Episcopal Church 78th General Convention Thread

I prefer some version of the traditional Lord's Prayer.

If a church offered an alternative, I would just hope they made it clear that it was inspired by the L's P, rather than stating it was the same.

I consider myself to be pro- gender equality and fairly progressive with respect to social issues. I don't have a problem with gender-neutral language referring to people (ie "brothers and sisters") but I intensely dislike the idea of changing the language to be neutral or feminine when discussing God and Jesus.

Most of these attempted changes in language about God seem to say more about us then they do about God.

Yardstick said:

Most of these attempted changes in language about God seem to say more about us then they do about God.

Click to expand...

That's a good way to put it!

Albion said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'd like to think that you right, but I have heard many, many folks who do not understand these two lines as 1a and 1b. Translating "evil" instead of "Evil One" de-emphasizing the doctrine of Satan and puts some amorphous evil in his place, which could mean any number of things.

mark46 said:

I'd like to think that you right, but I have heard many, many folks who do not understand these two lines as 1a and 1b. Translating "evil" instead of "Evil One" de-emphasizing the doctrine of Satan and puts some amorphous evil in his place, which could mean any number of things.

Click to expand...

I guess my point was that religion is full, simply full, of unfamiliar terms and concepts. We teach the meaning of them to the young and converts, and in sermons and publications and catechisms, etc.

But when it comes to the Creed or the Lord's Prayer, why then we're supposed to think that if there's anyone at all who doesn't correctly understand some word or phrase, the only thing to do is CHANGE THE WORDING.

It's ridiculous. Why not just say to them that "Evil" means "Evil One" in this case?

CanadianAnglican said:

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?

Click to expand...

I do not speculate with regard to what Bishops Martins believes. I agree that we should not use the word "heresy" lightly.

I do not expect an liturgy committee to remove the Creed from the Anglican liturgy.
=====
LET US DEAL WITH HERESY
In this age, we do not kick folks out of the Church, calling them heretics, because they disagree with the Church with regard to a doctrine or the definition or requirements of one of the sacraments. Perhaps, this was need in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries as the Church was consolidating its doctrine and its power, or not. It certainly does not seem appropriate now.

With regard to the form of baptism, it hard for me to call folks heretics because they baptize (e.g.) in the name of God, Jesus and The Holy Ghost. Is it heresy to call God mother instead of father; probably not. These folks still have the Trinity, with Jesus as fully man and fully God, something that many of those in the early Church did not have. The form of baptism is wrong in many ways, but no heretical if these folks really are baptizing in the name of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity. After all, is not "father" also an aspect of God. How would you feel if we baptized in the name of God the father, of Jesus the Son and of the Holy Ghost? Do we consider Quakers heretics because they don't baptize at all? Of course not!

As Bishop Wright indicated that he wouldn't consider someone a heretic if he didn't believe in the virgin birth. Of course, Bishop Wright is clear that the virgin birth is the Truth and that there is no question, but heresy is another thing entirely.

MAKE NO MISTAKE
I oppose calling God "mother" in baptism for many, many reasons. This is one command of Jesus that we have held true to for almost 2000 years.

BOTTOM LINE
We should be able to define Christianity and what defines a Christian. It is clearly disobedient not to baptize and regularly receive Jesus in the Eucharist. Is someone a heretic or a non-Christian because they do not do so? Do we accept members of all denominations as Christians? Or almost all (perhaps excluding JW's, Mormons and Christian Scientists)?

mark46 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think we're probably misunderstanding each other to a degree.

About the bolded part: I didn't say or think you did.

Quakers at the very least have departed from the ancient faith by rejecting baptism- they believe the water or any outward sign is of no value in salvation. They are heretical in the sense that they are following their own opinion, which is what the word heresy really means. An opinion that seems contrary to the ancient faith. Not necessarily damnable, but individualistic and reckless.

Baptizing in the name of the Mother, Daughter... or whatever other novel formula is also heretical. Not because God couldn't save someone so baptized, but because the Church has no certainty of that. And sacraments are all about sure and certain signs of grace, that is the whole point of them.

I agree.

FireDragon76 said:

Quakers at the very least have departed from the ancient faith by rejecting baptism- they believe the water or any outward sign is of no value in salvation. They are heretical in the sense that they are following their own opinion, which is what the word heresy really means. An opinion that seems contrary to the ancient faith. Not necessarily damnable, but individualistic and reckless.

Baptizing in the name of the Mother, Daughter... or whatever other novel formula is also heretical. Not because God couldn't save someone so baptized, but because the Church has no certainty of that. And sacraments are all about sure and certain signs of grace, that is the whole point of them.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

Quakers at the very least have departed from the ancient faith by rejecting baptism- they believe the water or any outward sign is of no value in salvation. They are heretical in the sense that they are following their own opinion, which is what the word heresy really means. An opinion that seems contrary to the ancient faith. Not necessarily damnable, but individualistic and reckless.

Baptizing in the name of the Mother, Daughter... or whatever other novel formula is also heretical. Not because God couldn't save someone so baptized, but because the Church has no certainty of that. And sacraments are all about sure and certain signs of grace, that is the whole point of them.

Click to expand...

The word "heresy" may mean what you say in the dictionary. In that sense, anyone who disagrees with our own interpretation of the ancient faith is heretical.

In the history of the Church, there is a much higher bar. For the early Church, folks were kicked out of the Church because of beliefs that were heretical, and yes these views were considered "damnable".

So, sure, in the sense that you state, members of almost all churches except our own could be considered heretical, and all within our church that depart from our beliefs could be considered heretical. It is this use of the word that has caused wars and suffering over the centuries. In the past century, the atmosphere in the US has changed. Before the 60's, Catholics considered non-Catholics to be heretical. Many evangelicals considered Catholics to be heretical, and all apostolic churches, and all churches who baptized infants.

mark46 said:

So, sure, in the sense that you state, members of almost all churches except our own could be considered heretical, and all within our church that depart from our beliefs could be considered heretical.

Click to expand...

I think you are over-generalizing about the implications of being a heretic.

Some noteworthy updates:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/episcopal-church-fossil-fuel-divestment

http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/...mingly-oppose-divestment-in-israel-palestine/