Anglican Division

[Caedmon]

Regarding the issue of homosexuality within Church hierarchy, is the Anglican/Episcopalian Church destined for schism?

[pmcleanj]

Regarding the issue of homosexuality within Church hierarchy, is the Anglican/Episcopalian Church destined for schism?
No.

[bfoos]

The Church has already suffered schism. Will the network leave? Interesting question. They might ask the same of the revisionists. Rowan Williams will have to make up his mind regarding who he will throw his weight behind. We might think that it is unlikely that he would throw his weight behind a small minority in ECUSA. But ECUSA is quite a small minority in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The Africans, Asians and the rest of the 3rd world bishops are not sounding like they're going to put up with much more of the revisionists agenda. So, Williams has a choice: the money of ECUSA and a few million Churchmen who are on the books but rarely show up for service (I've heard as low as 800,000 regular attendees) or the poverty of the 3rd world Church and close to 70,000,000 churchmen, most of whom are there more than once a week.

It will be very interesting, indeed.

bfoos

[Rilian]

Caedmon, there are a number of serious fissures that have opened in the Anglican world and as bfoos pointed out they are increasingly highlighted by a split between Anglicanism in the developed West and the area historian Philip Jenkins terms the Global South. Places like Nigeria and Uganda which are much more theologically and socially conservative. There have been break off movements here in the states and there are a number of "continuing" churches outside of the ECUSA which is the official representative of the Anglican Communion in this country. It's a church with a number of serious issues dividing it now. I think this article which appeared in First Things highlights many of the current problems and root causes - The Episcopalian Preference (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0311/articles/turner.html). The article was written by an Episcopal priest.

[benedictine]

Schism in our church is a difficult subject. I do not wish to see the Anglican Communion torn into two or more different groups. At the same time; however, it may or may not be possible to reconcile the differences between the clergy and laity that support, and those that do not support the ordination of homosexuals.

One of the good things about Anglicanism has always been that we are able to have differences, and still remain in commuion with each other. This issue is actually a group of issues becouse it not only concerns homosexual ordination, but also the greater issues of homosexuality and exclusivality. It also brings back the issue of womens ordination, which the church was able to survive, with only a realitivly small group within the church breaking away.

Regarding the position of the Archbishop of Cantebury, bfoos is correct. If schism occurs, Archbishop Williams must choose between the majority of ECUSA members, or a minority that agrees with the majority of Anglican Bishops around the world.

This issue may cause a rift in the Anglican Communion, or it may not.

-Gods Peace.

[PaladinValer]

It won't split.

[The Midge]

Never mind ECUSA ++ Rowan has his own Evangelicals to think of- he is in danger of losing if not the most wealthy section of the CofE a big chunk of the most vocal, active and financialy supportive members. The potential split is not just between the North/ South. Much of the English Church sees the ECUSA as being out on a limb.
Money should not be driving the decision making apparatus of the Church.
Today there are reports in the papers of blessings of gay marriages in the US Church. This kind of independent action is not the way either side of the debate should conduct business.

[artybloke]

I'm a communicant member of the English Anglican church, and I fully support ECUSA. If we had that in this country, I might even return to attending an Anglican church full time.

[TomUK]

Personally i echo the Archbishop of Canterbury's views, and am dismayed that ECUSA has totally disregarded the Eames Commision and has steamrolled on with the blessing of same-sex marriages. For the Anglican communion to split with the ECUSA would be an awful thing, but i must admit that i am approaching the view that it is a necessary thing to do.

[Father Rick]

The following is from the ENS (Episcopal News Service) regarding what is happening in Robinson's diocese...


[ENS] Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire spoke to ENS's Matthew Davies about the decision of members from the Church of the Redeemer, Rochester, to break away from the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. The following is an edited transcript of the interview:

DAVIES: Could you give me some background about the Church of the Redeemer? Is this the first time that the parish has contested diocesan actions or decisions by the bishop?

ROBINSON: Interestingly, this congregation has been in conflict with the bishop for about the last 40 years ... over everything from the prayer book to the ordination of women, and now over this.

DAVIES: What have you tried to do to reach out to them and achieve reconciliation?

ROBINSON: I have been working with this congregation which, from the very beginning, has been somewhat opposed to my consecration. My reaching out to them goes back several months and I must say that the congregation was split about half and half and those people who favored my election and consecration were--according to them--made to feel unwelcome and most of them left to join other local Episcopal Churches. So that left about 30 people, some 25 of whom were opposed to my consecration.

I went to the congregation April 5 to hear from them what it was they wanted in terms of Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO). I waited until after the House of Bishops meeting so that we would have a process. They described to me what they wanted and I offered to send them 20 or more names of bishops that I could recommend to them whom I knew to have voted "no" on my consent at convention or to be conservative on this issue. One of the names that I had proposed to them was the Bishop of Northern Indiana, Ed Little, who was in my small group at the House of Bishops meeting. I asked him if he'd be willing to provide this kind of oversight because I knew that he was a person I could trust absolutely implicitly--and to my knowledge they never called him.

DAVIES: So the parish ultimately wanted to choose their own bishop without your recommendations?

ROBINSON: Correct. So they wrote back to me and said that they would only accept a "network" bishop and so, over the next several weeks, I prayed about this and prayed about how far I could go in giving them what they said they wanted while still being true to my ordination vows and in fulfillment of all the canons. I would not relinquish to anyone the responsibilities that are rightfully mine as a bishop, and I came to the place where I decided that I would go out on a limb and I would allow a network bishop to come into the diocese.

I called Bishop Dan Herzog of Albany to see if he would be willing to sit down with me and talk about this possibility. And I was honest with him and said that I only have two bottom lines. One is that I can't let anyone in here who is going to undermine my authority as the bishop of jurisdiction and I cannot let anyone in here who is going to assist Church of the Redeemer leaving the Episcopal Church. But if you can assure me of those two things then I think that we can work together. He graciously said that he would be willing to meet with me and he felt that he could work within those guidelines. He only wanted to know who the priest-in-charge was going to be.

So I then prayed some more and decided that I would explore the possibility of talking with Don Wilson, who is the priest that Bishop Theuner let go and revoked his license to officiate in the diocese some months ago. I knew the parish would love to have him back and I knew that he loved and cared for the people of that congregation. And so I met with him and asked him the same questions: could he go in without undermining my authority. And he said that he could do that.

Last night [June 23] I went to present this proposal to them to tell them that indeed I could meet their request for a network bishop to become their visiting bishop for pastoral oversight and that I was willing to reinstate Don Wilson's license in the Diocese of New Hampshire and as their priest-in-charge. The only thing I was asking in return was the smallest thread of a relationship because DEPO is founded on the notion that this is a temporary measure in order to restore reconciliation between the bishop and the congregation; and that kind of reconciliation can't happen if we never meet.

What became very clear over the course of the evening was that they were not even willing to settle for the tiniest thread of a relationship and so I pointed out to them that what they were saying to me is that they didn't want to be Episcopalian. We are called the Episcopal Church because we have bishops and we are an association of congregations through the bishop. Without a relationship with the diocesan bishop, it's not the Episcopal Church.

So I'd given them their own bishop--Bishop Herzog was one of the three bishops that they had asked me to appoint--so, I'd given them that. I'd given them the priest that they had wanted and virtually everything else except for this tiniest thread of relationship.

The two things that I was not prepared to compromise on: a visitation once every three years, and I promised that I would put that visitation in the last three months of this first three year period. So I was not even proposing to make a visitation until early in 2007. Secondly, they wanted, in the deployment process, to choose their own priest without any input or approval from the diocesan bishop. I pointed out to them that there is no church within the Episcopal Church that has that right because the national and diocesan canons state that the bishop must approve and I tried to point out to them that when a clergy comes into the diocese I have responsibilities to them and for them, and I have liabilities should something go wrong.

I also assured them that I would be happy for the visiting network bishop to be a part of that deployment process and to offer names and so on. So, I really feel that I was bending over backwards to give them everything I possibly could while holding onto the absolute minimum relationship between us and ultimately, they said that they would not accept that. And at a dramatic moment, all got up, threw their church keys on the table and left.

DAVIES: On a personal level, how does all this make you feel?

ROBINSON: I try to keep this separate from my own personal life. I know that this is not necessarily about Gene Robinson. It is about the larger issues of scriptural interpretation; about the whole issue of homosexuality, but we are believers in the incarnation and it's not always easy to separate the issues from the people who embody them.

DAVIES: You spoke about receiving support from the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop Robin Eames.

ROBINSON: I received those two letters of support with respect to the first offer I made, when I sent the names of 22 bishops. I copied the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archbishop Eames of Ireland because I wanted them to know that what they had been told--that liberal dioceses were persecuting conservatives within their diocese--is simply not true. And I wanted them to know how I was trying to meet their needs. So I got these notes back thanking me for my generosity of spirit in this proposal. That was my first proposal! This one went so much further than even that one.

DAVIES: What are your hopes for the future of this parish?

ROBINSON: Well now that they have resigned and we are looking after the congregation, we will provide worship there every Sunday. We are looking forward to this coming Sunday for worship in the Episcopal tradition and we look forward to growing this congregation. The city of Rochester has people in great need. It is one of the places in the state that has terrible education problems and there are not many other Episcopal Churches around that area so we really want an Episcopal community there. We are looking forward to growing this community and preaching the good news to those who have not heard it.

We are actually very excited about the possibilities for the future in this place, and as I said to them last night: I don't worry for the future of Redeemer; this is God's church and God will take care of the future. All we have to do is follow him as closely as we can.

DAVIES: Is there anything else you would like to add?

ROBINSON: I just want to say that I am heartbroken over this and I think God is heartbroken over it. Will this be the start of an actually split?

[PaladinValer]

No.

The problem that unfortunately even members of the Anglican Communion don't seem to quite understand is that each province is indepedent. It is our diversity and willingness to be open to all people is what makes the Anglican Communion so unique.

Unfortunately, and I mean no offense to anyone, but a lot of the ultra-conservatives both in and outside the ECUSA province have either ignored or forgotten this vital part of our Church and, IMO, are the ones who are threatening schism, not the ECUSA.

[Merseymike]

I don't know if there will be a split, but I think the Anglican Communion will undoubtedly disintegrate or become a much looser federation. That would not be a bad thing.

Within the Church of England, there may be ways that we can continue to co-exist, but I and others who wish to see the full acceptance of gay people within the church will not stop until that aim has been reached, so if conservatives wish to try to throw us out, they will have to do just that if they seek a church without our input.

[Yahweh Nissi]

Within the Church of England, there may be ways that we can continue to co-exist, but I and others who wish to see the full acceptance of gay people within the church will not stop until that aim has been reached, so if conservatives wish to try to throw us out, they will have to do just that if they seek a church without our input.
That is a somewhat disingenius phrase to use. I wish for the full acceptance of gay people within the church. I also think that the Bible is very clear IMO, in both specific texts and general tone, that sexual acts should be between a married man and wife only; and that ministers of the church should uphold this.

God bless,
YN.

[Merseymike]

Then that isn't full acceptance, because I , along with most other gay people , are not celibate - in my case I live with my partner and have done so for over 12 years. At my church, which we attend together, it isn't a problem - we are accepted. If our relationship isn't accepted and welcomed, then I don't regard that as acceptance.

[Polycarp1]

The whole issue -- the need to be affirming and supportive of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, and the concern for schism by our conservative brothers and sisters -- is one that touches me deeply. And there are no quick and easy answers. But it occurs to me that the Anglican tradition of holding apparently contradictory conceptions in creative tension and working out the truth from the results, is what will save us from going wrong either way.

[TomUK]

Within the Church of England, there may be ways that we can continue to co-exist, but I and others who wish to see the full acceptance of gay people within the church will not stop until that aim has been reached, so if conservatives wish to try to throw us out, they will have to do just that if they seek a church without our input.

As i mentioned above however, why can't the liberal wings of the church simply respect the Archbishop of Canterbury and wait until the Eames Commision has reported before pushing agendas?

[Polycarp1]

As i mentioned above however, why can't the liberal wings of the church simply respect the Archbishop of Canterbury and wait until the Eames Commision has reported before pushing agendas?
The same, with the names changed to protect the self-righteous, holds true for the Episcopal Church in America.

[PaladinValer]

I agree that it should have perhaps waited, but since our General Convention would have been "earlier" anyhow, it wouldn't have mattered much.

Perhaps my province should have waited a year for it to have its General Convention? I dunno, but we'll have have to wait now.

[Merseymike]

If the conservative wing were prepared to do the same, I would have a little more sympathy with that viewpoint - but the sort of material they have been putting out and their newly formed campaign groups such as 'Anglican 'Mainstream' (sic) shows that they have no intention of doing that, and would rather we weren't part of the church at all. You must realise that we are hardly starting from a level playing field.

Not all evangelicals take this view, and i know some think that somehow we will have to accomodate each other whilst continuing to dusagree, in order to remain as one denomination. I'm talking specifically about the CofE there, I have already said that I see no future for the Communion as it is currently structured.

[PaladinValer]

The Anglican Communion is structured well-enough. I personally would not want to see a congregationalist-type Anglican Communion and, in fact, I'd like to see us develop more of a Communion like the Eastern Orthodox Church.

[Merseymike]

I just don't think that would work given the very wide range of theological difference within Anglicanism - which isn't the case within Orthodoxy. I think there would end up being two totally separate Communions.

What actually exists at the moment is supposedly a Communion which is actually more like a federation in practice, with each province governing its own affairs. I think if we are to retain links, then the provinces must be able to respond to their own situations, within a looser knit federation, and this may well mean more flexible patterns of oversight and so on.

Alternately, we could simply face the fact that we have people within Anglicanism who believe essentially different things, and go our separate ways without rancour or unpleasantness - which doesn't benefit anyone.

[PaladinValer]

The provinces, as they are, are independent from each other.

I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say. My apologies if I sound dense; perhaps I am :(

[Rev. Smith]

I am a mediator by trade, and an Old Catholic clergyman. If any Episcopal or Anglican Church feels that haveing an outsider (but one in full communion with the Anglican church) would be helpful in resolveing conflicts of beliefe vs. duty to the episcopal chair I'd be happy to assist.

As other have noted splits may be unavoidable, but I feel they should not be permitted until every avenue has been explored.

Yours in Christ,

[Inge87]

I must agree with MerseyMike. The same could even be said about the ECUSA. The differences vary greatly from diocese to diocese and even from parish to parish. I'll be the first to admit that I have am not the most unbiased observer, seeing as I come from one of the most conservative areas in the ECUSA (Fort Worth still doesn't ordinate women), but I cannot see a way out of some form or variation of schism. The differences are simply too great and the beliefs too deeply engrained. This is where the pride comes in and no one will want to back down and be seen as a coward. That is my personal opinion.

[PaladinValer]

Inge87, what ever happened to the long-standing Anglican tradition of diversity and inclusiveness (not in terms of sexual orientation but in opinions)?

I have no problem having Communion with those who disagree with my theology; be they very liberal or very conservative. What is the most important is that we are One in Christ; members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Take those away and you won't have Anglicanism anymore; they are too central and too vital to the character, flavor, and history of Anglicanism for it to be without.

[Merseymike]

Paladin ; I would have agreed with you almost completely until relatively recently. But I honestly don't believe that some of the conservatives wish to share a church with liberals any longer.

That being the case, I am uncertain about the future of the broad church which, certainly here in the UK, Anglicanism has always represented.

[TomUK]

PV, i totally agree with you in that intergral to our Anglican idenity is our diversity. I often find it very warming to share an altar rail with someone whom i disagree with theologically, but there must come a point where accepting the diversity of the church would lead you to compromise your own beliefs. A modern example is that many Christians would not share in a Eucharist presided over by a women Priest- that is not to say that i don't feel the Anglican church should open its arms wide for all regardless of gender, race etc. and i revel in the fact that the church is so diverse, but to participate in such Eucharist would be contrary to the personal opinions and beliefs held by many Christians.

But I honestly don't believe that some of the conservatives wish to share a church with liberals any longer.
Merseymike, your post makes it sound as if it is purely the conservative branch of the church which is causing the divisions, which clearly is not the case.

[Inge87]

The make-up of the ECUSA resembles the political make-up of our country in that it is gradually forming two distinct groups who share few common beliefs and argue a lot. It is very difficult to look up to and respect someone whom you belive is committing a sin.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Wherever you wish to place the blame for current disagreements, the fact remains that it's the conservatives who are saying they cannot co-exist with the liberals - not the other way round.

It was ever thus. I am perfectly willing to respect the genuineness of the faith of the fundamentalist - but they are often unwilling to repay the compliment.

[Colabomb]

I mean no offense to anyone. But I would like to speak up as a conservative.

This is not an issue of the Close-minded "Ew Homosexuality is Yucky" but an issue of "Oh no, sin is becoming acceptable in the Church."

For Conservatives, this is not an issue of what we prefer, but what is Right.

[TomUK]

Wherever you wish to place the blame for current disagreements, the fact remains that it's the conservatives who are saying they cannot co-exist with the liberals - not the other way round.

It was ever thus. I am perfectly willing to respect the genuineness of the faith of the fundamentalist - but they are often unwilling to repay the compliment.

First of all, to be a conservative isn't the same as being a fundamentalist - i would class myself as a conservative and also believe that the fundamental movement is potentially very damaging for the church.

I wasn't trying to place blame at all, and i didn't mean it to sound as if i was. I was merely stating that the current disagreements within the church are perpetuated by all the different ideologies and stances. I also disagree with your statement that it is the conservatives who are unwilling to co-exist with the liberals and not the other way around. It is liberals who are determined to push through these reforms which fly in the face of 2000 years of tradition within the church, not the conservatives.

[PaladinValer]

Both liberals and conservatives (not speaking in generalities but in portions of each) are guilty of splitting the Church do to their own egos: some liberals don't want to share in the Eucharist with "oppressive" conservatives and some conservatives don't want to share in the "regressive" liberals.

I'm a moderate who has some liberal and some conservative elements. I believe I can see where each side is coming from, yet I don't necessarily agree with each side 100%. But I am willing to share Holy Communion with all because deep within each is a faith in the Christ and a choice to follow Him as best as possible.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Experience tells me otherwise. When did you last see a liberal accuse a conservative of being a "so-called Christian"? Happens frequently the other way round.

I was not equating conservative and fundamentalist; I was using fundamentalist to mean "extreme conservative".

We on the liberal side are making our voices heard about what we deeply believe should happen in the church. It is not us who are saying "...and so there is no room for you." What would you have us do? Remain silent whilst women and homosexuals are sidelined and rejected? That would compromise our deepest beliefs about what Christianity is about!

It is this impasse which, I believe, makes MM probably right that the unity of the Anglican communion is in great danger.

[Colabomb]

Experience tells me otherwise. When did you last see a liberal accuse a conservative of being a "so-called Christian"? Happens frequently the other way round.

I was not equating conservative and fundamentalist; I was using fundamentalist to mean "extreme conservative".

We on the liberal side are making our voices heard about what we deeply believe should happen in the church. It is not us who are saying "...and so there is no room for you." What would you have us do? Remain silent whilst women and homosexuals are sidelined and rejected? That would compromise our deepest beliefs about what Christianity is about!

It is this impasse which, I believe, makes MM probably right that the unity of the Anglican communion is in great danger.
You have the right to practice your faith as you will. If you believe that homosexuality is acceptable, you have that right.

You have no right to force it on conservatives,and to judge them for objecting.

Is it fair to expect conservatives to throw away everything they believe, and 2000 years of Christian Teaching just because you (general) believe differently?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm not asking them to do any of these things.

It is they who equate being in the same church as people who hold liberal beliefs with compromising their own.

How is it that supporting the ordination of (for example) Gene Robinson is "forcing my beliefs on them" whilst the conservative attacks on the appointment of Jeffrey John, and attempts to prevent it, are not?

Let's not pretend it's just the evil liberals trying to force their agenda on everyone else. Every time a church passes resolutions A-C, they are forcing their agenda on women priests.

[Merseymike]

The point is, Colabomb, is that whilst you say that we can practice our faith as we wish, are you prepared to be in a church which accepts that way of practicing the faith? Its not forcing you to do so, but would be an acceptable option.

I think this is where the problems lie, and I do think, if we are going to be able to remain within the same denomination, that there will have to be mutual acceptance of different practices and beliefs within the same Church. Otherwise, the arguments and strife are likely to continue.

[Colabomb]

The point is, Colabomb, is that whilst you say that we can practice our faith as we wish, are you prepared to be in a church which accepts that way of practicing the faith? Its not forcing you to do so, but would be an acceptable option.

I think this is where the problems lie, and I do think, if we are going to be able to remain within the same denomination, that there will have to be mutual acceptance of different practices and beliefs within the same Church. Otherwise, the arguments and strife are likely to continue.
No. That is my point.

Why should those who hold to an Historic faith, have to put up with these changes, because someone else, who puts forth a new doctrine, doesn't like how things are done?

[bfoos]

This has moved to yet another very interesting thread.

Fundamentally, we in America hold to a freedom of religion--practice what religion you will, etc. What the conservatives are saying, as I understand it, is that the liberal agenda, as they see it, has nothing to do with the religion, Christianity.

So, one can understand the conservatives difficulty in being part of a broad Church that accepts things/issues/theology, etc. that the conservatives do not think are a part of the Church at all.

The liberals, of course, see their issues as being part of what the Christian message is about. Is it new? Yes, let's be honest, it is new. Do the liberals hold deeply these beliefs? Yes, they do. Do they have the right to do so? Again, yes--at least in America.

The issue is, can the Church stand when obviously, the religion is very much different from one side to the other? The liberals want to say yes, we can stand, join us conservatives. The conservatives say no, we cannot have these elements, otherwise, we cease, at some point, in some relevant way, to be the Church.

This can be misleading though. It makes the conservatives look mean-spirited. The liberals can also be rather mean spirited--as in forcing women's ordination upon people who don't want it, etc. This is really a way for the liberals to remove the elements that they do not like in the broad Church.

There is a fundamental difference in religious belief in a small part of the Anglican Church. This small part happens to be the historical intellectual and economic center of Anglicanism. It still is the economic part, but many will be challenging the intellectual part. Since it has this historic position, this relatively small part of Anglicanism is causing all sorts of chaos for the communion as a whole.

There is no intellectually honest way to get around the fact that there are really almost two seperate religions here. That is an extreme way to put it, but the beliefs held on each side are very important to both sides and they can, in no way be compromised without losing the belief.

The question then turns to what we all have in common. Now, keep in mind, if the common things are rejected by one side or another, then we truly have different religions. The common things are the core apostolic teachings of the Gospel. The common things are those things which are found in the Creeds, that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all.

Our discussion must be based at least on the articles of the creed, or we will get nowhere fast. Those articles will then guide us in our views of the rest of scripture and the practice of the Church.

This is not something I made up, but this is the way the Church has dealt with issues for 2000 years. To be Catholic is to be a part of this historical process. To be Catholic is first of all, to recite the Creeds with a heart of faith. To be Catholic is not to have warm fuzzies about everything and everyone, nor is it to be something other than protestant.

I believe it was Chesterton who asked (paraphrase), What is the opposite of Catholic belief?


The answer is not Protestant.


The answer is Heresy.



The Broad Church must be Catholic (in the Creedal sense), or it is not the Church.

[Caedmon]

This two-part question is more for the "conservative" Anglicans:

(1) If the new pastor of your parish was a woman, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

(2) If the new pastor of your parish was a practicing homosexual, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

[Inge87]

(1) If the new pastor of your parish was a woman, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?
I would be open to the woman, and would wait and see if her beliefs were similar to mine before deciding whether or not to leave. I had a chaplain in school who was a woman and (obviously) have nothing against the sex itself. I'd be more comfortable with a male pastor, but I'm a flexible person.


(2) If the new pastor of your parish was a practicing homosexual, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?
I would definately move. I am of the opinion that homosexuality is a deadly sin, so I would not be able to have a spiritual leader, who is breaking one of my deaply held beliefs. There is no way that would work.

[BarbB]

This two-part question is more for the "conservative" Anglicans:

(1) If the new pastor of your parish was a woman, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

(2) If the new pastor of your parish was a practicing homosexual, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

At the Episcopal Church my step-daughter attends, the assoc. rector is a woman. No problem for her. Then she comes out as a lesbian. Ok, maybe not so happy here. Now comes the news that the Rector is leaving for another parish and the lesbian assoc. rector is taking over. By this time the congregation is 40% homosexual and are giving praise aloud that they met the love of their lives at that church. OK - that's it and my step-daughter is leaving. As you can see, she in no way is anti-female nor is she a homophobe. She is leaving because it is way out of the normal now! What a shame. Personally the more I understood the salvation process the more resistant I was to a woman rector. The practicing homosexual was way out of the question. :(

[PaladinValer]

So all churches must be run by pietists? That's montanism, if I'm not mistaken.

[sakamuyo]

I would sit under a woman. I would not sit under a pastor who continued living and promoting a lifestyle of sexuality outside of marriage (marriage defined as between a man and a woman).

On another note, I will fellowship with anyone who confesses Christ as Savior (understanding Christ as in the Apostle's Creed - those who profess a different Christ are a different issue). However, uniting in fellowship does not mean I agree with you. If the disagreement is large enough or over a large enough issue, I may even choose to not be formally associated with you. I won't judge you as "not christian", but I may decide to not associate.

If another church in my denomination decides to change the rules, that does effect me. Telling me I need to just accept their new opinion/interpretation is not always appropriate. If it's a matter of worship style, I'm likely to not worry about it. When it starts affecting sacraments (like changing the definition of marriage), I reserve the right to disassociate.

[Polycarp1]

I mean no offense to anyone. But I would like to speak up as a conservative.

This is not an issue of the Close-minded "Ew Homosexuality is Yucky" but an issue of "Oh no, sin is becoming acceptable in the Church."

For Conservatives, this is not an issue of what we prefer, but what is Right.
The problem, my friend, is right where you've targeted it -- but on both sides of the fence. Because based on the Two Great Commandments and the implication of Jesus's parables, the Liberal side of the argument holds firm that it and not the Conservative faction is doing what is Right -- that Christ's Church is a haven for all who feel called to it, and not a club where we can decide membership requirements. A non-celibate gay person, to take the "elephant hiding behind the drapery" in this thread, is welcome as a full member and even leader under these standards -- not because we "condone sin" but because we see the definition of sin as other than sexual moral standards laid down by others as mandative on them, but rather that which separates an individual from God.

[Colabomb]

The problem, my friend, is right where you've targeted it -- but on both sides of the fence. Because based on the Two Great Commandments and the implication of Jesus's parables, the Liberal side of the argument holds firm that it and not the Conservative faction is doing what is Right -- that Christ's Church is a haven for all who feel called to it, and not a club where we can decide membership requirements. A non-celibate gay person, to take the "elephant hiding behind the drapery" in this thread, is welcome as a full member and even leader under these standards -- not because we "condone sin" but because we see the definition of sin as other than sexual moral standards laid down by others as mandative on them, but rather that which separates an individual from God. A homosexual is a homosexual because they are choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle.

There is no such thing as a "non-practicing" homosexual.

And no, I am not laying down a sexual moral standard. I am simply stating what the Scriptures and the Church has taught for 2,000 years. Intentional disregard for HIS Standards, does separate someone from God.

[Polycarp1]

This two-part question is more for the "conservative" Anglicans:

(1) If the new pastor of your parish was a woman, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

(2) If the new pastor of your parish was a practicing homosexual, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?
As I have mentioned before in other threads, the full-time clergy of my church are a married couple. And we called the wife as our rector, adding her husband as associate rector as soon as adequate funding to make him full-time was available. They make clergy decisions as a team, working with the vestry in a conciliar relationship, except for those rare occasions when she, as Rector, is required by canon law to make the decisions defined as calling for the Rector's authority -- and I'm quite confident that they discuss these together before she makes the formal statement.

As for a non-celibate gay Rector, I would personally have no problem with one. It would depend on his pastoral and preaching style whether I felt comfortable as a member of the church for whom he is the clerical authority. I might note that our clergy couple are both members of Integrity, the organization for gay church members and those who support them in their quest for full inclusion in church life -- as I would be if I had adequate discretionary money to pay the membership fees.

[pmcleanj]

A homosexual is a homosexual because they are choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle.
What is, "the homosexual lifestyle"?

Two spinster ladies live across the street. They commute to their jobs at 7 a.m. and return home at 5:30 to have supper together. They weed their garden on the weekends. They go camping on their vacations. They paint their bungalow every five years, and put up lights at Christmas and hand out treats at Hallowe'en. The lights in their house go out at about 11 p.m. and they have small dinner-parties two or three times a year.

Is theirs "the homosexual lifestyle"? It seems pretty much like my lifestyle.

[PaladinValer]

A homosexual is a homosexual because they are choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle.
What lifestyle is that? Being prim and proper? Having a sense of class and being neat? Or perhaps some other stereotypical product about homosexuals?

There is no such thing as a "non-practicing" homosexual.
This is false.

And no, I am not laying down a sexual moral standard. I am simply stating what the Scriptures and the Church has taught for 2,000 years. Intentional disregard for HIS Standards, does separate someone from God.
This would be an interesting debate...unfortunately, I doubt it would be welcome here.

[Polycarp1]

A homosexual is a homosexual because they are choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle.

There is no such thing as a "non-practicing" homosexual.

And no, I am not laying down a sexual moral standard. I am simply stating what the Scriptures and the Church has taught for 2,000 years. Intentional disregard for HIS Standards, does separate someone from God.
With all due respect, the gay men and women I know personally use the definition of sexual orientation to define "homosexual," not your personal choice of how to exclude them. And they're universal that the orientation is not a choice. Going any further would take us into a debate on homosexuality, which Erwin has restricted to three forums that do not include STR. But suffice it to say that ECUSA and several other Anglican churches are affirming of their gay members and do not use your definition, REC can do as it pleases, and we don't need to beat this issue into the ground in this forum.

[Colabomb]

What is, "the homosexual lifestyle"?

Two spinster ladies live across the street. They commute to their jobs at 7 a.m. and return home at 5:30 to have supper together. They weed their garden on the weekends. They go camping on their vacations. They paint their bungalow every five years, and put up lights at Christmas and hand out treats at Hallowe'en. The lights in their house go out at about 11 p.m. and they have small dinner-parties two or three times a year.

Is theirs "the homosexual lifestyle"? It seems pretty much like my lifestyle.
Are you and the lady involved in a romantic relationship?

Polycarp (I like how you bold names) no, I am not being stereotypical. I know a homosexual, I have never noticed him act in the stereotypical "chic homosexual" manner to which you are referring.

What I mean referring to the homosexual lifestyle, is being actively involved in a homosexual relationship which may or may not include homosexual sex.

What I mean by saying there is no such thing as a non-practicing homosexual is that homosexuality is a sin of action.

A person may have an attraction to the same sex, but as long as they realize that homosexuality is wrong, and do not involve themselves in the homosexual lifestyle (as described above) that person is not a homosexual.

I may feel the urge to lie to someone, but I am not a liar until I tell the lie.

My father has warned me to be careful about getting in debates such as these, as I have a tendency to become arguementative, with respect to all involved, I am going to leave this discussion with the comment, that Scripture indicates that homosexual sex, is sinful. It actually is referred to as an Abomination.

God Bless

[pmcleanj]

Are you and the lady involved in a romantic relationship?.

No, my relationship with the two ladies whom I described is neighbourly, not romantic. What led you to ask? My only romantic relationship is with my husband.

What I mean referring to the homosexual lifestyle, is being actively involved in a homosexual relationship which may or may not include homosexual sex.

The relationship of the two ladies in my example; who share a home, household tasks, financial responsibility, social engagements and vacations, is homo (i.e. "same") -sexual. To whit, they are both women. As evidenced by the mutual activities I described, they are actively involved in their relationship. Their relationship may or may not include homosexual sex since, like me and their other heterosexual neighbours, they keep their sex-lives, if any, discreetly private. So, they do meet the letter of what you define as "the homosexual lifestyle".

What I'm wondering is, how is that "lifestyle" different from the heterosexual "lifestyle". Actually, I'm just objecting to the usage of the term "lifestyle", which is often used to invite the readers imagination to fill in exotic details, while being a vague enough term to escape critical examination.

I understand "lifestyle" to include the totality of the choices a person makes about how to live his life, together with the ethics and aesthetics that inform those choices. When we talk about the "jetsetter lifestyle" or the "modern urban lifestyle" or -- at least in principle -- the "Christian lifestyle" we are alluding to a *common* set of choices, ethics and aesthetics that that group shares. In contrast, you won't find people talking about "the African-American lifestyle" or "the university-educated lifestyle" or "the Wallstreet-Journal-reader lifestyle" because there is simply not enough commonality in the choices, ethics and values of any of those arbitrary groupings, to define a "lifestyle".

If asked what are the commonalities that define the modern urban lifestyle, I could take a stab at identifying those commonalities. So, when I read "the XYZ lifestyle", I understand the writer of that phrase to be averring that "XYZ" -- in this case, homosexual persons -- show a commonality of some sort in their choices and values. And my observation is, to the contrary, that homosexual persons' choices and values are as diverse as among any arbitrary grouping.

[seebs]

This is the first I've seen of an interview or discussion with Robinson, and I found it very enlightening. I'd love to meet him someday.

[Caedmon]

OK, if the Anglican Church were to split into different churches, which churches would those be, and what would be their positions? Would any of the splinter churches join together?

[PaladinValer]

It won't split if they are truly Anglicans.

[Polycarp1]

Amen to that!!

Caedmon, I've seen a lot of press, and talked to a lot of Episcopalians, on this issue. And I think I can reliably predict what will happen. The efforts of that renegade priest in Sewickley PA to subvert the church organization to his faction's particular position will fail miserably. They've been exposed and will definitely be defeated.

The attempts of the ACC (the organization of the conservative wing within the church) will have some effect in creating some healthy dialogue. In particular, Bishop Dan Herzog of Albany (NY) will become a leading voice, despite probably not wanting the role, simply because he can and does understand both sides of the issue, and can speak for what has been Anglican tradition. And he is a brilliant man, scholarly and pious, and a professional at the skills of human dynamics before becoming bishop. It's one of the great blessings of my life to have known him.

Eventually, at most 10% to 15% of the church will likely schism -- my own hunch is that the number will be smaller. Many conservative Episcopalians will remain with the church despite misgivings about what's been happening. The schismatic group will quickly fall into further schism, as the similar group did in 1979, there being a great deal of egotism in its leaders. The less egocentric among them will unite with the REC/APA group or the AMiA; the others will become large frogs in extremely small puddles.

And it is the common people in the pews who will pay the penalty for the arguments of the leaders. And that to me is the biggest tragedy of the whole thing.

[Polycarp1]

I gave my personal assessment for ECUSA and America above. I'd love to see a Brit do a similar one for the Church of England -- how much support does the Evangelical Alliance or whatever it is they're calling themselves have? -- and Australian, Canadian, or Scottish forum members are cordially invited to comment for their areas.

I wouldn't want to even try to guess what it means for the Anglican Communion as a whole. The Orthodox have had a lot of experience with "fractured communion" -- where one national church's leaders are not in communion with another's but both are in communion with a third's. Maybe some insight from a passing Orthodox as to what may bode for the future of the AC would be valuable.

[thejesusfish90]

G'day Policarp1

Im from a Low Conservative church in the Sydney Diocese. In Australia, particualrly my diocese, which i think is part of the evangelical alliance if its the group thats opposing the ordination of practisioning homosexual ministers and blessing homosexual unions there is alot of opposition towards these issues. I really cant see a subsantial Anglican church remaining if this recieves the backing of the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury), and isn't abolished. I really have never heard of a church or diocese in Australia which condones the practices let alone, performs them...Like your have said previously, though there may be a majority supporting these things in america, the really is quite an opposition in alot of other countries, Australia happens to be one of them...I think there was an oppinion poll taken a little while ago, 77% of the people surveyed (not just christians, just ordinary australians) were opposed to the ordaining of practising homosexual ministers...Be intersted to hear, what things are like elsewhere in the world...

In Christ

Chris

[Labayu]

This two-part question is more for the "conservative" Anglicans:

(1) If the new pastor of your parish was a woman, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

(2) If the new pastor of your parish was a practicing homosexual, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

1) Depend if she was hot or not! Seriously though I'd have no problem because I don't belive being a women is a sin.

2) Move, because I do belive being a practicing homosexual is being in a lifestyle of sin- just as if the new pastor was in a sexual realtionship with a member of the opposite sex he wasn't married to and didn't belive he was sinning, or if he (or she!) viewed porn regulally and didn't belive they were sinning- I presume the imaginary practising gay pastor doesn't think he's sinning?

The CoE's (church of england) wealthest, highest number (member's wise) churches are conservative- they pretty much bankrole most of the CoE. Most (not all) of the CoE liberal churches are fairly small, generally older member wise and don't generate the same amount of money even on a per head basis (cos liberal's are less prone to tithe- not having a go, just the way the theology works)...

...To tell the truth it's not much of a choice, most of the non-christain's I know (yes even the gay ones!) think that the "pro-practicing-homosexual" idea from liberal christains is an insult to intellegence!

But I wouldn't have a problem taking communion with a practising homosexual, any more than with someone whoose addicted to internet porn- just stricter rules for those in authority.

[thejesusfish90]

I'm with Labayu

However, I dont know how i'd be able to handle a women pastor, as i've never had one...Her views for the rest pretty much sum up mine...though I think that in America there is probably a larger majority of liberal churches, than what you allude to...No matter how it happens the split will hurt the anglican church...both in members, and monetarily...(though money really should never be a top priority in a church)...I've never heard how the situation in England is though...Is there a majority of conservative churches in England Labayu...Or is diocese dependant like America?

Your Brother in Christ

Chris

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

It's very hard to know what the concensus is. I'd imagine that there are fewer Evangelical churches than liberal or MOR ones, but many of the Evangelical ones, especially in cities, are very large, and in some cases, very wealthy. (Holy Trinity Brompton, home of Nicky Gumbel and Alpha, is sometimes called "The Church That Likes To Say 'Ya!'")

Further complications are that not all Evangelical Anglicans are opposed to homosexual practice. It's a bit of an assumption, but it doesn't necessary follow. I even know an evangelical baptist who isn't convinced the Bible prohibits monogamous homosexual relationships. :eek: - but I'm fairly sure I saw him on a specialist farm for Rare Breeds.... ;)

The evangelical churches fall into two camps - the generally charismatic Evangelical Alliance types, and the more traditional evangelical Reform types. The former is much larger. There is also Forward in Faith, but this is a traditionalist Anglo-Catholic organisation - also known by some cynics as Fundies in Frocks.

I think some of the big evangelical churches might possibly secede. There already are, and have been for some time, rumblings about refusing to pay quotas when there are things the diocese is doing that they don't approve of. This would mean little change in practice; most of these churches' services more resemble those of independent Charismatic churches than a MOR Anglican service, and they look mostly outside of the CofE for inspiration. One gets the impression from some of them that they would find it a relief to be free of the remnants of Anglican liturgy and vestements they still have to use anyway.

The Reform end is possibly more likely to secede, because doctrine is so very important to them. They are a bit thin on the ground though in reality.

FiF types, if they can't get similar "no gay priests here" concessions to the ones they got on women priests will probably swim the Tiber. They might get a shock when they find how low down the candle most RC services are - it's not always realised how pre-Vatican II Anglo-Catholic practice is.

But these are just random thoughts. It's a long time ago that I was an EA type evangelical charismatic, and I can't recall ever being of the Reform ilk.

[Labayu]

Her views
I'm a him not a her :bow:

though I think that in America there is probably a larger majority of liberal churches, than what you allude to
Because 1) I'm English, 2) I'm talking about the Church of England


I'd say there are more liberal churches than conservative ones, but they tend to be smaller/less wealthy. Like Karl said about HTB...

...lots of older people go to CoE churches out of tradition and don't particulally belive in God. Also you get people who do belive quite conservativly with clergy who won't admit that they don't really belive (or have serious doubts) about the reserection, or Jesus even existing untill the members become lay staff (who then feel betrayed or like in a secret club)...

...unfortunatlly the CoE vicar factories often attract people who think that become a pastor will sort out their nagging doubts. They then "loose the faith" (some even becoming athestic) but refuse to leave their (often poorly paid) postion, because otherwise they'll have to do something else (and they often arn't qualifed to do anything else), not to mention the free houses!

And before anyone accuses me of going ott I am verywell aware of this going on in a huge scale in a certain diocees in particular- so it's pretty likely to be going on elsewhere. :cry:

[steviedee]

I am from the Continuing Church. We use the 28 BCP and do not permit the "ordination" of women. We are thankful NOT to be under the authority of the Archdruid of Canterbury. As far as ECUSA is concerned, it is dead.....believers need to get out and into a new province.:wave:

[pmcleanj]

We are thankful NOT to be under the authority of the (Archbishop) of Canterbury.
None of us outside of the See of Canterbury are under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

What we do give to the Archbishop (as to all Archbishops) is our respect, and we recognize +Rowan Williams as the senior prelate within the Anglican Communion. Respect is a good thing, even respect for people with whom you disagree.

So please forego using pejorative nicknames.

I see a great deal of life in ECUSA, especially from the wise and pious ECUSA members I meet here. I do not think we can sweepingly condemn the entire province to the grave. Far better that we should put our effort into encouraging their life. The church is not a zero-sum game where one branch can "win" only at the expense of another. But celebrate your joy in the communion you have found, and the rest of us will rejoice for you from within our own vibrant communities to which we are called.

[steviedee]

I understand your "good will" and ecumenism; however, right is right: he IS the ARCHDRUID of Canterbury---or do you forget that little ceremony he underwent before he was enthroned @Canterbury? He IS a druid....so 'pejorative name'would be incorrect.
Lesson 1 for liberals is that words mean things, and if "Archdruid" is not a nice word, "Archdruid" is not a nice thing to be for someone claiming to be a "Christian."
I'm sorry you reject my feelings on ECUSA. ECUSA is a hotbed of heresy, and believers need to get OUT. Sorry. I still believe Doctrine and Theology are major issues for Christians, even in this postmodern age.
Pardon my misuse of "authority." I was Roman Catholic for years and years and still use Roman terminology.
e

[pmcleanj]

I understand your "good will" and ecumenism; however, right is right: he IS the ARCHDRUID of Canterbury---or do you forget that little ceremony he underwent before he was enthroned @Canterbury? He IS a druid....so 'pejorative name'would be incorrect.
Lesson 1 for liberals is that words mean things, and if "Archdruid" is not a nice word, "Archdruid" is not a nice thing to be for someone claiming to be a "Christian."

Dr. Williams is a druid in the Gorsedd of the Bards -- a Welsh cultural society for the furthering of the arts in Wales. Canterbury is not in Wales, nor is the See of Canterbury related to the Gorsedd of the Bards, nor is Dr. Williams an "Archdruid". He is an Archbishop, and a poet, and your attempts to treat him as something else are offensive. To denigrate an Archbishop denigrates his See. Your statements regarding ECUSA denigrate that province. As such, they violate the rules of this forum.

Your post has been reported.

[PaladinValer]

stevie, did you even read the rules of this particular Anglican forum? Or the rules of CF en generale?

And furthermore:

1. The ABC is the first-among-equals in the AC. He has no direct juristinction in any other province in the AC besides his own. His voice caries a lot of weight, though, and I am honored...no...privileged for such a man of grace, integrity, and wisdom to be my first-among-equals.
2. Archbishop Rowan Williams isn't a Celtic Neopagan, so "archdruid" is a misleading and false title. If you want to meet a real current or former Neopagan archdruid, I suggest you contact Isaac Bonewits or Philip Garr-Gomm.
3. While it is true that bards were among the ancient clergy case of Celtic religion, today the title is merely one of secular vocation of music and poetry, nothing more. If this society wishes to use the word "druid" in this context, it is more than welcome to, as it is obvious it has no religious conotations at all. In short, they aren't real Celtic Neopagans; they simply love Celtic music and poetry.
4. Do you even know what "heresy" is? Nothing done recently in my ECUSA or its Canadian counterpart has ever been declared a heresy during the entire history of the Christian Church, period. You may disagree with it, and many folks in both those provinces do. But to call it "heresy" is not just out-of-bounds but a childish flame.
5. I too am reporting your abusive posts. I highly suggest you read the CF's official rules as well as the set of rules for this particular Anglican forum.

[thejesusfish90]

steviedeeI understand your "good will" and ecumenism; however, right is right: he IS the ARCHDRUID of Canterbury---or do you forget that little ceremony he underwent before he was enthroned @Canterbury? He IS a druid....so 'pejorative name'would be incorrect.
Lesson 1 for liberals is that words mean things, and if "Archdruid" is not a nice word, "Archdruid" is not a nice thing to be for someone claiming to be a "Christian."
I'm sorry you reject my feelings on ECUSA. ECUSA is a hotbed of heresy, and believers need to get OUT. Sorry. I still believe Doctrine and Theology are major issues for Christians, even in this postmodern age.
Pardon my misuse of "authority." I was Roman Catholic for years and years and still use Roman terminology.
e
Mate, if you want to voice an objection, or even critisicm of the Anglican Church as it is, then this is definately not how you do it...I dont support the actions of the liberal side of the church, but i still too have alot of respect for Archbishop Rowan Williams, it is no easy task to try and hold unity between one group who is pulling in one direction, and another group who is pulling in the other direction...If you object to the actions of the ABC, or the ECUSCA (as indeed is your right), then I ask if you could please do so in a way, which respects those around you, whilst still puts forward your objection...

Your Brother In Christ

Chris

[NewToLife]

As an ex-Anglican myself I feel a deep sympathy for those involved in this dispute within Anglicanism. It was beginning to reach a crisis point by the time of my conversion to Orthodoxy, though I did not leave Anglicanism over this matter but rather because of a conviction that Orthodoxy was correct.

Polycarp mentioned 'fractured communion' and the Orthodox experience of it, to be honest I do not believe that such an arrangement is a realistic solution to anglicanism's differences at this time. This is simply because there is a considerable gulf of belief between ( and even within ) the 3 wings of anglicanism, such a gulf does not really exist even between say the Eastern and Oriental orthodox which are not in communion but remain in schism even now ( though with God's will not for much longer ).

As an ex Anglican I would expect that Anglicanism will basically hold together with those who are unable to live with whatever compromise is reached probably converting to other denominations. Of course it is possible that Anglicanism might end up in schism with an African led conservative branch taking the majority of communicants worldwide.

[artybloke]

I understand your "good will" and ecumenism; however, right is right: he IS the ARCHDRUID of Canterbury---or do you forget that little ceremony he underwent before he was enthroned @Canterbury? He IS a druid....so 'pejorative name'would be incorrect.
Lesson 1 for liberals is that words mean things, and if "Archdruid" is not a nice word, "Archdruid" is not a nice thing to be for someone claiming to be a "Christian."
I'm sorry you reject my feelings on ECUSA. ECUSA is a hotbed of heresy, and believers need to get OUT. Sorry. I still believe Doctrine and Theology are major issues for Christians, even in this postmodern age.
Pardon my misuse of "authority." I was Roman Catholic for years and years and still use Roman terminology.
e

How is being a member of the Gorsedd of Bards, a Welsh society dedicated to the preservation and advancement of Welsh language, culture, poetry and music, being some kind of "Arch Druid?" Do you actually understand the idea of the Gorsedd of Bards, or did you just pick on this because it confirmed your prejudices, without checking with the Gorsedd themselves?

[Polycarp1]

I have an on-line friend (not a member here but in another forum) from Memphis who is a very conservative Episcopalian. Like me, he is torn by the problems which the church is facing, and he is facing a great problem in deciding how to deal with the conflict between his Bible-based moral sense and his sense of responsibility toward all Christians, gay people included. We've had extensive discussions about the future of the Church, and not always agreed, but respect each other and post as such.

I have a great desire to exchange perspectives with people who do not always agree with me -- but who will not dismiss my POV as "condoning sin" or "heresy." With them, a degree of communication and mutual respect has been established.

I approve of Rowan Williams and his ministry, have no problem with him having joined the Gorsedd as what it is (which has been explained above), and my objection to the snottiness of "Archdruid of Canterbury" is that he was named Archbishop of the Mother Church of our Communion, and deserves our respect in that capacity. AFAIK, there is no such position as "Archdruid of Canterbury," and someone who uses that is clearly intending to defame him by it.

[steviedee]

This two-part question is more for the "conservative" Anglicans:

(1) If the new pastor of your parish was a woman, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

(2) If the new pastor of your parish was a practicing homosexual, would you stay in your parish or move to another one, and why?

1. I would move to another one before you could say, "Oy gevalt." I have already on numerous occasions refused to accept "Communion" from a woman "priest." Why? Scripture nowhere supports the concept of women's "ordination," and neither does 2000 years of Church tradition. The Orthodox and Romans disallow it.
2. I'd move to another parish. I don't think this is appropriate for a Priest to parade it in the parish. I would not doubt the validity of his Orders, though. You did not state if the person was female. If so, she's not a Priest to begin with.

[julian the apostate]

a friend of mine (an anglican priest ) wrote this:

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
There is a difference between the Episcopal Church and other denominations.
The main difference is, denominations look at different things the same way. The Episcopal Church looks at the same things in a different way. It means we must give meaning to what we do. There is a story coming out of the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas where Jesus sees a person working the Sabbath. He says, "Blessed are you if who know what you are doing, but woe to you if you do not."

It is a matter of history. There was Henry the VIII, who did not start the Episcopal Church (Anglican Communion), but he reformed the Church. What happened on the Continent was not a "Reformation" it was a "Revolution." The Lutheran Church, Presbyterian, etc., started at that time. In England the Church maintained Apostolic Succession with Jesus. Henry reformed the Church, but did not break from it. His successor Mary attempted to bring the Church back to Rome. She slaughtered those who worked with Henry"s reformation. Shortly Mary died and was succeeded by Elizabeth. She appointed Richard Hooker, as her theologian for the Church. Hooker was faced with the challenge that if he had a theology which favored either the Protestants or Catholics, heads would literally fall. Rather than present a theology, he presented a way of thinking about theology. It was based on the Bible, Reason and Tradition, called the "three legged stool," or "via Media."

Because of Hookers brilliance the Episcopal Church is not a denomination which has a theology. It is a Church which thinks theologically. The Creeds set our limits of how much and how little one can believe. The middle is left up to the believer.
There are people in the Church who go beyond the limits of the Creed, but the recently revised Creed says "We believe." This means, believe what you will, but this is what the Church believes. The rest is up to you. What is our position and the new Prayer Book, the ordination of women, the issues of human sexuality, and ordination? The answer is, what is your position? From the time of Hooker to our time today there were and are people whose belief is more in the Catholic tradition and others who are more Protestant, There are those who are more fundamentalist and conservative, while others are less fundamental and more liberal. The denominationalist will ask, "Who is right?" The Episcopal Church will answer, "What is your Theology?" The is the core of the Episcopal Church. It is the freedom from denominationalism which looks at different things in the same way. It is the freedom of Jesus Christ to look at the same things in a different way. There is a difference.

[PaladinValer]

Julian, that was excellent! :)

[CRitabe]

I am a confirmed member of the Episcopal Church and come from a Social Science educational perspective. I would like to share my thoughts regarding a lot of the current communication regarding our present cultural changes, particularly the use of words like: "conservatives", "neo-conservatives" and "liberals". When we "label" people and place them in one camp or another, we automatically set up a framework for division. It is akin to two soccer teams or football teams meeting for a match. The expected outcome is that one team will win and the other will lose and who the heck wants to LOSE, God forbid; no one likes a LOSER. One will be labeled a "good" team and the other a "bad" team. It is my humble opinion that the first thing that needs to take place in our fellowship of believers is that we stop labeling and dividing.

One of the primary reasons that I joined the Episcopal Church was because of the acceptance of everyone's right and ability to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phillipians 2:12), relying on Holy Scripture as the ultimate authority. It appears to me that the current issue is that there are two very different and conflicting interpretations of Holy Scripture with each side believing that their perspective is correct; however, you know, I think that Jesus was the only one given the ultimate authority to judge whether someone is guilty of "sin". It is not my job to label someone who does not agree with my take on things: "right", "wrong", "good", "bad", "Conservative", or "Liberal". Who are we to judge? I believe that I will be judged based on my life choices and everyone else will face the same judgment. God doesn't really need our help in telling him who is right or wrong.

When I read some of the threads posted, it makes me cringe when I hear the words "CONSERVATIVES" or "LIBERALS" thrown out there, depending on which team you are on, because maybe it is just me, but what I hear is your belief is "wrong", "narrow-minded", "non-inclusive", "bad", "standing in the way of progress", "sinful", ad infinitum. It certainly is not edifying to the Body of Christ.

I'm sure that changing our way of speaking will not make the issues go away; however, I believe that it will at least build some bridges rather than walls.

Dear Lord, I ask that you help us all come to a place of healing with the current lack of unity in our Church. It is hurtful to see our brothers and sisters in pain, conflict and fear. Please help us to remember that you died for us all because you love us all. You have asked us how we can love You, whom we have not seen, if we cannot love our brothers and sisters that we can see. Help us truly see one another, hear one another and bear one anothers' burdens. Help us find the unity that you have provided us in the cross. Amen

[Bingley]

1. I have already on numerous occasions refused to accept "Communion" from a woman "priest."
Why? Bear with me, I think I understand your theological position. But are women priests so common in your Continuum (I think that's what you called it elsewhere) that the situation has arisen 'on numerous occasions' (in which case, my commiserations)? Or do you seek out women priests to refuse communion from?

[steviedee]

Why? Bear with me, I think I understand your theological position. But are women priests so common in your Continuum (I think that's what you called it elsewhere) that the situation has arisen 'on numerous occasions' (in which case, my commiserations)? Or do you seek out women priests to refuse communion from?
Greetings.
No, we do not allow the "ordination" of women. That was one of the reasons the Continuing groups left the Episcopal Church after the General Convention of 1976, which permitted such an un-catholic thing.
The situation has arisen on a few occasions where I was present where women "priests" were distributing Communion. I tried to switch Communion lines(as did others), and just did not receive from the priestess. I'll get up from the rail if they're coming my way.
Never, never, never! I would never seek out such a thing. I would walk out of the church if I saw a woman celebrant. I don't go to church to be aggravated.