How is the Episcopal Church Different?

[bostonian]

This is sort of an open-ended question, but I wonder in what major ways the Episcopal Church is different from the other denominations that you are aware of.

[anglicansablaze]

How does the Episcopal Church differ from other denominations?

1. You might find following article helpful in understanding how Episcopal Church was established and how the polity of the Episcopal Church has changed since the late 1700s. It is not an easy read but it is informative.

"PARISH IS THE BASIC UNIT OF THE CHURCH IN AMERICAN ANGLICANISM Serious Challenges Face American Anglicanism: On What Principles Will a New Order Be Shaped?"
www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6963

2. One of the things that sets apart from other denominations is the Book of Common Prayer and its use in public worship. No other church in the United States has used a set liturgy in the English language for all of its history.

3. Of the other denominations the Episcopal church is the only one to have lost its Evangelical wing during the 19th century. During the 19th century the growth and increased influence of the Oxford High Church movement and the spread of ritualism and the doctrines of baptismal regeneration, the Real presence, and "reserve," which discourage the reading and study of the Bible by laypersons, prompted an exodus of Evangelical Episcopalians from the denomination. They formed the Reformed Episcopal Church. For more than 60 years the Episcopal Church suffered collective amnesia about its Evangelical past and the significant role Evangelicals played in the early history of the denomination.

4. Of all of the provinces of the Anglican Communion the Episcopal Church is the most liberal. It is also one of the most liberal denominations in the United States. It ranks with the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

Unlike other denominations, the largest group of liberals in the Episcopal Church have their roots in the Oxford High Church movement. In the late 19th and early 20th century the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Episcopal Church fell under the influence of modernism. There emerged a theological development in the Episcopal Church that Dr. Les Fairfield, professor of Church history at Trinity Episcopal for Ministry, now retired, calls "Catholic Modernism". IIt is a synthesis of Anglo-Catholicism and modernism. It might be described as modernism in vestments. In the last half of the 20th century Catholic Modernism grew increasingly more radical, influenced by feminism, liberation theology, the sexual revolution of the 1960s, and the New Age Movement. It was particularly vulnerable to the influences of an increasingly post-Christian, post-modern culture. It has drifted toward inclusivism, pluralism, synecreticism, and universalism.

In the 20th century the Unitarian Universalist Association underwent a transition from a belief system based upon the Bible to one based upon humanism. The Episcopal Church has been undergoing a similar transition. The major difference is that in the UAA the transition was not attended by the conflict that it has in the Episcopal Church. The transition to a humanistic based set of beliefs explains why Anglicans whose belief system is Bible-based view the Episcopal Church not just as a "different church" but also as a "different religion." It may use some of the same terminology as authentic Biblical Christianity but it has given new and different meanings.

The largest segment of the Anglican Communion view themselves as Protestants, or reformed Catholics, and have a Bible-based belief system. They view the Bible and biblical authority quite differently from how Catholic Modernists in the Episcopal Church view them.

[Ginger]

I love this question because it makes me think. I am not going to answer you in form of links or lectures. There are many learned people on this site who can debate the fine points of canon law, discuss the exact meaning of various translations of biblical verse, etc. I want to answer your question as someone who goes to church to meet God, not engage in politics. Please note that none of us can individually speak for the entire church, so I guarentee that someone will disagree with what I have to say, and that is ok

We (meaning the Episcopal Church of the USA) are a pretty diverse group. We are not easily definable. At various points in my life I have belonged to the Methodist Church and the Baptist Church. When someone says to me, "I am Methodist" or "I am Baptist" I have a fairly good understanding of what that means. Baptists, as a rule, are pretty conservative folks (religiously). Methodist tend to be as well. Episcopalians rarely fit a mold.

We are different in that we use the Book of Common Prayer. Our services, our prayers, our order of worship is written down and no matter where you are, if you see the red doors of an Episcopal Church and there is a service in progress it will be one of those in the BCP. So even though the daily prayer content changes, how you get to it in the order of service stays the same. Even though the readings are always different they happen in the same place in the service.

We are different from many denominations because we use real wine for communion. Now I am given to understand that Catholic Churches also use real wine, but most Prodestant churches are of the grape juice persuasion. This doesnt necessarily make us better or more "right", just different.

Some Episcopal Churches are high church (incense, white gloves etc) and some are low church (jeans on Sunday morning, praise music instead of traditional hymns, etc). Some practice liberal theology, and others are quite conservative.

We are different because our denomination is built on the idea that we are all works in progress. Since no one has "arrived" and has all the answers, so we encourage each other to ask questions, even if they are hard questions.

I dont want to mislead you though. The Episcopal Church is just like any other organized denomination. We are made up of people. People are imperfect. As such sometimes we forget that we dont know it all. We get wrapped up in the idea that we *know* what God's mind is and think everyone should agree with our position. This is true of each of us at one time or another. Its a failing and of late we have spent a good deal of time in the news because of it. We dont agree on everything, but its my opinion that all this diversity makes us richer. When the opinions are homogenized I think we lose something vital. God gives us each unique insight and I believe He expects us to work together to learn more about Him and His plan.


Not everyone agrees with me.... big surprise

One of the things I value is the service format. I have always believed that there are certain things you should do when you worship God. Prayer, praise, confession, communion, and a statement of belief (Nicean Creed, Apostles Creed, take your pick). In fact, if I dont do each of these I dont feel like I have been to church. Now, my mom is Baptist. She finds our service kind of suffocating. She spends all her time shuffling books and never gets to the place in her head where she can worship. For me its a comforting thing, because I always know what is coming next I dont have to think ahead. I can lose myself if the beauty of worship. That is one way that I meet God in church.

So I dont know that I answered your question adequately. Its always easier to say what we are not than to say what we are. Dont let the new reports fool you. As a national denomination, yes we have some issues. At the local level though, you might have to visit a few congregations to find one that fits....but its likely you will find one fairly easily. I think that is mostly because we are ok with agreeing to disagree. That concept makes room for all of God's children. I hope that it helps us be true to the signs you see that say "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You".

Ginger


And tsk tsk Robin! Why do you assume that because someone wants to know what makes us unique they want to understand the controversies involving the contemporary Episcopal Church? Maybe bostonian just wants to know about our denomination! Not everyone is obsessed with "the controversy". We are so much more than just this issue. In fact, if you havent left the ECUSA over it then you have most probably moved on...finally. I honestly believe that is why this board has not generated the traffic that it should. People are tired of talking about the same thing all the time. Lets give the inquirers a break and take their questions at face value ok?

[bostonian]

Ginger,

Thank you for a very thoughtful answer.

As a national denomination, yes we have some issues. At the local level though, you might have to visit a few congregations to find one that fits....but its likely you will find one fairly easily.

That is at the heart of my dilemma. I have been attending my local Episcopal church for a few months and I really like it (despite the "shuffling" that you mentioned). I like the priest there very much, and I like the people.

But, God forgive me, I think the Presiding Bishop is a nut. I love all people, including gay people, but I don't approve of same-sex marriage nor gay bishops. My wife (who is Catholic) reads in the papers about the direction that Katherine Jefferts Schori wants to take the Church in, and frankly she thinks I'm out of my mind for associating with the Episcopalians.

To complicate matters, my local priest is leaving and will be replaced in the next couple of months. I can ignore what is happening with the Presiding Bishop at the national level, but if I get baptized in my local Episcopal church and then the priest that I like gets replaced with a gay priest, I'm going to feel pretty stupid. I suppose if that happened I'd have to move to an Anglican breakaway church. I wonder if a conservative US Anglican church would recognize an Episcopal baptism.

Anglicansablaze, thank you for your response to this, and to my other questions. I very much appreciate your time.

[rockhopperhtx]

Bostonian,

There are a few points about the Episcopal Church that I think you may misunderstand.

First, the Presiding Bishop has very little power. The Episcopal Church is governed by a triennial General Convention (most recently held in 2006). The Presiding Bishop has no authority to take the church in any direction that General Convention has not agreed upon.

When a priest leaves a parish, generally the parish has to search for a new one. An interim is usually assigned for a year or so while the parish finds the right priest for them. Given that you're comfortable in this parish and that you sound fairly conservative, the likelihood that a gay priest will show up in this church is probably not great. The diocese usually considers which of the clergy who are available would best fit the parish for an interim. Of course, real life is more complicated than that, so who knows what will happen!

I'm guessing, from your handle, that you are in the Diocese of Massachusetts, which is a very liberal diocese overall, but its bishop, Tom Shaw--a liberal, to be sure--is well-known for being inclusive of both liberals and conservatives. I've met him a couple of times and found him to be a very kind man.

Should you decide to go to a breakaway church after being baptised in the Episcopal Church, I don't think there would be any doubt that your baptism would be recognised.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a gay man and a high-church liberal.

I do hope and pray you find your place and I do hope that the Episcopal Church is that place. It's a big tent and we have room for you and me and nearly everyone else here!

[bostonian]

Thanks rockhopperhtx. "A big tent" has a lot of appeal to me. I am fairly conservative, as you say, and sometimes I wonder if I would be the world's first Republican Episcopalian. Sometimes the word "diversity" is used as a euphemism for "lefties only". As long as the big tent truly includes those on the right as well, then I'm cool with that.

I Googled up this Tom Shaw video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta6R7BD3f_M , and I like what he said, and it did jibe with what you said. To be very honest, I must admit that I was happy to see a wedding ring on his finger. But I want to reiterate that I mean you no disrespect.

[anglicansablaze]

Well, Ginger, I have been following Bostonians posts on the general Discussion board and he appears from those posts familiar with what has been happening in the Episcopal Church. He asked an open-ended question about denominational identity. In answering that question one cannot escape from the controversies of the day because they have a lot to do with denominational identity.

The Episcopal Church is going through a period of transition. Consequently, when Rock Hopper says the Presiding Bishop does not have much power and is responsible to the General Convention, he is only telling part of the story. The office of Presiding Bishop has been increasingly acquiring a greater role in the Episcopal Church polity since it was made a separate office. The Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council have claimed that they have the authority to interpret the Constitution and canons of the Church, an authority, however, that the Constitution and canons does not give to that body. The Presiding Bishop has, since her election, been making decisions that clearly go beyond carrying out the resolutions of the General Convention. At one time the role of the Presiding Bishop was to preside at meetings of the House of Bishops and the entire General Convention. He was a presiding bishop and just that. Now the role of the Presiding Bishop is that of the chief executive officer of the denomination. While the last two Presiding Bishops have fallen back upon the claim that they can do only the will of the General Convention, they have shown a decided willingness to interpret what is the will of the General Convention and to exercise much more authority than they claim to have. One must draw a distinction here between what is said on paper and how the present incumbent is exercising the office of Presiding Bishop. For example, the Presiding Bishop stopped Bishop Peter Lee from making a property settlement with the 11 Virginia congregations that have departed from his diocese. I am not aware of the General Convention adopting a resolution directing her to take such action.

I think that one must be forthright with people who are asking questions about a denomination and not tell them one thing and then leave them to discover for themselves that what was told them was not really the case. I think that it is best to be upfront with them from the outset. Part of Bostonian's dilemma is that he joined a church that is in transition. He likes the worship and other aspects of the Episcopal Church but he is not happy with a number of the developments in the denomination. This is a situation that newcomers to the Episcopal Church face around the country. They may be attracted to certain aspects of the Episcopal Church's ethos, only to discover that they are not attracted to the theological direction in which the denomination is going.

[rockhopperhtx]

Actually, Bishop Shaw is not married. He is a member of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, also known as the Cowley Fathers--that is, he is a monk and is celibate. This is very much the exception and not the rule in the Episcopal Church, but there are some priests (both men and women) who are members of religious orders and have taken a vow of celibacy.

I hope that doesn't lower your opinion of him.

And, rest assured, there are many Republicans who are Episcopalians.

[anglicansablaze]

Bostonian, you need to know a couple of things about Bishop Shaw.

First, he has made public statements in favor of gay marriage although I do not believe that he permits the clergy of his diocese to marry gay couples.

Second, when liberal bishops talk about the "big tent," they are not saying that there is room under the canopy of that tent for everybody to practice their faith in the Episcopal Church, as they understand it. An orthodox Episcopalian is welcome to hold orthodox beliefs as so long as he does not insist upon practicing them. He is expected to conform to the practices of the ascendant liberal theology in the denomination or at least acquiesce to them. If one cannot practice one's beliefs, actually live them, then there really is no room for one under the Episcopal Church tent canopy.

"The big tent" is a commonly used liberal talking point. Even the Presiding Bishop uses it.

Here are several other ways that the Episcopal Church differs from other denominations.

5. The Episcopal Church is one of several denominations in the United States that retains the three historical ministries of deacon, priest (or presbyter), and bishop.

6. The Episcopal Church is one of a number of denominations that practice infant baptism.

7. The Episcopal Church is a one of a number of churches where primary form of worship is sacramental. This was not always the case. But since the liturgical renewal movement of the 1960s the Holy Eucharist has become the central act of worship in most Episcopal churches, displacing Morning Prayer. The sacramental worship of the Episcopal Church is also in transition. Historically, participation in the meal of Holy Communion has been limited to individuals who believe in Jesus Christ and are baptized. (At one time they also had to be confirmed.) However, the "open communion" movement has been gathering a following in the Episcopal Church. This movement views the Holy Eucharist as a meal of welcome, an expression of radical hospitality, and would admit everybody to the Holy Communion irregardless of whether they are believers and are baptized. For adherents of this movement Holy Communion is no longer the meal in which we remember Christ's atoning sacrifice for our sins, give thanks for what Christ has done for us, and meet the risen Christ in bread and wine. One San Francisco church claims on its website that the Holy Eucharist is the real sacrament of admission to the Church and not Baptism. In making this claim, it is rejecting both the teaching of the New Testament and two thousand years of Church teaching. Part of the problem is that adherents of "open communion" confuse the Lord's Supper with Jesus' practice of eating with all kinds of people. Jesus certainly did the latter but the New testament is pretty clear that he established the Lord's Supper for the purpose of reminding his disciples of his death and its significance.

8. You will encounter a number of different styles of worship in the Episcopal Church--High Church with its vestments, ceremonial, incense, and ornaments; Low Church which is indistinguishable from worship in many other Protestant churches; charismatic with praise songs, uplifted hands, singing in tongues, and an exuberance not seen in other styles of Episcopal worship; experimental such as that of Gregory of Nyassa in San Francisco where the congregation dances, wears vestments, and sings without accompaniment, and a Buddhist meditation bell is rung after each reading; and convergence which may bring together two or more of the other styles of worship.

If you were baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, an extramural Anglican church or an Anglican church affiliated with another province is going to recognize your baptism as valid. Anglicanism has historically recognized as valid baptism even by laypersons as long as the right matter was used--water--and the right words. This is not Reformation theology but the theology of the Primitive Church.

[rockhopperhtx]

At this point, Bostonian, I think you may want to speak to the rector at your church, if you have not already done so and let your concerns be known. If you find that this parish isn't the right fit, another Episcopal church nearby may fit better. It's my experience that in nearly every metropolitan area there are Episcopal parishes to fit almost any preference--high church, low church, liberal, conservative, what have you.

I live in Houston and we certainly have them here. My parish is moderately liberal and (for a low church diocese) relatively high church. The next parish over is more liberal and less high church.
The next parish over from that is very conservative and very low church. Somehow, this diocese (Diocese of Texas) has held together despite all this and, to the best of my knowledge, we have had only one parish break away in the last few years.

[anglicansablaze]

You are fortunate that the Houston area offers you a range of choices. If you and your current parish are mismatched in worship style, theological direction, and the like, you can try another church. Here in western Kentucky, in the western part of the Diocese of Kentucky, one finds almost ultramontane uniformity between the churches in the region. The style of worship is fairly much the same--High Church, which is not surprising as the Diocese of Kentucky was at one time a fairly Anglo-Catholic diocese. Any difference from church to church is largely related to the resources of the church. Of the five churches in my area, only one is a self-supporting parish. The rest are subsidized. The theological direction is identical--Catholic Modernist or Liberal Catholic. The only extramural Anglican church is High Church, Anglo-Catholic, and traditionalist--1928 Book of Common Prayer, 1940 Hymnal, priest facing the altar his back to the congregation,, and so forth. If you are a Low Church Evangelical, a charismatic Anglo-Catholic, or a charismatic Evangelical, or into experimental worship, you are not going to find a church home in the area. The Episcopal Church is not doing very well in the area. The Diocese of Kentucky has already closed one church and a second church may be closed in the near future: it is down to six people. The area is politically and socially conservative and the spiritual background of the area's population conservative Protestant. The Catholic Modernist, or Liberal Catholic ,churches are a mismatch with the area.

I suspect that in other liberal dioceses, especially when the churches are subsidized, the same kind of uniformity prevails. It belies the Episcopal Church's claim to be a church that embraces diversity.

[bostonian]

Historically, participation in the meal of Holy Communion has been limited to individuals who believe in Jesus Christ and are baptized.

You will be happy to know that I have not been allowed to take communion because I am not baptized. I think that is appropriate.

If you were baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, an extramural Anglican church or an Anglican church affiliated with another province is going to recognize your baptism as valid. Anglicanism has historically recognized as valid baptism even by laypersons as long as the right matter was used--water--and the right words.

Anglicansablaze, what would you do if you were in my shoes? We have some of the same reservations about the Episcopal Church leaning so far left. I'm thinking that I should get baptized at the local Episcopal Church and if they get any nuttier, like if they start sanctioning same-sex marriages or end the moratorium on consecrating gay bishops, that I take my baptism certificate and move on to an Anglican breakaway church. Do you see any flaw with that plan?

As it stands now, I am not baptized at all. I hope that I don't get run over by a truck at least until I can come to some closure on this. Hopefully longer. :-)

Actually, Bishop Shaw is not married. He is a member of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, also known as the Cowley Fathers--that is, he is a monk and is celibate.

I have been to their chapel and watched their daily prayer. In the year 2007 those cats are walking around in robes and sandals and singing their prayers. Amazing to see.

Shaw does seem to be a good decent man as far as I can tell, but celibacy isn't healthy for men. I suspect that contributed to the pedophile priest problem the Catholics had. Celibacy is part of my objection to Catholicism. It seems to me that nothing good can come from that. Be committed to serving God, but settle down and have a family.

[anglicansablaze]

As an adult who is seeking to make a declaration of his faith in baptism, I do not see anything wrong with you undergoing baptism in an Episcopal Church. What is required for a valid baptism will be present--the matter, water; the words, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the intention--on your part to make a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ and to receive the grace of baptism, and I assume on the part of the priest to do what the church has always done in baptizing someone who can answer for themselves. The character of the priest or other person administering the sacrament of baptism has no bearing upon the validity or effectiveness of baptism. This also is the teaching of the primitive Church.

While the Flood Prayer from the earlier Prayer Books is no longer used in the Episcopal Church the doctrine given expression in that prayer is still applicable. Here is the 1662 version:

"Almighty and everlasting God, who of thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in the ark from perishing by water; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea, figuring thereby thy holy Baptism; and by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify the element of Water to the mystical washing away of sin: We beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon these thy servants; wash them and sanctify them with the Holy Ghost, that they, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of Christ's Church; and being stedfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, may so pass the waves of this troublesome world, that finally they may come to the land of everlasting life, there to reign with thee world without end; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

This prayer recognizes Jesus himself by his own baptism has sanctified all waters for "the mystical washing away of sin". The validity of your baptism is not determined by the minister who baptizes you but by the matter and words used. You can trust that God will not withhold his grace from you if you come to him in faith and repentance, and you will be numbered with his "faithful and elect children."

In The Ministration of Private Baptism of Children in Houses in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer the minister is directed to ask the the parents of a child baptized at home the following questions:

"Because some things essential to this Sacrament may happen to be omitted through fear or haste, in such times of extremity; therefore I demand further of you,
With what matter was this Child baptized?
With what words was this Child baptized?"

Please note the emphasis upon the matter and the words.

In the Catechism in the 1662 Prayer Book those preparing for confirmation are asked the following questions in regards to the gospel sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Please note the answer to the question about the outward visible sign of baptism.

How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?
Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.
Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament?
Answer. I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.
Question. How many parts are there in a Sacrament?
Answer. Two: the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace.
Question. What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism?
Answer. Water: wherein the person is baptized In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace?
Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.
Question. What is required of persons to be baptized?
Answer. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin: and Faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament.
Question. Why then are Infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them?
Answer. Because they promise them both by their Sureties: which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform.
Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained?
Answer. For the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death of Christ and of the benefits which we receive thereby.
Question. What is the outward part or sign of the Lord's Supper?
Answer. Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received.
Question. What is the inward part, or thing signified?
Answer. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper.
Question. What are the benefits whereof we are partakers thereby?
Answer. The strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the Bread and Wine.
Question. What is required of them who come to the Lord's Supper?
Answer. To examine themselves, whether they repent them truly of their former sins, stedfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men."

I would not be concerned about undergoing baptism in the Episcopal Church. What matters most in your baptism is your response of faith and repentance, the use of water in your baptism, and your baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

If circumstances lead to you leaving the Episcopal Church at a later date, and you decide to join an extramural Anglican church or one affliated with another Anglican Province, they will not ask you to undergo rebaptism. They will, however, ask you to present yourself for confirmation or reception when their bishop next visits their church.

[Ginger]

Bostonian,

For many years the priest in my church happened to be a gay man. He was, as far as anyone in the church is aware, also a celibate man. Were he straight I would have expected him to be celibate because he was not married. For the most part this was not an issue at all, until GC 2003. It is difficult for anyone to separate their political and religious beliefs, and especially so when the issue is so very personal. Ultimately the stress of dealing with the ongoing dissention, and some personal family issues, motivated him to step aside.

However, before 2003 this man was a wonderful, motivated, godly person whose focus was on growing church and leading people to a greater knowledge and awareness of God. He was a good priest. He abided by the decisions of the Bishop (no same sex sacraments) even if he did not agree.

Now, I have to tell you I was shocked by the boldness of the actions at GC 2003. Episcopalians have historically been people who talked about talking about an issue, and then agreed to a "listening process" so we could talk about it some more. Just taking action out of the blue like that was unprecidented. While I recognize that the people of the diocese of Mass. have the right to choose their Bishop, and all the letters of the law were followed, I also recognize that the whole thing was bad timing. It was a mistake on many levels. Bishop Robinson was not strong enough at the time to withstand the intense and ongoing scrutiny, I dont think we did him any favor by ordaining him a Bishop. I think we alienated a lot of fellow believers unnecessarily. I think we hurt people, both conservative and liberal, through many of the actions that have taken place since GC. We are certainly, on both sides of this argument, not showing we are Christians by our love.

When Bishop Katherine was announced I was more than shocked. My first reaction was "what were they thinking? a woman will certainly not soothe those who are already up in arms!" But as was said previously, I dont think she has all that much power. As bishops go, I would think the ArchBishop of Canterbury would be the most powerful and he has precious little power. Even this week he was reduced to discussing secular politics so he could have something negative to say about the US, in an attempt (I believe) to try to hold off the conservatives who believe he is siding with us on everything else.

If my local church decides to begin practicing same sex sacraments, then I will have to rethink my position, but for the time being this is a good little church. The people are all flawed, self included, but this is where I am, and I believe God expects me to work where he has planted me. B. Katherine is not someone I ever expect to meet, and even if I did I would find she is flawed too No one is perfect, and no one has all the answers. All you can do is pray. study your Bible, and follow what you believe God is leading you to do.

Good luck

[bostonian]

Ginger,

Thank you for your comments. I don't always agree with you, but you are clearly an insightful person.

this man was a wonderful, motivated, godly person whose focus was on growing church and leading people to a greater knowledge and awareness of God. He was a good priest.

I am uncomfortable with the message that we are sending to the children in the church when we appoint homosexual priests. I worry about setting homosexual role models in front of kids.

God calls us to love all people, including homosexuals, but I'm having trouble accepting the notion that homosexuals are "just like everybody else". There is a problem in this country with gay men using public restrooms for anonymous homosexual encounters. It may sound bigoted of me, but that doesn't seem like normal behavior to me and I am not comfortable with appointing those people as moral leaders.

So when you say "the priest in my church happened to be a gay man", I can't be as cavalier about it as that. It's not that simple.

I hope that my comments haven't offended anybody, especially gay people on this forum. But I feel like we can't grow if we don't communicate openly and honestly.