Episcopal Church: Schismatic blather
Fundamental to a liberal view of freedom is the right of a person or group to define themselves, to speak for themselves and to not be dehumanized by the definitions and distortions of others. This right we request even of those who differ from us.
Where to begin?
The right wing political rector of a church appealing to liberal values?
The right wing political rector defending right wing churches who spend much of their time attacking and undermining the Epsicopal Church with political attacks and propaganda, inisting that a group is defined by what it says it is, and not by the attacks of others?
The right wing rector of a church where 2/3 of its members aren't Episcopalian, calling for and urging a vote on what being Episcopal means?
These are not Episcpalians. They may consider themselves Anglican, but we also consider that the moon is made of blue cheese, since it is more delicious than moon dust.
The assaults on the church have become an end in themselves. Why do non-Episcopalians waste so much time attacking something they keep saying they don't even want to bother with?
(And if they aren't even Episcopalion to begin with, they can't properly be considered schismatics. They're trespassers.)
There must be a pathology for this sort of thing. "Blather" is a fine shorthand, however.