Lay Presidency

[John Shrewsbury]

My thought would be that evangelicals, being theoretically so centered around the bible in theological terms, would place a greater rather than lesser emphasis on the accuracy of biblical translations relative to other groups, but when they go around touting translations like NIV and The Message, it makes it seem as though that is far from the case.

I should clarify, though, that when I said evangelical in the previous post, I was referring to evangelical on an overall Christian spectrum- i.e. Southern Baptists and such- rather than evangelical Anglicans, who usually just seem like mainline Protestants in my country. Sounds like things may be different elsewhere.


I am kind of surprised that a communion that can hold Anglo-Catholicism together with evangelicals who wear suit coats to services and preach aliturgical sermon series out of the NIV bible is having such trouble over a couple of gay bishops. In the scheme of things, I would probably have a stronger negative reaction to something that Baptist-like than I would someone having more conservative or more liberal theological positions on homosexuality. Maybe I'm just weird that way. Could be a personal quirk. But if its this time of the year and the priest isn't wearing green, I'm outta there.

I'm with you on the last part. Green this time of year and white for weddings.

 

[Fish and Bread]

You know, I don't criticise anyone's choices here - I just share my experience. It is quite unkind when this is not reciprocated.

I don't understand why some people can't bear to think that there are other ways of doing church.

God uses us in his service in a multitude of ways.

My apologies if I inadvertently offended. I intended to express my personal opinion of what interests me about doing church and comparative evaluations of biblical translations through the lens of my own experiences and thinking. I did not in doing this intend to condemn anyone else's way of doing things or their preferences.

 

[Liberasit]

My apologies if I inadvertently offended. I intended to express my personal opinion of what interests me about doing church and comparative evaluations of biblical translations through the lens of my own experiences and thinking. I did not in doing this intend to condemn anyone else's way of doing things or their preferences.

Re-read your posts and see how you think you might come across. Is this what God has put on your heart?

 

[Wgw]

It saddens me to see so many people insist on being Anglican without any regard for the BCP. To me, the liturgy seems the only point for selecting Anglicanism over a non denominational megachurch, which is why the lowering of the low church bar to the HTB standard alarms me so much. A parish whose Sunday service typically consists of Said Mattins led by a priest who wears a black academic gown and preaching tabs ala Wesley is now considered high church.

Question: how do those of you who reject the Lectionary, the BCP, the Apocrypha at all view Anglo Catholic parishes like St. Magnus the Martyr in London, St. Mary Magdalene in Toronto, or the Anglican Benedictine monks of the Order of the Holy Cross? Do you admit to even being the co religionists of such Anglo Catholics? I find it nigh incomprehensible; Benedictine monks even leading Alpha Courses. And this isnt to even speak of the huge political divide between groups like Forward in Faith and Affirming Catholicism, or the existence of Anglican parishes like St. Gregory of Nyassa in San Francisco.

It seems to me tragically there is no unity of faith among self identified Anglicans; the Anglican communion has become almost as diverse as Christianity as a whole.

 

[Liberasit]

the Anglican communion has become almost as diverse as Christianity as a whole.

Nothing tragic about it - this is exactly how it is meant to be.

 

[Albion]

It saddens me to see so many people insist on being Anglican without any regard for the BCP. To me, the liturgy seems the only point for selecting Anglicanism over a non denominational megachurch, which is why the lowering of the low church bar to the HTB standard alarms me so much. A parish whose Sunday service typically consists of Said Mattins led by a priest who wears a black academic gown and preaching tabs ala Wesley is now considered high church.

You're exaggerating in order to underscore your point, of course. There's nothing irreverent about a minister wearing a black gown while conducting services from the BCP and in accord with the rubrics. To innovate with postures, vestments, and supplementary prayers borrowed from other sources and other denominations would seem to be much more appropriate targets for your criticism if adherence to the BCP is what you favor.

It seems to me tragically there is no unity of faith among self identified Anglicans; the Anglican communion has become almost as diverse as Christianity as a whole.

That's why historic Anglicanism is being preserved outside the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Communion is, after all, only a human construct and of relatively recent origin as well. It seems to have served the churches well in the past but, having done its job, the time may have arrived for new structures. Repairing the Anglican Communion would be my own preference, but we do have to be honest enough to admit that that is probably not going to be possible.

 

[Arcangl86]

Nothing tragic about it - this is exactly how it is meant to be.

My question is then, and I mean this earnestly, but what then does it mean to be Anglican if there seems to be such a huge range of practice and belief?

 

[Albion]

My question is then, and I mean this earnestly, but what then does it mean to be Anglican if there seems to be such a huge range of practice and belief?

I don't have an airtight answer to that immediately, but I would note two things: 1) many, if not most, denominations have a range of opinion. Ours may be wider but, in principle, they experience the same phenomenon. 2) Anglicans do have much in common, even as we have the diversity you referred to.

 

[John Shrewsbury]

My question is then, and I mean this earnestly, but what then does it mean to be Anglican if there seems to be such a huge range of practice and belief?

It depends on your tradition. Mine is Anglo Catholic. Liberasit's is Evangelical. The Anglican church is a broad church, just as Methodism and Catholicism is. Ask the same question to a charismatic Catholic and a "High" Catholic. Same difference.

 

[Liberasit]

My question is then, and I mean this earnestly, but what then does it mean to be Anglican if there seems to be such a huge range of practice and belief?

To be simply a Christian.

Editing to add that I think the breadth of the Church of England means that we embrace the full range of the Christian faith, so evangelicals can truly get along with liberals and Anglo-Catholics and vice versa. We can, and do, visit one another's churches, for example when visiting friends or going on holiday. I'd like to think we can all say we get something out of one another's service, even if we would never make these churches our church home.

This acceptance of diversity does not limit our attitudes to just the Church of England. We can embrace our brothers and sisters in other denominations. We have a thriving Churches Together network, and will host joint events, particularly in the area of mission. I barely notice the denomination unless they are closed to non-members, or introspective.

I don't see the attitudes to other churches in real life that I see here on CF. it might be a U.S. cultural thing (given that 90% of CF is North American), or it might be an Internet, relatively anonymous thing. I hope and pray that CF is not representative of real life.

 

[Wgw]

I'm with you on the last part. Green this time of year and white for weddings.

Although red is proper for the Octave of the Apostles Feast which begins Sunday next, and my understanding is some wear red straight through from Pentecost until July. Red is also the "default" color in the Ambrosian Rite.

IMO Green as a default liturgical color performs...poorly. I somwwhat prefer the Byzantine scheme where green vestments only occasionally are used, for Palm Sunday, Pentecost and a few other feasts, and gold is the default color.

The Oriental Orthodox feature impressive vesture but only minimal color rubrics; Coptic vestments are invariably in predominantly white colors, with the diaconal stoles being red, and being reversed to a funereal dark blue-violet for Holy Week. I think the Syriac Church has the most splendid (and value-priced; $300 for a full set vs. $1,000 for a good Byzantine equivalent) vestments; these are dominated by the phayno, a cross between a cope and a Byzantine phelonion, which is typically white with red trim, but can come in numerous other delightful colors: violet with red, blue with red, blue with yellow, white with blue. And no rubrics exist to impede the free choice of the color scheme by the priest, who likewise has a choice of 18 out of an original set of 86 Syriac Anaphoras (thus the proloferation of Anglican Eucharistic prayers does not bother me, only the taste; the Anaphora in Honor of the World Bank Millenium Development Goals written by someone at St. Gregpry of Nyassa in SF amuses me.

But Anglican liturgical eclectisism does appeal to me.

 

[Wgw]

You're exaggerating in order to underscore your point, of course. There's nothing irreverent about a minister wearing a black gown while conducting services from the BCP and in accord with the rubrics. To innovate with postures, vestments, and supplementary prayers borrowed from other sources and other denominations would seem to be much more appropriate targets for your criticism if adherence to the BCP is what you favor.


That's why historic Anglicanism is being preserved outside the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Communion is, after all, only a human construct and of relatively recent origin as well. It seems to have served the churches well in the past but, having done its job, the time may have arrived for new structures. Repairing the Anglican Communion would be my own preference, but we do have to be honest enough to admit that that is probably not going to be possible.

Truth be told I am not offended by deviations from the BCP; I a, a fan of liturgical beauty amd promoting it, and also letting people worship in their comfort zone. I am at a Coptic monastery today and these services although arduous I can handle, especially beimg splashed at thee end with holy water and then receiving the delectable antidoron. But the Ethiopiams can stand in church in prayer for ten hours or more, and have vigils that exceed in duration the unabbreviated Russian All Night Vigil (which was last served without abbreviation in 1910; all parishes that serve it are actually serving a heavily trimmed version, as served actually following the Typikon, the Eastern Orthodox meta-BCP, it takes about 9 hours, and Russians like Ethiopians prefer to stand in church).

The BCP offers a nice liturgy of course. But studyimg the liturgies of the other apostolic churches I think a minimum of 3 liturgical books are required to prpvode sufficent richness, which asmittedly you can get to with the BCP if you count the hymnal and empoly the directorum Anglicaorum or similiar.

 

[John Shrewsbury]

Although red is proper for the Octave of the Apostles Feast which begins Sunday next, and my understanding is some wear red straight through from Pentecost until July. Red is also the "default" color in the Ambrosian Rite.

My church uses red for all Saints days.

 

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON

Thread closed at OP request

MOD HAT OFF