Comments on: An Open Letter to Believing Episcopalians

By: Frank Wirrell

Frank Wirrell — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:07:31 +0000

The reference to the agenda as a “progressive agenda” is precisely what the general media would describe the movement. However, for Christians and the church this agenda is decidedly regressive. Again I must say we are far too polite when we call apostates liberals. There is a huge difference between liberalism and apostasy and what we are dealing with in the TEC and the ACoC is apostasy. It is tragic when we see no action whatever by the church leadership to call the apostates to account. There seems to be so much emphasis on maintaining communion with Canterbury with no emphasis on being in communion with Christ.

By: Don't Panic

Don't Panic — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:00:05 +0000

I tried, without much response to take this sort of tact in my diocese. I claimed that if the 7-8 evangelical parishes, which were among the largest and essentials minded, would simply unify against the direction of our bishop, the diocese could neither afford the lawsuit, nor the lack of fair share, and we could have stopped this train, at least around here, in its tracks. I think this is where the common cause in TEC failed. The many dioceses had enough power together to force the national church into submission. Bit the real will to fight and stand firm was not evident. Around my diocese it was fear I belivee of job loss. Now we have integrity loss instead, and I continue to comment anonymously. Sad really.

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:11:42 +0000

It’s like the story of the frog in the pot. He’ll hop out of a pot of boiling water, but if you turn the temperature up gradually he’ll cook.

By: susan riegler

susan riegler — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:07:56 +0000

Thank You Fr. Richardson. It also seems to me that the liberal TEC is trying to get us used to more and more ridiculous doctrine a little at a time (a little leaven, talk about abuse of a biblicl principle). I am in the process of leaving the Episcopal church and though emotionally painful (I have many friends there) it is the only decision I can make. It is a choice of remain in communion with the TEC or with Christ through the amia. I do not unerstand how this could happen; that a presiding bishop and cronies could introduce anti-Chrisian doctrine and get away with it.

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 00:02:21 +0000

God bless you, Fr. Richardson. Clarity and clear thinking are desperately needed.

By: Gordon Arthur

Gordon Arthur — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:28:06 +0000

“…the American church has not only given the proverbial finger to the Communion, they have insulted the Archbishop of Canterbury personally laying the blame for division at his feet.”

While I agree this is not fair, he does deserve blame for trying to avoid the issue, rather than trying to resolve it.