One could argue that the Episcopal Church is better off without the dissenters preaching their exclusionary gospel based on the teachings of a nomadic people three thousand years ago. In contrast, the modern Church has become much more inclusive, recognizing gay men and women as valued and valuable members of society at large and in the Church, people who are entitled to basic civil rights, such as same sex marriage with all of its benefits, who are indeed children of God, beloved of the Lord.

Bishops playing politics and suing each other again.
Time for them to read their bibles, they seem to have forgotten what the purpose of the church is.
Rule 1: You should evict congregations from their buildings and sell the assets. Even if those congregations were the ones that paid for those buildings.
Rule 2: Always file lawsuits, never negotiate or mediate a dispute.
It is much cheaper to pay lawyers millions of dollars of donated funds.
Rule 3: The goal of the church is to decrease attendance. When 100000 people less people are attending than 5 years ago, keep responding that only a few churches have left, and there are only a few upset members.
Rule4: When 56% of your churches have lost 10% of their attendance in 5 short years, don’t revise your policies. Just increase your rhetoric and double down on your efforts to crush your opponents.
At the present rate the Episcopal church will not survive this generation.
The Episcopal church has become the nasty church.

If the Rabbi believes that religious faiths and scripture should be compromised, he should start with his own, rather than attempting to selectively dictate to those whose beliefs he does not share.
Homosexuality is sin, and in the US the first amendment protects the religious from being subject to the dicates and persecution that secularists might try and impose. It also provides us with the right to free expression of our religious beliefs.

The 100,000 number is misleading, as it is an estimate, and made up of churches that have been outside of TEC for many years, such as the Reformed Episcopal Church, with a membership of about 14,000. Also, the 4 diocese that are leaving are not leaving unanimously – just a bare majority voted to leave, and many of them will stay with TEC and not join the new scismatics.
The 100,000 number would lead people to believe that 5% of TEC have left TEC, when, in fact, it is more around 1%. They are forming a church that is fundamentalist and authoritarian, which is anathema to Anglicanism and the Via Media.

Though it is on one level none of my business since I am not a Christian, I support the inclusive character that the Episcopal Church has worked to build for itself. That aspect alone is a precious enough spiritual heritage that they should do everything possible to maintain it. In my eyes, it is far more important than maintaining an unbroken, massive, institutional presence.
And while it would be better for everyone except lawyers if the lawsuits could be avoided (isn’t that usually the case?), I think the separation of non-inclusive elements of the Episcopal Church is more good than bad. Give them a generation without any church-internal worries on the issues that have them all worked up and it may be possible that they will begin to move toward greater inclusion themselves.
They may never reach the same position that the Episcopal Church top leadership currently has, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t become more compassionate and inclusive after a split has isolated them from the issue they can’t currently deal with.
L’Shalom,
Chaim

I grew up fundamentalist Christian. The splinter groups are likely biblical literalists.
Lots of fundamentalists like Evangelicals pick and choose out of the Old Testament. How many of these folks have you met that keep a kosher diet or don’t shop on Sunday?
The problem lies in the New Testament, specifically Romans Chapter 1 (Romans is a book that Church Fathers and even Luther took quite seriously and for good reason). The author, Paul, is quite explicit in his loathing of homosexuals in this first chapter; but this condemnation of ancient gays is by no means the meat and potatos of Romans.
Paul says later in the New Testament that the Law kills while the Spirit gives life. And Paul talks about how following all the customs availed him of nothing.
Literalists don’t look at context. Paul went as far as to confess how anal he was. And how would Paul feel today?
I think as Jesus pointed out, the Law of Love is what rules the day. He said we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves and love God with all our being. Jesus said if you do these two things you are following the whole Law.
I hate to confess how I really feel, but I’m gonna anyway:
If consensual gay sex between others is keeping you up at night, you’d probably better get therapy.

Have a look at the official attendance figures at the url above if you don’t think 100000 fewer are attending

I have no theological opinion on this. However due to their pro-natalist beliefs, fundamentalists tend to increase in numbers whereas groups with anti-natalist positions (pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality) fall in numbers.

Dave,
Fundamentalists might appear to increase in numbers because they somewhat more frequently than non-fundamentalists have large families. It has nothing to do with their position on abortion or homosexuality. In addition, the children of fundamentalists often decide their parents’ life is not for them, meaning that fundamentalist growth by family size is in large part illusion caused by a generational delay.
Those who have smaller families, conversely, rarely if ever do so because of their views or practice related to abortion or homosexuality. Rather, they make decisions about the kind of life they want for themselves and for their children, weigh the financial, emotional and other resources they have avaliable to them, and use modern family planning to accomplish their goals.
Some parents of small families may be selfish, not wanting to give of themselves and their time to nurture another life. But the obverse, having a large family, is no more indicator of generosity than it is of megalomania and overconsumption. Other parents of small families may merely be realists, something one can rarely say of fundamentalists.
But more to the point, Dave, your word choice of “pro-natalist”, “anti-natalist”, “pro-abortion”, and “pro-homosexuality”, in the unlikely case that you were not aware, offensively twists the positions of most you apparently seek to classify. I have never yet met a person who is pro-abortion, only those who believe the government should not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the woman who is pregnant. I’ve never met an anti-natalist. Nearly everyone is glad (most of the time) to have been born and do not begrudge the experience to anyone. Even misanthropes do not typically want humans to cease procreating, though they might want the fruit of others’ procreation to stay out of their space.
And, finally, most of those you might call pro-homosexual are, in my experience, usually just against persecution of this sexual minority and against denying homosexuals full participation in society because of the non-universal moral or religious opinion of some against them.
L’Shalom,
Chaim

I think the episcapol church problems is none of our bees wax.
hugs
Laura