Liberal Anglican churches.

[gord44]

Hi guys.

A conversation with a few people got into some questions about the Anglican Church and it was mentioned that some Anglican churches are so liberal now that they see things like the Resurrection, virgin birth, etc as 'symbolic', and not really something that happened. This seem pretty whacky to me as I have attended an Anglican church and I can't imagine this being true. I figured the best place to ask would be you fine folks.

Thanks!

 

[PaladinValer]

Hi guys.

A conversation with a few people got into some questions about the Anglican Church and it was mentioned that some Anglican churches are so liberal now that they see things like the Resurrection, virgin birth, etc as 'symbolic', and not really something that happened. This seem pretty whacky to me as I have attended an Anglican church and I can't imagine this being true. I figured the best place to ask would be you fine folks.

Thanks!

Unfortunately, there are those who do, although the official doctrines and the liturgies still point to things like the Resurrection of Christ (and the Resurrection at the Last Day), His virgin birth, etc, as real and not symbolic.

You'll find those who do in various churches and denominations, from fellow Catholic churches like the Eastern Orthodox and the Vatican Catholics to even Evangelical Protestants. It isn't a phenomenon particular to Anglicanism or Old Catholicism.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Hi guys.

A conversation with a few people got into some questions about the Anglican Church and it was mentioned that some Anglican churches are so liberal now that they see things like the Resurrection, virgin birth, etc as 'symbolic', and not really something that happened. This seem pretty whacky to me as I have attended an Anglican church and I can't imagine this being true. I figured the best place to ask would be you fine folks.

Thanks!

Yeah, that doesn't work for me either. I'm ok with a church being liberal on social issues, as I mostly am myself, but I do want basic orthodoxy.

 

[Gloriana The Faerie Queen]

Hi guys.

A conversation with a few people got into some questions about the Anglican Church and it was mentioned that some Anglican churches are so liberal now that they see things like the Resurrection, virgin birth, etc as 'symbolic', and not really something that happened. This seem pretty whacky to me as I have attended an Anglican church and I can't imagine this being true. I figured the best place to ask would be you fine folks.

Thanks!

when someone says "Liberal Anglican" to me the first thing that comes to mind is not rejection of the resurrection or virgin birth but more to do with equality between the sexes, less discrimination against sexual minorities etc.

in my opinion if someone believes the Virgin birth, Incarnation and Resurrection are all symbolic that does not make them a liberal Anglican but a heretical Anglican!

and I'd agree, it's not unique to Anglicanism. here in Brisbane we had a priest by the name of Father Peter Kennedy who was a Roman Catholic Priest, he was doing all sorts of strange things and teaching all sorts of heresy including rejection of the virgin birth, the redemption on the cross and physical resurrection. The Vatican had to remove him, but he didn't leave without a fight!

it's defiantly not unique to Anglicanism

 

[Albion]

Hi guys.

A conversation with a few people got into some questions about the Anglican Church and it was mentioned that some Anglican churches are so liberal now that they see things like the Resurrection, virgin birth, etc as 'symbolic', and not really something that happened. This seem pretty whacky to me as I have attended an Anglican church and I can't imagine this being true. I figured the best place to ask would be you fine folks.

Thanks!

Unfortunately, what they say to you is true. Worse, certain Anglican churches have become almost synonymous, in the public's view, with such liberal theology. Other Anglican churches are not like that at all, and there are important variances from diocese to diocese and parish to parish; but it's getting to the place that you have to explain this fact all the time.

I should also say that there is a particular problem in this; Anglicanism has for long been associated with dignity and tradition such that, when there is a bishop or pastor here or there who comes forth with something unexpected, the media are all over it. Had the same thing come from the average Protestant pastor it wouldn't be seen as particularly shocking. Still in all, the situation is now bigger than a few offbeat clergymen here or there.

 

[AndrewRD]

It exists, unfortunately, and in some areas--in fact, in the U.S. I would go so far as to say 'most' --It is becoming increasingly prevalent and influential. While not inherently coupled with other aspects of what you might call "extreme liberalism", it often goes hand in hand with issues of homosexuality and religious pluralism. So far as I'm aware, the basic official teachings of the Episcopal Church--the official, Canterbury-affiliated branch of Anglican Christianity in the US--are still basically Orthodox in the areas of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, but there is a slowly growing disparity between official teaching and off-the-record belief. However, PV is well correct in that this is not specific to Anglicanism; it is beginning to infect even many Evangelical or Reformed protestants. It's just... a bit more blatant in many branches of Anglicanism, mainly the Western ones.

South Carolina and Florida, along with a few pockets of conservative resistance in the deep South, are still fighting the good fight within TEC, as I understand it, but many groups have either gone elsewhere or formed seperate Anglican (but not in official communion with Canterbury) bodies.

 

[artybloke]

Maybe because I don't live in America, where maybe there are more of them, but I've never actually found an Anglican church that liberal.

 

[elahmine]

I do live in the US, and while it does happen, I don't see it as being widespread.

 

[AndrewRD]

I would add one caveat---Obviously, the things that are doctrinal heresy like the denial of the resurrection, etc., are one thing, but the situation may seem even more frustrating to someone who is just conservative and very orthodox in general, because of other issues like the homosexuality debate and a few other issues. So in other words, to those of us who err on the conservative side, the problem, while I have no doubt it exists, may simply come across as seeming bigger than it is... I know I have attended parishes in my area in the past (TEC affiliated) with friends and, while it has been rare to hear any sort of blatant, heretical preaching like the OP was talking about, there were other things that bothered me that didn't seem to bother my friend at all. So who knows?

 

[Sean611]

Unfortunately, this is true and it's becoming more widespread (especially in TEC). It starts off with liberalism on social issues and then liberalism on theological issues. Just look at TEC, little by little orthodox theology and values have been "chipped" away at over the last 40 years. Currently, we have a Presiding Bishop that questions the divinity of Christ, the miracles, and calls individual salvation "heresy."

 

[artybloke]

The other thing, of course, is that a great deal of misunderstanding exists between different positions, and people are very good at standing behind barriers and throwing stones at each other, rather than actually listening to what the other side says.

The resurrection, for instance, is obviously essential. But I'm less certain about the empty tomb. That doesn't mean I think it's 'merely' symbolic however...

Sometimes people who question the traditional language of theology are looking for ways to make sense of it in the modern idiom. The apophatic tradition is also strong among liberals; they are less likely to be satisfied with definite statements about God because they see them as inevitably limiting.

Still, the inability of people to listen to one another is the worst aspect of all these disputes. When people speak merely in slogans, dogmatic statements and entrenched positions, there is a lack of love and, frankly, a lack of Christ in the room. I'm as responsible for that as anyone. It seems to me that whoever is technically 'right', whoever is the most 'orthodox', doesn't matter to God. The OT prophets were very clear that God was not interested in the correctness of our sacrifices, our 'burnt offerings', our prayers and supplications, all our creeds, if there is no love and justice and truth and integrity in the room.

When I see people throwing accusations of 'heresy' around willy nilly, without even having listened or tried to understand the 'other side', I wonder if the church is worth preserving.

 

[mark46]

Is the Church really a man-made thing, that we can allow it to be preserved or not?

IMHO, as Anglicans, one doctrine that is essential is the nature if the Church.

If we are but another denomination, than we are truly Protestant. Church/church is local.

In the end, I suspect that there is little that will hold us together as Anglicans.

When I see people throwing accusations of 'heresy' around willy nilly, without even having listened or tried to understand the 'other side', I wonder if the church is worth preserving.

 

[artybloke]

Methinks you're missing the point, Mark.

Whatever one's doctrine of the church, or the bible, or salvation, or whatever, is beside the point if we have no love for one another.

Jesus didn't tell us to go into the whole world preaching correct doctrine, but to spread the good news about the love of God. That doesn't mean doctrine isn't important; but without love, it's nothing but a sounding gong.

 

[Albion]

Methinks you're missing the point, Mark.

Whatever one's doctrine of the church, or the bible, or salvation, or whatever, is beside the point if we have no love for one another.

Jesus didn't tell us to go into the whole world preaching correct doctrine, but to spread the good news about the love of God. That doesn't mean doctrine isn't important; but without love, it's nothing but a sounding gong.

Yes, but expressions like "willy nilly" and "without even having listened" suggest that correct belief doesn't matter much, so long as we are tolerant of everything (not including attitudes towards those who are slow to agree).

 

[Amisk]

Unfortunately, this is true and it's becoming more widespread (especially in TEC). It starts off with liberalism on social issues and then liberalism on theological issues. Just look at TEC, little by little orthodox theology and values have been "chipped" away at over the last 40 years. Currently, we have a Presiding Bishop that questions the divinity of Christ, the miracles, and calls individual salvation "heresy."[/QUOT

So what is left in Christianity if you question the divinity of Christ? After all Christ is Christianity.

If one would call the teaching of "individual salvation "heresy" then he or she is basically a heretic.

 

[AndrewRD]

Ironically, the cathedral seat of the local bishop here in my area, is pretty tolerant and accepting of just about anything, and they'd probably administer communion to an iguana if they thought it wanted it. But the one thing they cannot stretch quite far enough to make room for in their congregation is those who get nervous with talk of adjusting our theology or suddenly understanding some new truth that invalidates the scriptures clear mandates. If I'm not much mistaken, one lady was even denied communion one week. What was her grave sin? She sent an email to the bishop expressing her concerns with a homily that had been preached the previous Sunday. Now, I apologize; it's just that this is a subject that I get a little flustered with. Yes, I know not all liberals are like this, but the ones that are--and there are quite a few--are gutting the church and possibly grieving the Spirit.

P.S. Amisk, I wouldn't say Her Grace is basically a heretic. I'd just say she's flamboyantly a heretic.

 

[Sean611]

So what is left in Christianity if you question the divinity of Christ? After all Christ is Christianity.

If one would call the teaching of "individual salvation "heresy" then he or she is basically a heretic.

Exactly, she is a heretic and the liberals in TEC know it too. Christopher Hitchens suspected her of being a closet atheist! What's interesting is that in TEC the liberals who supported her and all the other blows to orthodoxy in the last 40 years are starting to really regret supporting her, she's that heretical and radical! Some are even calling for the General Convention to slow down pushing the radical social agenda, even most of the liberals can see the writing on the wall.

I'm all about having differences of opinion and showing love and respect to those who I disagree with. Our parish is pretty orthodox, but there are varying opinions in the pews and we all seem to get along quite well. The point is, if you don't even believe the creeds, then i'd say your are not a Christian and need to look elsewhere for you spiritual needs. It doesn't get any more basic than the creeds. I don't consider that to be "intolerant," if a church or parish cannot be united in the creeds then it will destroy the church. Having some basic agreement and a basic uniting theology is more important than making a very small minority of radicals happy.

 

[AndrewRD]

^ I would agree entirely with the above post. It's the prayer book and the articles that make us Anglican, but it's the scriptures and the creeds that make us Christian. If we have ordained bishops and priests that can't say the creed each Sunday without their fingers being crossed behind their backs, we're in serious trouble.

 

[Harry3142]

Read the book Rabbi Jesus, written by an episcopal bishop. There you will see an example of liberalism.

 

[mark46]

If it the Articles that make us Anglican, then many, many Anglican churches are not Anglican. I have been a member of our conservative local church for 3 years. The Articles have never been mentioned. They are not mentioned in the teachings of this local church, except for a sentence when the history of the Church is being discussed.

The bottom line is that for many Anglicans, the Articles are not very important.

I agree with many of your comments. We have had and will have extensive discussions on what makes us Christian and what makes us Anglican. IMHO, it is useful to understand what distinguishes us as Anglicans. In may senses, this IS the primary issue that currently divides us. For half the Communion, the critical issue is gender roles. I don't this issue as a Church-buster in the Articles or the BCF.

^ I would agree entirely with the above post. It's the prayer book and the articles that make us Anglican, but it's the scriptures and the creeds that make us Christian. If we have ordained bishops and priests that can't say the creed each Sunday without their fingers being crossed behind their backs, we're in serious trouble.