The Episcopal Church in 2003, for instance, appointed an openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson, to lead a New Hampshire [diocese]. Hodges – who says he is not prejudice[d] against gays themselves but against attacks aimed at traditional marriage and the priesthood – doesn’t like the message the church is sending by that appointment.
“The Episcopal Church has taken a fork in the road to the left, while we continue on the one to the right,” he said. “We (Anglicans) believe the Bible contains the inspired word of God, whereas Episcopalians believe the scriptures are secondary to the Holy Spirit.” Because holy writ is treated secondary, he said, the church has taken positions on issues not in harmony with the Bible.
“Gays are welcome into our church. That’s between them and their God. But when you start to change the leadership of the church, that’s when a split is going to happen,” he said, referring to the number of diocese that have already split from the 2.2-million-member U.S. Episcopal Church.
But the gay topic is only one issue. He said the Episcopal Church has also lessened the value of Jesus Christ, portraying him more like a fallible man than the infallible Son of God.
“I couldn’t in good conscious be a member anymore,” Hodges said.
Slightly off-centre, but I cannot avoid commenting on the plunging standards of journalism in the US, parallel to the plunging standards here in the UK. In the UK hapless journalists seem unable to master the simple rules of it’s and its. In this article on Dean Hodges we find him quoted as saying that he could not in good conscious remain Episcopal.
….Groan
[blockquote]”We (Anglicans) believe the Bible contains the inspired word of God, whereas Episcopalians believe the scriptures are secondary to the Holy Spirit.”[/blockquote]
I do not question Mr Hodges’ sincerity, but I must insist that he is mistaken, and that relations between all who profess and call themselves Anglicans on this continent are soured even further when such sweeping generalizations remain unchallenged. That there are Episcopalians for and about whom this is a true statement is obvious. That a great many of such Episcopalians occupy key leadership positions is lamentably true. But let us not render voiceless the tens of thousands of souls who have not yet bowed the knee to Baal and who worshiped joyfully at Episcopal altars even this very morning. Among them are bishops, priests, deacons, and laity; young and old, rich and poor. The day is dark, the cross awaits us, but we remain at our posts following our orders.
Fr. Dan,
If what you say is true, then I wish they would speak up to their priests and bishops, and stand to be counted in their parishes, insisting on being sent to Diocesan Conventions and General Convention, even if not elected as delegates to either.
If they would, perhaps such “sweeping generalizations” would be ‘swept out the door’. But right now, they are a silent crew, if they exist, standing by while orthodox believing clergy and bishops are sandbagged and deposed, and vestries are dissolved and vilified and parishes sued for taking a stand for the Gospel.
Thus the group to which Mr. Hodges refers are seen as large and in charge, and his statement is justified.
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
Dan Martins,
Would a statement like this be one that is more acceptable to you?
“We (Anglicans) believe the Bible contains the inspired word of God, whereas [the vast majority of Episcopalians in leadership at the national level] believe the scriptures are secondary to [what they perceive as] the Holy Spirit.â€
Re #4: Sarah, change “vast” to “apparent” and I’ll sign.
RE: “Sarah, change “vast†to “apparent†and I’ll sign.”
I just can’t do it. I tried, and my look at the numbers just won’t let me redefine what I know at the national level into anything less than vast.
You’ve got basically four national level entities [setting aside committees, but believe me, that helps you]: the HOD, the HOB, the Executive Council, and the PB.
I mean . . . my mind boggles at being able to come up with even 20% of the HOB that don’t fancy their own feelings and cultural desires are not “the Holy Spirit” — and certainly “the Holy Spirit” would be well above the quality of the primitive experiences of “the Divine” of a bunch of Semitic nomads scrabbled down by some politically-biased scribes.
But let’s just go ahead and set it at 20%. The HOB is easily the “least ravingly heretical” of the four. The others — Executive Council, HOD, and of course, the PB . . . well . . . obviously the HOB pales into insignificance compared to the splendor of those three.
I mean — maybe 5% of the Executive Council — and I can email you those names — but the HOD and the PB?
I mean — just throw a dart at any speech at all of the average deputy at GC 2006 and you’ll find exactly “the scriptures are secondary to the Holy Spirit” in spades. If we are very very very generous we could say that all the moderates and traditionalist deputies at GC2006 amounted to 20% I suppose. Which was why the Peter Lees were defeated, ultimately — the moderates that usually went along with his ideas in order to modify and obscure the decisions of the far left were simply so so scant.
Are you saying, then that 20% of those individuals populating those national entities — [make it a nice round overestimate] — means that 80% is not a “vast” number?
Are we disagreeing on the definition of the word “vast”?
[blockquote]Are we disagreeing on the definition of the word “vast�[/blockquote]
Maybe so, but if you confine the field to the four groups you mentioned, I will concede your point. It’s not one I feel passionate about arguing.
I ask this sincerely, not in order to argue over it. Is there “leadership at the national level” in other groups other than those four that I have missed?
Good catch, Terry Tee #1. Written English, whether British or American, is in decline.
Seems like a generational divide to me. If he was in his 20’s I think this would be a bit more interesting.
Beg pardon, Mr. Wilkins, but we have a contrary to fact condition here, so need a subjunctive. “If he were…” I suppose if English speaking countries can’t tell the difference between the adjective and the possessive of “it,” the subjunctive becomes an amusing academic exercise. Larry
Hi John,
I’m 28 and I drive 30 minutes (past three run of the mill TEC churches) to be a part of my ACN parish. The majority of our vestry, btw, is youngish too.
Can you think of another way to dismiss those who have left or are critical of the direction of TEC?
Perhaps my education? Well that won’t work. I’m a PhD student at a secular university.
Maybe I’m just a homophobe. Well, I do have gay and lesbian friends and colleagues. So that might be a non-starter.
Hmm… I’m not old. I’m not dumb. I’m not a homophobe.
Could it be that many of us actually have a legitimate point about TEC?
I know it is a stretch. But I pray you’ll be a little less dismissive.
Peace in the New Year.
Good catch, Larry, in your no. 11. If the clause is clearly not the case, it is preceded by “were”, not “was”. This misuse of the subjunctive appears even in articles in magazines whose editors should, and presumably do, know better.