The Rev. Scott Hayashi, a diocesan representative, read a letter from Bishop William Persell, who thanked the congregation for carrying out its decision “with grace and integrity.”
“We will continue to hold you in our prayers,” the letter said.
Afterward, Hayashi and Koch hugged.
Resurrection is a young, multi-racial congregation where hugs flow as easily as peals of laughter. Dress is casual, worship is informal. Often, members rest a hand on a neighbor’s shoulder when in prayer.
“We’re a close family,” said Catherine Clark, 66, of Batavia. “Anyone can come here — black, white, gay, straight — and be loved.”
Lynne Bowman, 59, a lifelong Episcopalian from Barrington, called the move bittersweet.
“We have tried to allow the love of God to be part of everything,” she said. “But it’s still painful.”
The new worship space was a quarter mile walk from the church. As the worshippers processed, a guitarist strummed, while others yelled Nigerian warrior cries.
Longtime members said leaving the Episcopal Church was tough but that the walk of faith is never easy.
God bless the Resurrection Anglican Church. Were the nearly 100 members the entire former Episcopal congregation and if so what does the Diocese do with an empty building? Just curious.
“what does the Diocese do with an empty building?”
That will be THE question starting Oct. 1.
Well that makes at least two in Chicago this year. Has the PB stoped using the under 50 number yet?
#2 – They start again.
#3: “What should we orthodox do now, prior to, and in preparation for 9/30, to clearly and unambiguously demonstrate our stand for the faith once delivered? We have less than 3 weeks to mobilize. Let’s get going!”
What do you think’s been going on? There’s been PLENTY of mobilizing. What do you think the recent consecrations are about? The Common Cause group? There are plans in place.
#5: Ah, the optimist!
Rolling Eyes,
Do you mean to say that there is a vast orthodox conspiracy to replace the episcopal church with a new province?!? People are planning a plotting something? What, but but, I thought you guys said that it isn’t true! And I beleived you! No, Say it isn’t so!
Plainsparson (#7) – there is just as much of a “vast orthodox conspiracy” as there is a “vast revisionsist conspiracy.”
The problems with conspiracy theories is that all evidence that supports the theory is taken at face value and all evidence that seems to deny the conspiracy is taken as evidence of the power of the conspiracy to put out disinformation and, thus, actually supports the conspiracy theory.
Are people working behind the scenes to plan for what happens after 9/30 (or, more likely 9/25 as the end of the HOB meeting and then whatever date the primates meet or decide what to do with the results of the 9/25 meeting)? Yes. Are there liberal/progressive/reasserter/revisionist groups meeting to plan for what to do after 9/30? Well, yes. Does that mean there is a conspiracy? Well, no. Both groups are being true to what they believe and are working to achieve it.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Plainsparson — publicly spoken about and written about since late 2003, so just a tinge hard to call it a conspiracy. Where you been? One may go to the ACN page and read all about it in their press releases for the past three years.
It seems clear that it won’t be an Anglican Communion thingy, which is sad. So no replacement. I expect that there will be two competing Anglican entities in the US for many scores of years, until one or the other dies out.
That’s what I expected three years ago, and things have moved fast.
Aahhh, them grassy knoll theories!
#5: They started again in the 90s with Fr. Koch after Fr. Beasley and most of the church left. I wonder how many lives this parish has in them.
#4 (chips): I’m in the Diocese of Chicago. What was the other congregation you refer to? I know of one that split in 2004, with one part affiliating with AMIA, but no other that has left entirely.
Blessings,
Catharine
Anyone is welcome here??? Even gays??? Baloney!!! If gays are so welcome and accepted why are they running out of the diocese and hooking up with Uganda because of an openly gay bishop and an partnered lesbian on the slate for bishop? Why? Because they really aren’t welcome. Try as I might, I can’t see it as anything other than homophobia. I just can’t buy the other arguments….especially the biblical one. To quote the Rev. Susan Russell, we’ve got to stop using the bible as a weapon of mass discrimination.
Oh, Catherine Clark – Don’t expect a lot of gays to come and “be loved” by your “family”. That’s a joke.
Re: #13
Fred,
I think this depends on your definition of love. Homosexuals are loved and welcomed in the Orthodox Church as well. But our understanding of love does not translate into enabling or blessing vice. We love and welcome alcoholics too but do not generally offer them a beer.
The Church (from the Orthodox pov) is a hospital. We all suffer from variation(s) of the same disease. Sin. It’s where we go to get better in a spiritual environment of mutual love and support, not to have our illness pronounced as normal health.
Fred,
I believe the issue is that all people are welcome to come, but that non-celibate homosexuals will be told that Scripture calls for celibacy in any relationship outside of marriage between 1 male and 1 female. You can say this in a loving way, I believe, even if you disagree with them.
I, for one, am pleased to hear of a gentle split.
Phil
Has anyone actually counted all the parishes that have bailed from TEC? Out of how many? I have often wondered. Larry
Re: “The Rev. Scott Hayashi, a diocesan representative, read a letter from Bishop William Persell, who thanked the congregation for carrying out its decision “with grace and integrity.””
Yeah, Right. “…thanked the congregation for carrying out its decision with grace and integrity” because they are leaving their hard-earned property to the Diocese of Chicago.
Revisionists always have nice words to say – after they have gained and achieved their goals to the disadvantage of the Reasserters.
I bet you the tone of Bp Persell’s letter would be anything but nice if Resurrection had not handed everything over to the diocese.
Btw, Re: “As the worshippers processed, a guitarist strummed, while others yelled Nigerian warrior cries.” Good try on the part of the reporter to interject some drama to the story. What better way than to bring Nigeria (by implication, the “controversial” Akinola) into the whole situation, even though this church has no connection with Nigeria – but with Uganda.
BUT, perhaps, the most important aspect of this story is that a congregation is stepping out in faith and in faithfulness. Good lesson for all Reasserters. Irrespective of the situation, we are called to faithfulness that may sometimes require this sort of bold move.
Spiro
Wow — poor Fred.
After four years, he still hasn’t figured out the difference between a heterosexual male who has an orientation towards having sex with multiple partners, but refuses to, and the heterosexual male who has an orientation towards having sex with multiple partners — and demands that society redefine marriage to include him, as well as the church bless his behavior!
I suspect that those with orientations to certain sinful behaviors but who are repentant and desirous to conform their lives to Christ will feel quite comfortable at this congregation. Those who have orientations to certain sinful behaviors but are not repentant and not desirous to conform their lives to Christ — probably not! ; > )
There is a clear difference, TP, the blessing of God on the heterosexual one partner marriage, and the calling of any other sexual relationship “sinful”.
yes, quite clear.
Yes, TPaine — there is a big difference between “a heterosexual male who has an orientation towards having sex with multiple partners, but refuses to” and “a homosexual male (or female) who is faithful to one partner”.
The one does not yield to the temptation of his orientation towards sin, the other does.
You see — we can’t even agree on this!
Two gospels. One organization.
Sarah – And you still haven’t figured out that the so-called sin of gay male partners (the obsession with gay men here is interesting) isn’t necessarily a sin at all, but perhaps a relationship blessed by God.
I think TPaine is wanting to make an issue of fidelity in same-gender relationships. Studies show that this fidelity is tenuous among homosexual relationships that are lifelong, much more so than among heterosexual couples (see Robert Gagnon’s books). Fidelity is, of course, an issue among married couples as well, so no need to throw stones.
The question simply becomes is fidelity the more important aspect in same-sex relationships, or is it Scripture’s prohibition of all sexual contact outside of marriage? I think Sarah’s point is that if one Scriptural prohibition is deemed irrelevant (homosexual practice) that it isn’t too far-fetched logically to make other Scriptural prohibitions (adult incest, polygamy, etc) also irrelevant.
And, of course, this just becomes a slippery slope spiraling downward…
TPaine,
You bet, making a commitment to a relationship for the long haul is difficult enough, especially without support. I’ve been married for almost 12 years and know that marriage takes work and grace along with the love.
Does Christ call us to support all committed relationships, though? If yes, then we should fully support all consenting relationships without question. If no, then we need to welcome all in love, but stand firm on the call to live as faithful Christians as disciples.
And I think that is what the people of Church of the Rez are saying: all are welcome into the loving arms of Christ, but we cannot endorse behavior deemed sinful.
BTW, I would look to the short list of prohibitions given at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Shellfish okay (but why would anyone suffer through Red Lobster), sexual promiscuity of all sorts not so good.
Phil
And since we are agreed that homosexuality is an orientation rather than a behavior perhaps we can also agree that God created that orientation, since God created all things.
Like Tay-Sachs disease. And the BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 genes that confers significant increase in a woman’s risk of breast cancer. And the gene(s) that increase risk of colon cancer. And….
Perhaps you meant the irony that demonstrates just how deep and wide the gulf is between the theology out of which one can write what you did, TPaine, and the theology of creation in view of Genesis 3 with which the Church has wrestled for the past two millenia. Does it bear pointing out that one’s theology here has great bearing on what one understands Gospel to be?
And since God is also just and fair, God would not punish one part of his creation simply for being and loving, while not punishing another in like manner. Can one imagine God punishing anyone for love? If you can, that is very sad.
You might do well, TPaine, to read what St Augustine of Hippo has to say about misdirected love. Again, if you think that merely to claim “love” (I use the inverted commas to remind us this is a word that desparately needs unpacking!) is to have settled the holiness of a relationship (whoever may be constituting the relationship), then Sarah’s point is ironically made by your attempt at refuting that very point.
RE: “And you still haven’t figured out that the so-called sin of gay male partners (the obsession with gay men here is interesting) isn’t necessarily a sin at all, but perhaps a relationship blessed by God.”
Nope — sure haven’t. I haven’t figured out that the so-called sin of multiple heterosexual relationships isn’t necessarily a sin at all either. ; > )
RE: “One gospel.”
Really? Why [gasp] TPaine!!! I’m shocked, shocked, shocked. Why just a mere few hours ago you described your gospel as “the church of Christ” and my gospel as “the church of fascist fundamentalism.” ; > )
It was right here in this nice comment here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/5683/#105450
And then a few comments later on you called us Pharisees.
Now surely . . . surely you can see that something has to give here.
If the reasserting gospel is that of “the church of fascist fundamentalism” and the progressive gospel is that of “the church of Christ” and both reasserters and progressives are in one organization called The Episcopal Church . . . then it would seem to me that equals two gospels, one organization.
And then you go on and compound and illustrate the two gospels problem.
You say: “And since we are agreed that homosexuality is an orientation rather than a behavior perhaps we can also agree that God created that orientation, since God created all things.”
But — the desire of men towards having multiple female partners is an “orientation”. And the desire of some people towards having sexual relationships with dead people is an “orientation.” And the desire of some people towards sexual relationships with shoes is an “orientation” — and a thoroughly embedded orientation too, I might add.
So no — the Fall warped our sexuality, TPaine, and God did not create our sinful desires, although that is a classic heresy dealt with centuries ago. He created us whole, good, and perfect — and we ruined it by allowing the world, the flesh, and the devil to warp all of the good that God created — including sexuality.
Moving on to other points of your gospel, TPaine: “And since God is also just and fair, God would not punish one part of his creation simply for being and loving, while not punishing another in like manner.”
God will not punish anyone at all who puts their faith and trust in Jesus’s atoning work on the cross for their sins. But being just, God has the perfect freedom to put us all to death for our many and manifold sins. And He may certainly condemn each one of us for “loving” when we “love” sinfully, as with all of us of sinful sexual orientations [100% of humanity, mind you].
Marching onward through your gospel, TPaine: “Can one imagine God punishing anyone for love?”
Without Jesus Christ interceding for us through the atonement, we would all be punished through the loss of relationship with God for our terrible and very destructive and sinful efforts at false and corrupt and imitations of “love” — of our spouses, children, friends, animals, same genders, opposite genders, and on and on, so absolutely. Homosexual relationships are only one of many ways that we falsely and sinfully “love.” There are many others too.
Tpaine — you and I do not believe the same gospel, as my answers to the above questions handily illustrate.
Yet we are in the same organization, called TEC. I assure you that many others agree with me. And many others agree with you.
Two gospels. One organization.
Ah, I see that Todd Granger has also handily illustrated the stark differences between his reasserting and TPaine’s progressive gospels.
Two gospels. One organization.
On another note, Pere Phil, re: “If yes, then we should fully support all consenting relationships without question.”
I’ve always said that I would be more than happy for the State to extend the definition of marriage to cover all relationships that people wish to legally call “secular marriage”, including polyamory, those with life-challenged people [already done in France, and legally too], those with adult siblings, various inanimate objects [as long as one human being is involved], etc, etc.
This way we could simply open wide the arms of the State to legally recognize as secular marriage all relationships with at least one or as many as we like humans involved.
Then the church could denominationally determine their definitions of “the sacrament of marriage” which confers no legal rights at all, unless also doubled up with the state’s “secular marriage”.
But unfortunately, those of homosexual orientation are bigoted and prejudiced against those of other, less societally “acceptable” orientations, and do not wish to extend the legal and societal definition of marriage to those orientations, but only extend that definition of marriage to cover their own, special, particular, distinctive and [to them] acceptable sexual orientation.
Disgraceful hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice.
TPaine,
Yes, there is one Gospel and you seem to have little grasp of it. Quite simply, the Gospel (good news) is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Thus, we are restored in our relationship with God and our sins are forgiven. We are now free a no longer slaves to sin. In our baptismal covenant, we promise first to “Continue in the Apostles teaching and fellowship.” That promise is the promise on which all the others (including seeking and serving Christ in all persons). How do we know the Apostles’ teaching? We know it because it is contained in Holy Scripture and expounded (not expanded) upon in the Tradition of the Church. To depart from the Apostles Teaching or from their fellowship is to break our baptismal covenant. Are you willing to break your baptismal covenant? If you can show me in the Apostles’ teaching where God or Jesus or the Apostles say anything about homosexual sex except that it is sinful, then I will begin to think the Church does have the authority to bless same sex unions. Until then, we do not have that authority.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Tpaine,
I am very glad you asked. I will frame my argument in three parts. First, I will answer your question. In Matt 15:19 we Jesus saying: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” (NIV). The Greek for “sexual immorality” is [i]porneia[/i]. This work is defined as:
[blockquote]1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2) metaph. the worship of idols
a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols [/blockquote]
You can find the definition here:[url=http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&Version=kjv]Definition of Porneia[/url]
So, when Jesus said “sexual immorality” he included all sexually illicit acts of his day – that includes homosexual sex. That is the first argument.
The second argument – are you trying to say that all of Holy Scripture is irrelevant if it is not confirmed or stated by Jesus in the four Gospels? The Church certainly has never taught that! The idea that you can say one part of Scripture is more important than another part (let alone that all other scripture is irrelevant) is not an Anglican or even Christian use of Scripture.
The third argument is this. Show me where Jesus speaks out against automobile theft or hitting people named “Tom” or where he speaks out against pornography or polygamy.
The argument from silence is the weakest of all and the Apostolic teaching is not contained only in the four Gospels.
So, can you show me where (in the Apostles’ teaching) homosexual sex is spoken of as anything other than sinful?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
RE: “And since I just found out you are an Episcopalian, though I am not sure why, I will point out you are entirely welcome to be an Episcopalian, but if TEC were remade as you envision it, I certainly wouldn’t be welcome in your church.”
Yep — an Episcopalian, TPaine, who does not believe the same gospel as you do, as is transparently obvious from the totality of this and so many other threads.
No one reading this could believe that we are even of the same religion, much less believe the same gospel.
Two gospels. One organization. That’s ECUSA.
RE: “I really am flattered that you keep such close track of what I say, even keeping track of the links.”
Why yes — there have been numerous other — four times, to be precise — where you’ve expressed just how very very flattered you are that I’ve kept track of what you say and how you behave! ; > )
Phil Snyder — very nice. Thanks for taking the trouble to do it, because it does take time and is, I suspect, fruitless. But it’s important to do, and I appreciate it.
Sarah,
The fruit of my labors is not up to me. Conversion is a Management responsibility. I work in sales. No effort to educate or convert is ever wasted. It is up to God as to when (or if) it bears fruit.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
It seems to me for one to posit that Holy Scripture, Gods Word, could not foresee an age of such enlightened sexual freedom/orientation/identity would suggest that God could be surprised.
Hey, TP–you just breezed right by this one ([url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/5722/#106111]Philip Snyder, #36:[/url])[blockquote]TPaine,
Yes, there is one Gospel and you seem to have little grasp of it. Quite simply, the Gospel (good news) is that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Thus, we are restored in our relationship with God and our sins are forgiven. We are now free a[nd] no longer slaves to sin. In our baptismal covenant, we promise first to “Continue in the Apostles teaching and fellowship.†That promise is the promise on which all the others (including seeking and serving Christ in all persons). How do we know the Apostles’ teaching? We know it because it is contained in Holy Scripture and expounded (not expanded) upon in the Tradition of the Church. To depart from the Apostles Teaching or from their fellowship is to break our baptismal covenant. Are you willing to break your baptismal covenant? If you can show me in the Apostles’ teaching where God or Jesus or the Apostles say anything about homosexual sex except that it is sinful, then I will begin to think the Church does have the authority to bless same sex unions. Until then, we do not have that authority.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder [/blockquote]
What is your answer? Is this the Gospel, or isn’t it? I believe you are loath to define your gospel because it has no relationship to Sarah’s/Philip’s/2000 years of Apostolic teaching Gospel, and it would absolutely repudiate your theory of “one gospel”. So: cowboy up. What is the Gospel?
RE: “Sarah I continue to reject your thesis of two gospels and to deny we believe in different gospels.”
It [i]is[/i] challenging, isn’t it, to have to acknowledge how diametrically opposed our beliefs and foundational worldviews are.
I mean — mine are fundamentalist, fascist and pharisaical according to you, so I’m not [i]quite[/i] certain just how mine can be the same gospel as yours . . . but maybe it’s about “holding two opposite views at the same time” as progressives claim they wish to do.
RE: “Clearly I believe in the gospel.”
Clearly you believe that you believe in the gospel. And clearly I believe that I believe in the gospel.
Only thing is . . . the gospel that I believe in is utterly different from the gospel you believe in.
And TPaine . . . when you get all huffy and angry, you admit that for yourself by denouncing mine and upholding yours, ie “fundamentalist” and “fascist”.
RE: “And wow, you’ve counted four times I’ve used the word “flatteredâ€!”
Well, actually, TPaine . . . the words were just a tinge different from “flattered” . . . the words expressed how radically you believe that the two gospels are indeed different, and you expressed your belief quite clearly on another thread . . . they were [blockquote]”If you can’t read the hate here, you are tone deaf. These comments are dispicable. At least I’m getting a clear idea of who Satan is working with here. You people are bigots, judgmental, hateful. Hell is the absence of God. You’re there right now. That’s my eschatology. That’s also my last post.”[/blockquote]
Creepy?
Yes.
Acknowledging that there is indeed a different gospel?
Yes. [i]It’s impossible for TPaine to continue to keep saying what he says on thread after thread after thread without making ridiculously and transparently clear that TPaine thinks the reasserting gospel to be a vile, horrible thing, which TPaine does not adhere to.[/i]
Two gospels, one organization.
TPaine – Will you now admit that the blessing of same sex unions is not contained in the Apostles’ teaching? You seem to think that we are able to change that teaching at will. Let’s assume that this is so. Where can we stop? Can we maintian that we are Christians and still deny the doctrine of the Trinity? How about the Physical Resurrection? The atonement (how ever it “works”)? The Virgin Birth? Can we decide to add new books to Holy Scripture? Take some away? What is the limit of our authority to change the Apostles’ teaching? And, if TECUSA can do it, what is the mechanism to do that – one vote by orders in the HoD and concurrence from HoB – Simple majority, 2/3 majority – votes in two or more consecutive conventions. If TECUSA has that authority, then does a diocese? How about a congregation or an individual?
I sumbit that TECUSA lacks the authority to change the Apostles’ teaching. We are bound by the Revelation. Perhaps you hold that sexual morality not part of the Revelation but it is merely a matter of societal order like driving on the left or right side of the road? If sexual morality is only societal, then why is polygamy wrong? (or is it?)
I am not trying to make the “slippery slope” argument, I am inviting you to investigate the conclusions inherent your position on the blessing of same sex unions.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
re: #43. Sarah & #44. Philip Snyder (Dallas):
[[url=http://www.brandens.net/files/Sounds/FX/Animals/CRICKET.WAV]sound of crickets chirping][/url]
LOL, West Coast Cleric!!
No idea others were reading this thread . . . incredible isn’t it?
; > )
TPaine (#47) – Actually, the Greek world did have the notion of a life long homosexaul relationship. There were even numerous Roman (pagan) same sex “marriages.” So, to say that mutually monogamous homosexual relationships were unknown is not a true statement. You still haven’t answered my question of where in the Apostles’ teaching you find the blessing of same sex unions or (assuming that you agree we won’t find it there) what the limits are to what of the Apostles’ teaching we can change and whether that change is at the communion, provincial, diocesan, parish, or individual level.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder