That’s a good call

About 30 congregations in North Georgia with an estimated 3,000 members could join a new conservative Anglican church that would compete with the Episcopal Church for worldwide recognition.

The rift is the result of theological conservatives pulling away from what they believe is a liberal drift in the Episcopal Church, the American branch of Anglicanism.

I think it is necessary. The Episcopal Church has turned its back on the faith so the faith should turn its back on the church.



  1. Tyler says:

    The Episcopal Church has let in far too much corruption and sin. These breakaways by the Anglican Communion have been occurring for decades. A very good denomination that is growing by leaps-and-bounds in Africa and other countries is the Anglican Orthodox Church. The AOC is growing here in America and there are congregations springing up here and there.
    I would love to see an AOC congregation in my region of Georgia.

  2. Icarus says:

    Headline from

    Conservative members of Episcopal Church try to beat off pro-gay faction; end up with schism on their hands.

    That is all.

  3. odinseye2k says:

    I’m glad to add the Episcopal Church to the Mormon Church as faith communities that are ironically standing in defense of “traditional” marriage.

    Mormons for obvious reasons, and the Episcopals as they owe their current existence due to a political favor done to Henry VIII in getting a divorce.

  4. Bucky Plyler says:

    Just mention Jesus, Bible, sin, abortion, church, right – wrong & one can get various reactions here on PP.

    The truth is that issues like this conservative Anglican church are more important than most of the stuff we comment on.

    I am a conservative Southern Baptist, and I am for any denomination that seeks to be as close to the Bible as it can be.

    odnsy2k, the Bible defines marriage as one man & one woman for life. It aslo has a dim view on divorce, especially if the divorce is for the wrong reason(s). Christians believe that God came up with the Bible-if you have problems with what the Bible says-take it up with Him.

  5. heroV says:

    The Episcopal Church has turned its back on the faith so the faith should turn its back on the church.

    What a ridiculous comment. Faith is whatever people want it to be. Who are you to say that the church has turned its back on the faith if people still believe in whatever brand of faith the church embraces?

  6. SavannahDem says:

    You go to a church, you stop liking that church, you leave the church and find a new one. Pretty simple.

    Too bad these break-away folks want to take the church facilities (or entire denomination in this case) with them when they leave.

    The arrogance is breath taking. There are generations of people who have built these individual Episcopal churches up. Many of them are interred on the grounds. Now the current tenants want to redesignate the churches as as non-Episcopal.

    Maybe they should just designate themselves as non-Episcopal and move on.

  7. Tyler says:

    Some churches that have broken away from the Episcopal Church of America are actually older than the Episcopal denomination, such as Christ Church in Savannah. If the churches wanting to join the conservative Episcopals across America fall under the same category then they should be able to keep their facilities; if not, there are some definite property right issues that will be fought over.

  8. odinseye2k says:

    “odnsy2k, the Bible defines marriage as one man & one woman for life. It aslo has a dim view on divorce, especially if the divorce is for the wrong reason(s).”

    Precisely. Which is why I find it so amazing that this particular church has a sudden case of “OMG! The geyz!” when it likely would not exist without a lovely bit of hypocrisy on divorce for a very powerful patron.

    Of course, I would be called a bigot for saying that I have ascended beyond having my life guided by an arbitrary reading by a flawed human being of a book that has passed through 2000 years of history and flawed human interpretation / translation through many flawed human languages.

  9. Bucky Plyler says:

    Hey Savannah Dem, if those buried on the church grounds could get up & move – they probably would. The church they helped build was much different than what it has become.

    I think in the long run, you’ll find that the Bible will be more important to these arrogant break-aways than the property will be.

  10. Bucky Plyler says:

    Hey odns2k, I’m glad you responded. Explain your last paragraph to me. How did you ascend & what did you ascend to?

  11. StevePerkins says:

    I don’t understand all the non-Baptists making comments when Erick criticizes a Baptist church, and I don’t get all the non-Episcopalians piping up when Erick offers advice to Episcopalians. (for that matter, I don’t get why Erick posts so much about churches in the first place)

    There are at least a hundred different denominations out there. Each one picks and chooses its theology to rationalize its politics, and then claims that it’s “Bible-based”. They can do so because the whole “Bible-based” concept is ridiculous to begin with. For one thing, The Bible is an anthology of scriptures that were compiled and given their “Word of God” status by the Catholic church centuries after Christ. Not even the original Christians saw the Bible as “the Bible” in the quasi-idolatry sense that most view it today.

    Secondly, it’s not like scripture is an engineering document or technical schematic. Individuals and denominations are going to interpret it differently, just as different judges (even of the same political persuasion) are going to interpret laws differently. Saying that you “just follow the Bible” is as retarded as Ron Paul’s oversimplified “just following the Constitution”.

    So pick the church or denomination that matches your politics, feel smug and self-righteous about how your church alone owns the Bible, and let that be that. Alternatively… you could just deal with the fact that big questions don’t have known answers, you could live a moral life simply because it’s the right thing to do, and you could find other outlets for political debate. Same result, but cheaper.

  12. odinseye2k says:


    I think I said more or less what Steve just said … only slightly more snippily and with a bit less eloquence and precision.

  13. SavannahDem says:

    Tyler – With pre-Revolution churches this often becomes an issue of the language on the deed to the property. And there are some interesting real property arguments which can be, and are being, made in the courts. (BTW – I am well aware of the situation at Christ Church).

    However, post-Revolution churches are the vast majority of the congregations at issue. Those folks need to shut up, turn off the lights, and hand over the keys.

    Bucky – Glad to know you have the ability to commune with the dead.

  14. Chris says:

    Steve P:

    I see you are one of those People’s Front Of Judea heretics. The Judean People’s Front will drive you from your home and slaughter your livestock for this blasphemy!

  15. Tyler says:


    I did say that there were property issues with those Episcopal churches that are not older than the ECUSA. So they do need to abide by the law on property rights. If the ECUSA owns the building, then those within the congregation can either remain in the church or leave if they have a problem with the ECUSA.

    I do support those who choose to leave, but the property issue is a whole different can of worms.

  16. Game Fan says:

    I’m not sure about the “oversimplified Ron Paul view” or whatever. Of course REAL constitutionalists understand that the world outside of the government is way too complicated for politicians to stick their stinky asses in every little facet of the private sector. With the Churches breaking up is hard to do.

  17. Tyler says:

    If the politicians in Washington had followed the same simple “follow the Constitution” view as Ron Paul, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in; is that “simple” enough for you?

  18. StevePerkins says:

    LOL… I think it’s hilarious that an agnostic speech, which makes a brief Ron Paul analogy only in passing, managed to draw out the RP kooks rather than the religious ones! There may be hope for Georgia yet!

    Let me break it down, though. Like scripture, the Constitution contains terms that are not elaborately defined as in a technical schematic… and requires people to use reason in applying with given circumstances. Ron Paul has one view of how “due process”, “commerce”, etc should be applied in various circumstances. Justice Scalia has another. The ACLU has yet another still.

    I’m not criticizing Paul’s particular applications, as I tend to agree with them more often than those of the others mentioned. However, I do criticize the oversimplified view that reason and application aren’t necessary… that my views are so obviously correct that “just following the text” means “agreeing with my views”. That’s ridiculous, just like various churches cherry-picking and twisting their own theology and then saying they’re the only ones “just following the Bible”. The fact that I may agree with one church’s view more so than another’s doesn’t mean I condone that attitude.

  19. StevePerkins says:

    Oh, and before any evangelical-types cry about “relativism”… relativism is the mushy concept that all views are equally valid and worthy of respect. I don’t buy into that either. Generally, I think that MY views are right and YOURS are wrong!

    However, I accept that beliefs should be arrived at and backed up by reason. I disapprove when people start out with a firm belief, and THEN try to “retrofit” some reason to show how they could have gotten there. I don’t have much respect for ideas that people can’t explain and argue intelligently, but rather have to just point to the crutch they’re leaning on. It’s not relativism to think you’re right, but not be blind about it and unwilling to have your view challenged.

  20. Tyler says:

    While there are many Ron Paul “kooks” out there, I tend to argue issues rather than risk my life hanging signs from a bridge and spray-painting my car. Not all of his supporters are kooks.

    But, yes, this article and blog are about theology and politics should be placed aside. “Following the Bible” as you put it is still very important and I do not agree that the Bible should be looked at as having different meanings. Rather, if you are a Gentile, look to Paul (Apostle to the Gentiles) for doctrine. We live under the dispensation of Grace and need only meet the requirement of Grace in Christ to get to Heaven.

    The problem with the ECUSA is that they have spat on their doctrine. The older ECUSA was very conservative. Obviously the Bible is against unrepentant sinners holding leadership positions in the Church. Conservative Anglicans mean to look for guidance in the Scriptures. This means that rampant homosexuality in the Church is not tolerated and any sin in any form should be dealt with. Forgiveness is huge, but unrepentant sinners have no authority to hold leadership in the Church.

  21. boyreporter says:

    GOPeach: Michael Youssef is so full of love and compassion and the spirit of Christ that he preaches that AIDS is God’s way of punishing gays. He really said that. And more. Welcome to him.

    By the way, you realize that faith is just another word for superstition, don’t you? If there were a god, I bet he’d want you to use that brain he gave you instead of blindly following ancient bedouin texts that have been adulterated and altered over time and were written by men who knew jacks–t about the world, and much less about the beyond.

    I mentioned brain in your context, and I realize there’s a contradiction there.

  22. StevePerkins says:

    You know, Tyler… in my gospel reading I haven’t found Christ making a single ill reference about homosexuals. However, since you “look to Paul for doctrine”… I’m sure that in light of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, you and congregation require all your women to wear headcoverings. I’m also certain that you’ve never sworn an oath in any kind of legal or contractual situation, since Christ called it sinful and expressly forbade it in his sermon on the mount.

    Pick ‘n choose… pick ‘n choose…

  23. Tyler says:

    My friend you are picking and choosing. If you believe in what Christ says, then look at Jesus’ own words in Acts. In Acts 9:15 Jesus said to Ananais, “Go thy way for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name unto the Gentiles.” Romans 11:13 Paul states, “I speak to you Gentiles inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.”
    As far as Corinthians, Paul told the women in Corinth to cover their heads b/c prostitution and sexual immorality were rampant and the temple prostitutes shaved their heads. Some of these women were in the Church and he was telling them to change and differentiate themselves from the “world.”
    You have to look at the Bible in context. It means what it says to WHOM it says it and WHEN it says it.

  24. StevePerkins says:

    Ahh… look at scripture in context? I’m very surprised to hear you say this. You do realize that this sets you apart from many, who argue a word-for-word “literal” view (whatever that means). I actually agree with your view here, though. The only difference is that this is why I don’t regard homosexuality as “sin”.

  25. Decaturguy says:

    I don’t get why Erick posts so much about churches in the first place.

    Extreme right wing religious conservatism will kinda do that to you.

  26. Tyler says:

    I do believe in a literal view. I believe the earth was created in 6 days, I believe in a literal Flood and ark. I believe in every word in the Bible. I am merely stating that Christians must look at context. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles, therefore we, as Christians, should look to Christ’s message through him in this dispensation of Grace.

    Homosexuality is a sin. I Corinthians 6:9 is one of many verses that mentions it. The key to forgiveness is to have the Blood of Christ there to wash away all sin. But there are many sins and all are equal in God’s eyes. Jesus Christ died for those sins. We need only accept the gift of salvation to be forgiven.

  27. odinseye2k says:

    “I believe the earth was created in 6 days, I believe in a literal Flood and ark.”

    One of these days (if there is any justice in the world), this will render your credibility at about the same level as someone who talks about being abducted by aliens after driving on an isolated country road.

    Of course, there isn’t geological evidence against the alien abduction, so I’d be more inclined to believe that.

  28. Game Fan says:

    Debating the “finer points” of the Constitution at this point IMHO is only for pussies. The fact of the matter is, the jackasses in power are so far over the line that most of the debate I see is hogwash. Common sense on the other hand would seem to suggest that the Constitution would be worth getting back to as it protects individual rights. And “oversimplified” is often used by small minded individuals who can’t grasp the big picture.

  29. Tyler says:


    First off, Christians have argued the “6 days” days debate for centuries, I just fall under the category of “Creationist” because it is my choosing. Evolution is still considered a theory and I did not make any claim that it is invalid or anything like that. On the contrary, I find it a valid argument from a scientific view and think that it causes stirring debate. But, nonetheless, evolution is not scientific law and, therefore, Creationism can be viewed as a valid argument.

    As far as a flood and ark etc., there is mention of a Great Flood in almost every religion on Earth; from the Babylonian epic Gilgamesh, to the Quran (book of Sura), and to the story of the Hindu myth of Matsya. There are many others as well in almost every region of the world.

    I believe the Bible because I am a Christian, but are you willing to say that every religious person in the world has no credibility because they believe in the teachings of their faith?

  30. griftdrift says:

    Oh goody! An evolution argument! I’ve been spoiling for one of these for days!

    “But, nonetheless, evolution is not scientific law and, therefore, Creationism can be viewed as a valid argument.”

    BZZZZZZT. First off, its a common misconception that science is a hierarchy and things pass up through steps of more credibility. Science is about theory and theory is about evidence. Secondly, evolution has mountains of that neat thing called evidence. Creationism has exactly zero.

    “As far as a flood and ark etc., there is mention of a Great Flood in almost every religion on Earth; from the Babylonian epic Gilgamesh, to the Quran (book of Sura), and to the story of the Hindu myth of Matsya. There are many others as well in almost every region of the world. ”

    A little occams razor work here. Flood stories are common in all civilizations because everyone descends from the same eight people who survived a planet-wide flood in a leaky wooden boat or because every civilizations emerged near bodies of water where flood were not only frequent but devestating.

    Nothing wrong with the Bible. Really there’s nothing wrong with believing in creationism. As long as you keep it out of science. Cause that’s just one place it don’t belong.

  31. Tyler says:

    Science does have a hierarchy. Gravity, for instance, has been proven without a doubt. There are several scientific laws such as Newton’s laws of motion and Einstein’s laws dealing with relativity. The thing that sets scientific laws apart from theories is replication. We haven’t been able to view evolution completely because of the massive time periods involved (i.e. millions of years).

    Again, my previous arguments were based on religious beliefs. Evolution is a theory that has been thoroughly researched. If you noticed I merely stated that evolution and creationism are two views that cause stirring debate. But I have no time to sit and debate, on a religious article’s blog no less, the theory of evolution vs. Creationism. This would be a waste of time anyway, seeing as you (griftdrift) have made up your mind, as have I.

    My beliefs boil down to one thing; faith. Even if someone came to me with a signed affidavit stating that evolution was true it wouldn’t change my belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that a belief upon His death, burial, and resurrection is all that I need for forgiveness and my salvation. How we got here (whether through strict creationism, evolution, or some other form) does not change the course of where we will end up. The free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is there, we need only accept it and be saved.

  32. Icarus says:

    I’ve never understood this argument, and I never will.

    In Sunday School, I was taught that there is nothing inherently contradictory between the theory of evolution and creation. I was taught the same thing in a high school biology class. I happen to believe in both. I also believe you can take the bible literally and still believe that God’s “day” and a human’s “day” might not be the same period of time. (Hint, what is a day to a diety that is of eternity? Do you presume that God rotates around an axis every 24 hours so that he can measure time the same way we do?)

    And I’m sure that there will be many who believe I’m now damned to eternal hell for not believing things the same way you do. I’ll pre-emptively respond in advance that I think you’re damned to eternal hell for sins of judment and most likely excessive pride, Pharasee.

  33. odinseye2k says:

    “First off, its a common misconception that science is a hierarchy and things pass up through steps of more credibility.”

    Well, actually that one is still up for debate. The hardest-ass of them all, Karl Popper, insisted that as soon as some evidence against a theory came up that the theory should be junked and another rewritten. Poof, one strike, you’re dead and also stuck dodging all the rotten tomatoes in the room while you try and make up something better.

    On the other side, we’ve got Thomas Kuhn, who insisted that bodies of theory are made of multiple bands – the really hardcore, well-tested in a lab stuff, some pretty well validated stuff, and then some fluffy stuff that sounds good. These balls of thought and evidence would chug along until one day, too many inconsistencies and contradictions popped up and we would then “paradigm shift” into a new way of thought about matters. See quantum mechanics, phlogiston v. thermodynamics, and so on for examples.

    Of course, when it comes to geology’s age of the earth and evolution, we are talking about two things in that super hard core. Both geology and biology as currently conceived would massively fail without these frameworks. And that’s why I say you can’t be taken seriously if you are willing to throw out two of the world’s greatest natural sciences because it makes you feel funny on Sunday.

Comments are closed.