Episcopalians divide again over electing gay bishop

The Episcopal Church's diocese of California will elect a new bishop on Saturday, the first such vote here in 27 years.

The election would normally play out as a decidedly local event, but many from the broader Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion to which it belongs are focused on it because three of the seven candidates are openly gay or lesbian ministers in long-term relationships ...

To prevent a schism over homosexuality, a commission appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury asked the Episcopal Church in 2004 to place a moratorium on the election of gay bishops. More recently, a special commission of the Episcopal Church proposed that dioceses exercise "very considerable caution" before electing someone whose lifestyle "presents a challenge to the wider church," commonly interpreted to mean an openly gay or lesbian bishop ...

"I think we're tired of the hype that is being generated by a vocal minority in the church," said the Rev. Katherine M. Lehman of St. Bede's Episcopal Church in Menlo Park. She added, "If we are called to elect a qualified nominee who happens to be gay, we will do that based on our discernment of the process and the Holy Spirit" ...

http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1423&Itemid=27

will be a non-issue. The way it has played out in Tallahassee, sadly, is that every Episcopal church but one (there are five) has split with the vast majority (including in every case all the priests and most of the vestry) leaving to form a new "Anglican" congregation. This leaves the tiny number left to deal with the bills and problems and will probably result in most of those churches going on the auction block. The Episcopal church in this town is no longer viable.

Are you saying that the priest and vestry from the four churches support or don't support the split?

Do you have any idea how old the average age of the congregations are? I have seen in past instances that the older age churches tend to be more conservative. Are any Rite 1 churches?

Holy Spirit: new church (built about 10 years ago), "charismatic" (in the beginning REALLY "spirit filled" with lots of tongues, etc...that quieted down) congregation; mostly families, some boomers. Not long after the Robinson consecration the priest and about half the congregation left and set up shop in a strip mall. I don't know what they call themselves. I doubt they ever used Rite I. A month or two later the church burned down. They caught the man, a mental patient. I don't think there was a connection to the schism. The remaining folks are trying hard to rebuild but the congregation is very small.

St. John's: Mother church of the diocese, downtown Talla. Beautiful. Rather traditional upper middle class church, lots of governors, etc. My parents attended there for years. I didn't care too much for the church... but their music was superb. Very large population, good number of gay folks (lots of high church services), families, boomers and senior citizens. Lots of money, lots of priests, influential vestry. Strong outreach in town with homeless folks. About six months ago or maybe longer all the priests left, along with entire vestry (one stayed behind for a bit for transition) and 800 members. They started a new church (bought an older church outright) called St. Peter's Anglican. The people who remained in the old church were mostly the older members with long-time family ties to the building, and I would assume, the gay members. No one cited the Robinson consecration as a reason, but rather concerns with the Episcopal Church in general and theology issues. This was a huge, huge shock to the religion community in town, and the Diocese of Florida. (whose Bishop is considered liberal)

Church of the Advent: 1960's building, two priests. Middle class, rather contemporary worship. Solid financially. Both priests left with more than half the congregation and founded Holy Cross church, meeting in an empty building. Family aged congregation, some boomers. Very small congregation left with a big facility to maintain. Issues were cited as being both the Robinson consecration and theological differences.

St. Francis of Assissi: small contemporary building. I'm not sure of whether they have split yet, but we know a long-time member who says the priest will take most of the congregation and start an Anglican parish. Primary issue is Robinson consecration.

The one church still intact is Holy Comforter, which is fairly contemporary, with a very successful day school and new facilities all around. They also have a large gay population, or used to when I attended there.

The first three churches you can research on the web and find both websites for the new and the original church, and also articles in the local paper about the splits.

This is wildly different than the Washington D.C. diocese, which is very liberal. Only one church tried to pull out, but failed, and that was a very split congregation.

the more urban areas are more liberal. Down here the Episcopal church hearkens back to the planter class, and British connections. Much, much more traditional.

I know of one parish in Portland that left over the issue of women priests and the 1979 Prayer Book, and maybe two in Minneapolis.

I haven't heard of any repercussions over Gene Robinson, surely nothing on the order of what you describe. My parish (the cathedral) is supportive of gay rights and even invited Gene Robinson to speak.

Some people may have left, but there have been a lot of new members, too, largely, I believe, due to the quality of the clergy and their ability to make the cathedral a welcoming and comfortable place that just happens to have Old World architecture and fantastic music.

at a rate of at least 2% per year and even greater if the rolls were properly counted. Average Sunday Attendance - ASA is taking a greater hit: http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=1069

Or is some of that simply a reaction to the division -- people not wanting to see that or deal with tough issues?

I know we lost a few families over Gene Robinson. I was really shocked at who they were, and very saddened. But since then, we've gained many more. And I know some of those people came from one of the "CT six" parishes who are making all the fuss here in CT over Bishop Robinson.

I think for a certain number of people, the situation just presents an opportuntiy to leave a church they were sort of lukewarm about anyway. After all, Gene Robinson's being made a bishop really doesn't affect their worship or daily lives in any way, since we're not in his diocese. It's a convenient excuse, and they can wrap it up in self-righteousness if they need to.

the liberal churches and the fundie churches is due to birth rates.

The fundie churches attract young suburbanites steeped in pop culture who are in their childbearing years.

The mainline churches are more friendly to singles and GLBT people, who have fewer children.

But the mainline churches, especially the Episcopalians, attract a lot of people who USED TO be fundamentalists, who still believe in God, but don't want all the controlling nonsense. There are so many converts TO the Episcopal church that we have a phrase "cradle Episcopalian" (a rare thing, like a "native Oregonian") to describe someone who came from an Episcopal family background as opposed to being an adult convert.

In my EFM (an Episcopal Bible and theology study program for adults) group, there are ten people and I think two are cradle Episcopalians.

(NOT a cradle Episcopalian).

We need to do better with children's programs to attract those families, I think. We've lost at least one family to a fundie church just b/c they liked their kids' stuff. (Can't imagine doing that, myself -- switch entire theologies b/c sunday school looks fun???)

are very "seductive" that way.

during the 1950s and early 1960s, when most people went to church, at least for social reasons. Sunday School was hit and miss (and I feel that the Episcopal customs of having the children leave for Sunday School during the middle of the service and having only six weeks of instruction before confirmation prevent young people from "absorbing" the liturgy and theology the way I did as a Lutheran preacher's kid.) College chaplaincies were not funded by the diocese and had to depend on annual fund drives.

Meanwhile, the fundamentalists were "hungry" and figured out that they could grow by attracting younger people with pop-culture tinged programming.

I must say that I've seen some positive moves in the Episcopal Church, at least in Oregon and Minnesota. The Sunday School curricula are more well-developed and imaginative, and here at the cathedral, there are now programs that combine discussion, recreation, and community service for each age group.

programs, including good children's choirs.

The ones attached to Episcopal day schools do well, too.

Although in a kind of round-about way. My great grandfather was a wheelwright in Lancaster, England. He made wheels for the carts in the mines. He converted to Methodist and left England with other Methodists in order to have more freedom of worship. One of his big complaints (I have some of his writings) was that for a baptism to be legal it had to be in a Church of England, the state church. But when he got here he couldn't bear the quality of the Methodist organ and choir and he didn't like the people, either, so he went to the Episcopal church. He really started something. My grandparents met in church as choirmembers. So did another of his kids and her husband. That family went to Canada where they had a child who became a clergyman. He had a daughter who married his curate, who went on to become the Presiding Bishop of Canada. We haven't had a Methodist since, but one wayward relative stole away with Joseph Smith and helped form the Mormons!

Can you tell I love genealogy?

First, around here it is kind of bad manners to even mention Gene Robinson and his...um... lifestyle. JUST ISN'T DONE! So you won't find anyone openly admitting that's the reason. However, there is a lot of grousing about theology, with some Bishops implying that the virgin birth, resurrection, etc., are fable.

In this area the break-aways are the ones with the money and the clout. The other folks have the buildings and the debts. It will be interesting to see how it all ends up.

I have stuck with the Episcopal Church. I think I'm going to have to increase my pledge to help with the bills.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/FAST_FACTS_2004.pdf

AND

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/ASA_94-04.pdf

The trend isn't boding well!

For a variety of reasons, one of which being the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop.

Here's why -

Gene Robinson was living with his sexual partner outside of marriage. Had his partner been a woman, he would have been de-frocked for leaving his wife and "shacking up." But since he cannot marry his partner legally, then he is living "in sin." Why is that OK for a same sex couple, but not for a hetero couple?

If the argument is because they, as a homosexual couple can't get married by the state - then the church should marry them.

That makes it a Feminist issue to me. Its OK for the men to shack up, but if it involves a woman, then defrocking is in order. Seems hypocritical to me. The church should marry the bishop and his partner.

It wasn't the only reason I left the church, but it was the final straw. Hypocrisy I cannot tolerate.

perspective and I never thought of it that way. But you are right. One of our priests left his wife for another woman and divorced and he wasn't quite defrocked, but he wasn't given another parish for about 15 years. He worked as a counselor for a long time. He would never have been considered for Bishop with that black mark.

Inconsistent.

is to offer marriage to homosexual couples, I think we've got a good several more years before we start seeing that in the Episcopal church. Bishop Robinson was the choice of his diocese, and was ready now. I think he was a strong step on the way toward recognizing same-sex marriages w/in the church. And who knows? The northeast is moving fairly well toward state-sanctioned marriages, or at least CUs. Change is coming.

There are lesbian priests as well. And some of them are excellent.

not that whether there are lesbian priests or not. The point is that had Bishop Robinson been living with a sexual partner that was a woman who was not his wife, he would not have been considered bishop material. Why is it OK to live with a same sex sexual partner and not be married by the church?

The church should marry them if they want to promote the lifestyle.

I am very pro-gay and lesbian marriage. I would like to see people being able to choose the partner that they love regardless of gender.

It just confuses me that they church has sent the message that gay sex outside of marriage is OK, but heterosexual sex outside of marriage is not. Either remove the stigma of unmarried couples all together - don't marry anyone - or marry them all.

Don't like the double standard.

If gay partners would like to be married but the state won't allow them to be married, then that is not their fault.

The standard is imposed upon them by others, not by themselves, so there is no hypocrisy on their part, or the churches part, because it is out of the control of both groups.

My last church had a lesbian priest whose partner was also very active in the congregational life. Both were accepted, no one had any problems with it.

I know many gay Episcopal priests and seminarians. It is quite common.

The point is that the church itself should marry them.

It doesn't matter if its possible civilly in the US, the church has its own marriage rites and they should change them to be inclusive of homosexual partners if they plan to condone those relationships by consecrating bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of marriage.

Either do away with the stigma of "living together" across the board in the church, or provide the means to sanctify the relationship before the eyes of God and the congregation. There doesn't have to be a state issued certificate for marriage in the eyes of God to take place.

It is a double standard when you have one set of rules for one segment of the population and another set of rules for another.

Apparently, the rules in the Episcopal church today are - if you are heterosexual, you may not advance in the clergy unless you are celibate or married. Living with your partner is considered "living in sin" and is not a good role model for the congregation. However, if you are a homosexual, you can advance in the clergy whether you are living with your partner or not.

Again, I am not saying that the Episcopal Church is wrong to include homosexuals.

I am saying that if the Church is condoning homosexual relationships, then PROVIDE the necessary means, IN THE CHURCH, to make the two types of relationships - hetero and homo - equal.

Do not penalize a heterosexual for "living in sin" and then not punish the homosexual for "living in sin."

"It doesn't matter if its possible civilly in the US, the church has its own marriage rites and they should change them to be inclusive of homosexual partners if they plan to condone those relationships by consecrating bishops who are living in sexual relationships outside of marriage."

I don't agree at all. I don't think it is productive to set the church against the laws of civil society unless those laws are egregiously immoral. Consecrating a bishop and changing a marriage rite are two independent and unrelated acts. There is no natural connection between the two. I don't think that the church condones relationships any sexual relationships outside of marriage, it simply does not condemn them, something else entirely.

"Apparently, the rules in the Episcopal church today are - if you are heterosexual, you may not advance in the clergy unless you are celibate or married. Living with your partner is considered "living in sin" and is not a good role model for the congregation. However, if you are a homosexual, you can advance in the clergy whether you are living with your partner or not."

I never heard of any priest accused of living in sin, irregardless. I don't know any hetero priest living with an unmarried partner, but I have also never heard the charge. For gay priests, they can't be married so they have no choice and shouldn't be penalized for it.

I think you are making a distinction that most people don't make, quite frankly. There is little stigma inside the Episcopal church against a man and woman living together without being married, just like in the rest of society. I was welcomed as a church member when I was "living in sin" with the woman who is now my wife, also a member of the church.

We are all affected by the societal norms of our time. It is not hypocritical, it is simply the current reality of what constitutes a legal marriage, and hopefully that will change.

>>>The standard is imposed upon them by others, not by themselves, so there is no hypocrisy on their part, or the churches part, because it is out of the control of both groups.<<<


I disagree - its not out of the Church's control. Granted, the Church should have no influence over secular laws, but, why don't they just revise the Book of Common Prayer to have inclusive language in the marriage ceremony? Why don't they encourage their homosexual people to marry in the Church? The Church has all kinds of rites and services that do not involve state or federal laws at all - why couldn't gay marriage ceremonies be included?

Let's refrain from using the right-wing terminology.

The "lifestyle" of most gays & lesbians I have known is one of working, going grocery shopping, attending movies or theater events, raising pets and/or kids, and generally just getting by. In other words, their "lifestyle" is the exactly the same as your typical heterosexual. They just have a same sex parter.

Didn't mean to sound republican.

I have no problem with gay people. Honestly. I would say about half of my friends are gay. I want very much for there to be the option for my gay friends to get married and to have the rights and privileges that are bestowed on married heterosexual couples.

My problem is that the Church has told me, by consecrating Bishop Robinson - who is a self-professed homosexual living with his same-sex partner who is not his spouse, that his relationship with his partner is more valid than a relationship between an unmarried man and woman.

The Church does not have to marry them for the double standard to be removed. All that has to happen is that the stigma of unmarried couples in the clergy must be removed for everyone.

Don't defrock the priest who is living with his partner.

Get rid of sex = sin for all.

But from my perspective as a non-believer, just about every church is rife with double standards. Better to take what you can get now, and work on the next later.

just because someone doesn't have a marriage license issued by the civil authorities, doesn't mean that they're not married in the eyes of God

why do people need a ceremony anyway to think that they're married

why does it have to be "official"

Bishop Robinson lives with his partner and from my understanding, they've been together for a few years

I'd say that they're married in every sense of the word, except for the state recognizing their relationship

If the Church didn't, then I'm sure we'd hear about that