frustrated with episcopalian experience in CF

This site keeps a list of spiritual directors that you can search as well as some advice: Find a Spiritual Director | Spiritual Directors International

FireDragon76 said:

For several months, faith has been neglected in my life. I dabbled with the idea of never going to church again. It's very hard to be a Christian alone, apart from a congregation and without the Sacraments.

I live in Central Florida, and Episcopalians here have a reputation for being conservative and "Evangelical", and that troubles me. I really want to believe in the Anglican Communion- Desmond Tutu is the reason I darkened a church at all, but you go to churches here and you rarely here a message that has anything to do with the 5 Marks of Mission. Mostly, the Gospel preached is heavily colored by Evangelical sensibilities. The Kingdom of God takes a back seat to an individualistic religion focused on personal guilt and atonement. I want to be Episcopalian... but not like this... I've tried this before and I just feel like it's a dry desert for me spiritually, disconnected from Episcopalians I know in other parts of the country.

e.

Click to expand...

As an evangelical, I struggle to see the problem. I don't recognise your assessment on evangelicalism either.

I think it is always difficult to go to a new church. I am in this place too due to relocation. When I first went to my new church, I compared it negatively to my old church. This is despite recognising that my old church is far from perfect (sometimes my prayer during a service is that Mystery Worshipper hasn't chosen this Sunday to visit).

I like to look on all the better things they do as church and go from there. In time, as I infiltrate, perhaps I will suggest some of the things my old church do.

I'm a firm believer in going to the (a) local church. This is the best place for mission and friendships. I also know that God also takes us outside of our comfort zones. He gives us a picture of a farmer pruning his vines so that they bear more fruit (John 15 (ish?)).

I am a regular worshipper of 5 churches, all very different. This is due to our split family status (the ever long relocation) and having a chorister in the family who is called upon for evensong etc. I love all of those churches, despite the lack of evangelicalism in two of them. They are all reaching out to their communities and transforming lives. None of them is part of the frozen chosen - praise The Lord!

I would suggest to the OP to stick with his local church. How many times did Paul talk about persevering?

FireDragon76 said:

I have thought about this as well in the past few days reading the responses: maybe I misunderstand what evangelicalism is about.

Reflecting on things in my life the past few days, I feel like a lot of important institutions I was taught to trust, growing up, have failed me or let me down, and I don't just mean that as some kind of cliche. If anything, the circumstances of my life fit better with the Christian narrative of a sinful world, than the secular account. The spiritual confusion I feel is also symptomatic of that. I'm starting to rethink everything again and hopefully find some patience.

I realize I had only limited contact with a Christian community. I was not raised in a very religious home, we were not regular churchgoers. We moved around a lot as my father was in the military, and we never had roots in the local community. And being autistic, albeit high-functioning, still puts walking into a community and feeling accepted as a very difficult thing. It gets even worse when one struggles with physical disability (I can't drive anymore, I had my license taken away a few years ago, and the state of Florida doesn't have programs to get low-vision drivers back on the roads, unlike many other US states that have bioptic programs or driver training classes).

Click to expand...

That is a tough background but I'd like to think that we would welcome you with open arms into our church. Not in Central Florida, unfortunately. Being unable to drive would not faze us at all as there would be plenty of people willing to step in. We don't care about a Christian background or family situation - in Christ, you get a new family!

For me, I am a long way from my own family, so my church family becomes my new family. What I love about this is that I have the witness of elderly people. I have little recollection of my own grandparents, so I am grateful for the wisdom of my adopted ones.

This may be the case.

Over the years, many of us have posted our conclusions here on this matter.

Many have concluded that the choice of parish is much more important than the choice of denomination. As my mentor said when I decided to move on from his church, "find a church that is doing God's work and get to work".

I suspect that there are many parishes where you might best fulfill God's call. The parish could be TEC, ELCA, UMC, Presbyterian or another. There are also many parishes in these same denominations where you not feel welcomed.

FireDragon76 said:

It's sounds to me perhaps the issue is not finding the right Christian denomination, but the right parish?

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

It's sounds to me perhaps the issue is not finding the right Christian denomination, but the right parish?



I've done confession a few times at the Episcopal church, and one time the priest tried to give some advice and I just found it ackward. (and my estimation is that few people down here in the Episcopal church make private confessions). In general, I've not found auricular confession to be such a blessing, it seems to lead to more spiritual problems down the road: I'm a natural worry-wort and take those things seriously, perhaps too seriously. I tend towards scrupulosity.

I think good spiritual direction is just the sort of thing I am asking about, but I didn't know to put it in those terms. That seems to be what is missing from my life, somebody else to talk to about spiritual matters (not necessarily theology). I have a therapist in RL but he's not a churchgoer and might even be hostile to Christianity (he's openly gay, and I my experience of the gay community, many feel wounded by religion and not the best sources for spiritual discernment).

Click to expand...

I would ask the priest about spiritual direction then. He might be able to help or help you meet up with someone.

A good parish is sometimes the most important thing. Certainly no matter how good the denomination, a bad parish will be bad.

If you can, you might try and find a christian therapist. It can be helpful. Or at least one who is really neutral - ideally your religious beliefs are a big part of metal health and it is a good thing if your therapist can work with them. Especially if you are prone to things like scrupulosity which is related to OCD in many cases - I could imagine it being related to autism as well.

Hi FireDragon. Much of what you say sounds familiar to me, as I'm also on the autistic spectrum and was also raised in a non-religious household. My only advice to you is keep searching, and be willing to look everywhere including churches that you haven't tried before. I wish I could offer something more specific but I really don't know anything about the situation in central Florida.

I'll be praying for you.

FireDragon76 said:

Recently I was reading some thoughts by ELCA Lutherans on the theological debates about gays in their church, and I came to realize I agree with a critique by some liberals in the church: having good biblical arguments in favor of a position is just not good enough if it excludes a Gospel-based hermeneutic (in other words, being faithful to God is reduced to following the Torah to the letter, vs. following the example of Christ and being willing to liberally interpret the Torah in the light of the greatest commandments). Core Lutheran principles like justification by faith, or law vs. gospel get thrown out the window if people start reducing being faithful to God to following the law.

I don't agree with Biblicism, which I believe is usually one of the characteristics of evangelicalism? (that and crucicentrism and activism?). I'm not sure it squares with a Christ-centered, Gospel-centered hermeneutic. This definitely puts me outside the conservative Protestant camp... but does it make me non-evangelical?

Click to expand...

I don't generally go in for "isms" so won't comment on your perception of evangelical isms.

However, regarding your comments of Jewish beliefs vs Christian.

They go in for salvation by obedience. They need to be obedient to the law, and must not stray even non-intentionally or unwittingly, so may up their own tighter set of rules.

Christians are under grace.

Many (most) Christians will make up their own rules about what makes a better Christian, but this is totally contrary to Paul's teaching.

Accepting that Jesus died for our sins and to decide to follow him is the only credential we need.

FireDragon76 said:

Isn't obedience to the moral law one of the things Christians generally hold up as at least an ideal?

Click to expand...

Of course, but she didn't deny that.

I'm uncomfortable with what is called "divine command ethics". It's very common here in the US among many Christians, especially conservative evangelical Christians. I believe a lot of Jesus teachings point to a virtue ethic. Rather than a list of "do's" and "don'ts", we are left with a list of character traits to develop- meekness, humility, peace-making, justice-seeking, mercy, and so on. Rather than give us some commandments in black and white, Jesus gives us sacraments and patterns of life to follow.

Click to expand...

I'd agree, except that the minute we agree to that concept as you stated it, no rules or commands are seen as anything but generalities or loose guidelines to be reinterpreted at will.

To be more concrete, some Christians think following Jesus for a gay man would mean renouncing his same-sex relationships and even attempting to alter his sexual orientation

Click to expand...

.
I don't know if that latter part is necessary, but yes, the idea of turning from sin is always good advice.

anything less is somehow proof that a person is unsaved.

Click to expand...

Some would say that, but it's rare to find among Anglicans, even conservative ones.

The pain and anguish this would cause in this persons life is immaterial, they have biblical evidence on their side, of course, but in the last couple of years I've gradually come to realize maybe that is missing the Gospel as "Good News" altogether.

Click to expand...

Yes, giving up sinful pleasures is often unpleasant, whether it's gossiping, cheating, telling lies, or whatever...sexual acts included. What makes anyone think that following him who said we would have to take up the Cross to follow him was supposed to be totally comfortable? Heterosexuals are expected to abstain from lustful actions and adultery, etc. so why would a person with a different orientation get a pass on this because it's going to be uncomfortable for him?

FireDragon76 said:

Isn't that what Jesus seems to have done, though? He healed and worked on the Sabbath, in fact it almost seems like he made a point of rubbing it in the Pharisees faces.

Click to expand...

Well, we were not speaking of what Jesus did or recommended. The point was only that if you give most people an inch, they'll take a mile.

Although gay relationships were the immediate topic, it really was the way the issue is argued that I was concerned about.

The churches that have "softened" their standards, rightly or wrongly, soon are accommodating much more than anyone at first thought right to do. One rules change leads to the next. And why is that so? Because "almost anything goes" can't hold up as a proposition.

Churches are in the morality business by definition, and members say that they respect authority. But that's only the case so far as it doesn't cause them discomfort. There are people who belong to churches that believe tithing is important to do, but not for them. There are Catholics who will tell you that all the Church teaches is God's doing...but not when it comes to birth control because that affects their own actions (unlike Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception). And so on. Then the rules are unreasonable. because for them to comply would be uncomfortable. Of course, if that POV is made the touchstone of moral behavior, as opposed to something beyond ourselves, who wouldn't put in a claim for his own personal departure from the norm to be exempted?

It's not a big thing with me and not especially about homosexuality, but just something that might be worth a thought.

FireDragon76 said:

For gay people often times it's not just as simple as saying no to lust, it can also be walking away from relationships that involve real peoples physical well-being. Like if two gay people are together raising a family with kids (like my therapist and his family), or a gay couple where one is disabled and physically dependent on the other one. In my experience, traditionalist Christians often just don't want to look very closely at those issues. And the love those people share is beyond just "lust": only the greatest of saints can live alone like many conservatives demand. I really cannot believe Jesus is asking all of us to become inhuman ascetics.

Click to expand...

OK, it really bothers me that people think this is a gay issue. Celibacy has always been hard, and it has always been the case that many people are celibate for reasons other than personal choice.

I know quite a few single Anglicans who are around middle age, or older, and have never found a partner they felt was a good choice for marriage. A few of these people might be gay, but most are not. Some of them have other issues that make married life or finding a partner difficult or impossible - mental illness, other kinds of illness, developmental challenges. Even things like a working life that makes a relationship difficult to begin or maintain.

And of course it isn`t just about sex - it is about companionship and having someone to take care of you and even friendship.

Even the issue of an established relationship with children is not without parallel - it isn`t dissimilar to the position of people in traditional polygamous relationships, something that has faced the church on a practical level almost since the beginning.

I`m certainly in no position to judge individuals who don`t succeed in meeting the ideal in their sexual lives, but this idea that homosexuals are in some sort of unprecedented or grossly unfair position is bollocks.

I think that we should pray about these two sentences. It tells us a lot about what the Church is about, and why it is declining in the West.

Albion said:

Well, we were not speaking of what Jesus did or recommended. The point was only that if you give most people an inch, they'll take a mile.

Click to expand...

You must understand that homosexuality is not the issue here. The issue seems to be the need for religious institutions to make rules and laws that need to be followed. Cultural ideas will decide which rules are emphasized.

In this case, the religious right has chosen homosexuality and SSM as its most important issue, and this has broken up several churches. The ideal idea marriage and family is from 1950's TV shows and their interpretation of what the bible demands. Do folks really want marriage to be what it was in biblical times, or in the times of the early church? Marriage was about protecting a man's property including his wife or wives. Speaking against divorce was simply a way of protecting women and giving them a livelihood.

Those on the religious right long to go back to the world of the 1950's, just as the Amish long for the 1850's. It is the way of things.

We are in a century long cultural discussion of the role of gender, sex and sexuality in our lives. This started after WWII, where the role of women was suddenly much different than before.
===================

I think that we SHOULD be much more about what Jesus, and acting as Jesus would have acted, acting as Jesus taught us to act, and being more conformed to Him. Being conformed to elders in the Church is probably not a great idea.

Individual rules only make sense in the framework of Jesus and his showing us how to act.

HOWEVER, this is very, very uncomfortable for so many. We know that, in the end, we individually answer to God for our actions. We MUST act as our informed conscience tells us to act. A firm, unbending set of rules makes life easier for many.
=======

In Western society, we understand that authoritarian rules are not what matters. Unfortunately, too many think that this means that there are no rules.
It is much easier to try to be firm and demanding than to teach folks how to be moral and followers of Jesus.
========

Frankly, I'm tired of the adulterers and the gossipers telling everyone else what to do. We all have our burdens. One of those is the human tendency to judge others and to think that we show love by telling them how awful they and their actions are.
========

The irony is that it is homosexuals who want to marry and raise children, while in increasing numbers, heterosexuals couples are avoiding marriage and reducing their number of children. Most of the developed world needs to increase fertility rates. The US is in good shape only because of our large number of immigrants (who the political right wants to stay home)

FireDragon76 said:

Isn't that what Jesus seems to have done, though? He healed and worked on the Sabbath, in fact it almost seems like he made a point of rubbing it in the Pharisees faces. It seems Jesus was not much of a literalist when it came to his interpretation of Torah, he was fairly liberal.



For gay people often times it's not just as simple as saying no to lust, it can also be walking away from relationships that involve real peoples physical well-being. Like if two gay people are together raising a family with kids (like my therapist and his family), or a gay couple where one is disabled and physically dependent on the other one. In my experience, traditionalist Christians often just don't want to look very closely at those issues. And the love those people share is beyond just "lust": only the greatest of saints can live alone like many conservatives demand. I really cannot believe Jesus is asking all of us to become inhuman ascetics. I was in the Orthodox world and had my fill of that, thank you. Reading St. Therese of Lisieux and seeing the real good that many Protestants do in their communities convinced me that was often misguided... the "little way" of faith and love is superior to an exaggerated asceticism: to paraphrase the saint, in the end we all come to God with empty hands, stained works, and have to be clothed by His justice, realizing that in the bottom of your soul is infinitely superior to being able to stay up for hours in prayer and go for weeks without meat.

Some Christians set the bar so high that they themselves don't enter in.

Don't take that as a personal judgement of you, Albion. I honestly don't know how most Continuing Anglicans handle that issue. All I know is that some conservative Episcopalians I've met are pretty naïve about gay relationships.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

Being mentally ill or disabled doesn't preclude being able to have a partner. If two people really are in love, those things can often be worked out (I should know, that's the exact situation I'm in). This is really a good example of our ideals going awry and ending up torturing us with "shoulds", rather than opening up our imaginative horizons and our hearts, they shut things down and lead us into fear and exclusion. All the same issues apply with gay couples.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, it can for many people. Are you really unaware that there are many people unable to begin or sustain a married or romantic or intimate relationship?

I can think of three people off the top of my head at my church who are mentally ill and unable to sustain a relationship if they managed to find someone who wanted one, and could certainly never manage family life if they did marry.

(I also, just to bring a wider context to this, know a couple who married despite having rather serious mental health issues, they had two children, both of whom they had to send across the country to be raised by elderly relatives, because they could barely manage to keep themselves housed. They are loved children, but one might reasonably wonder what might have happened had the relatives been unable to help.)

I know a young man of about 25 who is fairly severely autistic, and although he has come far in managing his daily life, is unlikely to be able to sustain an intimate relationship. I know another of 30 who is mentally about 12 and that is where he will stay. I know people who hoped most of their lives to marry and raise children, but just didn't meet someone. I know people who were abused and so can't function in an intimate relationship.

These people however are not somehow except from sexual urges, or the desire for human warmth and companionship.

It has nothing to do with "shoulds". Unless it is their family members who know them quite well, no one is telling them they cannot marry. It is simply that through no fault of their own, they are not able to be married.

Homosexuality is not some special class of being that is hard done by compared to others by nature. There are many people who will never be able to marry, there are many people who have seriously disturbing and debilitating sexual problems that not only stop them from having intimate relationships but are disturbing in themselves, there are people who have been abused and for whom sex and even non-sexual intimacy become frightening, there are people who are married and find it a terrible struggle and would rather be almost anywhere else, there are people who marry and lose their sexual desire.

All of these people, all of us, whatever the circumstances we find ourselves in that we can't change, need healing that comes from God. What doesn't help any of them is complaining that they got a raw deal and so they should get to escape the past or the place they find themselves in now.

FireDragon76 said:

I'm not sure how important an extensive moral code is to be religious, or even Christian... there are certainly some world religions that don't really focus on moral codes (the great majority of the worlds cultures have some form of animism, for instance), and in Christianity in particular there are some themes, such as the Incarnation, that, at face value, are not really touching on morality.

Click to expand...

FireDragon, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from that. I addressed moral issues rather than doctrinal matters (such as Transubstantiation and the Immaculate Conception that don't require anyone to alter his lifestyle,one way or the other). And, in addition, no one has been talking about vague religiosity or other world religions that none of us belongs to.

So, I'm just saying that there doesn't appear to be anything there that refers back to what you and I were discussing, even though what you say is true in itself.

Being mentally ill or disabled doesn't preclude being able to have a partner.

Click to expand...

I'm certain that you're right about that, but again, did someone say that it does????