The question I would ask is if absent TEC's acceptance of gay relationships as normal would there be any reason for the departures of churches and dioceses from TEC? I think the answer has to be a negative.I think the numbers I've been looking at say that Shields is correct -- Douglas Bess's assessment would also agree. The post-1977 Continuers don't remotely match the departures post-2003. Yet someone calling himself "Sin Nomine" replies,
Mr. Shields, I believe the answer to your questions is: yes. What has happened in TEC has been a gradual erosion of belief in scripture, the creeds, and the articles of faith through false teachers. This has led us to the false notion that regeneration through Jesus is not the way, the truth, and the life. Our false teachers have rejected the atonement, the existence of sin, and the bodily resurrection of Our Lord. If you have read Spong, he would be exhibit A in this debate followed by Gomes, Robinson, and a long list of others including the current Presiding Bishop. I would never sit under this false teaching. The issue of homosexuality is an indicator, or symptom of the false teaching, but it is not the sole cause. It is far deeper and more complex.Except that the ACNA uses the 1979 prayer book and has women priests. Sin Nomine's answer is in a way Anglican, in that it imputes a great deal to the ACNA's split from TEC that's not actually in the record. The problem I have with the ACNA is just that: the reasons for the split are vague. It's not as though you can walk into the average Episcopal parish and find a priest rejecting the atonement, the existence of sin, and the bodily resurrection: the same creeds are in the 1979 rites as in those for 1928. As an Episcopalian for 30 post-1977 years who's been to high-church parishes and low, traveling and at home, I've never heard a homily going against the readings or against the creeds.
It's worth pointing out one more time that, while I'm not sure I agree with every point Gerry Shields makes, he's identifying himself as a real person, and his opinions are basically sane. The much larger number of angries opposing him are posting under pseudonyms. Par for the course at VOL. I wonder, though, if most of them attend any parish in any denomination at all, and the anger at Katharine Jefferts Schori is an excuse for something else.
