dedication. We can't pick one and not do the other and be whole Christians. This is the fatal and dualistic flaw of modern Christian liberalism and conservatism, in my estimation. The gospel of Jesus is wholistic and offers food for the body and soul.

Who we need so much more of this kind of servant praxis, combined with reaching out to those who are non-churced by living rather than only espousing our creeds. As Gandhi is supposed to have said ' I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians.'

Getting on with it also includes reaching out to 'the Others'and our 'enemies,' as God is found in the face of 'the Others'. So I'm seeking out folk from the other Anglican groups to become my friends or at least to have conversations with one another without malice and prejudice on the many things we both hold dear.

I feel capable, thus, to get on with it, as in reading the New Testament is is clear to me what God in Jesus has done and is doing - Preaching Good News to the poor, binding up the broken-hearted, proclaiming release to the captives and declaring the year of the Lord's Favor.' So that is what some of us emergents of all types- Anglican, Mennonite, Methodist, Reformed, Vineyard, Lutheran, non denominational post-evangelical, post-liberal... are seeking to be up to. It seems to help us 'get along' even as we disagree, we can still put a hand to the plow around many of God's priorities together as Brian McLaren has said 'everything must change,' and this includes the wasted energy labeling each other apostate, while the world cries out God's mercy and love.

Posted by: Karen Ward | December 12, 2007 6:16 PM

Timmah: Also from yesterday's paper:

"The Episcopal Church Losing Many Congregations"
http://www.ocala.com/article/20071212/NEWS/212120324/1001/NEWS01

Posted by: gaborik | December 12, 2007 7:17 PM

Wolverine's facts are wrong when he attributes "Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop, (inability) to affirm the deity of Christ, (as) more than anything else ... driving this split." Actions among Canadian Anglicans and the election of Gene Robinson as Archbishop long preceded Katherine Jefferts Schori's election as Presiding Bishop.

I came to the Anglican Church relatively late in life and I find it nourishes my faith in ways that other churches had not. One aspect of it is the church's insistence that we are all beloved of God. I'm not always comfortable with the traditional language but there are services for people like me. And there are services using the Book of Common Prayer for those who prefer the traditional language. No matter what our language preference, we know we are united in our ministry.

I do, however, believe that many Anglicans leave because of issues of human sexuality. Like many Christians of all denominations, there are lots of Anglicans who are not comfortable with their own bodies or with discussions of sexual preference, or with the implications of differences of sexual preference. Some find it easier to deal with by naming some preferences 'sinful' and not part of God's creation. Others argue that everything/every one is God's creation. And that God loves us all. It's here that there has not been a meeting of minds. Indeed, the Bishop of Nigeria is quoted as saying that homosexual behavior should be a hanging offense.

Posted by: bren | December 12, 2007 8:12 PM

One 'issue' faithful, like one issue voters make me more than nervous... I'm not red or blue but purple, I suppose, and the last time I looked +Robinson was not on the throne, but God is.

How can the church be so split and hand wringing over issues Jesus never spoke about, yet no one is being called apostate for not helping widows and orphans in distress?

Helping the poor, orphans, widows, and peacemaking... are more aligned with the teaching of Jesus than are exchanging accusations of apostacy with other Christians who have views different than our own.

But then again, churches seem to split and split till everyone may well become their own individual denomination, with 100% pure doctrine (to align with my own views ofcourse) and that may be the end of it as there will not be two or three who can dare to stay together to gather, much less to serve the world in Jesus' name.

Posted by: Karen Ward | December 12, 2007 8:48 PM

On another thread, I explained that Spong nowhere denies the faith, but instead popularizes the theology of Bonhoeffer, Tillich, and Bultmann. One of the 10 commandments has to do with bearing false witness--you are committing a sin if you are levelling a false accusation against Spong. Show me a passage where he directly denies any necessary Christian truth--you will see that in all cases he is simply offering a new, and thoroughly scholarly, perspective on the issue. When did slander cease to be a sin?

As far as the church offering seemingly new teachings which are hard to accept, I seem to remember Jesus doing the same thing and having people walk away from Him. The fact that the Episcopal Church makes people feel uncomfortable about their prejudices suggests that we Episcopalians are on the right track.

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 12, 2007 11:22 PM

"If we see a pattern, there has been a track record among Episcopalian leadership of disgregarding many, many scriptural truths. "

Kevin many denominations I find on the left quite contrary to a Bibical world view . The liberal church in my area promotes pro choice, even comes out with a strong belief that to be pro life and respecting of what God as created as having a belief that is to be subjected to ridicule .

It calls itself a supportive ministry for gays , yet if a gay person , or a person who was sexually confused comes to a hetrosexual life style , they are seen by this affirming church as a peron not to be affirmed .

] and even had an invited speaker who spoke about the fact he believed the Virgin Birth to be a hoax .

But don't all denominations have their traditions and at times go off on a tangent ? . I know my denomination , Fundamentalist based belief of the Assembly of God has gone at times in some quarters to be so concerned about having a an experience with the spirit , to neglect what Soujourners promotes , in name only from as far I have seen to date , the adherring to the teachings of the Sermon on The Mount .

They are right in my opinion if we concentrated on that , well I think the Lord would be so pleased .

Paul gives a great illustartion about being parts of the body , he used the parts of the human body as an example of what the church .

I belive a homosexual has a place in Heaven if he has committed his or life to Christ as their Lord and Savior . Yes I disagree with the belief sex out of marriage can ever be Blessed , but again I see people with my view on that quite often contray to the Episcopal aspect of reaching out to homosexuals . Should we ever limit our message to exclude anyone ? Where I disagree is we should not change that message to include everyone who ius unwilling to subject themselves to the teaching of the Bible . .

When a church allows itself to get wrapped up on this , it hurts all of us . To me its an example of too much of the world getting into the church .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | December 13, 2007 5:34 AM

OK I am so glad to read some responses to my post.

Rather than get in a blog-typical, anonymous and faceless argument, I would like to tell you my story. (in the spirit of the emergent "pub")
It does not appear that anyone will change their thinking that TEC is "apostate" "stands for nothing" and that our PResiding Bishop does not affirm the "deity of Christ."

I am married, have children, and in divinity school at the moment.

I am being trained to be a possible priest in TEC. I have no doubts about the deity of Christ. I have no doubts about the truth of the Bible, when it comes right down to it.

I have many friends who are gay and want a church home. They are partnered with people and have been (many of them) for 20+ years, in some cases. I fail to see why my church (or any church) cannot be supportive of their relationship. I fail to see the "sin" in the love that my friends who are same-sex couples have for one another. So, my baptismal vows that I took say that I am "to respect the dignity" of all persons. That extends to the relationships my friends have.

I see Christ as divine and (most of all) the embodiement of the Love that was (and is) missing from this earth that has been broken up in so many ways. I am, frankly, glad that folks are breaking away from TEC because they will be happier and maybe the body of Christ can then again "all be one" by people walking apart from one another for a while. I have friends in schismatic congregations who I think the world of and love dearly. Churches have split and come together countless times over all kinds of things throughout the ages and TEC is no exception.

The scriptural authority that I follow, though, tends to point me more toward loving God, loving People and not telling lies more than being "orthodox" or believing in the inerrancy doctrine. If you want to do that , that is fine, but we can all be friends in Christ and love one another in our differences.

The scriptures say a lot of things are sinful that we all do today (pork, shaking hands with women, adultery to name a few). It also talks a lot about a homosexuality that (in its day) was more about child abuse and prostitution than it was consensual relationships between two adults. Before you say that TEC does not "stand for anything" do some basic, intelligent, biblical exegesis is all that I ask, or at least respect the fact that my history and learning have some reason behind them.

Posted by: timmah | December 13, 2007 11:19 AM

Timmah -

Let me make it clear that the subtext of my last post was that nobody ever stopped regarding the Southern Baptist Convention as a legitimate Christian body, even as it turned its back on many of its denominational distinctives. (Baptists are supposed to be *for* the separation of church and state and *against* the imposition of specific creedal positions.) I am not one of those who think the EC doesn't stand for anything or is no longer Christian. I am aware that the phrase "deity of Christ" is shorthand for a complex web of paradoxical positions that cannot be boiled down to black and white, much as some would like to do so. I very much appreciate the contributions that you and Ashpenaz have made to this discussion, and I hope others are listening.

Posted by: Another nonymous | December 13, 2007 11:46 AM

"Which last words sound to me rather like "Get on with it."

Not if you read it in the context of Matthew 19:10-11. Jesus lays out his view on marriage and divorce, and is questioned as to whether its best to just forego the whole enterprise. He responds that not everyone can accept these words. He then cites eunuchs (a rather obvious example), and those who have chosen to remain celibate (many translations read as such) for the kingdom as another.

Eunuchs are presumed in this passage to have no desire to marry, and those who are to remain celibate shouldn't marry. But I don't see any other example of Christ offering his view on something, and then telling people to "get on with it" if they disagree with it.

"It might also be worth noting that later in the same chapter Jesus points to the material wealth of a rich young man as the thing that is blocking his entry into (eternal) life - and that the disciples pick up on this as a major problem."

He actually points to his covetousness. It is not his wealth, per se, that blocks his passage to heaven, but the fact that he cares more about wealth than God.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 13, 2007 1:23 PM

I agree with those who've pointed out that the differences between those who've left the Episcopal Church and the church leadership goes much further back than the current presiding Bishop, although her recent actions to bring lawsuits against the parishes leaving doesn't help things. It goes back much further, even before Gene Robinson, to allowing people to continue as priests and bishops who clearly do not believe in fundamental truths of the Christian faith. It's a shame that the controversy over Robinson was the "straw that broke the camel's back", because there are much more fundamental disagreements prior to his ordination.

Ashpenaz - At the risk of driving this conversation way off topic, I'll mention that I think you're stretching the definition of eunuch a little here. A eunuch, as discussed in the Bible, is someone who does not have the capacity to father children (either because of a genetic defect at birth or because of castration) or has chosen to remain celibate to better serve the Kingdom. It doesn't mean someone who cannot engage in marriage or a "GLBT".

Posted by: Eric | December 13, 2007 4:06 PM

What did Jesus command GLBTs to do?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | December 13, 2007 9:10 PM

Kevin, I agree wholeheartedly with you that often the "gay lens" interpretations go way too far, and that they border on parody. I don't think TEC nor Ms. Schori are promoting those "theologies," however, but are rather trying to make the denomination a big tent that is welcoming to all. This by itself certainly is creating its share of problems without the use of alternative gay theologies. But I don't think Schori had a "my way or the highway" approach, since she didn't try to mandate that all churches allow same-sex marriage, etc. I think she wanted different dioceses and churches to be able to practice in the way they see fit.

Nobody so far has mentioned that some of the breakaway churches are still bitter over the denomination's 1974 decision to allow women to serve as priests and rectors, and welcome a return to the men-only rule. This puts them to the right of many evangelical denominations. There is also some residual bitterness over the changing of the hymnal in the early 80's. So I agree with those who say the current fissures long predate Bishop Robinson.

Personally, I think it would have been admirable if Robinson had acknowledged the division his promotion was creating and declined the office of Bishop for the sake of denominational unity. Instead, he pushed forward and forced this issue as if crusading for a noble cause. Though some may call that heroic, I can't help but htink it was a little bit selfish.

Posted by: I and I | December 14, 2007 10:15 AM

KJS- (the Presiding Bishop or TEC) has an institutional responsibility to protect the assets of TEC.She would be personally sued by members/ board members of TEC if she does not,because TEC is a big, non-profit organization. The Dioceses that are attempting to leave (San Joaquin, etc) were started way back when by TEC and are canonically organized within a hierarchical organization (and are not congregational churches like a Baptist Church or others). So, there is an obligation to the larger organization as far as property goes.

Once again, this is all technically true. But please hear the words of St. Paul (emphasis mine):

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?

So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren (I Cor 6:1-7).

All I am saying is that protecting the Episcopal Church's assets should be balanced against love for the bretheren. I think the separatists are wrong to leave the church--too much emphasis on American individualism and impatience here and not enough on church unity, but that's the way things are in this present situation--and I'm sure my father-in-law is turning over in his grave over his parish's turning against their bishop and walking away from the ECUSA, as much as he grieved the direction he saw the church going before he departed this life. But I think rather than take departing parishes to civil court over property, which has been done in Calif. and a other states, some kind of blanket agreement should be reached with the departing parishes over property matters that does not involve dragging them through secular litigation. This would be the chuch's way to "get on with" exhibiting the love of Christ, which is far more important than conservig ownership of church buildings and other property.

Further, from an entirely practical standpoint, if an entire parish leaves the Episcopal Church and the diocese manages to force that parish to vacate the church property, what are they going to do with an empty building? The costs of maintenance and upkeep of vacant buildings could financially bury the diocese. Wouldn't it make more sense to let an active parish stay in their building and continue paying for maintenance themselves, regardless of where they choose to affiliate?

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 14, 2007 12:06 PM

"He [Jesus] actually points to his covetousness. It is not his wealth, per se, that blocks his passage to heaven, but the fact that he cares more about wealth than God."

Sorry, Kevin. That's a cop-out. Covetousness (our usual translation of the word pleonexia. which comes from two words which mean wanting to have more) doesn't come into Matthew 19 (or its parallels) at all. It's the fact that he is wealthy and (as you rightly point out) that his wealth gets in the way of serving God wholeheartedly which is the problem for that young man - as it is for many western Christians, most of whom lead a life-style that would send the disciples into permanent boggle mode. Please don't put into the Gospel story words that aren't there. Matthew and Mark both use the Greek words "ktemata polla", which mean "many possessions" or "a lot of property (="real estate" in US English)". Luke simply says "he was very rich" ("plousios sphodra"). So, it is that young man's wealth and his attachment to it, not any imagined "covetousness" which blocks his entry into eternal life.

And I still think that Jesus's words in Matthew 19:12 (and the preceding verses) are about accepting one's state (whether innate, the result of human action, or the consequence of God's calling).

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | December 14, 2007 6:46 PM

"Sorry, Kevin. That's a cop-out. Covetousness (our usual translation of the word pleonexia. which comes from two words which mean wanting to have more) doesn't come into Matthew 19 (or its parallels) at all."

Correct. It's one of the sins Jesus omits... That and putting no God's before him. The man could not honestly say he kept those commandments, because he did covet and his wealth was an idol. This is a pretty standard reading of the text. It's not a cop out at all.

I would think it a given that the man was guilty of covetousness. Either way, I think we agree that his attachment to wealth, and not the mere possession of wealth, was the root of his downfall. Jesus isn't adding a de facto commandment that we aren't allowed to have things.

As such, your initial statement was incomplete, which was my point.

"And I still think that Jesus's words in Matthew 19:12 (and the preceding verses) are about accepting one's state (whether innate, the result of human action, or the consequence of God's calling)."

So Jesus answers a question about marriage with a tangent about self-acceptance?

Posted by: kevin s. | December 15, 2007 2:11 PM