1. For all the claims of compassion, inclusion and enlightenment, let's remember it was the liberal end of the church that published a document from Lambeth referring to the Bishop of Rochester as an "arsehole." It was the liberal end of the church that filed the lawsuit in a civil court and then claimed civil courts have no jurisdiction after they lost their first case.

2. Anyone who knows Martyn Minns personally knows this man has never EVER engaged in name-calling or hateful language. I've had tea in his house when he opened up personally on issues and he never once acted in the hateful and spiteful way his opponents act towards him. He may disagree about the role the LGBT community plays in the Church, but he has NEVER EVER denied that the LGBT community is loved by God. Anyone who says otherwise is selling cars.

Jesus was gay. At that point, it was all the rage with prophets influenced by Greek thinking. Nobody much minded. Live and let live said the other illiterate Jewish peasant hallucinators.

We still do.

The things Episcopalians should really worry about:

For those eyes that have not seen!!!

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

tlusk58 and Arminius,

My ability to misspell words is legendary. I once flunked a English paper because I spelled the word "the" as "th ".

"Canon/Cannon--Do Christians distinguish between the two?"

Some of us do.

Canon/Cannon--Do Christians distinguish between the two?

CaptMike,
I couldn't spell my way out of a paper bag...thanks for at least being humorous.

peace

It is ironic that the Anglican way that Martyn M. wants to identify with, and claim for his new African affiliation in America, was born of an attempt to find a middle way between Calvinism and Roman Catholicism. This via media in the free spirt of Erasmus of Rotterdam was England's and Elizabeth's way of getting through the rough years after the Reformation and before the development of religious toleration. What Martyn has allied himself with is anything but Anglican in spirit. It is in essence mean, exclusionary, and divisive. It embraces a crude fundamentalism having nothing to do with the core of the Gospel and with relish uses it to disrupt, destroy, and advance personal agendas and ambitions. It makes a mockery of the Anglican intention of avoiding
peripheral doctrinal and dogmatic disputes and focusing on the Gospel of our Lord.

I dislike the dissidents' claiming and thereby sullying the Anglican tradition even more than I dislike their efforts to steal property of the Episcopal Church(which I believe the courts will put a stop to).

Far right wing Bible thumpers who never should have infiltrated the moderate, intelligent,
toleratne Episcopal church in the first place.

Fortunately the right wingers are in the decline, politically and in every other sphere. Their screaming in the face of reality and fair play is not palatable to calmer people. In my own church, the pastor scuttled back to the
traditional Episcopal church when he found his
pension would not leave with him, and the big
trust the church enjoys wouldn't either.

More heat than light and they can't get along with themselves, the arguments about every little thing reflects their personalities more than any strong faith. They are ranters.

CaptnMike,

Anglican Canon Law can be found here:
http://www.acclawnet.co.uk/canon-law.php

As a lighthearted reminder, it is 'canon', not 'cannon'. Nothing to do with artillery. Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

Perhaps gays in Northern Virginia can mobilize enough support to become create a NEW accepting majority at the Falls Church and claim back this beautiful place!

Today, this group want to take win legal title to the well-endowed historic Episcopal Falls Church -- in fact, they've already changed the signs to simply The Falls Church. Perhaps a mega-pastor such as Rick Warren or Joel Olsteen will be next -- all they have to do is "plant" a majority in the congregation to vote to form a new church. Or, what about the Falls Temple of Scientology ? Or the Velocity Falls Church. Whichever sect can gather together a majority in the congregation will have a legal basis to claim title if today's ruling is not overturned on appeal. Will the legal haggling ever end over this beautiful sacred property?

tlusk58,
Can you give me the website where Anglican (Communion) Cannon Law is located?

Thanks

I wish to correct something in this article. One cannot be an Anglican Church unless one is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and have been recognized by the Anglican Council.
The new denomination has been created by having archbishops outside of the United States take them under their wing. This violates Anglican canon law. The Washington Post and others printing their press releases should at least have disclaimer attached so there is some honesty here.
Some may argue that in the process of forming a new denomination they will at some time get the creditials from the two mentioned above. Most folks that no the system also know that is not going to happen.

Oh - please spare us the flowery language and faint praise. your new church is not based on biblical principles, but rather self-centered egotistical leadership. beneath the surface, you are promoting exclusion, not inclusion. I am sorry that in your misguided attempts to reach out, you are ignorant to those in this new church movement who are using you for their own purposes. it is time to grow up - and find spirituality, not dogma and hatred.

So what are we doing now? Publishing press releases? How self-serving and self-admiring can we get? I can't wait until the polygamous Nigerians figure out these guys are breaking away without the money. (I assume that's what the references to litigation are all about.). At least with the controversy over Rick Warren, we just have to deal with the hate; with these yo-yo’s it’s hate dressed up as the hypocrisy of “radical inclusion.” How many CANA women know about the stand of their breakaway podship on the role of women in society and the church? Can’t wait for the lights to go on.

So what are we doing now? Publishing press releases? How self-serving and self-admiring can we get? I can't wait until the polygamous Nigerians figure out these guys are breaking away without the money. (I assume that's what the references to litigation are all about.). At least with the controversy over Rick Warren, we just have to deal with the hate; with these yo-yo’s it’s hate dressed up as the hypocrisy of “radical inclusion.” How many CANA women know about the stand of their breakaway podship on the role of women in society and the church? Can’t wait for the lights to go on.

"2Q: Luke 11:44 = Matt 23:27-28

/11:44/ Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realizing it."

= Matt 23:27-28
/23:27/ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth. /28/ So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

As per many contemporary NT and historic Jesus exegetes, these passages are a single attestation and were not uttered by the historic simple preacher man. M & L again and again embellish Jesus' character to make him a prophet/deity which he was not.

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited and http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb154.html

TOMCANICK

Your point is well taken, and I like your verse, though I think one really needs to read Matthew 15:22-28 to get the full sense.

As for Matthew 23:27, it has always seemed to me in context that it was addressed to a self-righteous traditionalist priesthood bent on enforcing the letter of the law without understanding its meaning, very like the self-styled "Anglicans." A few verses earlier, Jesus upbraids the pharisees for "omitting the weightier matters of the laws, judgment, mercy, and faith." Mat. 23:23. Bishop Minns and his colleagues seem to have forgotten the two great commandments in their zeal to circumscribe sexuality and subordinate women. See Mat. 22:36-40.

Radical inclusion? After hating on single sex relationships and women in the priesthood? I think not.

This is all about the power fetish of a few men who couldn't get what they wanted in the Episcopal Church, so they threw a hissy fit and created themselves "bishops". They want to remain in the Anglican Communion, and keep all of the things they gained while part of the Episcopal Church, but supposedly start anew.

If you wanted true revolution, you'd start over again. If you wanted democratic change, you'd work within the constructs of the Anglican Communion rules and structures.

I am Catholic and gay. I have been quite impressed by the leadership the Episcopalians have taken by their welcoming inclusion of gay people. I have always thought that if given some time, their attitude toward gay people would eventually carry over and influence the other mainstream Christian churches to do likewise.

Unfortunately, the Anglicans seem to have become infected by a virulent strain of fundamentalism as evidenced Minns. Perhaps its finally time for the mainstream Christian Churches to take up their responsibility and speak out against fundamentalism just as the early Church had to snuff out other forms of theological error.

Oh My. M. Minns is so self righteous it is hard to believe. He sounds as if he himself is God.

Give back the property that you have taken Mr. "Bishop of the Cone"

MARTYN MINNS

You wrote, " We believe that the message of the angel heard in those Bethlehem fields more than 2,000 years ago is still true. We have good news of great joy for all people!

It does say, "ALL PEOPLE", does it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

So after looking up Matthew 23/27, which side would claim it supports their position? A more traditional or fundemental viewpoint could say that a church with sinners is a house of cards. Another view would be that a church which discriminates is the same. I like Matthew 15/28

Matthew 23/27 ‘Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth.

Matthew 23:27

"Radical inclusion"??? That's precisely what conservative protest/breakaway movements are against in the first place.

The utter dishonesty of this piece is breathtaking.

"The Gospel message of Jesus Christ is about reconciliation and love. It is not about division. One can choose to follow Christ, and his teachings, or not. One can also choose to follow random laws written in a book, ignoring the context to which they were written, and use them to justify something that isn't in the spirit of, or message of, the Good News. If Jesus were to appear on Earth today, he would probably have a clear message for those who have chosen this division. And it probably wouldn't be one that they would like to hear."
*****************
...yes, "reconciliation and love" with THE FATHER!...the unchangeable One who governs supreme and has clearly spoken about how His people are to worship AND LIVE consecrated lives...which NEVER included "sexual sin"...like homosexuality...(and yes, adultery/fornication). Jesus said the 'road would be narrow, few would find it'. He also said the world would hate His people. He also said that a friend of the world is an enemy of God. I can think of nothing more 'friendly' to the world than political correctness...which is precisely what liberal churches expound day in and day out.

So the Episcopal Church is having a sad divorce. My opinion is that is was unavoidable. I have friends and former church members on both sides, so I think the new thing to do is keep the divorce as amicable as possible. This will be difficult with all the valuable real estate at stake.

My prayer is that the two branches of the Anglican communion will cooperate in the future in meeting the needs of the community the way many disparate faith groups do so already. Maybe a healthy competition to see which branch can build the most Habitat houses?

In 30 or 50 years there will be a big movement to reconcile and reunite the two branches just as many other Protestant groups have done over the last century. I wonder if at that time one branch will apologize for their error the way the Southern Baptists repented for their support of slavery and racism.

Bishop Minns talks proudly about all the great things the new Anglicans are doing. In my experience both groups are accomplishing a lot and doing these good things. Both groups can accomplish even more once they stop squabbling over gay and feminist issues. Let both sides go their own way with more united and effective memberships. Each branch can fight over serving a post-Christian America instead of fighting with the other camp - hallelujah for that!

I do wonder if the new conservative branch will eventually eliminate female priests? Also, will it try to have the liberal branch cast out of the Anglican communion? Scary thoughts...

Well, that's certainly a "radical" definition of "inclusion" - a ministry which excludes women in many component dioceses from the priesthood, and excludes homosexual Christians in so many ways.

In ten minutes, the flaws and errors of CCNL will be forgotten and then there will be nobody to annoy everybody else on these blogs.

"We are moving forward with Jesus' ministry of radical inclusion"

Actually, you aren't.

This is rich. One of the premier bigots in America talking about 'radical inclusion'. Yeah, it's so radical, it excludes half the population of the U.S.

In ten years, the flaws and errors of all religions will be corrected and then there will be no gold to polish or tarnish.

Razzl - you wrote,
"But at least for the first time in your history the Episcopal message is clear, honest, authentic, and inclusive, and your colleagues whom you seek to depose can rest knowing that theirs is now the gold standard among Christian churches with a world view which will eventually prevail in all of Christendom..."

This Episcopalian agrees totally. Thank you very much!

Interesting snapshot of the old "Anglican" church, from history to the present:

"It claimed a large percentage of the population (16% in 1789"

Actually, that's a small percentage of the population for what was at that time the only legal church in the mother country of England. Like Henry VIII the North American clergy found that legal compulsion doesn't create a Christian community...

"The language of its liturgy shaped much of our culture and its cathedrals and churches were a witness to the community."

Uh, perhaps you're thinking about your colleagues over at the local First Congregational Church? It was THEIR institutional and ideological struggles that formed the American world view. Your church was the quiet place where the upper classes went to have their consciences salved over their political and commercial excesses without much stress...

"(less than three-tenths of one percent of Americans regularly worship in Episcopal Churches)"

But at least for the first time in your history the Episcopal message is clear, honest, authentic, and inclusive, and your colleagues whom you seek to depose can rest knowing that theirs is now the gold standard among Christian churches with a world view which will eventually prevail in all of Christendom...

"We are moving forward with Jesus' ministry of radical inclusion"

Your colleagues have actually done that with their ordination of Bishop Robinson. Your dishonesty in trying to invert the issues to make it sound like your primitive Evangelical-style biblical literalism is somehow a form of progressive and liberal Christianity is a frighteningly skillful deception. But in the end you will look like Stanley and Livingston, a couple of lost White guys following your African baggage train around in the wilderness, envying their ernest devotion to superstition. (and believe me, I have every compassion for the Africans who have to suffer under this kind of patriarchal religious leadership, but the imagery of wealthy white Episcopal congregations in America begging to be attached to them out of fear of homosexuals is too juicy to pass up...)

DABinNYC writes, "Actually, it's only known as that by the people Bishop Minns chooses to commune with."

You need to get out more. What does one see in the popular press regarding the Episcopal denomination? Gay activism, lawsuits, and declining membership. When I told people that I was Episcopalian, the universal response was, "You mean the gay church?"

And this will only get worse. It is widely expected that the moratorium on homosexual bishops will be lifted next summer. Ms Schori is preparing to expand her litigation war four or five fold. The denomination is already the fastest declining. Six more years of Schori will crush it.

Ah, Martyn, now I see who you are. Jeez. You Christians sure have problems with a lot of people.

Gotta "believe" your way, isn't that what your book says? If we "believe" your way, we're saved regardless of what we have done? If we don't "believe" your way, we're damned, regardless of the good we have done?

Stands to reason you'd think as you do. Your way or the highway. Nice book. Lovely. Really.

Bishop Minns writes that the Episcopal Church is...
"known more for its rejection of biblical authority and its willingness to litigate against its own clergy and congregations than for its passion for Christ."

Actually, it's only known as that by the people Bishop Minns chooses to commune with. And they are decidedly selective in the "biblical authority" to which they will adhere -- as every Christian is. "Biblical authority" is a confusion of first principles, in any event. The Bible was declared canon by the Church; the Church was not created by the Bible. Thus, every denomination in every century has interpreted it with variations and many differences from other denominations. That a few denominations are starting to recognize that gays are no more "abominable" than shellfish eaters or pigskin-handling quarterbacks of course doesn't accord with the bishop's view of "biblical authority" -- by which he means, the authority he has always accorded it. Thus far, and no further, of course.

As far as "litigating against its own clergy and congregations": if that be so, then how is Bishop Minns consecrated bishop? What is his convocation's authority under Episcopal Church canon law? If Minns is a bishop and CANA is a legitimate denomination separate from the laws and authority of the Episcopal Church, then the Episcopal Church is litigating against clergy of another denomination who have stolen Episcopal Church property, despite its establishment and maintenance by previous generations of Episcopalians for future generations of Episcopalians and Christ's church. If they are Episcopal clergy, then they are subject to the canon law of their diocese, and their diocese is subject to the canon law of the Episcopal Church. Using the favored ersatz C.S. Lewis-style logical construction favored by such rogue clergy and laypersons: either you are Episcopal churchmen or you are not; you cannot have it both ways.

In my Episcopal Church in New York City, I hear the Old Testament, the Epistles, and the Gospel every Sunday and at every daily service on weekdays. I confess my sins at least once a week, and usually (when I'm diligent in my Daily Office prayers) many more times than that. My sins, however, do not include my being gay. Nor do they include my being right-handed, balding, Caucasian, or astigmatic. (They do occasionally include my being overweight, or at least my not doing enough to address that particular failing.) God and I have a lot to talk about, and we've discussed my being gay more times than either He or I would care to revisit. But He's apparently more interested in how I treat others and respect myself than in what gender I am attracted to or the fact that my beloved happens to be male. But that's of course my relationship with God. Your mileage, Bishop Minns, may vary.

"The split in the Anglican Church is because conservatives are against including women priests and denouncing homophobia, but the author does not even hint at that disgraceful fact."

Listen to Mr Robinson and it's gay, gay, gay, and "How I am persecuted! Gatta go, I am off on another lecture." If you listen to Ms Schori, it is global warming, MDG's, and gay rights. (She spoke for forty minutes at the National Press Club and never uttered the name of Jesus or one verse from the Bible.)

But if you listen to Bp Minns or any of the leaders of the new Anglican Province, one hears the message of the Gospel, "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Danielwerst,

First, you are correct that the schism is all about women as priests and homophobia. I am on the liberal side of this.

Next - please watch what you say. Equating my church, which certainly has its faults, with Scientology is despicable. My Episcopal church is pretty decent, forthright, progressive, inclusive, and encourages differences. Scientology is nothing more than a mafia-like business that makes money and really hurts people. Scientology requires money for its 'knowledge', and sells the 'secret' stuff for hundreds of thousands of dollars. My church welcomes you, with all its information, even if you have not a penny in your pocket. Go figure.

This article seems, unfortunately, simply dishonest. The split in the Anglican Church is because conservatives are against including women priests and denouncing homophobia, but the author does not even hint at that disgraceful fact.

Plus, the Anglican Church is just historically absurd. It's founding theology was literally invented to allow Henry VIII to get a divorce and later developed to allow Elizabeth I to control the spiritual and political life of Britain. To be fair, it's like with Scientology: the more history we know about any religion, the more absurd it's claims.

It's just that, it you claim to have a direct line on God's one true revelation, your religion must be essentially perfect to be plausible. That's is, it's kind of hard for me to believe the pope gets advise from an all-knowing, loving, all powerfull God, when I know that popes have endorsed the Spanish Inquisition and signed treaties w/ Mussolini. It's hard to believe that the Mormon Church gets periodic divine revelations when racism was part of their official dogma into the 1970s. That doesn't prove anything against Mormons today, it just suggests that they weren't always being directed by a perfect God, and the same thing can be said of any religion. Duh! I guess that's part of why I'm an atheist: i really don't think any humans can claim actual divine revelation from a perfect God.

"If you can reform, good."

Oops... no. There is no reform here. In this terribly milquetoast and Broadway-musical flowering of meaningless prose, there is a hidden agenda: the exclusion of women from our priesthood, and the exclusion of homosexuals from damn near anything. This is no reform, far from it - it is a retrograde march into the dark ages.

Well, a quick look at the Anglicans in England is less than encouraging. I see very little in the way of tolerance, a great deal in the way of hipocrisy.

If you can reform, good. Start. Send a message to your Limey brothers and sisters. Let them know word travels fast these days, and a whole lot of folks are getting queasy.

Hey Martyn, you missed ending it with "unless you're gay". Because that is of course the central message of Christianity as told by Jesus, isn't it?

All our sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Jesus called on his followers to preach repentance. That is precisely what the new Anglican province is doing.

In contrast, the Episcopal former-church states, "Come as you are, stay as you are, and we will bless you." There is no sin except for the sin of not buying into their secular humanist outlook disguised with theo-babble.

But people know that this is a lie. People are quite aware of their own sinfulness. As the book of common prayer states, "The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable." As Bp Minns, the new Anglican province has good news for ALL people struggling with personal brokenness.

Arminius

Maybe you will find this amusing. Until I read your comment, I thought that Martyn Minns was a woman.

Sure looks like a woman's name to me. But then on further reflection, I guess it couldn't be, could it?

I see no 'new beginning' here, nor do I see 'reconciliation'. His is not a new beginning, it is a slide back in time where women and homosexuals are second class citizens or worse. Reconciliation, as I recall, means getting together and making progress as one group, not two. So, then, withdrawing and making a separate group is 'reconciliation'? I can't see that in this sorry essay. All I see is a fake parade, with a scattering of flowers and flowery language, but no specifics. Minns might have had the common courtesy to let us know just what this schism that he glorifies is based on.

What are you guys so thrilled about this church. It is pretty stupid church, isn't it? The one that was born out of the confluence of Henry the VIIIth's Loins and that of Anne Boleyn. Am I right or wrong? There people who belong to this church and are proud of it? As Hitchen's would say come up with most corrupt idea people can think of and then say it is part of a dumb religion, millions will buy into the crap.

With only 1.8% of the adult population in the USA being Episcopalian, why the fuss??

Bishop Minns and the religious leaders of all faiths should be more concerned about the flaws and errors in their religions. Once these are corrected, these leaders will have no jobs.

The Gospel message of Jesus Christ is about reconciliation and love. It is not about division. One can choose to follow Christ, and his teachings, or not. One can also choose to follow random laws written in a book, ignoring the context to which they were written, and use them to justify something that isn't in the spirit of, or message of, the Good News. If Jesus were to appear on Earth today, he would probably have a clear message for those who have chosen this division. And it probably wouldn't be one that they would like to hear.

The problem is homophobia, and the refusal of modern Christians to hear the new voice of gay people. You can run from this problem, but you cannot hide.

What are you going to do with the gay people in your new church? How are they to be regarded in this new church? Are you going to erect harsh barriers to keep them out? But what about the upcoming generations? Some of them will be born, gay, into this new church to be raised in a harsh, unloving, and ostracising environment.

How will you handle all of the same problms in your new church that you are running away from in your old church?

"We are moving forward with Jesus' ministry of radical inclusion...."

I doubt any committed Anglican/Episcopalian would disagree, regardless of their home church within the Anglican Communion. But what does this phrase mean for CANA? It is my understanding from the sidelines that "radical inclusion" of persons such as Gene Robinson for the faith in Christ they profess is the very grounds on which CANA is turning away.

Thank you for your leadership, Bishop Minns.