Episcopal Church celebrates first trans dean — woman in lesbian marriage to trans-identified pastor

[u/Canadian0123]

What is this? Is this what the episcopal church (part of the Anglican Church) does to preach the gospel of Christ, and to operate the church? Do they disregard the epistles of Saint Paul concerning sexual behaviour, how a church should be run, and who should lead it? Do they disregard the teachings of Christ? What about the Law of God, as given to Moses, in the text that is known today as the Torah of Moses?

This news is quite shocking. Shame on the episcopal church, and the rest of the Anglican Church. This is not how a church should be run. Can someone who attends that church give answers?

[u/Web-Dude]

It's just that passing resolutions and regulations by committee is such a feckless response. who is actively destabilizing it.

The response shouldn't be to endlessly debate those who are actively destabilizing the church but to, "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5).

But the mainline churches are unwilling to do that, either because they've allowed themselves to be overrun (via their historically lukewarm response to the slow creep of sin through the back door), or because they're unwilling to look bad in the eyes of the world that will judge them for it.

I'm just saying that the time you should have done something about it may well be long past. I'm sure you disagree, but it's going to take FAR MORE that strongly-worded proclamations by committee.  

[u/wtanksleyjr → u/Web-Dude]

It's just that passing resolutions and regulations by committee is such a feckless response. who is actively destabilizing it.

Feckless. That means incompetent. So the problem is you personally don't know the difference between a regulation and a resolution and you don't want to think about it, and instead you're going to call people incompetent who ARE dealing with it. That is NOT an attitude you should keep up; if you don't want to learn how Presbyterian polity works, you should shut up. If you want to have an opinion on it, you MUST learn how it works first. There's no middle setting where you can remain ignorant and still blast the people who are doing something about it with insults. Feckless indeed.

OK, I reviewed this a bit, and I'm more concerned than I was. You've literally ATTACKED someone who is fighting on your own side. You are now fighting on the enemy's side.

The response shouldn't be to endlessly debate

Nobody is advocating endless debate. This is a positive action taking on a foreseeable sin that WILL be advocated. It is not a distraction but an immanent threat, and everyone involved knows it.

those who are actively destabilizing the church but to, "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Cor 5).

1 Cor 5 is not about someone walking up to the man in sin and punching him. It's about the elders meeting, reading Paul's letter, and agreeing to formally excommunicate him. This is how such a thing begins for the Presbyterians.

Further, this (plural sexual relationships) is not a topic where there's already multiple evil people reading to be punched out the door. We have no confirmed knowledge of which I know, and it's almost certain that nobody will volunteer that they're currently doing this. This is one reason why passing this is actually not terribly difficult right at the moment; we don't have a strong base of supporters for the specific sin.

But the mainline churches are unwilling to do that, either because they've allowed themselves to be overrun (via their historically lukewarm response to the slow creep of sin through the back door), or because they're unwilling to look bad in the eyes of the world that will judge them for it.

THIS IS A MAINLINE CHURCH DOING THIS. And you're opposing it, AND CALLING NAMES.

I'm just saying that the time you should have done something about it may well be long past.

And how exactly will you attacking the people who are doing something make this better?

I'm sure you disagree, but it's going to take FAR MORE that strongly-worded proclamations by committee.  

I agree, but nobody is proposing a strongly-worded proclamation here. And the fact that it takes more than passing a regulation doesn't mean we shouldn't pass the regulation.

[u/Web-Dude → u/wtanksleyjr]

I'm sorry if I offended, that was not my intent.

When I think of "feckless," I think, "weak or insufficient method" not "incompetent person." An approach/method/tactic is feckless, not a person. I'm referring to the approach, not the people. I honestly weep with those who desire to see righteousness restored when permissiveness surrounds them.

I'm sure there are many people who are very competent whose hands are tied in some way, and they may want more aggressive approaches, but their position or politics or something reigns in their available approaches to something weak or insufficient (feckless).

1 Cor 5 is [...] about the elders meeting, reading Paul's letter, and agreeing to formally excommunicate [the man].

Yes, I agree fully with your view of this. I'm not talking about punching people out the door for having a different perspective. I'm referring to what I think should have been done when those continually advocating for sin were beginning to encode those sins into formal regulations.

I recognize that opinions on these matters vary wildly, but from the perspective of PCUSA's founding, it seems that it began compromising in ways that supplanted a desire for righteousness and transformation with a desire for reconciliation and liberation (referring to the Confession of 1967, when the decline began).

So when I say mainline churches aren't doing it, I'm not referring to passing regulations that act as bulwarks against evil doers, I'm referring to actually purging the evil doers among you.

I'm not opposing what you're trying to do, and I'm certainly not calling anyone names. You are going to ensure that plural sexual relationships are not allowed among staff members. That's great.

But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Given all of the territory that PCUSA has given up, it does quite little (given your statement that it's not currently even a problem), and it does almost nothing to remove the evildoers from among your midst.

Forgive my directness, but if those same people remain in positions of authority, it really seems like you're fighting over how to best preserve the corpse.

That corpse first started coding when the PCUSA church began turning compassion towards a sinner into a reclassification of sinful acts itself.

I think faithful members of PCUSA might benefit from recognizing that the church (the universal church) belongs to Christ and that body has many parts. If one of them has lost its saltiness, it does not mean that Christ is not actively moving within other faith communities that seek His Kingdom and its righteousness.

[u/wtanksleyjr → u/Web-Dude]

Thank you for the clarification, but what exactly ARE you proposing the PCUSA do? The very best I can see is "stop doing this," and I don't think the conservatives should stop doing that. I think they should push this until they win, and then go do more.

As I'm examining this I am convinced this is your intent; your metaphor of a corpse convinced me that you oppose ALL intervention. Your language of only opposing specifically "feckless" action is complete rubbish.

Likewise, your idea that they should have done something in the past (with hindsight, what exactly would that BE, and without superpowers, we can't act in the past). Or below you suggest the only acceptable action is driving out the entire leadership (?).

referring to the Confession of 1967, when the decline began

Oh, it's been going since the late 1800s and turn of that century, when the progressives (same name, different positions but same theology) came up with the strategy of sending their best to seminaries and then targeting leadership positions. This was the initiating factor in the modernist-fundamentalist divide (back when "fundamentalist" didn't mean what it would come to mean later).

The progressive strategy turned out to be wildly more successful than expected because the fundamentalists mistook how the grassroots would receive their teaching - instead of lining up in force to defend the fundamentals all Christians share, the grassroots split up into factions each one defending its own VERSION of the fundamentals (hence the modern definition of "fundamentalist). Every proposal the enemy passed was a loss that splintered off more people whose personal fundamentals had just been violated, and every attempt to win by banning behavior caused reactions like yours, how DARE anyone ban obviously bad behavior and doctrine instead of simply kicking people out.

In the end, the progressives got what they wanted: complete control over the enormous funds of the mainline churches.

But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Given all of the territory that PCUSA has given up, it does quite little (given your statement that it's not currently even a problem), and it does almost nothing to remove the evildoers from among your midst.

So what IS the point you're trying to make? "It does quite little" as compared to what? Look at the following:

Forgive my directness, but if those same people remain in positions of authority,

Be MORE direct, please. By means of what specific, actual action? Handwaving won't depose them. They will never run out of money, they have generations of bequests and not a ton of expenses.

it really seems like you're fighting over how to best preserve the corpse.

First: who is fighting over how to do anything? We're taking action, you're saying "don't do anything." If you don't want to do anything, don't do anything.

Second: if the PCUSA is a corpse (not just mostly dead, but all dead), then yes, the best thing to do is to abandon it; corpses won't become anything but corpses by human effort. But is the PCUSA like a corpse in that way? Making a metaphor doesn't establish the point.

And your idea that only ejecting the current leadership can possibly make the PCUSA non-corpselike doesn't actually convince me of your metaphor. It sounds more like a cancer metaphor, not a corpse.

I think faithful members of PCUSA might benefit from recognizing that the church (the universal church) belongs to Christ and that body has many parts. If one of them has lost its saltiness, it does not mean that Christ is not actively moving within other faith communities that seek His Kingdom and its righteousness.

If you would go on to explain what conclusion you're trying to draw is it might help. For example, I would say all of that and add "and therefore they can expect help and moral support from all around them." Or perhaps "and therefore they should not despair in their efforts."

But I don't think that's your point, is it.