The problem has not been so much what much of the leadership of ECUSA thinks. It has been its desire to force its views on the significant minority of evangelicals and anglo catholics, and not permitting diversity of opinion on the issue. If orthodox parishes were permitted to hold their views without the threat of deposition, inhibition, reduction to mission status, and having their locks changed overnight, or the more insidious strategies such as forcing revisionist priests on them when an orthodox priest retires, and not allowing graduates of evangelical and anglo-catholic seminaries to serve, then we would still be talking loudly, but CANA would be unnecessary and we would not be disintegrating into lawsuits and a worldwide schism. If there is a schism – which seems increasingly likely – ECUSA will have forced it by trying to force the orthodox out.
1 &2
Why would we value this ignorant splatter from without?
It has been said 1,000 times before; our conflict over sexuality is a symptom not the disease.
#4: Did the churches that formed CANA suffer such “insidious” things from their Bishop before they left? Most of their rectors seem pretty evangelical to me? Are there “revisionists” in their pulpits?
Reply to #5.
Eugene, you said,
“Did the churches that formed CANA suffer such “insidious†things from their Bishop before they left? Most of their rectors seem pretty evangelical to me? Are there “revisionists†in their pulpits?”
My wife and I attended an Episcopal Church within four minutes driving distance of our house in Burke, VA. It started becoming very clear to both of us, starting just prior to GC03, that our rector was a revisionist. This took time to discern because of his ‘passive-aggressive’ behavior.
We left that parish and traveled fifteen minutes to attend Truro Church in Fairfax, VA for the rest of the time that we lived in Burke. Truro Church is a sanctuary for traditional/orthodox Anglicans. We experienced no ‘hard-sell’ and the issues dealing with the situation in ECUSA were rarely a topic touched in sermons. When that that occurred, it was done with delicacy and sensitivity to the feelings of all concerned. This was consistant behavior of +Martyn Minns, then Father Minns, and his subordinate priests.
So the answer to your qustion is that there are revisionist priests in the pulpits of the Diocese of Virginia. To avoid sin and heresy tolerated/advocated by those priests, it is necessary, in the Dio of VA, to seek out orthodox/traditional parishes.
#5. The answer is yes. In brief, the history of the separation of the CANA churches has been copiously reported elsewhere, but there were threats and a waiting strategy to replace the evangelical clergy with revisionists. The principal reason things did not happen more abruptly as in Connecticutt is undoubtedly that the NoVa churches were a little too big and powerful to take on directly. Thus, the bishop was looking for retirements to put in revisionist clergy. I’m sure the parishes did not want to wait idly to see that happen. Also, recall that the parishes were very up-front about that and a departure was amicably negotiated between the bishop and his chancellor and a special committee and those parishes. The standing committee forced the bishop to renege after the departure process had begun, and there was no lawsuit until the national church demanded one. All old history, reported elsewhere.
“…crazy, gay-obsessed churches of the former colonies…â€
A somewhat harsh way to talk about Tec and ACoC, but if the miter fits …
The problem has not been so much what much of the leadership of ECUSA thinks. It has been its desire to force its views on the significant minority of evangelicals and anglo catholics, and not permitting diversity of opinion on the issue. If orthodox parishes were permitted to hold their views without the threat of deposition, inhibition, reduction to mission status, and having their locks changed overnight, or the more insidious strategies such as forcing revisionist priests on them when an orthodox priest retires, and not allowing graduates of evangelical and anglo-catholic seminaries to serve, then we would still be talking loudly, but CANA would be unnecessary and we would not be disintegrating into lawsuits and a worldwide schism. If there is a schism – which seems increasingly likely – ECUSA will have forced it by trying to force the orthodox out.
1 &2
Why would we value this ignorant splatter from without?
It has been said 1,000 times before; our conflict over sexuality is a symptom not the disease.
Vitriolic and scandalous prattle is not the cure.
#4: Did the churches that formed CANA suffer such “insidious” things from their Bishop before they left? Most of their rectors seem pretty evangelical to me? Are there “revisionists” in their pulpits?
My comment in 5 was mwant for #3
Sorry
Reply to #5.
Eugene, you said,
“Did the churches that formed CANA suffer such “insidious†things from their Bishop before they left? Most of their rectors seem pretty evangelical to me? Are there “revisionists†in their pulpits?”
My wife and I attended an Episcopal Church within four minutes driving distance of our house in Burke, VA. It started becoming very clear to both of us, starting just prior to GC03, that our rector was a revisionist. This took time to discern because of his ‘passive-aggressive’ behavior.
We left that parish and traveled fifteen minutes to attend Truro Church in Fairfax, VA for the rest of the time that we lived in Burke. Truro Church is a sanctuary for traditional/orthodox Anglicans. We experienced no ‘hard-sell’ and the issues dealing with the situation in ECUSA were rarely a topic touched in sermons. When that that occurred, it was done with delicacy and sensitivity to the feelings of all concerned. This was consistant behavior of +Martyn Minns, then Father Minns, and his subordinate priests.
So the answer to your qustion is that there are revisionist priests in the pulpits of the Diocese of Virginia. To avoid sin and heresy tolerated/advocated by those priests, it is necessary, in the Dio of VA, to seek out orthodox/traditional parishes.
#5. The answer is yes. In brief, the history of the separation of the CANA churches has been copiously reported elsewhere, but there were threats and a waiting strategy to replace the evangelical clergy with revisionists. The principal reason things did not happen more abruptly as in Connecticutt is undoubtedly that the NoVa churches were a little too big and powerful to take on directly. Thus, the bishop was looking for retirements to put in revisionist clergy. I’m sure the parishes did not want to wait idly to see that happen. Also, recall that the parishes were very up-front about that and a departure was amicably negotiated between the bishop and his chancellor and a special committee and those parishes. The standing committee forced the bishop to renege after the departure process had begun, and there was no lawsuit until the national church demanded one. All old history, reported elsewhere.