Some of you have often nattered on about the “fact” that denominations are a man-made thing and not of God. I, and others, have tried to explain to you that denominations are usually a result of honest differences among a group of believers. I now, thanks to the Gay Christian Movement Watch, have an opportunity to show you the beginnings of a denominational event.
The Episcopal Church has for several years, been in the process of validating homosexuality as an acceptable practice and preference within the Episcopal Church. The organization has ordained women, homosexual men and women, and has appointed a homosexual bishop.
The current leader of the Episcopalians, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, is insisting that the churches under her accept homosexuality as a norm. Several churches are, in effect, telling the queen bee to take a hike. They are maintaining that homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, the queen bee’s insistence to the contrary not withstanding.
What are the rebel Episcopalians’ options? They can either stay with the denomination (and thus signify their approval of the actions and doctrines of the denomination), or they can get the heck out of Dodge?
They’ve tried to talk some sense into the Episcopalian leadership. The leadership has said: “No. You are simply a pack of ignorant hicks and bigots if you can’t see that even Gay love is God’s love.” They are now being punished by the Episcopalian leadership for their stand.
As a result of this, several churches have made the very difficult choice of separating from the Episcopalian Church. If enough of them leave, and they agree to work together, guess what we have? Another denomination. Maybe they will call it the Heterosexual Episcopalians of America or something in order to differentiate it from the current batch of Episcopalians.
Will this denomination have formed simply because men wanted it? No! The denomination will have formed because the leaders of the parent denomination was dragging them over the cliff.
As a reminder, denominations generally exist because one group of people sincerely disagreed with another group in the organization and believed the differences were significant enough to split over. Generally, denominations are not simply the result of two groups wanting their way and breaking up out of selfishness.
As the blogger at Gay Christian Movement Watch has pointed out, what we are likely seeing is a mini-review of what will happen to the true church prior to Jesus’ return.
It’s my view that the pimps are, whether they realize it or not, prepping the church goers (as opposed to the true believers) for the end times. They continue to move away from sound doctrine, sound biblical practices, and an accurate focus on the Word, They continue to convince the church goers that God wants you rich and he doesn’t want you to suffer. Once the end begins, getting church goers to fall in line won’t be a problem. It will be you people who insist that the Bible is the word of God, that we are to live holy lives - as God defines holy, and that we are to expect persecution who will be looked at as the dangers to peace, unification, and true progress. You will be viewed as jealous haters, trouble makers, and ungodly. Oh wait, some church goers already view you that way.
As T. Dexter says: Get ready! Get ready! Get ready!
Melvin,
This is just another example of the state that the post modern church is in. Putting the “essentials” arguments to the side, we as “true chruch goers” can only combat this problem one way: preach/teach the Word of God. In my opinion, the reason we have so much division in the church stems from what I call biblical illiteracy. Too many of what we call “sheeple” don’t really know the Word, and rely on the pimps and the good “bishop” above to feed their twisted version of scripture. We as ministers of the Gospel, pastors as well as lay leaders, (some of which,like yourself have a vast knowledge of scripture) had better leave the milk alone and get into some hard core, expository preaching/teaching. I fear it may get much worse before it gets better…
1Cor 3:3 for you are still controlled by your own sinful desires. You are jealous of one another and quarrel with each other. Doesn’t that prove you are controlled by your own desires? You are acting like people who don’t belong to the Lord.1Cor 3:4 for while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
since there’s no scripture’s to support the forming of denominations (as the result of disagreements) we must ask ourselves why has the Church embraced this unbiblical practice, as a result there are over 20,000 so called Christian Protestant denominations claming to be bible believing Christians, how is this possible? Ignoring the carnal nature of denominations is confusing to this believer, not sure how to address this thread, other then scripture “proves they’re controlled by their own desires”
(MN: So then, what should the people who agree with all the Episcopalian doctrine, but disagree with the acceptance of homosexuality do? Should they simply be silent and support the Episcopalian stance by their silence? Should they keep the name and be wrongly associated with approval of homosexuality?
By the way, I don’t think you application of 1 Cor is really accurate here. No one is dividing over personalities or desires. They are dividing over the integrity of the Word. If you can’t divide over a question of the acceptability of homosexuality, is there anything you can divide over? How about the resurrection? What if the denomination began denying the resurrection? Is leaving because of that being carnal? Is it following after personalities? What if a denomination decides the Bible is not really the Word of God? Is that sufficient problem to split? )
Nice topic Mel……….though we have plowed this ground several times, it’s good to have an object lesson. KOTF………..are you saying that Paul is speaking of not dividing over the BIBLE there?? Please.
Mr Mn, again I cannot find any scripture supporting denominations, I would appreciate any assistance in finding one, without scripture the conclusion must be denominations are of man and not God; I agree the scripture referenced deal’s with personalities and desires, I’m not sure why it doesn’t cover the personalities that are involved in dividing the body, Christ is not divided, but denominations divide, so what’s left? All that’s left is that we trust God, he will divide the wheat from tares, its His Church. As for your questions, what does Scripture say? Any response of mine outside of scripture has very little value.
(MN: A question - what should the Episcopalians who reject the notion of homosexuality as the norm do? )
KOTF, denominations DO NOT DIVIDE THE BODY OF CHRIST. The Body of Christ is one in Him.
If I am a Presbyterian who is saved, I am NOT divided from a Baptist who is saved. I AM divided from the Episcopalian who promotes homosexuality,because they are NOT in Christ.
Denominations have nothing to do with it. Our unity in Christ is not based on being in the same denomination.
Mr Gary V. I can say that I now understand, I just needed scripture
Luke 9:49:50 Jesus Himself told the Church there would be different groups, and that still they were all of the same body.
Fruitful conversation
KTOF, can’t fault you for that brother!! Peace…
Mr MN: Everyone who says they’re a Christian, are not Christians. That’s the simple truth of the matter. It’s not because God hasn’t provided us with everything we need to know in order to make a just decision on what is right, or because scripture cannot honorably be understood by us, it’s because many simply choose not to receive what scripture says. 2 Tim 3:15-17
After I sent my first comment I prayed, I was led to Luke 9:49-50 (Mr. Lawrence I asked God to lay on my spirit an understanding) Aman
Clearly, and without ambiguity all Christians do not have to follow one group to be Christians. They merely have to follow Christ.
What’s an Episcopalian or any Christian to do when confronted with a strange teaching that might contradict scripture?
2nd Corinthians 4:2
The hidden things of dishonesty. The exact opposite of the bereans who were noble (honest) in their integrity to handle the Word of God not deceitfully in blindly following traditions, but honestly. This is what is sorely lacking in the Churches today. (MN: But the minority Epicopalians are doing exactly that. ) Honesty in dealing with scriptures that our Church traditions or doctrines don’t cloud our mind or blind our eyes. The Bereans knew something which the Churches today have forgotten. That all scriptures must be received with all readiness of mind (an open mind to them), taken in context, and harmonized with all other scriptures that speak on the subject. The faithful Church does this and that is how they know that what is being taught is the truth, or is error. (MN: But that is what the minority Episcopalians are doing. That’s why they are leaving. ) Therefore, they are assured that the bible says all these things and they cannot be deceived into false gospels by false prophets. He tries the spirits by the Word of God. (MN: But that’s why the minority Episcopalians are leaving. )
2 Corinthians 6:17
Uhmmm, uhmmm. May I remind you KOTF (keeper of the flame) that the same Paul who wrote in 1 Cor 3:3 was the same Paul that wrote in 1 Cor 11:19 when he said that “there MUST be “heresies” (opinions) among you in order that those who are “approved” (tested) may be evident (plainly recognized) AMONG you. Before we start to knock denominations (of which I am not a part of) we need to have a biblical understanding of why some but not all denominations exist in the first place which is what I beleive Melvin is trying to state.
Pastor Saiko,
Can we get a blog from you? Although you be on the dispy stuff, your insight and wisdom can be enjoyed by many. I have personally benefited greatly from both. You can name it “A voice from Houston” or something catchy. Maybe a Dispensational Dialogue! LOL!!! But seriously, I know you are busy, but I think you have something great to share.
You know what? My wife has been getting on me about not having my own blogsite. Honestly, I really don’t know where to start. How do I do it? How much does it cost? Who do I need to contact? Etc, etc, etc.
(MN: For starters, send me $300 - - no $500 a month so that I can be your covering. Then when I offer merchandise on how to go to the next level in blogging, I will let you buy it for 20% less than everyone else. )
Yeah, I’m a dispensationalist (if that’s what ya’ wanna call it) I just hold to a literal, grammatical, historical approach to the text on the distinctiveness of Israel & the church. But I’ll digress for now. But seriously brah, I need to think about getting mine up as well. I just want to make sure that I can devote the time necessary to keep up-to-date info on the site as I hate to go onto sites that have info that are weeks old w/o any other new stuff on the site. I do have a name for it if I were to put one up. I’ll hit ya’ll wit’ it once the blog drops. B&R, if you could help me getting one set up, I’ll appreciate it. God bless ya’ brah.
Will do, hit me up when you get a chance. I am a wordpress guy, Tyris “Tootsie Roll” Horton likes blogspot. We can discuss the main differences later.
so whatyatryna say, huh?
I need to get before God on this one Melvin LOL!!! When you get a chance Tyris, hit me up and walk me through it. Thanks for the encouragement. BTW Melvin, I have been looking at some posts from other people’s sites concerning Calvinism and have challenged Angela’s hubby to a phone debate on the atonement or any other salvific issues that come up. Would you like to “moderate” this discussion?
(MN: I would love to. We need to set up a structured process for the debate or things will get rather hairy rather quickly.
Melvin )
Saiko, I see your boys Lionel and Tyris must have called you for back up. When did you cahllenge me to a debate, I didn’t get an email from you? I gave my number to Tyris, you can get it from him. I welcome any challenge, all of you can line up like bowling pins as far as I’m concrned LOL. Like I told your boys, Let’s do this! Why should Big Mel moderate our phone call, is this between me and you?
(MN: I should moderate because a free for all doesn’t resolve anything. If others are going to be listening we need a ref/judge to keep order and to insure that all abide by the rules. Otherwise we simply have a free for all. And that would be a waste of time for everyone including/especially the listeners.
Neither of you is going to change your mind. There is no reason for it to be between the two of you. If we have listeners, then there has to be order. )
Bro Saiko, I love you brother- but we need to talk about the “dispensationalist” approach. At least check into “Covenant Theology.” I used to hold to dispensationalism as well, but I had a change of heart when I finally understood “Covenant Theology”.
OK………..but Mrs Mav is in charge of refreshments!! Sooner or later I’m getting some popcorn outta you Mav!!!
No Derrick the Pretorator I did not call anyone for back up. I have not taken a serious look at Preterism yet. Like I stated before I am going through the presuppostions of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. No one reputable(as if that matters, it does not) holds to preterism therefore I am not demanded to sharpen that side of my sword, but just for you I might read some more material on it so I can terminate the pretorator. LOL. If I would have called you DTG, all I would have been doing is giving you an oppotunity to share your views in which I honestly have not done enough research to refute your error, LOL. Saiko Woods and “Sugar Sweet” Lionel Woods are my disciples. I discipled them when I became a believer at 5 years old. That should give you a clue as to how well versed I am. I give all my disciples the last name Woods. I also discipled Melvin Jones but he is whipped and changed his name to Jones when he got married. YOU’RE NEXT DTG WOODS.
LOL!!!!!! You dumb dude!!! The Woods statement in hilarious!
Also DTG we have not called in any reinforcements. As Tyris stated we have been working through the other systems of theology. We may consider giving you about 5 minutes.
Wild……
There is no distinction between the church and Israel in God’s eyes, for we are all the Chosen people of God, if you have faith in the one God our spiritual father Abraham believed in.
(MN: Folks, we are not going to go down the Covenant/Dispensational road right now. The readers should be prepared for such a discussion. And I don’t want to do a posting on it - just yet. )
Mr. Melvin here is my dilemma,
· I am married to a person who believes God wants you rich
· He listens to those tapes that say “I am rich, I am thin” etc.
· I say its new ager stuff
· He says it’s not.
· We also attend a church where the male pastor talks about your destiny and talks like a new ager
· This church also has a female pastor
(the wife) My husband does not believe in women pastors
· However he is perfectly content to stay because the pastor talks of destiny.
While I have been reading the information on your site for a while and trying to study to come up to speed on what the Bible says how do you combat the new age theology that is mixed with Christianity? I don’t know what to say. Can you give me some insight one where to begin?
One thing that could help would be to get the phone book out and check for local New Ager groups in your area (they can be listed under religions). Then visit and politely ask their leadership about their beliefs.
‘Creative Visualization’ is often a term touted to represent using your own energy (faith) to create the reality you want.
See if they have literature that, while calling it a different term, basically says what the Church pastor says.
Use this as evidence to support that the New Agers teach the exact same message as the WofF churches teach.
In my past, I associated with New Agers (some who admitted they were frauds). This equiped me to see the similarities that were being taught by my wifes WofF church when I attended. Knowing my wifes beliefs, I never asked her to associate with my friends nor visit with them. Although, some education in comparative religious beliefs would be helpful in my opinion to all believers of any religion. Lets you know the simularities and differences as well as actually know what the others believe rather than accepting personal propaganda.
In the past, Youtube had video clips by some that compared the apostate teachings of Word of Faithers to New Age beliefs.
But, in the end, it’s all going to be how receptive your mate is to your warnings compared to how enamoured they are with their church leadership.
In my case, while my wife repeatedly acknowledges my intelligence and knowledge, she chose to listen to an ear tickling pastor who fleeced her and caused untold and permanent damage to my family rather than me.
It wasn’t until the height of a divorce she filed for (and was loosing badly) that she took some time to evaluate what her pastor and others were actually teaching. And, for all the money she gave them, when she needed them and advice, she got a couple of minutes of vague references to ‘you need to tweek it’. Yeah, tweek it. Real helpful in your great moment of weakness and suffering.
My advice would be to attempt to minimize any potential damage he could do to the family such as through children and finances and to seek a church where you won’t have to compromize beliefs (such as no female pastors) to attend and hope he follows.
Women in church leadership and homosexuality. A deadly combination.
It’s carnal with all the divisions Paul said it and thats it. (MN: The divisions were over personalities and desires. That is not the case here. What do you say the minority of Episcopalians should do? ) kotf I agree with here about this. But we find a way to say well what are we going to do. You don’t really want to ask me that question about this mess. God is not the author of confusion and he means it! If there is no bible to support this stuff then its carnal thats it. (MN: Again, what should the minority Episcopalians do? ) Why does the world laughs at us, because of stuff like this. (MN: What is it the world is laughing about? ) When God has nothing to do with this sadness of so called led-men of God. How can we stand when we have division like this? (MN: So what are the minority Episcopalians to do? ) The so called -people of truth don’t stand together,(MN: But they are standing together. They are standing together AGAINST the ones who would present homosexuality as normal and acceptable. How else would they stand together? ) its carnal no matter who it is. I don’t count the pimps, let the blind lead the blind into the ditch. God will prick the heart of his people if it is decreed for them. There were problems in those days of the apostles. But we can’t read about new denomination from “true elect of God”, maybe I’m wrong. Peter teaching the gentiles judaism because of fear is not the the same. Peter didn’t start a new denomination after the rebuke of Paul. Paul again says in Romans 16:17 mark the people who cause divisions. He didn’t give the o.k. to start new denominations, this causes divisions inside the body. What is the result of this mess? Ephesians 4:13 is not happening with the leadership of today!! The leaders of today promote divisions and denominations because there is no unity. If there is unity, please show me. Let’s not forget who we say he is talking to in Ephesians!!
(MN: By the way DTG, you really seem to have as little understanding about the concept of denominations as you do about the very concept of election. )
DTG, cite the rest of the verse.
Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
That is PRECISELY what the Episcopalian minority is DOING here. They have MARKED those who caused divisions and offenses in the Episcopalian church by promoting homosexuality, and they are now AVOIDING THEM by splitting away.
Whew!!
If I may,
It seems to me that when liberalism takes over, it also takes precedence. Which means that because of the depravity of man, those who oppose God usually end up in power in most church organizations. That is what is happening within denominations.
Denominations are man-made organizations and we cannot avoid that fact. Them being man-made does not make them automatically evil, wrong, or unbiblical. The toothbrush is also man-made but it would be “unbiblical” to walk around with bad breath. That would hinder witnessing. Yes I compared the toothbrush to denominations, the point is about the value of something being diminished simply because it is man-made. That’s illogical.
The splits, that have gone on throughout Church history and ultimately lead to the formation of denominations, are unavoidable because of the tares, which according to Jesus are sown in by Satan. (Matthew 13:36-39)
The only solution that I can come up with is that those who are holding to scripture and rejecting liberalism, should leave but they should leave quitely and remain anonymous. What?! I know that sounds shocking but this is what I mean. I left two churches within the past three years. I didn’t go out and start a new church. I didn’t look for a perfect church to join. All I did was to continue teaching bible study in my home to a small group. I don’t advertise. I don’t extend invitations. I’m not looking for a building. I didn’t come up with a new moniker so that “my group” could be identified amongst the crowd.
Now, if someone were to ask me if they should attend either of the two churches that I left my answer would be no. If they asked why I left them, then I would use wisdom to guide me in my decision whether or not to share specifics. Neither of them are popular or dangerous enough to warrant actively warning others about going there.
The minority groups of episcopalians should willingly forfeit there buildings, status, and public certification, and just leave. No fanfare, no news reports, no press releases or press conferences. Just leave. Everybody would know everybody that left and eventually they would gravitate towards one another. But there would be no need to go out and create another group.
Are denominations man-made? Yes.
Are they unbiblical? Maybe not, at least not in the way we think about “unbiblical”.
Are they unavoidable? In a perfect world, yes.
Does it have to happen in the public eye everytime there is a split? NO!
Besides you don’t ring the door bell on your way out of the house.
Well said LD. The group that is in the minority is usually expelled or leaves rather than giving up the essentials. They only have two options: stay and be quiet or leave.
Your follow-on to the issue of denominationalism was spot on.
As exactly one of the above mentioned former members of the Episcopal church, I have a lot to say on this topic and will probably email or post a longer essay on these topics later, but I wanted to begin with an introduction today.
First, staying quite is not my style and not my understanding of our mission as Christians to be evalgelical. I did not stay quite. I sent a four page letter (snail mail, not email) to the vestry of my parrish and to the rector of the church. It was interesting how the dialogue that followed developed. Needless to say, I am no longer a member of the Episcopal church.
But finding a church home is difficult. I have been skeptical of the modern megachurch for a time but decided to try it out. Doctrine issues aside, the dynamics of what is happening in these places must be studied. Churches and denominations like the Episcopal church have no growth and little future on the Christian landscape. They will continue to be marginalized and less relevant within the larger Christian community, more of a skeleton within our closet than a real player at the table of Christian leadership. So, I begin my indoctrination into the Evangelical Church Assemblies.
I attended EMIC this past month on my travels and must say that I was impressed by the campus. What needs to be realized is that places like this prosper. The largest growth amoung Christian denominations in the United States are in these types of churches. Are all these Christians duped into supporting one of your Big Six (or is it 9) or is there any redeamable qualities of these places? Surely not all of these people are wearing blinders.
Why do these churches prosper in this day? Do people need the promises of wealth or restored health that are often associated with the preaching style of some of these pastors? My argument would be categorically “no.” These places offer on the surface exactly the same presentation that you, Melvin, ascribe to in your introduction “about me” on this website: a back to the Bible as the untimate source of wisdom approach. Whether or not they misinterpret Malachi or not is not my purpose today. I am merely pointing out that as a person on the move within the Christian world, you must wonder why so many settle into these environments.
Rather than laying on my own arguments on these topics and others today, I shall stop with this introduction today. My final comment concerns your essay on tithing. You state that some areas of scripture are not as applicable as others. Would it be more correct to state that all words of the Bible are equally applicable and important, but what is often done is the misapplication of these words?
Yours in Christ,
Merlin
Melvin, wow, your perspective on this issue in terms of the denominational aspect is something I hadnt considered. I know someone noted that it had been covered before, but I think that as the postmodernist prophets continue their march for power and control of the church, we will all be forced to make decisions about who we are associated with and more importantly, what our actions are after the fact.
I agree with Lawrence except on a couple of points.
(1) his departure was not a denominational level event. It was a personal decision and perhaps his “silence” about it was appropriate considering the circumstances. However the departure of an entire congregation or an entire diocese isnt comparative. Thats why we are discussing this and not Lawrence’s situation. The former is big news with a major impact on others in the same situation.
(2) the issue of homosexuality will not be resolved. It is a major plank of postmodernist ideology. Thus, they are unwilling (as the Episcopal, UCC and some Lutheran bodies have demonstrated) to find a solution. It defines their need for control of the historic denominations. As your graphic humorously noted, the choice they give the dissidents is shut up or leave. And if they do leave, there will be punitive consequences for sure.
Given this, I would not advise any group to remain silent. They should speak out and refuse to keep company with those who have usurped power and are using it to set up idols and push false doctrine.
In my view, this is war. Anyone who takes a pacifist position hoping that these people will come around are sorely mistaken. That’s why you publish PP, right? If all the pimps would just read this blog, see how wrong they are and stop everything would be fine. But we know that wont happen. They will only increase their ungodly activities.
I personally have no issue with denominations. I do however take issue with denominationalism. I think we all “denominationalize” (are selective with whom we associate with for what ever reasons in varied circles) to some extent. So the protest against it is a bit left of hypocritical if you really admit it.
Finally, let me touch on the angle no one seems to see coming. A cadre of religious homosexuals are preparing themselves to invest these same divisive tactics in the “black church”. The pimps’ activities, compromise and doctrinal fallacy are making it ripe for this to began taking shape closer to home.
What will we do when your “nondemoninational” church turns the corner and begins adding “inclusive and affirming” theology to its beliefs?
We need to look hard at what is happening, because it is coming to a church near you sooner than you think.
GCMwatch,
I want to be fair to you and civil. It may be that we’ve misunderstood one another so I don’t want to start a war over words. I believe that we see eye-to-eye on the dangers of the post modern movement as it relates to issues such as homosexuality and the church.
Here’s where I think we may have missed each other. I am definitely FOR speaking out against any unbiblical position taken by any group supposing to represent the Lord Jesus Christ. Here’s my problem, I feel this could have happened outside the view of the general public. Here’s how:
1. The dissenters could have seen the writing on the wall for what it was. I’ve never seen one church organization where a controversial issue came up (homosexuality, women in ministry, etc.) that didn’t eventually receive acceptance. To the degree that an openly lesbian woman was elected as the Presiding Bishop over the organization, the only question I have is why did a vote need to take place for the people to decide to leave. This is denominationalism at its highest. The tie to the organization causes dissenters to go through all this “red tape” to do what was just to do on biblical grounds alone.
2. I was able to use my personal example because it was comparative as it relates to the privacy issue. It was relevant to the fact that I didn’t have to make any announcements to the congregation as to why I was leaving. The denominational impact is a non-issue in my opinion. It was not my responsibility to save those two churches no more than it is the responsibility of these dissenting diocese to save the denomination. Trust me, at least in the case of the first church I left, it sent red flags up in everyone’s mind. (Without negative publicity from me, three other families have left) Yes, raise the issues. But don’t expect to prevail. As you said, the homosexual issue will not be resolved. (By the way, I never implied or said that it would be so I don’t understand how that became you second point of disagreement.)
So hopefully you didn’t get the impression that I was giving a absolute rule in all situations. I can’t do that. I can advise wisdom in all situations for the sake of the gospel. I’m sure that those who think that we are no different than the political groups fighting for power are having a field day “watching the Christians fight amongst themselves”.
Why is there an “Episcopalian doctrine” and a “Baptist doctrine” and a “Methodist doctrine” etc.? I thought we are all to align under the “Bible doctrine”. If the distinctives that cause denominations to form are of great enough importance to separate, then are we saying that the Bible can be saying two or more things on a given topic? (MN: No. We are saying that two people understand it differently and each thinks the other is wrong. And as I have said in the past, both can’t be right. Either one is right and the other is wrong, or they are both wrong. ) On the other hand, if the denominational distinctives are not truly essential to faith, then what is the point of dividing into denominations over triviality? (MN: Usually, the folks who leave DO believe it is an essential. And for them, it is. That’s why folks must, in their own minds, work out what they are willing to disagree on and still maintain fellowship. ) I’ve asked many questions and I don’t normally wade in with the “big boys… and girls” on these issues, but I have never understood the biblical relevance of denominations. (MN: Take a look at what LarryD wrote. He does a really good job of talking about denominations. If the majorit of a group wander off, a minority is forced to either sit in silence and give tacit agreement to what is being said, or they separate themselves from those who would deny those things the minority consider essentials. Usually, such a split happens only after all attempts have been made to come to some way of avoiding the split. Look at the Episcopalians specifically. The queen bee is not interested in backing away from the homosexual issue. The minority has spent the last six years being villified, compromised, and liberalized. Should they stay and be silent? What will their kids be taught in Sunday School? Who will be chaperones on field trips? How can the parents teach their children that homosexuality is wrong if the pastor is a lesbian and she parades around with her spouse? ) My thought is that if the denominational distinctive is big enough to separate over, then it is big enough to instead reason together over and come to a biblical conclusion. (MN: They aren’t trying to reason. The liberals are not trying to come to a Biblical conclusion. If they were, they would not be pushing the homosexual agenda. The homosexuals are trying to force the non-homosexuals (the minorities) to capitulate in some critical areas. This isn’t simply a matter of do we have communion once a week or once a month; the first sunday of the month or the fourth sunday of the month? These are essentials, and the majority is not interested in discussing it any further. )
(MN: A very simplified line of progress:
Episcopal doctrine grew out of the reformation and their disagreement with papal authority, the restriction on marriage of priests, and some other items. It is, I believe, very closely tied to the Church of England - founded by one of the Tudors (Henry the Eigth I believe).
Baptist doctrine grew out of the refusal to baptize infants, the method of governinng, and some other stuff.
Methodist doctrine grew out of the difference between Arminianism and Reformed theology, how to present the Gospel, the idea of an exprience that will make you less likely to sin, and some other things.
[For more detailed information, try “Church History in Plain Language, by Bruce Shelley - I just bought a replacement copy for my library. ]
Each group [the minority] left because they believed the issues they struggled with were important and got in the way of what they believed to be true worship of God. None of them were simply over personality or things they thought were trivial. As I pointed out earlier and others have stated, it was not a matter of being carnal. Rather, it is a matter of being true to God and standing in integrity.
Again I ask, what options do the minority Episcopalians really have? The Episcopalian leadership has made it clear that they are done with discussion. Now everyone must toe the line or leave. )
The minority Episcopalians have options. They may not be the kind of options that they want, but they do have them. Either they can “stomach” the idea of being in a place of worship, where they disagree with doctrine, or they can leave and find another church. (MN: And what does the Bible say they should do? )It’s easier said than done, because people don’t want to leave the “comforts of their church” and venture out. I think sometimes that “the inclusion of homosexuality’, in the church, is a tactic, used by leaders, to get more bodies in the pew. I look at this as being a “business tactic”. There is a business side to the politics of church. Pastors want to do everything they can to maintain membership in the church. Nobody’s church wants to be labeled as being “dogmatic and hateful”.
On the other hand, there are leaders, who honestly don’t believe that it’s wrong to be gay, and they include their feelings, in their teachings.
It seems as though we can agree that everything else is a sin. But when the subject of “homosexuality” is brought up, people start squirming in their chairs(laughing). What’s really up with this?
A couple of comments on Bro. Lawrence’s well-written statement “The minority groups of Episcopalians should willingly forfeit their buildings, status, and public certification, and just leave. No fanfare, no news reports, no press releases or press conferences. Just leave.” 1) the Episcopal/Anglican church had many splits before Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori came on the scene. There are tons of splinter groups out there.
2) As my old History of Christianity professor taught, “follow the money.” There are many rectors and bishops who are vocal in their opposition to their current denominational leading. However, their salaries and pensions (i.e. their and their families’ current and future livelihood) not to mention years of friendships, are tied up in their decision to stay or leave. Many of these clergy have no other sources of income. A major Dallas-area church pulled out over this issue with much fanfare and notoriety. But they were, if not the, one of the wealthiest parishes in the country.
While I certainly agree with Bro. Lawrence’s statements, I also understand that it is a very easy thing to say, “well, just leave” when you are not the one at the end of the gangplank. We should be praying for our brothers and sisters, for not only their holy boldness to “vote with their feet,” but also that God would provide for them as they take the steps.
If I were a bible believing Episcopalian, I would have to make my position known and make my exit from that denomination. Mrs Schori is dangerous and I would not feel comfortable remaining in the Episcopalian denomination, much less under her leadership. In addition to the whole woman Bishop thing and the homsexuality stance, she has also made the following comment in one of her homilies on 6/21/2006: “Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation,” (link to full text of speech: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_76300_ENG_HTM.htm) For some reason, I get the feeling this this type of reference is linked to witchcraft/Jezebel ties. This is very disconcerting.
MsJ…….thanks for the further info. No wonder she’s so pro-gay. She seems to have a bit of difficulty distinguishing between the sexes herself.
You’re very welcome!
Mr MN, what they have left is a man made denomination (if it were of God it would not reject scripture) that has rejected Christ, those remaning are not Christians. I would say they have another Christ, again 2 Cor 6:17
OK, enough. Those that remain are not Christians??? Who are you to cast that stone? Read a few posts higher. We should be praying for those people who have not left as I have for whatever reasons. This battle is not over. It is just beginning.
One note on the concept of “minority.” While it is fair to say that Episcopal leadership voted for these people, there is a representation at convention that is similar to British Parlament. There is a group of Priests, deacons and Bishops (House of Lords) and a group of parishioners from around the country (House of Commons). Representation in the larger group (Commons) is selected differently depending on the parrish. It is dangerous to assume that a majority of representatives even reflects a majority of membership in the whole Episcopal church. At every Episcopal church that I know, this issue has been tearing up lives and churches since the Bishop Gene fiasco in 2003. Those who remain are fighting for their parrishes.
What is important to know about the Episcopal church that is different from many other churches is that most parrishes do not own their buildings, the dioscese owns the building. So, if you vote to leave, most often that means you abandon your church as well as the building in which you worship. While this is not a huge problem in your eyes, perhaps, ask a poor church in a small town to find a new home. Ask the 80 year old woman who walks across the street to the same church she has attended for the last 50 years to move 15 miles down the road because she can no longer worship in this place.
Be more careful about casting stones. Where then will you stop? The vast majority of Epsicopalians that I know are God loving people who are having their hearts ripped from their chests by this. Families (like mine) are now split. How dare you pass judgement over those actually in the battle from afar long before the battle is over. This issue has not been resolved.
Because the issue of property, it will take much longer to sort out. Episcopalians are not all like the Dallas church that can afford to leave. Every time a church leaves, there will be legal battles to follow. The enemy makes this path quite difficult. Pray for our brothers and sisters who remain in this situation; don’t condemn them.
Yours in Christ,
Merlin
(MN: I’m not convinced that anyone is casting stones. I will maintain that there are those who are willing to stand on and obey the Word and those who are not. Those who are willing to stand on the Word and obey it will leave. Those who are, at best, hesitant to stand on it will leave. Yes, I understand that there are all kinds of fluxes and forces going on. But at the end of the day, just like in other denominations, the choice must be to leave or stay. I understand that it is more expensive to leave in the Episcopal church but the requirements are exactly the same regardless.
I suspect that most of them are having the struggle they have because they have already compromised - say with the ordaining of women as priests and several other actions. It is difficult to pay a high price to stand on principal when you have been unwilling to stand before. I suspect the difficulty is that the issue has now become something folks are PERSONALLY concerned about, not biblically concerned about.
Don’t be too quick to cast stones by accusing others of…casting stones. I would suggest that the Episopalians are having the same struggles (no more and no less) within the denomination that others have within churches and denominations. The Lutherans have struggles, the Baptists have theirs. And even within local churches, the congregants have their struggles and chanllenges. So please, get off your high horse. At some point a person HAS to decide if they are going to follow man (the Episcopal/Lutheran/AME/etc. leadership, or if they are going to FORSAKE ALL (buildings, infrastructure, income, etc) for Christ. The only difference between me and the folks who leave an Episcopal church is they have to pay a higher price. Forgive me if I don’t take this as an excuse for not acting on the clear words of the Bible. I don’t pretend that it is easy. In essense, I left my wife and all of my friends at First Baptist Church of Glenarden. )
I respectfully disagree. Calling those who remain “not Christians” is very much casting stones. Also, Melvin, it was not you who did so, but since you pick up the battle, let’s try again.
I do not accept that leaving a denomination is the only acceptable avenue open to a person. If you must call out any denomination on their first variance from scripture, all the pews would be empty. This perfection existed/exists only once. As you say, all denominations have their issues. So, abandonment of any denomination cannot be the answer unless it is to recreate one church. (MN: Sorry, but the “no one agrees on everything” argument really doesn’t agree here. In fact, I suspect they got where they are because they (the ones who disagree with allowing homosexuals to participate) caved on other doctrine that they just didn’t consider essential - like women as priests). The result is that doctrinal disagreements get further and further out there until the denomination is faced with exactly what they have: one side arguing that homosexuality is simply an alternate lifestyle and should receive acceptance from the church. This is not just one of those “we see it one way, you see it another” issues. It gpes to the very character and nature of the Church. )
Following Christ is both a personal situation but also a corporate situation. The body of Christ has been broken many times before and will likely be further fragmented in the future. (MN: I didagree. the Body of Christ has never been broken. Organizations have. But they are not the Body. ) I applaud your hard line stance and agree with it in prinicipal. I falter in condemnation of those involved in their individual struggles. I can no more condemn my parents than you can condemn your wife. This is, in my mind, casting stones. (MN: To the degree that I believe my wife is wrong to do what she does, I do indeed “condemn” her. Am I going to stone her? Certainly not. Saying that she is wrong is not condemnation. It is merely right judgment. Saying that her pastor is wrong to say that he would counsel her to leave FBCG IF I apologized for telling people why I left, is simply righteous judgment. Saying that your parents are wrong for staying in the face of blatant anti-christian teachings is simply righteous judgment. They should be told that they should leave, even as my wife should be told (the John Jenkins) that she should leave. )
So, while you assert that abandonment of a denomination is the only solution, I would argue to enlighten a denomination from within, while far more challenging, is necessary. (MN: The denomination is not interested in being enlightened. And the Bible gives us instructions on how we should respond when those in the church organization depart from the truth as spelled out in Scripture. ) Neither us has followed that path, true, as both of us left our respective churches. But without perserverence from within, there can be no reconcilliation to the Word. (MN: They are not interested in being reconciled to the Word. I would suggest that the leadership is not even saved, given that there is no indication of an attempt to persevere in the truth. )
I understand that you believe that compromise, once accepted, cannot be overcome. But I do not find this to be true. A compromise that is shown to be false will be false and rejected once properly exposed. (MN: The leadership is not compromising. The leadership is insisting that their way be accepted. The leadership is insisting that homosexuality be accepted as normal and godly. What is the compromise between truth and falsehood? That is like trying to find a compromise between aborting and not aborting. )
In the case of the American Episcopal Church, you may be right that the battle is lost. But I fall short of calling those that remain “not Christians.” (MN: I can certainly “compromise” here. I could even go with the thought that they are a bunch of babe in Christ [who should be maturing by now] and simply haven’t figured out what they should really be doing. ) They may never abandon this horrible leadership, but that does not necessarily mean that they follow the lead of man rather than the lead of Christ in whom they gather in the first place. (MN: Yes, it does mean exactly that. If they are following the lead of Christ - - they would leave. )
Yours in Christ,
Merlin
Well, it is not my intent to persuade. You hold your convictions strongly and with good reason. Nonetheless, I believe my parents and many of the remaining members of the AEC (may I abreviate this?) are blessed people. If I may be so bold, you probably feel similarly about your wife. Therefore, I will hold out hope for their salvations. The salvation of each man is his own responsibility, after all.
You may well be correct about the AEC and their leadership. Clearly, we have seen a progression from ordained women, to episcopate elected without ordaination, to openly homesexual clergy and bishops to the current state of affairs. This is strong evidence for your argument concerning AEC leadership and the frog in the pot erosion of values. Perhaps through this dialogue I may renew my efforts towards my parents, but I leave this discussion with this one other comment.
All of my prior commentary on AEC parrish finances aside, reallignment with the Anglican communion separate from the AEC might be a better solution for this particular parrish, and most others for that matter. I cannot see this happening locally in part due to the changes in membership that have occurred in no small part due to the leadership issues. But the majority of the parrish is clearly upset. It is not an avenue that is out of the question. The Presiding Bishops of several other of the World Anglican Communions urged the AEC not to allow the election of Bishop Gene in 2003. Realignment with them, as pointed out by an earlier post, may offer a righteous avenue without compromise and yet without completely losing their identity as a church.
Yours in Christ,
Merlin
(MN: Ah! I think I understand what you are saying. The locals don’t agree with the upper leadership. As such they are not exactly associating with the gals and guys dragging the overall church organization down a theological rat hole. Fair enough.
What do you say Bro. D? )
For the sake of the ones who would not attempt to make a distinction between their local church and the overall denomination, I would still push for separation. However, there is a sense in which the people understandably feel that they aren’t the ones who should have to make the adjustment. It would seem to me that the burden of proof is on the side of the ones who are doing the “180″ and not the ones who are holding fast to scripture. So therefore, if the ones who remain believe that they can affect a reversion to the truth that the denomination once held to, then I say that they should be prayerful and that they should stock up on Excedrin. I think there will be a lot of heads banging against brick walls. JMO
To be clear, I never said I agreed with her (I’m familiar with the link you provided; scary); just saying it is more complicated than we (who are not facing this issue) are making it. It’s one thing to leave as an individual, it’s another to leave as a clergy. Again, pray for them as we encourage them to do the right thing.
(MN: Beleive me, I’m not presenting it as a simply item nor suggesting that all motives are pure. Each and every person will have to decide what they should do. The last time I was in this situation, the solution was incredibly painful. )
Hey Melvin,
Did you stand at the escalator of the Convention Center and hand out tracks, during the New Years Revival? What was the reaction of the people?
(MN: No. And I was hoping no one would ask. I got distracted with some other stuff and before I knew it, I was sitting at the fourth. )
Melvin,
What happened to my reply to GCMwatch?
(MN: I may have deleted it by accident. I’m getting lots of spam these days. Repost? )
Wow!!! Mel, just want to let you know that I am immensely enjoying this dialogue, as well as another conversation that your dear pastor has started over at the CRC website entitled “Culture Clash” I know it’s a little old, but I just found it:
http://www.reformingchurches.org/blog/date/12/2007
My mind is being challenged and my perspectives are being broadened. I hear the passion and earnestness in all of the comments. Keep it comin’ everyone!!! Ok, I think that’s enough for now…Methinks I will settle down and enjoy the Ohio State/LSU game now…Go Tigers!!!
Solus Christus,
R4C
I would imagine that Paul would be very displeased if he knew we were forming denominations on the basis of his explanation of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11. Denominations are the natural outworking of division in the church over doctrine. That is exactly what 1 Cor. is railing against. The only division God seems to promote is the division of his people from the world. Look throughout the New Testament at how often the admonition comes that we all be of one mind. I think that we are influenced too much by the reformation and post-reformation theology which did not necessarily discard Catholic ways of doing church. They simply, in many respects, reformed them. Hence, the fact that people like Calvin supported infant baptism. His followers also seemed to adopt the Catholic doctrine of enforced uniformity which led to the violent persecution of Anabaptists.
Here is my point, I understand that denominations are, in some ways necessary because the need for identification. But I do believe that God’s will will ultimately lead away from denominations. The Christians that will contend with the Anti-Christ will not be known denominationally; they will survive as a unit against the powers of this world.
As to the Episcopal folks, I believe they should caucus with other Christian folks of like minds. They should probably leave the Episcopal order altogether since their fellows here and across the pond seem to believe things contrary to scripture. The head of the Anglican church, Rowan Williams, I believe, supports homosexuality. So, in that case, they just need to go somewhere else.
Just a note: the groups leaving the American Episcopal churches are submitting themselves under biblically conservative authority within the Anglican communion. Unfortunately, they are located in foreign countries. So they are not starting new denominations. I would call it more of a relalignment.
Excellent point, GCM. It’s a bit like Paul’s oversight of the churches in Asia while he was imprisoned!
One of the major issues we’ve missed in this discussion is the elitism/racism that’s rampant in the AEC leadership. What we have in the Anglican Communion are hundreds and thousands of parishes and bishops in the global South and Asia who have held to the true faith in spite of persecution, while the wealthy “Western” world parishes are led in group visualizations of Mother Jesus and the Spirit of all Humynkind while someone passes out fundraising materials for the next gay pride parade.
They cavalierly make decisions anathema to the vast majority of their brethren in developing nations, assuming that whatever choices they make will be lauded by those poor, ignorant, third-world bishops and priests. For the AEC (and the Church of England, to a perhaps slightly lesser extent) to flaunt its faithlessness, ignoring the pleas of African, South American, and Asian bishops to return to Scripture, is nothing less than what I said above: elitism and racism. We in the West know SO much better than you, they seem to say. We’ve successfully rubbed out any remnants of a medieval view of sin and are now liberated from feeling bad about ourselves! We’re free to make our god look however we want him or her to look! Catch up with the West, you poor, backward savages!!
Open-mindedness done made their brains fall right out of their heads, as my daddy would say.
Well said Laura………how thoroughly pathetic that our African brethren are seriously considering sending missionaries to America. And they are right. We’ve put a Christian veneer over the American religion of self exaltation. We’ve had revivals in America, but we’ve never had a Reformation……….and without that folks like us are going to be marginalized and persecuted to extents that seem unimaginable today.
Gary V
Long time bro’ hope all is well. In your reply to Laura did you mean “ironic” rather than “pathetic” or do I need to pull out my dictionary again?
Ironic is appropriate………..but it’s pathetic that WE need missionaries sent HERE. I can’t think of a better word than “pathetic” to describe American Churchianity. *sigh*
Thanks GaryV. I’m sure you will echo my outlook that the decline of Christianity in America (as in the UK and Western Europe) is sad, but it is a reminder that God does not have “favourites” and the West is ripe for judgement (in my view).
I think it’s WONDERFUL that the African man is in a position to consider coming to the West to give the gospel of Christ.
I listened to John MacArthur the other day and he mentioned how people go on about America as though it was some special nation deserving of Divine favours. When all nations recognise that they are spiritually poor and needy, then they’re in a good position to listen and act upon the word of God.
I agree Cushie 100%……..I thank God that there are still folks out there WITH the true Gospel to send here, because we’ve certainly lost it. Just to be clear, I’m not saying I don’t want them to come. I’m PRAYING they come. It just makes me unutterably sad that it’s necessary for them to come.
We’ve prostituted the Gospel by selling it out to the American Dream of earthly success.
God loves you for YOU.
God is there to make you RICH.
God is there to make you HEALTHY.
God is there to make you HAPPY.
God is there to make you a SUCCESS.
God is there to fulfill your DREAMS……..to spice up your sex life, to make your kids behave, to fund your vacation home, to bring you from your 19″ TV with tin foil on the rabbit ears to the Glory of Hi-Def Plasma Big Screen.
God wants you to drive THE BEST, have THE BEST house, fill your house with the BEST STUFF.
God is here to bring you the American Dream.
Makes me wanna puke.
To state that racism is a “major” issue in this discussion is well off the mark. The AEC espiscopate is composed of men and women of any and all sexual allignments and race. I think that they may represent the most inclusive group of church leaders in the world. Isn’t that sort of the point of this whole discussion that their inclusion of women in the 1960s and now homosexuals in this decade is departure from the Bible? Race is not an issue at all in this discussion.
For the record, I suspect that Bishop Walker of the Dioscese of Long Island would be surprise to hear that race was part of this debate. He is a “reform” minded man who presided over the Confirmation of my wife. He looks at the Arch Bishops from Africa and calls them brother. He listens to them speak and turns his ear away. He is not alone in the Episcopate of the AEC.
The roll call of Anglican communions around the globe who stood aghast at the decisions of the AEC at Convention in 2003 is fairly complete. The major difference is that the Presiding Bishop of South Africa actually came to Convention to speak and attempt to persuade. He was well received by most of the people present. However, his position did not prevail in the voting.
This has never been about race. It is insulting to an Ex-Episcopalian to suggest such. This is about a departure from Biblical principal and teaching. Racism could not be farther off the mark. There was nothing cavalier about it. The debates were heated and many parrishes around the country are deciding their eventual fate within the AEC. By the end of this decade, the AEC will be decimated by the flood of people and churches leaving its ranks. I’m sorry, but I see absolutely nothing in this situation that remotely conjures up racism as a talking point.
Elitism, so much as Americans tend to disregard the opinions of the rest of the world on just about any topic, may be more fair from that perspective. This is the same sort of elitism in which American Roman Catholic Cardinals argue a departure from Rome and Papal authority concerning contraception.
BTW, I love that last quote from your daddy.
Your in Christ,
Merlin
Merlin, what I’m really addressing is the attitude of the highest-up in the denomination — a sort of subtle, unacknowledged racism. Not overtly, as in, “We look down on you because we’re white and you’re not,” or whatever, but hidden racism/elitism that says, “We, the Western elite, know what’s best for you, the poor ignorant African.”
I don’t know quite the word for “ethnicity-ism” or “nationality-ism.” Maybe that’s the concept I was thinking of more than sheer “skin-color-ism.”
Blessings,
Laura
(MN: Perhaps Ethnocentricist or nationalistic, or social elitist. I suspect you mean any kind of standard that is limited to my culture and my view of the Bible filtered only through my culture and not particularly related to the actual message of the Bible. )
I see where you are trying to go. I think it is more of the sypmtomatic American nationalism type of arrogance than any other problem. But we have to put into