It continues - Ft. Worth leaving Province VII

[gtsecc]

At least I think that is what is happening.
The wording on some of these things is so subtle. hold a min for a link.

[gtsecc]

http://www.fwepiscopal.org/diocesanconvention/06%20convention/06voting.html


Resolution 1: The Appeal for Alternate Primatial Oversight (http://www.fwepiscopal.org/diocesanconvention/06%20convention/06resolution1.html) • adopted
Clerical order: 51 for (80%)• 12 against • 2 not voting
Lay order: 102 for (82%) • 21 against • 1 abstention


Resolution 2: Withdrawing Consent for Membership in Province VII (http://www.fwepiscopal.org/diocesanconvention/06%20convention/06resolution2.html) • adopted
Clerical order: 51 for (80%)• 12 against • 2 not voting
Lay order: 98 for (79%) • 25 against • 3 abstentions


Resolution 3: Acknowledging the Minority (http://www.fwepiscopal.org/diocesanconvention/06%20convention/06resolution3.html) • substitute resolutions adopted
The resolution, as submitted, was ruled out of order by the Resolutions Committee, which introduced two substitutes. At the Bishop's request, substitute resolution 3B was voted on first. It was adopted unanimously by voice vote. The text is as follows: Be it resolved that this 24th Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth recognizes that a minority of Episcopalians in this diocese do not agree with the decisions made by the canonical authorities of the diocese (that is, the Bishop, Standing Committee, Diocesan Convention, and Executive Council), and that they remain valued members of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth.

[Aymn27]

At least I think that is what is happening.
The wording on some of these things is so subtle. hold a min for a link.
An inside source has told me that the Diocese of Western LA will be leaving TEC - this is a very reliable source and I believe this will be happening in the near future. This person said that originally it looked like "we were going to stick it out" but the word has turned and apparently this diocese has decided to follow the paths of those already mentioned here..

[higgs2]

If they choose to leave the table, they should not try to take the silver with them.

[gtsecc]

If they choose to leave the table, they should not try to take the silver with them.
Ah yes, but if the silver was paid for by people of the traditional faith, then the more liberal folks aren't heirs to silver if they don't want to be heirs also to the faith.

[Wigglesworth]

I wonder if this is what it felt like watching the southern states secede from the union one by one.

For the benefit of those outside the USA, I'm referring to the United States Civil War, 1861-1865.

:crossrc:

[RedneckAnglican]

I wonder if this is what it felt like watching the southern states secede from the union one by one.

For the benefit of those outside the USA, I'm referring to the United States Civil War, 1861-1865.

:crossrc:

some of us had already seceded from the ECUSA...though I must say I take no pleasure in seeing a Church go down the tubes...I must say that my desicion was more based on what my local Church did to me rather than any political moves on the national level....

[Tawny]

I am confused, does this mean some chrches are splitting away from the Anglican Church, or from ecusa?

[JasonV]

Im having trouble understanding what the purpose of this and the other thread are? Is this to alarm us at the trend of churches leaving TEC? Should we actually care? Does it even matter?

Frankly I say let them go. They want to revert to a dying form of Christianity, so let them die with it. If you take a hot log out of the fire and toss it into the sand...it's gonna burn itself out eventually.

[karen freeinchristman]

Im having trouble understanding what the purpose of this and the other thread are? Is this to alarm us at the trend of churches leaving TEC? Should we actually care? Does it even matter?

Frankly I say let them go. They want to revert to a dying form of Christianity, so let them die with it. If you take a hot log out of the fire and toss it into the sand...it's gonna burn itself out eventually.
The purpose of this and the other thread is to show what is happening to the TEC, and it is extremely upsetting for many people. For this reason, I personally don't think it is good sign of Christian compassion to dismiss these strongly held convictions as being something that doesn't matter. Whatever our view or our theology, the fact is that many people are disoriented and severely dismayed by this.

I'm in the prayer camp. :prayer:

[higgs2]

I wonder if this is what it felt like watching the southern states secede from the union one by one.

For the benefit of those outside the USA, I'm referring to the United States Civil War, 1861-1865.

:crossrc:

Hmmm. Perhaps that is a good analogy. And the end result is that slavery was ended...

[chalice_thunder]

Ah yes, but if the silver was paid for by people of the traditional faith, then the more liberal folks aren't heirs to silver if they don't want to be heirs also to the faith.
Laying up treasure where?

It's not "bought and paid for" -
they are, for the most part, memorial GIFTS.

[JasonV]

For this reason, I personally don't think it is good sign of Christian compassion to dismiss these strongly held convictions as being something that doesn't matter.


My bad. It does matter. But it's irrelavent as well. Bishop Spong has pointed out that Christianity must change or die. These people would rather see it die than to evolve into a meaningful religion for the future.

I don't understand why so many people cannot adjust to change?

[chalice_thunder]

Resurrection is just around the corner.

Consider Matthew 26:55-56 (from "The Message" paraphrase, Eugene Peterson)

Then Jesus addressed the mob: "What is this—coming out after me with swords and clubs as if I were a dangerous criminal? Day after day I have been sitting in the Temple teaching, and you never so much as lifted a hand against me. You've done it this way to confirm and fulfill the prophetic writings."

Then all the disciples cut and ran.

[higgs2]

Laying up treasure where?

It's not "bought and paid for" -
they are, for the most part, memorial GIFTS.

Exactly!! We're dealing with a building campaign right now, and it is interesting that some people don't seem to get the concept of "gift". Not investment, not part ownership, but gift. ROFL! Thanks for helping me make this connection in my mind in regards to what is happening within TEC.

[chalice_thunder]

Exactly!! We're dealing with a building campaign right now, and it is interesting that some people don't seem to get the concept of "gift". Not investment, not part ownership, but gift. ROFL! Thanks for helping me make this connection in my mind in regards to what is happening within TEC.
Thanks, Higgs.

It took me awhile as well.

But when you think about it, a gift is a gift. Therefore, one who gives a memorial (or a sum of money in memory of somebody) should then just let it be, rather than trying to designate or have control over it.

Those who "donate" money and then expect to have some sort of power or control in a congregation need to check the dictionary. They have not made a gift, they have made a purchase.

That being said, it's best for those of us who exercise some stewardship over the gifts made over the years (or centuries!) must not take lightly our duty to strive in continuing to honor the gifts that have been made.

It's a tightrope!

[gtsecc]

Exactly!! We're dealing with a building campaign right now, and it is interesting that some people don't seem to get the concept of "gift". Not investment, not part ownership, but gift. ROFL! Thanks for helping me make this connection in my mind in regards to what is happening within TEC.
Katherine is the one who brough up the gifts.
Her claim is that the gifts belong to the faith.
I am pointing out that it is infact easier to show the Folks in San Joaquim have the same faith as those who gave the gift.

[gtsecc]

Exactly!! We're dealing with a building campaign right now, and it is interesting that some people don't seem to get the concept of "gift". Not investment, not part ownership, but gift. ROFL! Thanks for helping me make this connection in my mind in regards to what is happening within TEC.
Katherine is the one who brough up the gifts.
Her claim is that the gifts belong to the faith.
I am pointing out that it is infact easier to show the Folks in San Joaquim have the same faith as those who gave the gift

[gtsecc]

Exactly!! We're dealing with a building campaign right now, and it is interesting that some people don't seem to get the concept of "gift". Not investment, not part ownership, but gift. ROFL! Thanks for helping me make this connection in my mind in regards to what is happening within TEC.
Katherine is the one who brough up the gifts.
Her claim is that the gifts belong to the faith.
I am pointing out that it is infact easier to show the Folks in San Joaquim have the same faith as those who gave the gift than

[higgs2]

Katherine is the one who brough up the gifts.
Her claim is that the gifts belong to the faith.
I am pointing out that it is infact easier to show the Folks in San Joaquim have the same faith as those who gave the gift.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Simon_Templar]

Im having trouble understanding what the purpose of this and the other thread are? Is this to alarm us at the trend of churches leaving TEC? Should we actually care? Does it even matter?

Frankly I say let them go. They want to revert to a dying form of Christianity, so let them die with it. If you take a hot log out of the fire and toss it into the sand...it's gonna burn itself out eventually.
What I'm about to say is my opinion. I'm simply giving it for the purpose of illustrating the differences in our point of view.

Truth does not change. The idea of an evolving growing truth is a contradiction in terms. Either the church has been right about the faith for the last 2000 years or it has been wrong. We must choose which we believe, but it is not a viable option to believe that the truth is changing.

I personally believe that a significant percentage of the ECUSA/TEC is apostate.
It is nearly impossible to guess time frames, but I strongly suspect that within 10-15 years the ECUSA and some of the other churches affiliated with it such as the ELCA, etc will no longer even resemble Christianity. They will maintain some of the trappings, ceremony, names etc, but the substance will be unrecognizable.

You think we are reverting to a dying form of christianity, I'm not going to argue the point, because even if it were true, I'd rather die with the faith.
If we are reverting to a dying form of christianity, it doesn't matter much as you say, because even if this form is dying, the alternative, whether dying or not, is becoming not christian.

So, if the one is dying, the other ceasing to be christian, I'll take the dying one, because at least I will perish in the Faith I believed

[higgs2]

fiddle dee dee.

edited to say, I read "Gone with the Wind" one time too many as a kid. :sorry: Not ridiculing, just pulling a "Scarlet" ^_^

[karen freeinchristman]

Guys, come on. Let's please not descend into ridicule. If we disagree, we can put our own views forward clearly and with some degree of decorum, can't we? We are only pleasing Satan if we post in rudeness and mockery.

[Wigglesworth]

On the question of whether a portion of the church is growing or dying, it is important to consider which portions of the church are actually growing around the globe.

What is the fastest growing portion of the church on the globe? What do they believe?

:crossrc:

[karen freeinchristman]

On the question of whether a portion of the church is growing or dying, it is important to consider which portions of the church are actually growing around the globe.

What is the fastest growing portion of the church on the globe? What do they believe?

:crossrc:
I agree this is important to consider, but where numbers are large, that doesn't necessarily equate to where the truth is... just a thought.

[gtsecc]

We know Truth when it is something believed always and everywhere.

[JasonV]

We know Truth when it is something believed always and everywhere.

So skepticism is truth? Cool! :thumbsup:

[karen freeinchristman]

We know Truth when it is something believed always and everywhere.
Glen, this comment makes no actual sense. This would mean there is no Truth to be known, because nothing has ever been believed "always and everywhere".

[Simon_Templar]

Glen, this comment makes no actual sense. This would mean there is no Truth to be known, because nothing has ever been believed "always and everywhere".
Well obviously this has to be understood in terms of the church, always within the church, and everywhere the church has been.

Some may argue that debates down through the ages on various issues have removed the possability of such continuity of faith, but the consensus of the church is the issue, not the fact that there have been arguments.

There were obviously been arguments about the trinity. But the consensus of the church has always been belief in the trinity. Thus the trinity has been believed always and everywhere.

There have been those who had argued or denied the divinity of Christ, but the consensus of the church has always been belief in the divinity of Christ, always and everywhere.

Always and everywhere is simply a statement of consensus.. those things that have always been the consensus of the church.

[Finella]

Truth does not change. The idea of an evolving growing truth is a contradiction in terms. Either the church has been right about the faith for the last 2000 years or it has been wrong. We must choose which we believe, but it is not a viable option to believe that the truth is changing.
I don't think this is necessarily what people who support ++Katherine (and other progressive ideas in TEC) actually believe -- this is a mischaracterization.

It's not so much that the truth changes, rather our understanding of the truth changes. We see through a mirror darkly. Over time we become wiser and more aware of our nature and our strengths and weaknesses. I know you dislike the whole notion of social evolution, Simon, but that is the principle here. God is unchanging, but our understanding of God increases over time as we learn more about ourselves and God. However we will never know all there is to God -- at best we are like the Sufi parable of the blind people each with a hand on an elephant trying to describe the whole animal. None of us has a grip on the entire nature of God, nor should we claim to. But the longer we keep feeling up the elephant ;) we might have more information about God. I don't think this is that radical an idea.

I'm sorry to see these dioceses thinking that this is the virutuous way to act. I won't say more than that about what I think otherwise.

[RadixLecti]

I don't think this is necessarily what people who support ++Katherine (and other progressive ideas in TEC) actually believe -- this is a mischaracterization.

It's not so much that the truth changes, rather our understanding of the truth changes. We see through a mirror darkly. Over time we become wiser and more aware of our nature and our strengths and weaknesses. I know you dislike the whole notion of social evolution, Simon, but that is the principle here. God is unchanging, but our understanding of God increases over time as we learn more about ourselves and God. However we will never know all there is to God -- at best we are like the Sufi parable of the blind people each with a hand on an elephant trying to describe the whole animal. None of us has a grip on the entire nature of God, nor should we claim to. But the longer we keep feeling up the elephant ;) we might have more information about God. I don't think this is that radical an idea.

I'm sorry to see these dioceses thinking that this is the virutuous way to act. I won't say more than that about what I think otherwise.


I think that one of the problems in this situation is that it has become very difficult to decide what is the virtuous way to act. It seems that the liberal and conservative dioceses in TEC have become so different that they can no longer agree on anything. Instead of spending all their time arguing, maybe it's best that they just go their separate ways.

[Torah613]

If they choose to leave the table, they should not try to take the silver with them.
drat I can't rep you again so soon Higgs.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

We know Truth when it is something believed always and everywhere.
well then arianism is the truth then. everyone give up your beliefs in the divinity of Christ.

Seriously Glen, as much as I respect you and agree with much of what you say, I do have to point out that historical fact doesn't back up this little statement of yours.

Just one man with a history degree bringing up a point.

Joe Zollars

[gtsecc]

well then arianism is the truth then. everyone give up your beliefs in the divinity of Christ.

Seriously Glen, as much as I respect you and agree with much of what you say, I do have to point out that historical fact doesn't back up this little statement of yours.

Just one man with a history degree bringing up a point.

Joe Zollars
Do you really not understand, or are you just trying to argue?
Seriously, no offense, but you know that the Arians are outside of the church. Everyone in the world knows it. So, no one could even possibly be confused that it was an idea accepted always and everywhere by the church.

[Torah613]

So there was one Bishop. That was the whole Church.

Seriously, who decides who was in or out of the Church?

Tradition is important Glen, but Scripture and (most pertinent to this conversation reason) are not to be thrown out with the bathwater.

Seriously, the historical record does not back up this statement. The only way it does is if you take historical facts and make flying leaps of conjecture between them.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

Oh and for the record I understand what your saying perfectly. Those who said things you disagree with aren't in the church, and so don't apply. I get it perfectly.

Joe Zollars

[gtsecc]

So there was one Bishop. That was the whole Church.


huh? Arius? or Athanasius. They made their case, and one side was accepted. What was taught by the church always and everywhere isn't ambiguous at all.

Seriously, who decides who was in or out of the Church?
The council of Bishops always and everywhere have decided that.

[Torah613]

no its not ambiguous at all. Here are three things taught by the church always and everywhere according to your definition:

1. The Jews killed Christ and as such deserve to be killed. a full halph of all people killed in the Crusades (on the part of hte Western Church) were European Jews. In the Eastern Church, persecutions of Jews have been no less prevelant throughout history. Nobody really believes this anymore, as it was a misguided understanding to begin with--yet it was taught be Bishops, and even Metropolitans and Patriarchs, who were applauded for it.

2. Women are Chattle. If anyone really believes this anymore, I double dog dare you to speak up.

3. Slavery is A-ok. No Christian believes this anymore, and in fact its contrary to the Christian message.

All three of these things are against scripture adn reason but form part of the tradition. Of course I am not arguing for favoring either Scripture or Reason, but stating that for a balanced theology one needs all three.

Joe Zollars

[RadixLecti]

no its not ambiguous at all. Here are three things taught by the church always and everywhere according to your definition:

1. The Jews killed Christ and as such deserve to be killed. a full halph of all people killed in the Crusades (on the part of hte Western Church) were European Jews. In the Eastern Church, persecutions of Jews have been no less prevelant throughout history. Nobody really believes this anymore, as it was a misguided understanding to begin with--yet it was taught be Bishops, and even Metropolitans and Patriarchs, who were applauded for it.

2. Women are Chattle. If anyone really believes this anymore, I double dog dare you to speak up.

3. Slavery is A-ok. No Christian believes this anymore, and in fact its contrary to the Christian message.

All three of these things are against scripture adn reason but form part of the tradition. Of course I am not arguing for favoring either Scripture or Reason, but stating that for a balanced theology one needs all three.

Joe Zollars
I'm not sure all three of these things were ever accepted officially by the entire church. They definitly have not been taught by the entire church "always and everywhere". Although I realize that throughout the history of the church many people may have had personal prejudices.

[gtsecc]

no its not ambiguous at all. Here are three things taught by the church always and everywhere according to your definition:

1. The Jews killed Christ and as such deserve to be killed. a full halph of all people killed in the Crusades (on the part of hte Western Church) were European Jews. In the Eastern Church, persecutions of Jews have been no less prevelant throughout history. Nobody really believes this anymore, as it was a misguided understanding to begin with--yet it was taught be Bishops, and even Metropolitans and Patriarchs, who were applauded for it.

2. Women are Chattle. If anyone really believes this anymore, I double dog dare you to speak up.

3. Slavery is A-ok. No Christian believes this anymore, and in fact its contrary to the Christian message.


If no one believes it anymore, it isn't something held for the last 2,000 years.

[Torah613]

As Glen said in another thread, when a Bishop says something and is not corrected, what he says becomes part of the church teachings--in a name tradition. Therefore by this definition, Jews should be killed, women are chattle, and lets revive those slave ships.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Tradition is important but by simply following the tradition, you end up believing and doing all kinds of crazy and indeed anti-christian things.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

but its still part of the tradition of the Church by your definition--and there are those who still believe this (Shudders at memories of growing up in the rural south).

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

I wouldn't call these people Christian, but they are at least following the teachings of the Church according to your definition.

Joe Zollars

[RadixLecti]

no its not ambiguous at all. Here are three things taught by the church always and everywhere according to your definition:

1. The Jews killed Christ and as such deserve to be killed. a full halph of all people killed in the Crusades (on the part of hte Western Church) were European Jews. In the Eastern Church, persecutions of Jews have been no less prevelant throughout history. Nobody really believes this anymore, as it was a misguided understanding to begin with--yet it was taught be Bishops, and even Metropolitans and Patriarchs, who were applauded for it.


Joe Zollars

Definitly not believed by the church always and everywhere

[gtsecc]

Clearly the church can be shown to have been anti semetic. I don't see to much of a way around it. Although, so say St John Chrysostom really ment those who reject Christ, when he refers to jews. But, today, an anti semetic Bishop would be corrected in an orthodox church. Spong, on the other hand, was not in TEC.

[gtsecc]

No, unless all Bishops are anti semetic, it isn't traditon in the EO. IN ECUSA, since we don't excommunicate Bishops, it would be.

[gtsecc]

But, good points and questions. We sort of disagree on thsi thing, but at least we speak the same language.

[RadixLecti]

Clearly the church can be shown to have been anti semetic. I don't see to much of a way around it. Although, so say St John Chrysostom really ment those who reject Christ, when he refers to jews. But, today, an anti semetic Bishop would be corrected in an orthodox church. Spong, on the other hand, was not in TEC.

Yes but the early church was made up mainly of Jews, (especially the leadership) so it cannot be said that the church has always held that Jews should be persecuted.

[TomUK]

I do not like the direction that this thread is taking. All posters must ensure that they remain on topic.

Do we really need to take pot-shots at one another? Of course the issues in the Anglican Communion are causing a tremendous of tension but please don't forget that we are all children of the living God. The devil really doesn't need our help to breed enmity and division.

[chalice_thunder]

I think that one of the problems in this situation is that it has become very difficult to decide what is the virtuous way to act. It seems that the liberal and conservative dioceses in TEC have become so different that they can no longer agree on anything. Instead of spending all their time arguing, maybe it's best that they just go their separate ways.
While sometimes throw my hands up in desperation and think this as well, I really don't think it's the right thing to do.

I think we need to stay at the table together. The one thing we all agree on is Jesus is Lord, and he is the one inviting us ALL to the table. We each bring varying forms of orthodoxy and practice - but, friends: we are not going to be judged on our orthodoxy, not on our liturgical worship style, not on marching lock-step in some sort of conformity that Jesus NEVER ordained.

We will be judged according to how we met Him in the face of one another, and on the faces of all brothers and sisters we meet.

I pray the Church will have the grace and patience to stay at the table.

[artybloke]

Definitly not believed by the church always and everywhere
Certainly was by the Western church until at least some time after Luther (he himself certainly believed it; the Popes sent out the Crusades.) Includes the Anglicans - wasn't it one of the Henry's who exiled the Jews from England? And that went on until the 17th century at least.

As for the Orthodox - they also were victims of the Crusades, but I'm afraid I don't know what their opinion of the Jews were.

[Torah613]

Certainly was by the Western church until at least some time after Luther (he himself certainly believed it; the Popes sent out the Crusades.) Includes the Anglicans - wasn't it one of the Henry's who exiled the Jews from England? And that went on until the 17th century at least.

As for the Orthodox - they also were victims of the Crusades, but I'm afraid I don't know what their opinion of the Jews were.
good points.

Ask any Russian Jew, and you'll know what the Orthodox position on the Jews were. Most of the leaders of the Bolshevik revolution were Jews, and I at least wonder how much of it was as a form of revenge.

Also the writings of Eastern Fathers are full of anti-semitic positions. Any Orthodox Christian today however will tell you that these historically sad positions are not part of the Tradition (in an Eastern understanding).

Joe Zollars

[cenimo]

The 'silver' at the table has turned to throw away plastic.

[Tetzel]

Didn't Paul say something along the line of: Why not be cheated?

[pilgrimgal]

The purpose of this and the other thread is to show what is happening to the TEC, and it is extremely upsetting for many people. For this reason, I personally don't think it is good sign of Christian compassion to dismiss these strongly held convictions as being something that doesn't matter. Whatever our view or our theology, the fact is that many people are disoriented and severely dismayed by this.

I'm in the prayer camp. :prayer:

with you...:amen: :prayer: :groupray: :hug:

[gtsecc]

.