“Episcopal leaders are stewards of church property and assets, protecting past generations’ legacies and passing them on to future Episcopalians, according to the presiding bishop.”
To be fair, I’d bet that in some cases, it was the traditionalists’ ancestors who were those churches’ congregants; and, had the break not happened, their children who would have inherited them. I mean, legally speaking, I think she’s right about the church issue, but I’m willing to bet those “past generations” from hundreds of years before were probably on the traditionalists’ side of many of the current controversies. IJS.
God bless.

Who is the church? Schori? She’s focused on one thing and that is to promote homosexual leadership. She’s pouring more than just focus but much of the churches resources and losing much of the church. Causing division will be the results of her strong-arm tactics.

The traditionalist built it but she will destroy it.

Cknuck, I actually have to disagree with you (possibly for the first time), at least with the international Communion she has been making a fairly good effort to mend the problems, though not so much within the American church; in the end, though, I think any of her efforts cannot really help. As for her work on anything other than homosexuality…well, the only times she’s ever in the news is when homosexuality is the issue, so I cannot say.
(Random fact: Apparently Schori was born in my town, Pensacola, FL. The shame. )

(P.S.: God bless.)

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori was elected by the leadership of TEC. This was a couple of decades after our denom changed the rules to permit female clergy…and, after the controversy of Bishop Robinson started.
Some of you make this sound as though she came from outside and in some sort of a powerplay was able to take over TEC.
Let me reimind you that the vast majority of Episcopalians fully support the direction of our denom. That why we are moving in that direction. That is why Jefferts Schori was elected.
As far as the ancestors of the dissenters…I suspect they would be embarrassed that their decendents are more focused on perpetuation prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry than on following the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. But, who knows…..unfortunately, the Episcopal church (like many others) supported slavery in the 1800′s.
Peace!

At one time I thought I was the first person in my family to go into the ministry. Later I discovered that I have 2 predecessors – both Episcopal Bishops, both defrocked. One was defrocked for imbibing too much Spiritus fermenti. The other was defrocked – according to the “paper work”, for messing with ladies of the church. In actuality, he was defrocked for his anti-abolitionist stances and pronouncements – but they could not go at him for that. So another, very obviously false claim was made and he chose not to defend himself.
So I get the feeling that what goes around keeps going around – the coriolos effect. The Bishop may be doing a good job, but she may yet get undone by forces who chose to avoid a frontal assault and try and end run. I wish her well, offer my blessings and good wishes, and hope she is not undone as was by (one honorable) predecessor.
My own denomination has dealt with this issue and packed it away – for the most part. We still have folks who would rather we took a more conservative, traditional position. I applaud our folks for taking the stance and making he statement.

IF I was a Christian and were searching for a church, I’d head for the Episcopals or jestrfyl’s denomination, United Church of Christ. They seem to understand that their God loves everyone, after all She/He did create them. I’d be proud to have Jefferts-Schori lead my church…and from this article, she seems to have a cool head on her shoulders…along with a lot of responsibility for a whole lot of folks.

Thanks Joey, I just feel she is misguided and willing to risk all for a bad stance. She does on the surface appear she has tried to mend the differences but she has did nothing different no give just take. If I’m wrong thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, I’ve defended her for her position and her positions but didn’t know much about her. It’s nice to know she’s an admirable person and administrator, at least as far as we can tell from this.

“Cknuck, I actually have to disagree with you (possibly for the first time)”
Joey, when Israel-Palestine comes up I suspect you and cknuck will disagree and he and I will agree. The Middle-East makes for strange bedfellows, no (homo)sexual reference intended, cknuck.

It is always easier to pick on the leader, who stands out representing the people who picked her. Schori, in this case. Our Episcopalian, John Q is telling you that, Quote: “The vast amount of Episcopalians fully support the direction of our denomination; that is why we are moving in that direction, and that is why Jefferts Schori was elected.” Very plain, no power play, agreement by the vast amount of Episcopalian members in America is why she is where she is. Accept it.
PS I would head to Jestrfyl’s church, too, or an Episcopalian Church that accepts glbt. Unfortunately if you are living in most places people are still hiding their opinions behind their hands, and don’t want to shake the social boat.

You should know me by now it seems by your post you do nnmns, I agree. But I would take a shot and use your bedfellow as a pun. But you do make a point I should observe: I used to use the word gay (I’m old school) but now I’m very cautious not to use it. And people with gay in there names are also always on the defense. It’s a shame to high jack a word and use it to soften the word homosexual. Sorry I know its off tract just a pet peeve of mind.

sorry “I would not use bedfellows as a pun.

I would.

I would not have taken bedfellows that Nnmns used, and then bracketed a comment to cknuch about it, other than what he intended it to be. He knows cknuck better than I, or would even want to. I use the gay word whereever I want to use it, and if anyone is bothered about it it’s their problem. Fill your minds with nonsense and that’s all you’ll have time to see.

At least “gay” is a much better word than so many others that have found their way into our cultural vocabulary. We work so hard at using words as weapons that I am grateful anytime we can be gentle and caring. Of course, like Mark Twain, I appreciate a good, creative curse when I hear one. But I am even more moved by a truly affective (and not saccharin or schmaltzy) blessing when I hear one.

Thanks nnmns I know I am annoying to many here I don’t apologize I believe what I believe and for good reasons (at least to me) but I do appreciate a level head and civil responses.
Many things in the world are annoying to me but I haven’t responded in less than a civil way although I am often tempted.
I totally think that this woman Schori is destroying the overall church not just TEC but all churches. My own pastor I think has made some similar bad decisions and I’ll talk about the decisions but I draw the line in how I talk about her. I probably won’t change and I don’t enjoy going against the grain but I think what I have to say is important enough that I must say it.

If you lived in the diocese where one of the inhibited bishops has had charge, you would not be saying PB Schori was the one who is high handed. I live in the Diocese of San Joaquin and am a loyal Episcopalian who has had to endure the rhetoric of a bishop who has undermined and derided the Episcopal Church in word and action, beginning almost 20 years ago, and increasing in intensity in the last few years. In our diocese, it is the bishop who has been destroying the church with his dialogue of schism. I have been a member of the Episcopal Church for more than 40 years, having chosen to join this church as a young college student. I will never believe that the upheaval happening today was necessary. Episcopalians have always been able to live with the differences we may have. Now we are drawing lines in the sand and fighting with each other. I thank God for PB Schori’s calm and gentle and firm demeanor.

“The Rev. Kendall Harmon, a well-regarded conservative theologian from South Carolina,” is quoted in the article.
I attempted to discuss the taking of Episcopal property, by the ex-Bishop of San Joaquin, on Kendall Harmon’s blog Stand Firm and was summarily banned. The orthodox do not wish to hold an open conversation about the Episcopal Church they are committed to schism “with property.”

Kendall Harmon’s blog is Titus One Nine, not Stand Firm.
And to the anonymous person who claimed the church for “Traditionalists”: the Church of England was a church for every person in its geographical area, and every person was considered its responsibility. What’s more, Anglicanism has always had a liberal wing, since the very beginning, and was in fact always diverse.
So you’re quite wrong that only “traditionalists built it.”

I stand corrected. I apologize.

I saw a movie that I forget the name of, but it had a classic line I will never forget—”religion drives men mad”

I am confident that the builders of older churches were traditionalists (“correct practice”) and it was that passion that raised the elaborate structures and drove the religion. Tradition drives, lack of it folds, just watch and see. I could be wrong but I would have to be convinced in order to change what I know about religion.

O Mystery poster of above
Your definition for “tradition” is actually the definition and meaning of the word “orthopraxis”. They are not necessarily synonyms. Correct practice is the concern that each and every rite is repeated in absolutely the same “perfect” way. Any variation is subject to great scrutiny and a lengthy decision process. This may include tradition, but it might not. Tradition is a softer, less focused approach that simply reminds people “that’s the way we’ve always done it”. Traditons can be shaped and adapted more easily, and new traditions are often fun to begin.
PTCandy,
I don’t recall seeing your name here. Welcome to an amusing, of heated, but hopefully never nasty exchange of views and perceptions. Don’t be shy, wax eloquent and creatively, and we’ll all have some fun.

@Cknuck: “I totally think that this woman Schori is destroying the overall church not just TEC but all churches.”
Good Lord. KJS (a.k.a. “this woman Schori”) clearly has powers at her disposal the likes of which we can only dream of. Perhaps we should start scanning St John’s Apocalypse for a mild-mannered woman bishop in the service of Antichrist. Either that, or the Church of Christ must be singularly frangible if a middle-aged Floridian woman can threaten the entire Body with demolition – a house built upon sand indeed. For my part, I make no such hysterical predictions. Neither Presiding Bishop Schori nor Archbishop Peter Jasper Akinola (P.J. to his friends) are “destroying the overall church,” although the cross-province meddling of the latter is arguably doing much more harm to the fabric of the Anglican communion (and to the traditions of Anglican orthopraxy) than the controversial leadership of the former. No doubt this whole wretched row will continue for some time, both within ECUSA and the wider Communion. At the end, it may happen that the Communion assumes a rather different form than it does at present. I will pray that the Anglican Communion continues as a Church that embraces divergent views and a plurality of theological and moral positions. But of one thing be absolutely certain: the Church of Christ will weather the storm. And it may even emerge stronger and better for it.

Good argument Pious Pelican we obviously have two different views I don’t think anyone holding the position of Bishop can be mild mannered and survive the position and also I feel the church while honoring divergent views should embrace only one, “the gospel.” I think the church may weather the storm but according to the gospel this is just one of many storms before the church turns from the gospel. I appreciate your style, and civility, I try to maintain a certain measure of style and always attempt civility but there is no easy way to maintain my position and preach my message. By the way I don’t know what the anti-Christ will look like, and I don’t believe Schori is he but I do believe he will show up. I’ve got a mid-term coming up and this is a great diversion.

cknuck:
You believe in an anti-Christ?? Guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
What would this anti-Christ look like? Is he/she described in the Bible? (my guess is yes). An anti-Christ wasn’t covered in my 17 years as a Christian. Why would there be an anti-Christ if God is ruling things?

I was in an argument with someone about once saved always saved, and I brought up your claim pagan. We’ve both come to the conclusion that all who claim to be Christians (little Christ) never really knew Him and made false claims. Taste and see. There are many people who claim to be Christians but have no relationship with the Lord. I believe to make the claim and then mock Him is far worse then just never attempting to know Him.

cknuck:
I said I spent the first 17 years “as a Christian”, but most of that was before I realized that it wasn’t for me…if the rule is that you have to believe that Jesus was divine, son of God and that he died on a cross to save humanity. I “joined” the church at 10, knowing absolutely nothing about what I was doing.(yes, went to the classes etc)…way to young for that committment. That first 17 years was baptised (as an infant, so no choice), then being taken by 2 loving parents until I began to realize that there really was no one out there called GOD. So I really was in training until I became old enough to realize it wasn’t for me…at 17 and meeting a UU who helped me realize that there were much better options out there. My father accepted me as I am, as do my sisters, both devout Christians, who live what they believe…and still love me. It’s called family.

Well, the obvious truth is that we are all weighing whether – and to what extent – our negative received notions about a variety of hot button Anglican issues are hot air mistakes, a mix of truths and falsehoods, or such absolute legacy truths that they must be obeyed rather than understood from any modern context available.
Fittingly, I got to become an Episcopalian in college, a sort of church life dimension of my larger involvement in general and major studies, not unconnected with profound personal-social-ethical transformations, nor unconnected with vocations to neighbor service.
These very Anglican foundations are all in doubt now, thanks to the meanest forms of our conservative Anglican realignment. So I take some comfort in knowing that the UCC is still there, a refuge if or when it comes to that for Anglicans who are no longer welcome in very many other places. Following Jesus of Nazareth as Risen Lord turns out to be essentially a pilgrimage where none of us camp out to wrestle with angels without being changed for the better by the wrestling – intellectual, emotional, economic, social, political, and lots lots lots more.
As a progressive believer, I am not personally wrestling against any single conservative believer no matter how much I disagree with something in his or her views. Instead I am wrestling to follow Jesus, aside or apart from all the tempting but misleading churchy invitations to turn that into a matter, reduced to piety and holiness that has no truck with fairness or kindness or other tangible delicious fruits of the Holy Spirit flowing in a human life and in human communities.

I am curious as to what would define a “progressive believer?”

More to the mystey poster:
“I am confident that the builders of older churches were traditionalists (“correct practice”)”
Was it “correct practice” to deny women ordination???

“…but I’m willing to bet those “past generations” from hundreds of years before were probably on the traditionalists’ side of many of the current controversies.”
Episcopalians as a whole have traditionally been progressive on most social and political issues, (but of course there’s always exceptions to generalizations) however, progressive thought and action does go back a very long way in the Episcopal Church. It’s very hard to say how our ancestors would have felt on current issues, they had a completely different world view today due to the knowledge available during their era.
Times change, opinions change and people change. I think we need to be very careful not to put words into the mouths of people who lived long ago in a completely different experience. Historians love to remind us sometimes just how ‘radical’ our ancestors could be at times!

It’s an interesting question how those people would react. Apparently they would have been progressives, willing to move beyond their traditional (beliefs, values, traditions,?) but at that time it would have perhaps required them to move farther beyond than is required now. Doing so might have been in their spirit but not their letter? I’m sure there’s a better way to say it.
And I for one don’t know how homosexuality was actually viewed through history. It could be dangerous to make assumptions.

It is always interesting to conjecture how our ancestors might have viewed a topic and/or what actions they may have taken.
There is no doubt that many/all of them would have a different pov on female clergy and equality for lgbt.
That said, they are all dead and gone, we are here now. I have not intentions of living my life to match the actions/expectations of our ancestors. I use a modern washer and dryer to clean our clothes….rather than a wash tub and clothes line. I use a modern refridgerator and gas stove rather than an “ice box” and wood burning stove. I insure that our children have exposure to all types of info, toys, learing practices. I have no intentions of limiting them to the teaching materials of 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc.
Why on Earth, would I want to limit women and lgbt people to the roles they held in the past? Why on Earth would any of you want to limit people to the roles of the past?
Peace!
Peace!

I have come to this discussion late but hopefully not too late. For the records my ancestors helped build one of the church building in Virginia that those who left would like to keep. I know of no relative that currently attends that church. As a descendent, I think my ancestors would scorn those who left TEC for wanting it both ways. If you don’t want to be a member of the church, leave, but understand that you are leaving the buildings as well as the denomination.

If my ancestors had known what a sorry excuse for a church TEcUSA was going to become they’d have never built the churches to start with. Christianity was based on something other than current trends in politics.
I’m not religious and I’m not hypocritical enough to go and pretend to worship in a church, much less hijack it away from people who still believe in the precepts their ancestors did. I hope the people the people who abhor what has happened get to keep the property. The hip new trendy ones are frauds who apparently don’t have the courage or honesty to start a new movement or build property of their own.

How soon we forget!!!
Around 500 years ago the whole Anglican Church got it’s start when some upstart King wanted to do things his own way and would not listen to or respect the prevailing authority. So why is this different. The folks who want the Church to mature and move on are honoring great tradition. The folks who want the churh to stop right where it thinks it is and never change is honoring more of the very traditionfrom which they forst seperated not-all-that-long ago.
So we go back to Thesis/AntiThesis/SynThesis – and the musci goes round and round – oh-ho, oh-ho
and it comes
out
here.

Exactly! jestrfyl