Besides that, though, help me understand the point about the whole jurisdiction issue. What you’re saying is that it’s not OK for them to join with a church who is based outside of the US? I guess I just can’t understand all this “franchise” talk when you’re speaking of a church. Who cares if they join up with the Anglican church based in England, or elsewhere, if they choose? Is it because they want to continue to be called Episcopalian?

I’m trying to understand, really. It’s interesting to me, but since I have no “protestant” background, sometimes it’s a little confusing.

Thanks.

But they didn’t claim to be members of the Anglican Communion, and therein lies the rub. The Anglican Communion is a franchise operation, and the Episcopal Church has the franchise in the US. What these people want is not control, it’s to be able to say that they’re members of the Anglican Communion. And they’ve gone about it through a bunch of hocus-pocus involving bishops and dioceses from around the globe who apparently have solved their own problems to the degree that they can meddle in ours. As a traditional Episcopalian (which might well be different from being a traditional Anglican), I hope that the Anglican Communion tells these folks that they can leave if they want to, but can’t join up with someone else who has no jurisdiction over the United States. One would think that “conservatives” would understand the importance of church structure, but alas, their homophobia apparently clouds all else in their minds.

John Dominic Crossan has noted that such is the essence of civilization, and that Jesus was a threat because the Kingdom of God he ushered in insisted in flipping that domination system approach to social (and spiritual) relations on its head.