Liberal Anglican churches.

[freezerman2000]

To my knowledge, there are no Anglican churches around my area that are liberal theologically.
The church I attend (Resurrection)is conservative in theology yet liberal on social issues such as supporting charities.
We used to host the soup kitchen until our social hall got to small for the gatherings.Now we offer food to the sk as well as the local United Way Food Bank.
Never in the 40 odd years I have attended have I known to hear liberal teachings.
When we say the Apostle's Creed, we mean it!

 

[Albion]

To my knowledge, there are no Anglican churches around my area that are liberal theologically.
The church I attend (Resurrection)is conservative in theology yet liberal on social issues such as supporting charities.
We used to host the soup kitchen until our social hall got to small for the gatherings.Now we offer food to the sk as well as the local United Way Food Bank.
Never in the 40 odd years I have attended have I known to hear liberal teachings.
When we say the Apostle's Creed, we mean it!

It's true that South Carolina is considered to be something of an exception as Episcopalians go, but even that isn't entirely correct. There have been a number of parishes leave The Episcopal Church across the state--some of them prominent parishes--and join ACNA or Continuing Anglican churches in reaction to the liberal theology (and pressure to conform to it) that they had been up against.

 

[Bostonman]

To my knowledge, there are no Anglican churches around my area that are liberal theologically.
The church I attend (Resurrection)is conservative in theology yet liberal on social issues such as supporting charities.
We used to host the soup kitchen until our social hall got to small for the gatherings.Now we offer food to the sk as well as the local United Way Food Bank.
Never in the 40 odd years I have attended have I known to hear liberal teachings.
When we say the Apostle's Creed, we mean it!

Just as a side note...Charity isn't "socially liberal," merely Christian. It is, with hope and faith, one of the three great theological virtues.

To throw in my two cents: for me, to say that I am orthodox theologically and radical socially is not to say that I am radical in spite of my orthodoxy. Rather, it is to say that I am radical because of my orthodoxy.

Of course, this is a thread about liberal theology and not the American political description "social liberalism." One of the reasons I left the denomination in which I grew up was that it had shifted away from Christianity into a sort of de-Christianized spirituality. There was controversy in my old church this year over whether the amended mission statement should read that it was a "Christ-centered community." I'm not kidding. One of the strengths of TEC or of any other liturgical church is that Christ will never be edited out of the liturgy.

 

[MKJ]

One of the strengths of TEC or of any other liturgical church is that Christ will never be edited out of the liturgy.

How so? There seems to be quite a lot of freedom in some areas about what they do with the liturgy.

 

[Albion]

How so? There seems to be quite a lot of freedom in some areas about what they do with the liturgy.

Yeh, I also am not convinced that anyone can bank on the liturgy guaranteeing that Christ will not be in eased out of his rightful and historic place.

 

[MKJ]

Yeh, I also am not convinced that anyone can bank on the liturgy guaranteeing that Christ will not be in eased out of his rightful and historic place.

I think that if people see maintaining the liturgy as a source of historic orthodox liturgy as important, it is going to mean that they also will maintain Christ's place in their Christian vision. I can't easily imagine someone who thought they had to maintain the liturgy for reasons totally unconnected to right belief though I suppose anything is possible.

But many (most?) Anglicans don't seem to see the liturgy in the role of preserving orthodox teaching so much as a way to create new expressions of belief.

 

[Albion]

I think that if people see maintaining the liturgy as a source of historic orthodox liturgy as important, it is going to mean that they also will maintain Christ's place in their Christian vision. I can't easily imagine someone who thought they had to maintain the liturgy for reasons totally unconnected to right belief though I suppose anything is possible.

But many (most?) Anglicans don't seem to see the liturgy in the role of preserving orthodox teaching so much as a way to create new expressions of belief.

Well, that's approximately what I was referring to. It's far from unthinkable that some 'liturgical reform movement' will produce new language that is supposedly more ecumenical, blah blah blah just like some of the newer versions of the Creed. The Trinity is hard to recognize in some of them, as you probably know.

 

[MKJ]

Well, that's approximately what I was referring to. It's far from unthinkable that some 'liturgical reform movement' will produce new language that is supposedly more ecumenical, blah blah blah just like some of the newer versions of the Creed. The Trinity is hard to recognize in some of them, as you probably know.

This sort of thing can be found in the Book of Alternative Services in the Canadian Anglican Church. So I don't have any trouble imagining it at all.