Episcopal Church 78th General Convention Thread

mark46 said:

I post both here and at OBOB.

I thought most folks here know that I have been part of Bishop Lawrence's diocese. I must have posted over 100 times on details of what has happened in our diocese, as well as reported on several occasions the announcement by Bishop Lawrence at our church, the announcement that we were no longer part of TEC and no longer part of the AC. I also have provided additional updates on the lawsuits and other matters from our diocesan newsletter.

Click to expand...

I did leave open the possibility that, unnoticed by me, you'd made mention of this membership (although I certainly don't believe it has been "over 100 times" ) BUT you let some members debate at length whether you should be posting here while you made no mention of your entitlement. That I remember, and so I am surprised to think back on it, that's all.

The reality is that this board is much more tolerant than OBOB with regard to discussions of theology.

Click to expand...

That's true.

Destiny2015 said:

Why are masculine pronouns in the BCP considered offensive?

Click to expand...

Sean611 said:

Some interesting news pieces:

CWOB was brought up again in the HOB and they voted on whether they should form a committee to study the issue, however, it was rejected but barely (72-77). It is believed that PB-elect Curry did vote to study the issue. Bishop Martins reported that this will be back in 2018.

Revisions to the Prayer Book are moving forward. Bishop Dan Martins has reported that such revisions wouldn't be final until at least 2021, but more likely 2024. Such revisions would change the marriage language and possibly remove masculine references to God that are "offensive" (Father, Son, Lord, etc.). Bishop Martins would like to see something like what they have in England with the 1979 BCP being the last official prayer book, with a collection of alternative liturgies in a book like the Common Worship in England.

In a bit of interesting news, bishops/parishes will be provided adequate protections to reject SSM in their dioceses and parishes, however, bishops (and I assume parish priests) will be required to facilitate their availability in another diocese or parish. Bishop Martins said he could live with that, however, it is causing a bit of a stir.

Plans for revising the 1982 Hymnal were approved. Many are shocked by this as a survey for revising the Hymnal revealed very little interest amongst the parishioners for doing so.

http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-fifth-legislative-day.html
http://cariocaconfessions.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

I don't think that the 1979 BCP can become the permanent standard because of the definition of marriage as between one man and one women. Perhaps, this one amendment could be made, with the revised BCP becoming the standard, with others being allowed.

Personally, I have much sympathy for women's movements in the US, and even for feminism. HOWEVER, I think that we should be very careful about changing the BCP to be gender neutral in the extreme. To do so is likely to be viewed in contradiction to the Creed. Changes can be made. The Trinity is NOT "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer". These are simply aspects of the three persons of the Trinity.

With regard to "Lord", I guess the convention can decide whether Jesus is indeed our Lord and Savior. Personally, I don't think that that the First person of the Trinity should ever be addressed as Lord, or LORD as is often used. The name of God is Yahweh or Jehovah. Also, words like "lord" and "priest" need not be considered to belong to one sex. We have this issues in the secular world when some refuse to call women "actors".

I like the treatment of this gender issue by the translators of NRSV, where we have "brothers and sisters" instead of brethren, although occasionally changing the order might be reasonable. I think that we should be addressed as sisters and brothers, rather than some gender neutral term. The people are NOT genderless.
====
The bottom line in the US is that feminists reject the idea of God The Father. Some of these folks simply want to remove all aspect of maleness from our idea of the three persons of the Trinity. For me, this replaces our Creed with a different creed.
Jesus was a man. Jesus addressed God as abba, which we have translated as Father. The word actually is usually translated "daddy" in the Middle East. The third person has been considered masculine or feminine or neither, depending on the century.
For me, to remove all references to sexuality moves us to consider Jesus fully God, but NOT fully man. The humanity of Jesus needs to be clear. I believe that many consider Jesus as divine, ignoring that he also fully man.

mark46 said:

#1
What is not allowed on fellowship forums is to state positions that oppose those of the denominations of the fellowship forum.

#2
I try to not argue against the views of any denomination that is protected here. As a side note, there are many over the years on this forum who attend both Anglican and another church (e.g Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Methodist).

#3
I do state my personal church membership from time to time. My wife and I are members of an Anglican church that is not part of the Anglican Communion. I often report on issues concerning our diocese. Personally, I was confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church (where memberships never lapse). Since Bishop Lawrence informed us that we were no longer Episcopalians, I have been attending the Catholic church once a month or so. I still attend the Anglican church with my wife.

Click to expand...

So, what if one Anglican denomination's position is in direct opposition to another Anglican denomination's position -- such as the AMiA and TEC on homosexuality. Is posting the AMiA position not allowed? Is this another example of leftist "tolerance"?

RainsInApril said:

Earlier today: House of Bishops Passes Marriage Resolutions
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/house-of-bishops-passes-marriage-resolutions/

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

God is speaking through the heirs to the Apostles. Love and inclusivity reign. Good for the Episcopal Church for having the moral courage to embrace love and marriage equality for those society has cast out, in the same way Jesus embraced lepers and Samaritans. They are doing God's work. I'm thrilled. I wish other churches would follow.

CelticRebel said:

So, what if one Anglican denomination's position is in direct opposition to another Anglican denomination's position -- such as the AMiA and TEC on homosexuality. Is posting the AMiA position not allowed? Is this another example of leftist "tolerance"?

Click to expand...

We are not talking about tolerance. We are talking about the rules of CF. A member of an AMIA church is certainly free to express the position of the their church community. And yes, we often have disagreements AMONG FELLOW ANGLICANS and sometimes directly oppose one another.

There are many places on CF where one can debate over doctrine. There are many places where we can say that the views of another church are wrong. Fellowship boards are different. Fellowship boards are a safe haven for members of the churches of that fellowship board. Others are certainly free to ask questions and even discuss theology. What is not allowed is for non-Anglicans to directly oppose the teaching of an Anglican Church. We have the GT board for that type of discussion.
=========
As an aside, this is the only board where one can even state that homosexuality is not a sin, since we are simply stating the official position of one of our churches. CF specifically discourages any discussion of whether homosexuality is a sin.
==========
Finally, this is NOT a political board. I see no reason to call me or anyone else a "leftist". perhaps, I have misunderstood and you think that this term has some theological significance.

Sean611 said:

I agree and I think this is the issue that many have. Personally, I find the whole thing silly (with some of it being disturbing), but what you outlined here gets to the heart of the matter and the concerns of those who want to stay true to the historic Creeds of this church. In the end, that is what truly could be at stake.

IMHO, it would be foolish to think that when they change the definition of marriage in the '79 BCP, they'd leave the "offensive" masculinity alone. In fact, the committee that is working on this for 2018 GC is looking into the "offensive" language in the BCP as well. It has already begun, it's just a matter of what the final outcome will be.

Of course, something like an alternative "Common Worship" type of collection of liturgy could end up becoming the norm, with the '79 BCP being left (largely) alone, but I only see a small amount of hope for that.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is foolish for me to hope that the convention would choose to change only the reference to marriage in the 79 BCP. For me, that is the only issue that has been decided by the convention. I would think that this change could be made in 2018. I would think that since the gender language changes have not been decided upon, those changes would require two conventions, and would therefore wait until 2021.

For me, I could see the language issue to be as controversial as communion without baptism when it comes to the floor, with the vote ending up being close.

Fish and Bread said:

God is speaking through the heirs to the Apostles. Love and inclusivity reign. Good for the Episcopal Church for having the moral courage to embrace love and marriage equality for those society has cast out, in the same way Jesus embraced lepers and Samaritans. They are doing God's work. I'm thrilled. I wish other churches would follow.

Click to expand...

They are not heirs to the apostles if they have abandoned the faith of the apostles, which is what they have done; thus, God is not speaking through them. And if it is not God, then it must be some opposite entity.

mark46 said:

We are not talking about tolerance. We are talking about the rules of CF. A member of an AMIA church is certainly free to express the position of the their church community. And yes, we often have disagreements AMONG FELLOW ANGLICANS and sometimes directly oppose one another.

There are many places on CF where one can debate over doctrine. There are many places where we can say that the views of another church are wrong. Fellowship boards are different. Fellowship boards are a safe haven for members of the churches of that fellowship board. Others are certainly free to ask questions and even discuss theology. What is not allowed is for non-Anglicans to directly oppose the teaching of an Anglican Church. We have the GT board for that type of discussion.
=========
As an aside, this is the only board where one can even state that homosexuality is not a sin, since we are simply stating the official position of one of our churches. CF specifically discourages any discussion of whether homosexuality is a sin.
==========
Finally, this is NOT a political board. I see no reason to call me or anyone else a "leftist". perhaps, I have misunderstood and you think that this term has some theological significance.

Click to expand...

First, I was not calling you a leftist, nor was I referring to anyone specifically.

Further, I have become an Associate Member of the AMiA. So, I guess I have a right to post my opinions here, as much as any liberal TEC member, and more than any Catholic, Lutheran, etc.

CelticRebel said:

First, I was not calling you a leftist, nor was I referring to anyone specifically.

Further, I have become an Associate Member of the AMiA. So, I guess I have a right to post my opinions here, as much as any liberal TEC member, and more than any Catholic, Lutheran, etc.

Click to expand...

I apologize for any misunderstanding. I would note that stating the doctrine of your church is not the same as saying that the doctrine of another member church is not Christian, or is far from the faith. I don't think that the difference is all that subtle. Do you?

As a side note, I don't recall that I have ever stated that a Catholic view was THE truth or even preferable to the stated doctrine of an Anglican member church.

I recently attended a worship service of another church that has removed gender-related terms from worship. For example they say "kindom" (whatever that means) rather than "kingdom." "Lord" is avoided. I found their version of the Lord's Prayer to be nearly unrecognizable and certainly not equivalent in meaning. I think it is the height of arrogance for a church to think they can re-write the prayer Jesus gave us better than He delivered it Himself.

If TEC goes this way, my journey as an Episcopalian could be very short.

seeking.IAM said:

I recently attended a worship service of another church that has removed gender-related terms from worship. For example they say "kindom" (whatever that means) rather than "kingdom." "Lord" is avoided. I found their version of the Lord's Prayer to be nearly unrecognizable and certainly not equivalent in meaning. I think it is the height of arrogance for a church to think they can re-write the prayer Jesus gave us better than He delivered it Himself.

Click to expand...

In all fairness, the Lord's Prayer Christians traditionally recite isn't word for word the same as the one in either of the two Gospels where it's found. It's close, but not exact. Right? Or is it exactly what was in the King James Version or something?

Anyway, I think "kindom" probably means a place where we are all each other's brothers and sisters. That'd be my guess. I don't know either, just trying to help out. I don't mind just calling God God and avoiding gender-related pronouns, or the whole "Our Father-Mother" thing as long as it's just liturgical and not misquoting the bible in the lectionary, but taking the "g" out of "Kingdom" to avoid the word "King" in the word "Kingdom" seems a bit excessive, if that's why they did it. I mean, you've got to draw the line somewhere.

What denomination was the church you visited a part of?

seeking.IAM said:

I recently attended a worship service of another church that has removed gender-related terms from worship. For example they say "kindom" (whatever that means) rather than "kingdom." "Lord" is avoided. I found their version of the Lord's Prayer to be nearly unrecognizable and certainly not equivalent in meaning. I think it is the height of arrogance for a church to think they can re-write the prayer Jesus gave us better than He delivered it Himself.

If TEC goes this way, my journey as an Episcopalian could be very short.

Click to expand...

I understand that you probably like the version from the Old English that most use. I would note that better translations in the last few years do NOT use these poorly translated lines.
1) Lead us not into temptation,
2) but, deliver us from evil
This is not even close to the meaning. For example, consider one option
1a) do not put be to the test (used in the ELCA church I attended a few months ago)
2a) rescue us from the Evil One (used by most Orthodox and in many modern translations)


http://www.csdirectory.com/biblestudy/lords-prayer.pdf

Critique this version. Is it a translation? Does it say the same thing? Is it an improvement on the Lord's prayer as we know it?

seeking.IAM said:

Critique this version. Is it a translation? Does it say the same thing? Is it an improvement on the Lord's prayer as we know it?

Holy One, you are everywhere, Blessed be your many names. May your fullness come, your desires be known in our lives as they are in your heart. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us when we cause harm, As we forgive those who injure us. Urge us toward greater wisdom and compassion, And deliver us from false thoughts and desires. For the heart, the whole, And the radiance of life are yours, and ours, Now and forever. Amen

Click to expand...

It's not the same prayer. Some lines have a meaning that is clearly and distinctly different from the line in the versions of the prayer I've seen (For example "Who art in heaven" does not mean "you are everywhere", though perhaps heaven is everywhere in some sense, and "Blessed be your many names" is not "Blessed be thy name", though in fact there are several names for God in the bible alone, so again not as radical a theological opinion as it may seem to some). It's a nice prayer clearly inspired by the original, though. I wouldn't object to this as a liturgical option.

Actually, I think this speaks to me more where I am at in terms of my spirituality than the original prayer. That doesn't make it better or worse, or mean I think we should chuck the original, but I like it. I think I could pray this with more feeling.

Where did you find it?

Mark, I agree with your thoughts exactly. There are limits to how far we can use feminism as a hermeneutic in the Christian tradition before our interpretation ceases to be Christian. Once we abandon the idea that God is revealed as Father, we are fatally undermining Christian faith and worship. This ties into our views of who Jesus Christ is and who God is... you can't get more fundamental than that.

FireDragon76 said:

Mark, I agree with your thoughts exactly. There are limits to how far we can use feminism as a hermeneutic in the Christian tradition before our interpretation ceases to be Christian. Once we abandon the idea that God is revealed as Father, we are fatally undermining Christian faith and worship. This ties into our views of who Jesus Christ is and who God is... you can't get more fundamental than that.

Click to expand...

To be clear, if someone wanted to be a member of our church and be confirmed, I think that we would also baptize anyone who was "baptized" in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. There are few absolutes in Christianity. The protocol of baptism in one of them. I could live being baptized in the name of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

mark46 said:

To be clear, if someone wanted to be a member of our church and be confirmed, I think that we would also baptize anyone who was "baptized" in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer. There are few absolutes in Christianity. The protocol of baptism in one of them. I could live being baptized in the name of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised. I remember a debate thread a while back (in the apologies or Christian Ethics board or something like that) where someone had asked about God as mother, and plenty of folks felt that a Baptism would be perfectly valid if it was done, "In the name of the Mother, Redeemer and Sustainer," or similar formula.

It's interesting that Bishop Martins said that in charity the term heresy should not be used lightly, and only when something contradicts the creeds. We name God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the creeds. Would this be crossing the line for him, or is the line simply being redrawn (since one assumes if the BCP is re-written it would also involve re-writing the Creeds to remove offensive language from them). Or could it be the creeds will be dropped as the ACC Liturgy Commission is proposing with its revisions to the Daily Offices?

Fish and Bread said:

What denomination was the church you visited a part of?

Click to expand...

I chose not to say by intention. I don't wish to malign another Christian group by name. I'd prefer to stick to discussion of the merit of the content. Suffice it to say, I believe bold attempts for politically correct language to ensure we offend no special interests can result in a much different understanding of the intent of the texts. I will let it stand there.

mark46 said:

I understand that you probably like the version from the Old English that most use. I would note that better translations in the last few years do NOT use these poorly translated lines.
1) Lead us not into temptation,
2) but, deliver us from evil
This is not even close to the meaning. For example, consider one option
1a) do not put be to the test (used in the ELCA church I attended a few months ago)
2a) rescue us from the Evil One (used by most Orthodox and in many modern translations)

Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't see any difficulty in understanding 1 and 2 as meaning 1a and 2a. For those who do, I suppose someone will have to instruct them what "hallowed" means, too.

That's no different from learning what "Measure twice and cut once" or "Keep your eye on the ball" mean in other parts of our lives.

BUT as for that mess of a Lord's Prayer substitute "Seeking.IAM" referred to....well, that's another matter. Its raison d'etre is not to use modern language in order to avoid confusion or enhance understanding. I hope we all realize that.