posted
As an Anglican, I am greatly troubled by the trials of the American Episcopal Church, whose troubles must be known to all people regardless of their faith thanks to much, remarkably kind, media coverage.
I was told yesterday by a woman than the group of Episcopalian who approve of the ordination of gays, a group which includes myself although this was unknown to her, should leave the Church. Aside from the fact that this group now includes most Episcopalians in the U.S., including the Presiding Bishop, which would make any schism patently unequal in authority (bishops are democratically elected in the Episcopal Church), the nominally liberal group has a greater claim to Orthodoxy.
The Anglican Communion has always, much to the anger of more evangelical factions, rejected Sola Scriptora theology, which I myself find to be both anti-intellectual and demeaning to humanity, and, yet, the conservatives, convinced of their own orthodoxy, use no other theology against us. The Anglican Church holds that it, and it holds that it is unique in this (although the later is probably false), decides doctrine on the basis of the tripos of scripture, tradition and reason. The Rev. Dr. Hans Küng, the great Roman Catholic Theologian, appears also to admire this tripos, complaining, in On Being a Christian that the Orthodox claim authority from tradition, the Protestants from scripture and the Roman Catholics from authority itself. He, understandably, finds these all lacking.
And who dissents, Fr. Küng and myself, or those who call us dissenters? Fr. Küng is proud to be a dissenter, his teachings officially banned by his former colleague. I should not be displeased with the label myself, were it accurate, but I see no sign that it is.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's simply a matter of semantics, which in my opinion are unimportant. There is disagreement. I don't see any reason to label either side as "Orthodox" or "dissenting". Why is it important? If it's important I can formulate an opinion on it, but I don't see anything to make me go through the trouble of doing that.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should not particularly important, actually. The aim of making the majority of Episcopalians look immoral etc. is important, but the tactics used to do so are so ineffective that I am not worried about this.
However, many otherwise very reasonable people, in my parents' generation and older, are convinced that I am immoral (almost no young Episcopalians I know, even those from conservative families, fall on the conservative side, but I am not sure that this is representative of the population as a whole.) This concerns me, perhaps it should not, but it does.
My parents say that, in the event of a schism, they will follow our parish. I will not, for I know how they feel, and cannot sacrifice my own concise on an alter of consistency and appeasement. Nor do I believe I could remain part of a divided Church, my faith is too weak as it is. Indeed, were it not for the wisdom of some leading thinkers of my Church, Madeline L'Engle perhaps foremost among them, I would has lost patience some time ago. There are problems in leaving, I would miss services, not speaking Greek makes it difficult for me to join the (equally divided but more stable) Orthodox Church, and I do not think that I personally could find enlightenment in a Meeting House, although I have perhaps more respect for Quakers than for any other religion. Unitarianism is a possibility, but not entirely palatable, and Roman Catholicism, despite, and because of, my liking of Hans Küng and Charles Curran, is inconceivable.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, it's a non-problem. What does it matter which flavour of imaginary friend you have? Join the Santa Claus believers, they get better holidays.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, Santa Claus beleivers only get one holiday really, and if you're a Christian you get that one, plus Easter, which tends to bring copious amounts of candy.
Pel, just work it out so that you are satisfied. That's what I'm in the midst of doing, and for me it means leaving organized religion entirely, at least for a time. It's a shame because I tend to enjoy church attending people more than non-church attending people, but I don't think I can stomach the mindless traditions that I see no basis for any longer. But that's just me. Whatever floats your boat. You could be like KoM and choose to believe in the imaginary atom
(And KoM, I'm being deliberately inflammatory and have no intention of following that remark up with anything resembling rational reason, so lets not even bother with it, eh?)
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I didn't mean anything of the sort, but you have to start gently with these Christians. They've been raised to not believe in the Real Thing, so they get kind of huffy if you suggest that Santa Claus where it's at. But they like a good holiday as much as anyone, so that's where you start.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish there was an ignore button per thread. KoM never contributes to these threads, and rarely mocks well, even.
Honestly, we know what you think, you have pounded it into ours heads day after day for years now.
We don't care what you have to say on religion, nor do you care what we believe.
If you can't offer respect for people who believe differently than you do, at least have the tact and intelligence to stop beating a dead horse.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom just joined All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. They have a loooong history of social activism and liberal views. They keep getting on the news 'cause the IRS is investigating them and stuff. Anyway, she agrees with you.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic church views scripture in pretty much the same way. Our doctrine is also not based on scripture alone.
Part of the issue with both the Catholic Church and the Anglican communion is that we're not just dealing with the United States or Europe. While the Episcopal Church is pretty liberal here, in Africa (for example) it is very conservative.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, yes. However, the Church is organized at a national basis, the international confrences at Lambeth are just formalities.
Even more cyncicaly, the U.S. Church can afford to be right; while it is smaller than many churches in other countries, it is also much more wealthy.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard the suggestion of such a schism from a priest at an abbey near here, recently. I really hope that it does not come to that. Although, judging from the actions of the bishop in New Westminster by excommunicating at least two pastors (the case went up to the queen who decided the Archbishop was out of line) for not accepting homosexual marriages within the Church... if this sort of thing can happen, the chances of schism seem more likely.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has already become a huge dividing point within the Church. I converted to the Episcopalian because they seemed to have fixed most of the things that I disagreed with in the RC doctrine, and I had found a very welcoming church that made me feel at home.
Shortly after we got married, we stopped attending church there because of this split. Most of the people who left over this were older, and donated a lot of money to the church. Without them the church because demanding about one...and since Jenni and I are not well off it made me feel uncomfortable.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Anyway, she agrees with you.
