What J.I. Packer Said--

[Polycarp1]

The reverse also applies. TEC likes to talk down to ACNA Anglicans as rogue, backwards conservatives who are "intolerant" and uncharitable or hate-mongers because they reject the 21st Century re-molding of the Christian faith into this pro-gay, pro-abortion, anything-goes style morality. The TEC crowd tends to call Anglicans like me "intolerant" because I'm opposed to women's ordination just as bishops like Jack Iker and John-David Schofield are.

And take a look at the lawsuit scene and who is suing whom all the time. It doesn't make for warm fuzzies between Episcopalians and ACNA Anglicans. There's a lot of bad blood. I guess the best thing to do is for both camps to go to their corners, TEC to stop suing the pants off Anglicans who left TEC, ACNA Anglicans to quit thinking about TEC and posting blogs about them and worry more about their own ministries, for both sides to pray for each other, and take a good, long, hard look at historic Christianity and compare it to the feel-good "gospel" we're hearing from modernity that has re-packaged the Lord into a vague, wishy-washy, anything-goes God who rubber-stamps our will and doesn't seek to make us uncomfortable at times.

<edit>
Maybe both sides need to tone down their rhetoric and begin treating the others like brothers in Christ. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just ask.)

 

[Anna Scott]

The reverse also applies. TEC likes to talk down to ACNA Anglicans as rogue, backwards conservatives who are &quot;intolerant&quot; and uncharitable or hate-mongers because they reject the 21st Century re-molding of the Christian faith into this pro-gay, pro-abortion, anything-goes style morality. The TEC crowd tends to call Anglicans like me &quot;intolerant&quot; because I'm opposed to women's ordination just as bishops like Jack Iker and John-David Schofield are.

And take a look at the lawsuit scene and who is suing whom all the time. It doesn't make for warm fuzzies between Episcopalians and ACNA Anglicans. There's a lot of bad blood. I guess the best thing to do is for both camps to go to their corners, TEC to stop suing the pants off Anglicans who left TEC, ACNA Anglicans to quit thinking about TEC and posting blogs about them and worry more about their own ministries, for both sides to pray for each other, and take a good, long, hard look at historic Christianity and compare it to the feel-good &quot;gospel&quot; we're hearing from modernity that has re-packaged the Lord into a vague, wishy-washy, anything-goes God who rubber-stamps our will and doesn't seek to make us uncomfortable at times.

<edit>
Maybe both sides need to tone down their rhetoric and begin treating the others like brothers in Christ. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just ask.)

Didn't you just prove gurneyhalleck1's point?

 

[ebia]

I think they're both proving each other's points.

 

[Polycarp1]

The first sentence was sarcasm to some extent. Gurney is no more and no less a hatemonger than I am a throw-out-theological-standards anything-goes liberal. And I think in his heart of hearts, he recognizes that. So, preparatory to suggesting that we all need to back down, I was saying that we too can paint with tar and broad brushes -- and let's not, any of us.

Make sense, put that way?

 

[Cable]

The first sentence was sarcasm to some extent. Gurney is no more and no less a hatemonger than I am a throw-out-theological-standards anything-goes liberal. And I think in his heart of hearts, he recognizes that. So, preparatory to suggesting that we all need to back down, I was saying that we too can paint with tar and broad brushes -- and let's not, any of us.

Make sense, put that way?

Just making sure I'm following a couple friends to this forum and wanted to discover what the mood is like around here. Being a conservative or traditionalist Anglican doesn't earn many friends on the internet haha

 

[Anna Scott]

The reverse also applies. TEC likes to talk down to ACNA Anglicans as rogue, backwards conservatives who are &quot;intolerant&quot; and uncharitable or hate-mongers because they reject the 21st Century re-molding of the Christian faith into this pro-gay, pro-abortion, anything-goes style morality. The TEC crowd tends to call Anglicans like me &quot;intolerant&quot; because I'm opposed to women's ordination just as bishops like Jack Iker and John-David Schofield are.

And take a look at the lawsuit scene and who is suing whom all the time. It doesn't make for warm fuzzies between Episcopalians and ACNA Anglicans. There's a lot of bad blood. I guess the best thing to do is for both camps to go to their corners, TEC to stop suing the pants off Anglicans who left TEC, ACNA Anglicans to quit thinking about TEC and posting blogs about them and worry more about their own ministries, for both sides to pray for each other, and take a good, long, hard look at historic Christianity and compare it to the feel-good &quot;gospel&quot; we're hearing from modernity that has re-packaged the Lord into a vague, wishy-washy, anything-goes God who rubber-stamps our will and doesn't seek to make us uncomfortable at times.

<staff edit>

The first sentence was sarcasm to some extent. Gurney is no more and no less a hatemonger than I am a throw-out-theological-standards anything-goes liberal. And I think in his heart of hearts, he recognizes that. So, preparatory to suggesting that we all need to back down, I was saying that we too can paint with tar and broad brushes -- and let's not, any of us.

Make sense, put that way?

Polycarp1, I know gurney and he is no hatemonger. He is up front and frank. I'm guessing you took offense to his reference to 21st Century re-molding of the Christian faith into this pro-gay, pro-abortion, anything-goes style morality. The sad truth is that this is how certain liberal actions appear to those of us who are more conservative. I cannot judge one's motives or one's heart or one's salvation; but I must pay attention to the fruits being produced in TEC. I just came into the Episcopal Church in Jan. 2010. So, I'm new. I love my Parish, but I'm shaken by the liberal turn TEC has taken. There have been certain actions within TEC that certainly make the Church appear to adopt an anything-goes style of morality. My Baptist friends and my Catholic friends think I have lost my mind for entering TEC. Considering the recent media coverage; I can understand their response. Sometimes we sacrifice truth for political correctness. Gurney, you will never be accused of that. lol It's like I woke up one day to find that sin changed. Abortion, same-sex unions, and same-sex ordinations are in; and frank discussions about the departure from Christian orthodoxy are out. Gurney did suggest ACNA Anglicans quit thinking about TEC and posting blogs about them and worry more about their own ministries, for both sides to pray for each other, and take a good, long, hard look at historic Christianity. . . . This is good advice.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The "hate-monger" sure didn't sound like an attempt at sarcasm at humor but rather the reactionary anger of a leftie. But I'm glad it wasn't meant seriously.

I don't pretend to know your spirituality Polycarp. And when I see "born-again liberal" on your description, I'm not sure I want to. There are varying degrees of liberal Christianity. If you're in the pro-homosexual "marriage" camp, the pro-abortion wing, the Jesus isn't "the" way to Christ but "a" way to Christ, cohabitation is as good as marriage, andaba, let's share the Eucharist with Hindus party of Anglicanism, then you are a standards-free chap. But that's all a big "if." If you're into the lawsuits mode that your part of the communion relishes, then we have nothing to say to one another.

The first sentence was sarcasm to some extent. Gurney is no more and no less a hatemonger than I am a throw-out-theological-standards anything-goes liberal. And I think in his heart of hearts, he recognizes that. So, preparatory to suggesting that we all need to back down, I was saying that we too can paint with tar and broad brushes -- and let's not, any of us.

Make sense, put that way?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Meaning?

I think they're both proving each other's points.

 

[ebia]

Meaning you're both ascribing things to the other that the other is going to see as an objectionable distortion of their position.

 

[Polycarp1]

The "hate-monger" sure didn't sound like an attempt at sarcasm at humor but rather the reactionary anger of a leftie. But I'm glad it wasn't meant seriously.

I don't pretend to know your spirituality Polycarp. And when I see "born-again liberal" on your description, I'm not sure I want to. There are varying degrees of liberal Christianity. If you're in the pro-homosexual "marriage" camp, the pro-abortion wing, the Jesus isn't "the" way to Christ but "a" way to Christ, cohabitation is as good as marriage, andaba, let's share the Eucharist with Hindus party of Anglicanism, then you are a standards-free chap. But that's all a big "if." If you're into the lawsuits mode that your part of the communion relishes, then we have nothing to say to one another.

Sorry for misleading you, then -- it was in fact intended as sarcasm.

The "born-again" point in my self-descriptor is intended to be triple-jointed: 1. To state that I have in fact had a conversion experience ("born again" in Evangelical terms); 2. To hold the nuance of baptismal regeneration and salvation as process in tension with experiential conversion events; and 3. To modify my "liberal" stance by saying I defy categorization.

To address some of the points you made, and add a couple that may be inferrable:
1. I affirm every point of the Nicene Creed, Act 5 of Chalcedon (the affirmation of the two natures in Christ), and the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral.
2. I favor gay civil marriage as their right under the Equal Protection Clause. While I personally have no issues with the blessing of a gay marriage by a church, I am sympathetic to those who do.
3. I see no reason why a woman or a chaste openly homosexual man should not be ordained.
4. With a few personal nuances on interpretation, I stand for traditional Holy Orders. I object strenuously to what Sydney is doing -- to me it is a violation of traditional Anglicanism far greater than the ordination of a woman or of a gay man.
5. Virtually no one is "pro-abortion." I believe most abortions are mistakes and the vast majority of them sinful ones. But I believe it is the moral duty of a woman or girl on finding herself pregnant to make the free decision to bring the new life to term, not something to be imposed on her willy-nilly by force of law.
6. I believe the essence of marriage to be the vows made by a couple before God, not whether Church or State approves of that marriage. Hence I probably agree with you, Gurney, more than not on the cohabitation issue, but I do see a slight nuance -- a couple vowed to each other is (IMO) married in God's eyes, regardless of whether we recognize it as a valid 'marriage' or not.
7. The Eucharist is for the spiritual nourishment of God's children; "it is God's Table and not our own." The invitation to "all baptized Christians" to partake is the one that to me strikes the right note, and a seeker desiring to "do as the Church does" who presents himself for communion is not in my eyes doing anything improper or sinful but the reverse. I trust you can see the difference I do between this and "let's share communion with the Hindus".
8. I find the lawsuit business distasteful. However, I do have a few comments: A. Deposition of priests and bishops who leave TEC for ANCA, AMiA, etc., after the appropriate waiting period, is not only acceptable but appropriate -- they have in fact withdrawn themselves from our communion, and formally recognizing this and depriving them of their authority within TEC, after giving them opportunity to recant, is the right move ecclesiologically. B. When a given parcel or structure was given for use as an Episcopal church, it is appropriate to recover it from a seceding group. While that may be offensive to those who view what they are doing as the appropriate move in view of what they consider TEC's apostasy, consider if a parish with a similar deeded property decided to join the Assemblies of God or the Southern Baptists. Would you be so sanguine about them taking along property given with the intent it house an Episcopalian community?
9. I think ++Rowan Williams is doing his level best, guided by the Holy Spirit, to attempt to preserve the Anglican Communion in very trying times. I think that drawing lines in the sand is counterproductive in most cases, but I respect those, on both sides, who feel called to take stands for what they believe to be right, to be God's will as they understand it -- and I would call on them to listen to what the other side has to say.
10. I suspect your "Jesus is the way to Christ" was an unitentional mistyping for "...to God" or "...to the Father". With that caveat in place, yes, I believe Jesus is in fact the Way, the only Way. But I also note that that was not a line in the sand drawn by Him as against apostates -- He said that as comfort to Thomas who did not understand what He meant by "the Way" in the context of His farewell discourse. And remember that the One who said that and meant Himself by it is not "the Jesus of Scripture" or "the Jesus of the Creeds" or, God save us!, "the historical Jesus" -- He is the Eternal Son, Second Person of the Godhead. If the Hurons knew God as Mighty Gitchi-Manitou, and accepted Jesus when the Jesuits told them about Him, their faith was not so much converted as amplified and clarified -- wherever God truly reveals Himself, so does Jesus Christ, because He is God. I despise equally the "all spirituality is good" movement and the "let's make sure they only can know Jesus by our rules" -- the former fail to realize how easily people can go astray, but the latter have thrown the Baby Jesus out with the bathwater, and substituted for him a dog in the manger.
11. My personal piety is strongly Jesus-oriented, holding the Eucharist in high regard, willing to seek and nurture good in all, dead opposed to those who would build walls to shut God away from those who don't agree with them.

I fear this shows me to be far too liberal for you. I am truly sorry to have to say this, but -- I took Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord, not you, and I must follow what I see Him as calling me to do. I'll happily debate in good faith and with as friendly terms as you allow. But my commitment to Him comes first.

 

[Anna Scott]

Sorry for misleading you, then -- it was in fact intended as sarcasm.

The &quot;born-again&quot; point in my self-descriptor is intended to be triple-jointed: 1. To state that I have in fact had a conversion experience (&quot;born again&quot; in Evangelical terms); 2. To hold the nuance of baptismal regeneration and salvation as process in tension with experiential conversion events; and 3. To modify my &quot;liberal&quot; stance by saying I defy categorization.

To address some of the points you made, and add a couple that may be inferrable:
1. I affirm every point of the Nicene Creed, Act 5 of Chalcedon (the affirmation of the two natures in Christ), and the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral.
2. I favor gay civil marriage as their right under the Equal Protection Clause. While I personally have no issues with the blessing of a gay marriage by a church, I am sympathetic to those who do.
3. I see no reason why a woman or a chaste openly homosexual man should not be ordained.
4. With a few personal nuances on interpretation, I stand for traditional Holy Orders. I object strenuously to what Sydney is doing -- to me it is a violation of traditional Anglicanism far greater than the ordination of a woman or of a gay man.
5. Virtually no one is &quot;pro-abortion.&quot; I believe most abortions are mistakes and the vast majority of them sinful ones. But I believe it is the moral duty of a woman or girl on finding herself pregnant to make the free decision to bring the new life to term, not something to be imposed on her willy-nilly by force of law.
6. I believe the essence of marriage to be the vows made by a couple before God, not whether Church or State approves of that marriage. Hence I probably agree with you, Gurney, more than not on the cohabitation issue, but I do see a slight nuance -- a couple vowed to each other is (IMO) married in God's eyes, regardless of whether we recognize it as a valid 'marriage' or not.
7. The Eucharist is for the spiritual nourishment of God's children; &quot;it is God's Table and not our own.&quot; The invitation to &quot;all baptized Christians&quot; to partake is the one that to me strikes the right note, and a seeker desiring to &quot;do as the Church does&quot; who presents himself for communion is not in my eyes doing anything improper or sinful but the reverse. I trust you can see the difference I do between this and &quot;let's share communion with the Hindus&quot;.
8. I find the lawsuit business distasteful. However, I do have a few comments: A. Deposition of priests and bishops who leave TEC for ANCA, AMiA, etc., after the appropriate waiting period, is not only acceptable but appropriate -- they have in fact withdrawn themselves from our communion, and formally recognizing this and depriving them of their authority within TEC, after giving them opportunity to recant, is the right move ecclesiologically. B. When a given parcel or structure was given for use as an Episcopal church, it is appropriate to recover it from a seceding group. While that may be offensive to those who view what they are doing as the appropriate move in view of what they consider TEC's apostasy, consider if a parish with a similar deeded property decided to join the Assemblies of God or the Southern Baptists. Would you be so sanguine about them taking along property given with the intent it house an Episcopalian community?
9. I think ++Rowan Williams is doing his level best, guided by the Holy Spirit, to attempt to preserve the Anglican Communion in very trying times. I think that drawing lines in the sand is counterproductive in most cases, but I respect those, on both sides, who feel called to take stands for what they believe to be right, to be God's will as they understand it -- and I would call on them to listen to what the other side has to say.
10. I suspect your &quot;Jesus is the way to Christ&quot; was an unitentional mistyping for &quot;...to God&quot; or &quot;...to the Father&quot;. With that caveat in place, yes, I believe Jesus is in fact the Way, the only Way. But I also note that that was not a line in the sand drawn by Him as against apostates -- He said that as comfort to Thomas who did not understand what He meant by &quot;the Way&quot; in the context of His farewell discourse. And remember that the One who said that and meant Himself by it is not &quot;the Jesus of Scripture&quot; or &quot;the Jesus of the Creeds&quot; or, God save us!, &quot;the historical Jesus&quot; -- He is the Eternal Son, Second Person of the Godhead. If the Hurons knew God as Mighty Gitchi-Manitou, and accepted Jesus when the Jesuits told them about Him, their faith was not so much converted as amplified and clarified -- wherever God truly reveals Himself, so does Jesus Christ, because He is God. I despise equally the &quot;all spirituality is good&quot; movement and the &quot;let's make sure they only can know Jesus by our rules&quot; -- the former fail to realize how easily people can go astray, but the latter have thrown the Baby Jesus out with the bathwater, and substituted for him a dog in the manger.
11. My personal piety is strongly Jesus-oriented, holding the Eucharist in high regard, willing to seek and nurture good in all, dead opposed to those who would build walls to shut God away from those who don't agree with them.

I fear this shows me to be far too liberal for you. I am truly sorry to have to say this, but -- I took Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord, not you, and I must follow what I see Him as calling me to do. I'll happily debate in good faith and with as friendly terms as you allow. But my commitment to Him comes first.

Polycarp1, While I am far more conservative and passionately disagree with many of your positions; I do think stating what you believe and why is a good thing; and I appreciate the clarification of your beliefs on these issues. I think we all need to keep the lines of communication open, if we are to remain in communion with one another. God's peace.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And that's just it for me, should extreme liberals and conservatives remain in communion with each other? I think that is the problem from the get-go. Perhaps it was the problem a few hundred years ago with the Elizabethan Settlement, trying to reconcile contradictory forms of Christianity together. Today we tried with TEC to reconcile people who are diametrically opposed to one another theologically and MORALLY and look what happened? And now ACNA is trying to do it again with the W.O. "tolerance" and they're turning bipolar. The ACNA is turning into a more conservative TEC but still full of baggage.

Polycarp1, While I am far more conservative and passionately disagree with many of your positions; I do think stating what you believe and why is a good thing; and I appreciate the clarification of your beliefs on these issues. I think we all need to keep the lines of communication open, if we are to remain in communion with one another. God's peace.

 

[Cable]

And that's just it for me, should extreme liberals and conservatives remain in communion with each other? I think that is the problem from the get-go. Perhaps it was the problem a few hundred years ago with the Elizabethan Settlement, trying to reconcile contradictory forms of Christianity together. Today we tried with TEC to reconcile people who are diametrically opposed to one another theologically and MORALLY and look what happened? And now ACNA is trying to do it again with the W.O. "tolerance" and they're turning bipolar. The ACNA is turning into a more conservative TEC but still full of baggage.

At least we still have the best choirs lol

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And THE best coffee hours LOL....

At least we still have the best choirs lol

 

[Cable]

And THE best coffee hours LOL....

That is very true. We serve baked goods like nobody's business

 

[Anna Scott]

And that's just it for me, should extreme liberals and conservatives remain in communion with each other? I think that is the problem from the get-go. Perhaps it was the problem a few hundred years ago with the Elizabethan Settlement, trying to reconcile contradictory forms of Christianity together. Today we tried with TEC to reconcile people who are diametrically opposed to one another theologically and MORALLY and look what happened? And now ACNA is trying to do it again with the W.O. &quot;tolerance&quot; and they're turning bipolar. The ACNA is turning into a more conservative TEC but still full of baggage.

That is of course the million dollar question. I think the whole idea of communion would have to be redefined. At this point, the Anglican Communion is in about the same situation as taking multiple Protestant denominations, holding views on opposite ends of the spectrum, and putting them all in communion with one another. They'd be fighting like cats and dogs, which is precisely what is happening in the Anglican Communion. I don't see a future where conservatives become liberal or liberals become conservative (not that there are any clear definitions of either.) Then again, if we want absolute agreement, Catholicism would be the way to go. But, I already know that's not going to work for me. So, either those in the Anglican Communion continue to break apart, or we agree to remain in communion as what would amount to mini-denominations all under the tent of Anglicanism. That sounded much better in my head. So, I guess I'm back at square one. I hate square one. Though square one and I have become intimately acquainted.

 

[Finella]

That is of course the million dollar question. I think the whole idea of communion would have to be redefined. At this point, the Anglican Communion is in about the same situation as taking multiple Protestant denominations, holding views on opposite ends of the spectrum, and putting them all in communion with one another. They'd be fighting like cats and dogs, which is precisely what is happening in the Anglican Communion. I don't see a future where conservatives become liberal or liberals become conservative (not that there are any clear definitions of either.) Then again, if we want absolute agreement, Catholicism would be the way to go. But, I already know that's not going to work for me. So, either those in the Anglican Communion continue to break apart, or we agree to remain in communion as what would amount to mini-denominations all under the tent of Anglicanism. That sounded much better in my head. So, I guess I'm back at square one. I hate square one. Though square one and I have become intimately acquainted.

I've been lurking in this topic... and I'm with you on the cycle of "should I stay or should I go?" I've been spinning around this question for several years now.

It is, naturally, far more comfortable for me to be in a spiritual community that shares my beliefs than to wedge myself into a community that challenges my beliefs or makes me feel unwelcome because of them.

But I am convicted of my beliefs, while also being a seeker of truth.

Should I head off to another denomination where I might feel more philosophically/theologically comfortable? I have considered this seriously. In my case, I've considered Quakerism and the Unitarian Universalists. But in both cases, I feel I would lose something terribly important -- the continuity of the human story of relationship to God. The meaning of the rituals in Anglicanism/Catholicism is of the ages, archetypal. The rituals in these other denominations feel manufactured and strained.

So even if I am likely not considered a Real Christian by many, I keep coming back to .... Christianity, particularly TEC. And then I'm faced again with the struggles of the denomination, the struggles of the Anglican Communion, and with others who would not welcome me because I am too "liberal."

But when we all celebrate in liturgy together, when we all commune together, we are all human beings, made in the image of God. I can come to see the dignity of every person, even those with whom I vehemently disagree, and come to a place of understanding. This is one of the powers of the sacraments.

Does Jesus really want us to be comfortable with our faith all the time? Is it really best to keep with like-minded people because it's simply easier? That's been the question for me. And even though I think I know the answer, I still haven't walked into a church in a long time. It's very, very hard to open that door.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I can come to see the dignity of every person, even those with whom I vehemently disagree, and come to a place of understanding. This is one of the powers of the sacraments.

As an inclusive Christian thing I can see, but not outside of the Christian experience is it a power of the sacraments.

 

[MKJ]

I've been lurking in this topic... and I'm with you on the cycle of "should I stay or should I go?" I've been spinning around this question for several years now.

It is, naturally, far more comfortable for me to be in a spiritual community that shares my beliefs than to wedge myself into a community that challenges my beliefs or makes me feel unwelcome because of them.

But I am convicted of my beliefs, while also being a seeker of truth.

Should I head off to another denomination where I might feel more philosophically/theologically comfortable? I have considered this seriously. In my case, I've considered Quakerism and the Unitarian Universalists. But in both cases, I feel I would lose something terribly important -- the continuity of the human story of relationship to God. The meaning of the rituals in Anglicanism/Catholicism is of the ages, archetypal. The rituals in these other denominations feel manufactured and strained.

So even if I am likely not considered a Real Christian by many, I keep coming back to .... Christianity, particularly TEC. And then I'm faced again with the struggles of the denomination, the struggles of the Anglican Communion, and with others who would not welcome me because I am too "liberal."

But when we all celebrate in liturgy together, when we all commune together, we are all human beings, made in the image of God. I can come to see the dignity of every person, even those with whom I vehemently disagree, and come to a place of understanding. This is one of the powers of the sacraments.

Does Jesus really want us to be comfortable with our faith all the time? Is it really best to keep with like-minded people because it's simply easier? That's been the question for me. And even though I think I know the answer, I still haven't walked into a church in a long time. It's very, very hard to open that door.

The rituals, formulas, art etc, are meaningful because of their content, aren't they? If the content isn't there, then they are no better symbols or rituals than any others.

 

[higgs2]

Holy Smokes! Now that we can't talk about (gay) people, what will we talk about? This kind of screws up almost all of our threads in STR.