Episcopal Church Needs Evangelicals

According to the US Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, of Columbia University, a fragment of manuscript he found at the Mar Saba monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, showed that the full text of St. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:

"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

ROB-ROY

You wrote, " Richard Hooker's three legged stool placed Scripture and Tradition above Reason (only for issues not addressed by the first two does one turn to reason and that reason is only reason which has been nurtured by lifetime study of scripture)."

I am not an Episcopalian, but what about Jesus and what about the Holy Spirit and also what about Dad?

You also wrote, "Thus, Richard Hooker would most certainly reject homosexual bishops because they violate both scripture and tradition (and one can certainly argue reason, too)."

QUESTION: Is God, God or is Richard Hooker, God?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Dr. Mouw, for noting the plight of conservative women priests. It is quite a difficult thing to be shunned within TEC for their conservatism, yet treated like pariahs among many Anglican break-aways because they are simply doing what God has called them to do. Conservative women priests tend to identify quite readily with having no place to lay their heads.

www.anglikin.blogspot.com

Boy, you Christians sure do have problems with an awful lot of people: Jews, always and forever. Gay people.

I wonder if you see why some of us have a problem with that "religion of love," you haters yap about so endlessly.

The Episcopal Church was born of the decapitated head of Ann Bolyn, at the direction of the mad King Henry the VIII.

So what?

Almost all religious accomodations are the result of violent political coercion, even military conquest and occupation. Or, else, an expedient compromise of some committee, seeking to avoid conflict, that no one really agrees with.

So why be so proud?

All religions, all without any exceptions, are far removed from any real God, and none of them can be right. All are mere cultural settings, into which we are born, and we must all accomodate our experiences and our doubts to these already-existing theological institutions, and and navigate our way, as best we can.

From my perspective, the Evangelical brand of Christianity is pretty far afield from anything that is remotely Christ-like, and banishing them all from all Christian commuinions would improve Christianity alot.

But that is just my opinion, based on my experience.

There is no right to be a bishop first and foremost. Secondly, we have the little thing called the Bible. St. Paul lays out the qualifications of a bishop, "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous;"

Now I could have added to the list all the previous archbishops of Canterbury, the Oxford martyrs, etc. The great JC Ryle would be weeping at the shame. Richard Hooker's three legged stool placed Scripture and Tradition above Reason (only for issues not addressed by the first two does one turn to reason and that reason is only reason which has been nurtured by lifetime study of scripture). Thus, Richard Hooker would most certainly reject homosexual bishops because they violate both scripture and tradition (and one can certainly argue reason, too).

With the adult Episcopalian population in the USA being only 1.8%, why is anyone really paying attention to this situation?

If I were Episcopalian or any type of orthodox Christian/Catholic/Evangelical, I would be more concerned about the historic and theological flaws and errors in my religion. Correction of these errors will crush the foundations of said religions.

Rob-Roy, I don't see any arrogance in considering oneself more enlightened than "all the popes in the history of the church...the disciples and apostles of the early church...than Luther, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, et cetera..." Furthermore, none of these figures were Anglican.
An "inclusive" church doesn't mean a "gay" church. An inclusive church gives equal rights to its entire congregation including women and homosexuals. Why should homosexuality disqualify a person from being a bishop in the Episcopal Church?

Interesting slur. Perhaps, Mr Dog should say "Dobsonite paleochristians" for the Christian beliefs that James Dobson espouses would simply evoke a big yawn by any Christian 20 to 200 to 2000 years ago. This is in contrast with those who are doing a new thing who arrogantly say they know better than all the popes in the history of the church, better than all the disciples and apostles of the early church, better than Luther, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, et cetera, et cetera. Arrogance is an apt descriptor for Ms Schori or Mr Robinson who, after reading "Theology for Dummies" say all those predecessors were wrong and they are more enlightened.

But that is all off topic. The liberals will most likely succeed in creating a theologically pure "inclusive" church. They simply need to march in more Gay Pride parades, elect more homosexual bishops, sue more orthodox, etc. The Episcopal namebrand will become an anathema to true Christians.

The result? An "inclusive" church which is comprised of a few caucasian homosexuals. They will be able to meet in a Holiday Inn express and they will be able to gloat about how much smarter than those "fundamentalist Dobsonite neochristians."

evangelicals or Dobsonite neochristians?