NEW YORK – The theologically conservative Diocese of Fort Worth voted Saturday to split from the liberal-leaning Episcopal Church, the fourth traditional diocese to do so in a long-running debate over the Bible, gay relationships and other issues.
About 80 percent of clergy and parishioners in the Texas diocese supported the break in a series of votes at a diocesan convention.
The Steering Committee North Texas Episcopalians, an umbrella group for those who want to stay with the denomination, plans to reorganize the diocese. They promised that "the Episcopal Church's work of Christian ministry and evangelization will go forward" in the region.
A lengthy, expensive legal battle is expected over who owns Episcopal property and funds. The Fort Worth diocese oversees more than 50 parishes and missions serving about 19,000 people. The Steering Committee estimates that at least five parishes and hundreds of other churchgoers will remain with the New York-based national church.
The other seceding dioceses are Pittsburgh; Quincy, Ill.; and San Joaquin, based in Fresno, Calif., where a legal fight over assets is already under way. National church leaders are helping local parishioners reorganize each diocese.
All four withdrawing dioceses are aligning with the like-minded Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, based in Argentina, to try to keep their place in the world Anglican Communion.
The vote is the latest fallout from the 2003 consecration of the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
The 77-million-member Anglican fellowship, which includes the U.S. Episcopal Church, has roots in the missionary work of the Church of England. Most overseas Anglicans hold traditional views of the Bible and Robinson's consecration has moved the global communion toward the brink of schism. Breakaway U.S. leaders hope to form an Anglican province in North America.
Years before Robinson's election, Episcopalians and Anglicans were already divided over how they should interpret Scripture on issues ranging from salvation to sexuality. That rift broke wide open when the New Hampshire bishop was installed.
"Some have encouraged us to stay and fight as the faithful remnant in (the denomination), to work for reform from within," Bishop Jack Iker said in his speech before the balloting.
"I can only reply by quoting the saying that `the definition of insanity is to keep on doing the same thing, expecting different results,'" he said. "The time has come to choose a new path and direction, to secure a spiritual future for our children and our grandchildren."
Of the four withdrawing dioceses, only Pittsburgh ordains women. In 2006, the Episcopal Church elected its first female leader, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Nationally, most of the 2.1 million Episcopalians don't consider their theological differences cause to leave the denomination, which has more than 100 dioceses. Outside the four that are splitting off, church officials estimate that about 100 additional parishes of a total of more than 7,000 have withdrawn on their own.
However, the secessions have a large cost to the national church, not only in legal expenses and lost donations from the dioceses, but also in damage to the Episcopal public image as the U.S. church struggles to keep its place in the global Anglican family.
RSS
_2.jpg)
sj, that aside are you ever going to answer online and my questions to you?
sj, at that time no since same-sex marriages were not legal, but what I saw was rampant drug abuse, male and female prostitution, a red light district touted as a tourist site, X-rated bookstores in business districts so that anybody walking by good see what was being sold, and so on. Plus now euthinasia is legal and in some cases being forced on people and of course abortion is legal and available throughout the entire pregnancy I've been told. Fortunately some of these things were limited to the large cities but by now who knows.
believer, I lived in Belgium for three years, where there is also recognition of same-sex marriages and I didn't see any widespread evidence of the Jester in the King's Court's fears. Did you witness a free-for-all in Holland, "where anyone can marry anyone else. male female sister brother mother husband as if it didn't matter"? I don't think so.
online, I hear you loud and clear brother!!
believer,
You will most likely not receive an answer since sj has repeatedly ignored giving a straight forward reply. He also never responded to my last post because it demanded a yes or no return. Not giving a direct answer is an answer, is it not?
sj, you don't consider Biblical Apologetics as the study of the Bible? Plus, you have yet to answer my question with regards to God being all-knowing?
sj, have you ever been to Holland, I have, in fact my family and I lived there for four years and I can tell you from a moral perspective they are indeed out of control.
sj, and you don't do the same thing with your Jewish scholars? But you take it a step further by saying their opinions rank higher than God's truth as clearly taught in God's Word. Anybody with common sense can clearly see God's original design for both marriage and sexual intimacy and especially every Christian who allows God's Holy Spirit to illumine their heart and mind with regard to the teachings and truths of God's Word. Maybe if you spent less time defending your denomination's stand on homosexuality and same-sex marriage God's Holy Spirit might be able to do that in your heart and mind.
believer, Dr. Norman Geisler's doctorate is in Philosophy, not Hebrew studies. He's taught theology and philosophy and apologetics, not Biblical Studies. You like him because he's an inerrantist and agrees with your position, not because he's an acknowledged and respected scholar in the field of Hebraic studies or the Old Testament. He comes to the conclusion you want, and you are more interested in just promoting your views than engaging in an objective discussion about the issue.
Jester in the Kings Court, none of your projected fears have occurred in other countries where same-sex marriage has been allowed for years. Are you suggesting that Americans will be more out of control than say the Dutch, or Swiss?
sj,
I was expecting a simple yes or no answer to my last post but you side stepped it once again; at least you are consistent in this regard.
i see johnny's point. we should just make marriage a free-for-all. anyone can marry anyone else. male female sister brother mother husband. it doesn't matter.
why not? that's where it will go anyway once the homosexual's right to marry has federal approval and is accepted in all the states.
sj, so all these Jewish scholars say that God's original design for marriage was polygamy? And because all these other Bible scholars like Dr. Geisler don't have the St. John's seal of approval their views are worthless? And you call online and myself self-righteous? Well if those Jewish scholars say that, guess what they're calling God a liar and calling Christ a liar as well. Because God declares His original design for marriage both through His creation of Adam and Eve and verbally He declares it in Genesis 2:24 and Christ affirms it in Matthew 9 as He quotes the words of His Father.
Most of the oral tradition represented in the Talmud, especially in the Gemara represent pre-Christian opinions. This is certainly true with both the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, so your attempts to simply dismiss them as Jews who rejected Jesus doesn't really work. Also Dr. Geisler is not a scholar of Hebrew studies. These Jewish scholars will argue that the Mosaic Law and Levitical code represent God's ordinance. They are almost uniform in their opinions about polygamy being a part of the Law. And finally, interracial marriage was opposed by 37 states until 1967, and polling interviews reveal that the majority of those who were opposed to changing the statutes were Evangelical Christians basing their vote on their Biblical interpretation, not unlike our current debate on same-sex marriage.
sj, how many of these Jewish scholars came to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Messiah? If they got that wrong why would they not get this wrong as well? Plus there are many Bible scholars such as Dr. Norm Geisler who do not see these laws as God ordaining or condoning polygamy so are all of them self-righteous to? Or could it be that the Jewish scholars you refer to are truly the self-righteous ones in this case?
sj, but opposition to inter-racial marriage has no biblical support.
sj, neither online or myself have disagreed with you on the fact that culture changes, our disagreement is believing that God has ordained or condoned these cultural changes and denying the fact that God's original and only design for marriage and sexual intimacy is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life and that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life through marriage. So even if the culture does accept same-sex marriages/unions in the sight of God as was polygamy He will see these unions as sin because they violate His design for marriage. And as it appeared to me that you and I both agreed that what the Bible records as a cultural norm does not automatically mean that cultural norm is either ordained or condoned by God.
I've heard people use that argument before, but I need to ask where in the Bible does it say that God condones polygamy, and disapproves of interracial marriages. I'm sure there are scriptures, but can someone point them out.
sj,
The point is; you cannot provide a passage from the New Testament that legitimizes same sex unions . . . can you?
Online4Him, the point is that the biblical concept of marriage has changed over the centuries. Women are no longer considered as chattel. Polygamy is no longer accepted and interracial marriage is now accepted, although each of these positions has a long history of biblical supporters. It is in this context that the questions about homosexual marriage are being considered. Pretending otherwise is to dismiss and ignore thousands of year of biblical discussions in favor of yours, and the ease with which you do that is just self-righteous.
Sj,
Again, You can accomplish much by simply posting a NT passage that legitimizes same sex unions!
Give us a New Testament passage please . . .
So for thousands of years Jewish scholars agreed that the Mosaic Law and the Levitical code established polygamy as the Biblical norm, but they were simply wrong, and you're extracting a couple of verses to support your interpretation dismisses theirs, without prejudices, and I am wrong to suggest that you are being self-righteous?
Sj,
You can accomplish much by simply posting a NT passage that legitimizes same sex unions! All of us, including you know that there is not one verse in the NT in which to build your case; right? Why not just conclude this discussion by providing the evidence or admit that you are incapable of doing so? By neglecting to do either or will be disingenuous, biblically irresponsible, and illogical.
Saint John,
There may have been many writings that the Jews used through the millenia, but the books of the Old Testament as we use today are the only writings that the Jews believed to be truly God-inspired. The Old Testament was the only Scripture that Jews used. Any other writing may have had some teaching value, but was never considered to be Holy inspired by God.
sj, plus it's not that we dismiss 2000 years of Jewish scholarship it's just that we prefer to believe God and the truths of His God-breathed, inerrant, and plenary Word. We put our trust in God while you put your trust in men.
sj, plus you never did answer my question, is God all-knowing or not?
sj, so when all else fails you play the self-righteous card!!
Online4Him and believer, I hope that the Holy Spirit lays heavy upon your hearts about the ease with which you dismissed 2,000 years of Jewish scholarship, as though you knew better the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures. How sad? How outrageous? How self-righteous?
believer,
Thanks, you too . . . perhaps the Holy Spirit will take these questions and lay them heavy upon his heart.
prophet, I believe sj is an episcopalian, but there are a number of similarities between them and catholics especially in the area of extrabiblical writings.
The situation I see with Saint John is that he is catholic. And much of what the Catholics believe and teach cannot be supported by scripture.
online, plus he's never answered my question with regards to God being all-knowing. Have a great Lord's Day and continue to be blessed as you serve Him, believer
Believer,
I agree; there are no New Testament passages that can be given to support same sex marriages. This is why sj has willingly shied away from answering the question (can you provide a NT passage to supports your assertion); I imagine it to be frustrating for someone trying to defend a practice or custom that cannot be explicitly supported by Scripture. Instead of providing a NT passage, we are being given a deluge of secular references, obsolete laws, philosophical arguments and my favorite; a constant dismissal of texts which refute his claims.
The scriptures used by the Jews of Jesus' time (and for about 400 years prior) are the same ones we use today. No more, no less.
sj, why would I want to put any faith in the writings of people who totally reject Jesus Christ as the Promised Messiah? If they don't get that then how can we put any faith in their interpretations of God's Word since as a minimum they would not see that Christ was the fulfillment of every Messianic prophecy found in the Old Testament? If they misinterpreted them why wouldn't it make sense they misinterpreted other texts as well. Bot the bottomline is with regards to marriage God made it perfectly clear what His only design for marriage is and His Son, Jesus Christ totally affirmed it.
sj, take the word of scholars who for the most part reject Jesus Christ as the Promised Messiah or take God at His word? No rocket science needed here since this a complete no-brainer, I'll take God at His word and His Word anyday!!!!
believer, it is not MY reading of the Mosaic Law AND the Levitical code, it is the reading of the Jewish scholars for some 3,000 years. I am not the one picking out a verse from Genesis and Matthew and declaring that THIS is the original design and plan of God, and thus that these Jewish scholars were mistaken in their understanding of God's ordinance for thousands of years, you are! Read the Talmud, read Misnah. Read the Hebrew Scriptures! God's beloved children of Israel derive from Jacob having multiple wives and concubines! God didn't just favor the children of one wive over the others, God loved and cherished them all without distinction! You are the one reading into the Scriptures what YOU want to find there!
prophet, totally agree but sj totally disagrees basing it on what he reads in the mosaic laws.
What I want to know is if God supports polygamy, why does it speak in Genesis, and even Jesus repeats it, that marriage is between one man and one woman...and the TWO will become one. It doesn't say and the three, or four, or ten will become one. Jesus says the TWO will become one.
online, I think sj's whole argument is based on a faulty logic that says just because God established rules to ensure the well being of woman who were part of a polygamous relationship that He condones and even ordained polygamy and it sounds like that in his thinking the culture determined to go from polygamy to monogamy and it appears God must still be okay with polygamy because he cites no where that God changed His mind on this, nor has he answered my question as to whether or not God is all-knowing. As I've shared with him, his defense of polygamy is a feeble attempt to support his denomination's view of homosexuality and same-sex marriage/union. I doubt he can come up with verses to support same-sex marriage since there are none, but what he'll do is say since God ordained polygamy why would He not be okay with same-sex marriage/union and challenge us to show where God said no to it and since he has totally disregarded those passages from the Old and New Testament alike that teach and support God's original design for marriage which is one man and one woman he'll declare that we can't defend that because we have no verses to support that view. What's so sad is that there are so many who profess to be Christians who put more faith in the writings and teachings of men then they do in the Word of God.
Most of your posts have been focusing on polygamy; what about same sex unions? Can you give me a New Testament passage that legitimizes same sex unions?
sj, polygamy is never prescribed in the mosaic laws.
sj, neither does God condone or encourage polygamy in the Mosaic laws, He just ensures that women are treated properly if indeed they are part of a polygamous relationship. And several of the examples you site do not state that the male involved has a wife already. Plus, using your logic the comparison of child sacrifice and polygamy are right on target. Plus, another thing to consider is that we read no record of Abraham saying to God that child sacrifice is wrong.
John,
Just because certain people in the Bible, or in that era, may have been polygamists doesn't mean it was condoned by God.
Child sacrifice is not prescribed in the Mosaic Law as is polygamy, nor is child sacrifice found in the Levitical Code, nor was child sacrifice practiced by the Patriarchs, and Moses, and good Kings David and Solomon, nor is there any recognition of child sacrifice as an acceptable practice in the New Testament or upon the lips of Jesus, so, no, I don't think the comparison is fair at all.
sj, during my quiet time this morning God led me to this, if I were to use the logic you are using in this discussion I could say God condoned if not ordained child sacrifice. He came to Abraham and told him to sacrifice his son Isaac and at that time there were societies that child sacrifice was a norm and even though God stopped him from sacrificing Isaac and provided him with a sacrifice, no where do we read that God told Abraham that child sacrifice was wrong, so using your logic apparently God condoned if not ordained child sacrifice.
Forgive me, I misread and thought sj was saying God's marriage design was a cultural norm; he meant polygomy.
sj, so do you believe God is all-knowing?
sj, I never said polygamy was not biblically recorded as the cultural norm, what I've contended from the beginning is that GOD'S ORIGINAL AND ONLY DESIGN for marriage is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life and that GOD"S ORIGINAL AND ONLY design for sexual intimacy is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life through marriage. And as far as norms go it is normal in all cultures for people be it believers or not to sin, but just because that is the norm does not mean in any way shape or form that God designed us that way or that He condones it, using the argument your using because Christ gave us guidelines for handling sin in the church, our own life, and the life of others it must mean that our sinning was a part of God's original design for us and in fact He must condone it or why did He create us with the ability to do it.
What makes me saddened is that God's original design and plan for monogamy between one man and one woman can be reduced to a cultural norm by some.