Well the Southern Cone Head gave up claim to that property more easily than I expected.

Good the sooner they not waste time with TEC the better they will find their strength in the fidelity of the Gospel. People will join them especially as they connect with churches that are their mission anyway.

Didn’t think this was a surprise to anyone. Each group can now do “their thing”..one can keep it’s conservative beliefs and the other can continue to accept all of their god’s children.

pagan riddle me this;
If you who don’t believe in God say they are “thier god’s children,” then who are they?
Jesus did not consider everyone children of God.

That would be the god they believe in…who else’s god would it be?
Thus they are that god’s children.

Your name 9:49
Go back and read all of the Good Samaritan – Who is my neighbor? Who is God’s child? Don’t be so quick to close the door. Being right – and thus making someone else wrong – is not part of righteousness. This is not a win/lose game.
Well, gee if this isn’t a huge wonking surprise. I am sure the Anglican Southern Cone-head was making requests / demands that did not sit well with a group that clearly thinks things ought to go their way or the highway. Well, the Sadduccees felt the same way, and they seem to have done alright for themselves over the years. Oops! Have fun – I just hope everyone agrees with you all the time about everything. Dissent seems to crack you up.

The sad thing is that what this all really comes down to is gay stuff. Such self-righteous puffery. It sure is easy to make a stand on something that only effects a small percentage of your church body. Let’s see the conservative breakaway church start denying communion to the divorced children of its wealthy donors.

H.T., a wonderful and insightful comment!  As a former Episcopalian, I’m saddened by the divisions caused by the conservative factions.  Jesus spoke strongly against divorce, yet we not seeing any divisions because of that issue.  What hypocrisy by the right-wingers!

Actually, H.T., it’s about a lot more than just the homosexuality issue. The two positions on homosexuality are just the most visible and volatile manifestations of much deeper issues. At root, this is a conflict over the different sources of theology. The liberals and evangelicals in the Episcopal church are usually working with two entirely incompatible understandings of how how one justifies theological and ethical truth-claims. And then, if you want, you can throw people like Archbishop Williams into the mix, who has yet a different undersanding of how to justify truth-claims than either the evangelicals or the liberals. What you have, then, is a total inability of any real progress to be made through conversation. People can’t have a productive conversation if they don’t share the same premises.

Nate,
What you are saying (and I agree with your premiss) is that the Episcopal Church is having its own Civil War. As was true in this country 140 some years ago; one side was agrarian, the other industrial; one side believed in a states right to decide slavery and the other believed it was a national decision; on down through the arguments. Each had a different world view. In this ecclesiastical case, it is a differing view of authority; ecclesiatical, biblical, theological, and Christological. The wedge is the idea that they must be in agreement on all things. I guess the Northern Cone realized the Southern Cone-head was not interested in simply invitng them in, he had expectations and interests. So it goes, on and on and on.

“Actually, H.T., it’s about a lot more than just the homosexuality issue.”
Yeah, it’s also about power and ego. It’s way cooler to be the bigger fish in the smaller breakway pond.
Theology schmeology. The schismatics weren’t able to drum up enough support to generate a real schism until they got handed the gift of Gene Robinson’s election to the bishopric. It took the gay stuff to really get the schism movement off the ground and no amount of pontification is going to change that fact.

It’s about no women in leadership also, passed down by the RC before they broke away and the Church of England was started. They feel so hallowed and safe in their tight interpretations of the Bible.

H.T.,
If it’s about ego, then it’s about ego on both sides of the aisle. After all, if the liberals weren’t so set on pushing their own agendas, the conflict wouldn’t have come this far.
If you don’t think this is about theology, then you’ve clearly not been following the conflict at a very deep level. The evangelicals hold one view of theological authority. The liberals hold a radically different view of theological authority. The Archbishop of Canterbury holds yet another radically different view of authority. That’s the heart of the problem. It’s the same basic problem that’s been plaguing churches for over a century, long before gay issues were on the radar. The original liberal-vs.-fundamentalist schism was about theological authority, the evangelical break from fundamentalism was about authority, and this, like so many other conflicts, is about authority. The evangelicals don’t think the liberals take the Bible seriously, and the liberals don’t think that the evangelicals take the experience of gays seriously, and there’s no easy way around that conflict because the two sides are coming from fundamentally different starting points.

Since, in your opinion Nate W., both sides are coming from fundamentaly different starting points, perhaps it is better that they have decided to split. Just gives folks more choices of where to attend if they want to go to an Episcopal church..the conservatives or the liberals.

I don’t look at this seperation as being Conservative, and liberal. Each follows the Bible, but one follows it in a academic way of looking at history bringing it into the time we are living in. The other holds on to old meanings, inaccurate reportings in the past, and loves putting themselves in a suffering capacity for God. If we held on to old therapies in medicine and never advanced the world would be in a pitiful state for everyone. Why is it society has advanced in a positive way, but religion is still hurting people as it did in ancient times? Now segments of protestants and Catholics are looking at scripture in a different way and they are having to seperate themselves from ancient beliefs in order to worship God with their sincerity and faith.

H22 I think your analysis is backwards of course it is your oppionion and you are entitled to it but I think it is just the opposite in fact.

There is no easier softer way, one does not follow God’s word without sacrifice unless you want to change the Bible and Jesus’ words. Thing that are wrong should not be practiced and homosexuality is wrong. Unless we do have discipline in certain areas of our lives it is the human condition to be rampantly undisciplined. God knew that so He gave us a way to live and homosexuality obviously is not included in that design of living that honors God. Period. Of course in mankind’s vanity concerning life we have rebelled against what God has established. Attempting to turn men into women and women into men, attempting to extend the lives we desire to and extinguishing the ones we deem unnecessary, or unwanted. Casting expectations and definitions of beauty which burdens all, addicting some to beauty task and regiments that changes their health mentally and physically and leaving most people behind, and cursed stigmas of undesirability. It’s a cruel joke the man puts himself in moving in a direction away from God. I marvel at the alliance of players from unbelievers to those who only believe in themselves but claim to be believers to those who out right shake their fist at God and curse Him, what a group.

Your last post is one of judgment on a good part of earths people, Ck. So when did you become God?
GLBT are born the way they are, and should have the same rights as we do. You may not like it because you believe literally in the Bible. I would say a good part of the Christians felt the same way as you until they had children that showed the signs of homosexuality, the thinking parents talked to medical authorities, not Christian Medical Authorities, because we know by that label they are Bible Literalists or they wouldn’t have to seperate themselves from the rest of the Medical Community. To call many, many loving Christians below Christians like yourself is very sad and very judgmental.

“…..one does not follow God’s word without sacrifice unless you want to change the Bible and Jesus’ word.” cknuck
cknuck, it’s already been changed….lots.
Does that statement above allow for the fact that the Bible was written by men, and the NT started about 50 years after JC died? And does it allow for the fact that it has been translated, copied, changed to “update” it to newer times for several hundreds of years? All, I’m sure without any mistakes OR a copier putting his own version of an event into it? ) The Bible is a great piece of literature, based (at least the OT) on some facts as some proof of men and women mentioned in it have been found etc., but it is just a book. For some it is a guide, and they can take it as helpful in their daily life. Heck, there are even religions based on it. But even those folks take the useful and decide if it is applicable to today…knowing that it is fallible. Fallibility doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. It just means that it isn’t perfect.

Henrietta, good post. I agree with what you wrote. Unfortunately some will never believe that GLBT folks are born who they are. Those folks have a problem with some parts of reality. However with that problem, those same folks don’t have the right to deny anyone their equal rights.

pagan the Bible can be traced back to it’s original creation it is the most scrutinized, interpreted, reliable document of it’s kind. It is so easy to read the original language so it has not been changed it has been interpreted. The tactic to attempt to make it not legitimate is not new it’s been tried way before you were born and it survived those attempts as it will survive yours.
H22 no one can prove homosexuals are born there is no proof of a homosexual gene or any other trace proof.

As you say, cknuck, it has been “interpreted” and those that did that put their own ideas into it, I’m sure. A word in one language rarely translates exactly, with the same meaning as another. Thus it has been changed. It was easy to read the original language?? Maybe. As to how old making it legit? After 2000 plus years it is a legit as any other book folks have found that old. You’ve studied the brain to be able to tell whether folks are born or not as homosexuals I presume? :0)

You didn’t mention an answer to my question Ck. You and I have faith that God, heaven, angels exist. Why do you think Mothers and Fathers, friends of Gays shouldn’t have the same faith that their children given by God to them are just the way He planned them to be? When you take Rx from the medical do you challange them as to why this could possibly help you? There are enough physiological suggestions and studies in the past and now going on with the Medical Professions to give credence to their findings that Homosexuality is inborn. Unless you or anyone else can prove them wrong, and you can’t, come into the now and use your intelligence that God gave all of us, and really think about it.