Looking for answers...

[Paidiske]

Well, I've visited Anglican parishes, of various kinds, on four continents. So far, I've had very little trouble putting them in "Group A" or "Group B."

Possibly, if I explored more, I'd find more of a spectrum, or perhaps a third "Group C" (people do tell me that "trained at Ridley" puts people in Group C).

That's a new one. What are the defining characteristics of group C?

Admittedly I have relatively little direct experience of parishes outside Melbourne, and then only in the rest of Victoria and Tasmania. But most of them have had an attitude of breadth and tolerance; even if they might have leaned one way or the other, there wasn't that sense of "the other side" being unwelcome or demonised.

 

[Radagast]

That's a new one. What are the defining characteristics of group C?

I don't know. Like I said, so far most of what I've seen is "A" or "B" (occasionally, "A" and "B" are ten minutes walk apart). Some Tasmanian parishes might be "C," from what I've heard.

But most of them have had an attitude of breadth and tolerance; even if they might have leaned one way or the other, there wasn't that sense of "the other side" being unwelcome or demonised.

I've certainly heard some fairly aggressive demonisation of Sydney, in certain places.

 

[Paidiske]

I've certainly heard some fairly aggressive demonisation of Sydney.

There's a distinction which needs to be made between being upset at Sydney - I'm struggling to find the right word here, and I think this is not too strong - betraying the nature of what it means to be church together, and demonising the theological positions which led to and further that division.

If people from Sydney come to Melbourne, they generally find themselves welcome (even in more liberal parishes, and even if they are much less liberal than most of the people with whom they worship). People might roll their eyes at what are seen as anti-women positions or the like, but there's general acceptance that the church is a broad tent.

What drives the angst is more about diocesan behaviour; doing things which they're not supposed to do, whether that's having deacons preside at the Eucharist, or setting up parallel jurisdictions inside other dioceses, or the like. The refusal to license anyone not trained at Moore (although I hear that is loosening a little now). The attempt to undermine normal relationships with other dioceses, and Anglican norms.

If Sydney didn't do any of those things, but continued to be a solidly conservative evangelical diocese, I don't think the same feeling would be there.

Maybe "C" might be the trend I see developing for what I think of as less Anglican forms of worship (in favour of more sort of American-style megachurch aspirations, complete with praise band and extempore liturgy)?

 

[Radagast]

There's a distinction which needs to be made between being upset at Sydney

I once went to an Anglican church where the entire homily was a 15-minute rant about how bad the Sydney diocese was. That's kind of what I meant.

setting up parallel jurisdictions inside other dioceses

Occasionally that works. For example, Holy Trinity Adelaide is a Moore-College-linked evangelical church inside a quite liberal diocese, and the local archbishop seems cool with that (although he inherited the deal from a previous archbishop).

What drives the angst

Interestingly, there's also some angst from conservative non-Anglican evangelical groups (for different reasons). They tend to see Sydney as re-inventing the Continental Reformation, and getting it wrong.

The refusal to license anyone not trained at Moore (although I hear that is loosening a little now). The attempt to undermine normal relationships with other dioceses, and Anglican norms.

They're apparently quite happy to license people from ACNA. Or from Africa north of the Tropic of Capricorn.

And as to A/B/C, there's probably also a "D" for those as conservative as Sydney, but much "higher" in liturgy.

 

[SeekingServant]

You say you have a wonderful congregation. Why can’t you be disciples from there?

There is no such thing as a perfect church.

I've pretty much come to that realization. I feel that if I were to find a "perfect church" it would only consist of myself and four walls.

The reason I'm making this query is because I want to know for sure what I'm getting myself into. When I was at the Hare Krishna temple, I made no such query. I wasn't diligent enough back when I was 19 and going to a liberal arts college in a culture that is decidedly falling away from God and Christ. So now, I think I may be on the other end of the spectrum and being hyper-vigilant in finding out literally EVERYTHING about a denomination or branch of Christianity before diving in. I'm coming upon a desire to be received into the Anglican Communion, but I guess I'm being overly cautious. I don't take these decisions lightly. This is has been interesting though. I'm coming to realize that I'm just going to have to dive in and be the best Christian I can be where I am.

 

[gordonhooker]

I've pretty much come to that realization. I feel that if I were to find a "perfect church" it would only consist of myself and four walls.

The reason I'm making this query is because I want to know for sure what I'm getting myself into. When I was at the Hare Krishna temple, I made no such query. I wasn't diligent enough back when I was 19 and going to a liberal arts college in a culture that is decidedly falling away from God and Christ. So now, I think I may be on the other end of the spectrum and being hyper-vigilant in finding out literally EVERYTHING about a denomination or branch of Christianity before diving in. I'm coming upon a desire to be received into the Anglican Communion, but I guess I'm being overly cautious. I don't take these decisions lightly. This is has been interesting though. I'm coming to realize that I'm just going to have to dive in and be the best Christian I can be where I am.

I don't believe there is any such place as a perfect church as there will always be people in the church. If you find one where you comfortable but also challenged then hang your hat there and become a part of that community. I wish you well in your journey and I am sure your husband will follow the journey that is meant for him.

 

[gordonhooker]

I never hear any regular Sydney bashing up here in Brisbane, the worst I have heard is the recent comments about the donation from the Sydney diocese to the 'No' campaign of the recent SSM postal survey, and a few comments about the quality of training from Moore College which I am not going to drag up in here.

 

[Paidiske]

I once went to an Anglican church where the entire homily was a 15-minute rant about how bad the Sydney diocese was.

And where was the gospel in that? That just sounds like bad preaching.

Occasionally that works. For example, Holy Trinity Adelaide is a Moore-College-linked evangelical church inside a quite liberal diocese, and the local archbishop seems cool with that (although he inherited the deal from a previous archbishop).

I'd be curious to know who issues the licence of the priest in that parish. It's one thing to be linked to Moore, but if Sydney is licensing a priest for Adelaide, that's exactly the sort of thing that makes people very very cross.

They're apparently quite happy to license people from ACNA. Or from Africa north of the Tropic of Capricorn.

I wonder if that's a new development? There was a time under Archbishop Jensen where if you hadn't gone to Moore, you didn't get a license in Sydney at all. Or at least, that's what I heard from people who had left there to come here.

And as to A/B/C, there's probably also a "D" for those as conservative as Sydney, but much "higher" in liturgy.

Maybe... ten years ago I'd have agreed (Diocese of Ballarat being the obvious contender). I'm not sure whether they're not blending in to the mainstream breadth a lot more now, on the whole?

 

[Mary7]

Since there is no Anglican church near me I have started visiting TEC but I do not understand the allowing gay clergy. What about the parts of the Bible saying this is a sin? Not sure if I am even allowed to bring this up in the forums but I just really do not understand the reasons behind ignoring these scriptures..??? Maybe someone can expain this to me.

 

[Albion]

Mary, if it comes down to you being forced by geography to attend a church that isn't your preferred one but is the best of what's left, it might be that a congregation of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LCMS) would be your best bet.

 

[Mary7]

Mary, if it comes down to you being forced by geography to attend a church that isn't your preferred one but is the best of what's left, it might be that a congregation of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LCMS) would be your best bet.

There are reasons that that would not work for me.
The Episcopal church is fairly close to me and is also very familiar to me since I was raised in it.

 

[Albion]

I see.

It had looked to me--judging by what you wrote in your posts--that other considerations ranked higher in your thinking.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

If you find a perfect church, don’t go. You will spoil it.

We live in a fallen world and every single one of us falls short of the Glory of God. Take the plank out of your own eye before worrying about the speck in another’s.

 

[Mary7]

I see.

It had looked to me--judging by what you wrote in your posts--that other considerations ranked higher in your thinking.

That 'one' issue ranks pretty high
Lutheran church in the next town doesn't seem very 'liturgical'.
I might consider the Orthodox next (I am still dealing with 'issues' in that area such as veneration of Saint and Mary)

 

[Paidiske]

Since there is no Anglican church near me I have started visiting TEC but I do not understand the allowing gay clergy. What about the parts of the Bible saying this is a sin? Not sure if I am even allowed to bring this up in the forums but I just really do not understand the reasons behind ignoring these scriptures..??? Maybe someone can expain this to me.

I am not in TEC (I'm in Australia) and - officially - in Australia our gay clergy are supposed to be celibate. But we also all know that that rule is honoured more in the breach, as they say. That is not a situation with which I'm entirely comfortable, not least because there's a significant lack of integrity in it, but I have worked closely with some of those clergy and have some insight into why the church behaves the way it does.

As best I understand it, there is a significant cultural shift going on, not just in terms of how we understand homosexuality, but also in terms of how we understand human development, sexuality more broadly, and so on. We've also seen the legacy of some very very damaged people who have struggled with homosexuality and, instead of being treated with compassion and grace by their churches, have been treated with condemnation and contempt.

So - in desiring to repent from that condemnation and contempt - and in wrestling with how we make sense of Scriptures written from a perspective on human development, social relations etc which is fundamentally different from our own in many ways, some people have concluded that what the Scriptures are talking about is not the question of people who have developed with same-sex attraction as their primary orientation (that in fact the ancient world would not have recognised what today we call "homosexuality" at all), nor are the relationships forbidden in Scriptures long-term, committed, monogamous, faithful relationships.

That is a highly debatable point, and I'm not putting it forward here as my own position, I'm just trying to present that point of view fairly.

So, if you take all of that as a package, when you're presented with a gay person who is, in every other way, an exemplary Christian, who either does not have a relationship and is celibate or who adheres to fidelity and monogamy in his/her romantic partnership, there is a case to be made that that person is no less fit for the ministry than a straight person in the same situation. If that makes sense?

But unless the priest in your local parish is gay, you can probably ignore the whole thing very easily.

 

[SeekingServant]

If you find a perfect church, don’t go. You will spoil it.

We live in a fallen world and every single one of us falls short of the Glory of God. Take the plank out of your own eye before worrying about the speck in another’s.

Excuse me? Did I say that I was perfect? Of course not. Are you trying to be catty or is this a joke? I take my spiritual life very seriously and I was asking a simple question. You could have kept your comment to yourself, thank you very much.

 

[Mary7]

I am not in TEC (I'm in Australia) and - officially - in Australia our gay clergy are supposed to be celibate. But we also all know that that rule is honoured more in the breach, as they say. That is not a situation with which I'm entirely comfortable, not least because there's a significant lack of integrity in it, but I have worked closely with some of those clergy and have some insight into why the church behaves the way it does.

As best I understand it, there is a significant cultural shift going on, not just in terms of how we understand homosexuality, but also in terms of how we understand human development, sexuality more broadly, and so on. We've also seen the legacy of some very very damaged people who have struggled with homosexuality and, instead of being treated with compassion and grace by their churches, have been treated with condemnation and contempt.

So - in desiring to repent from that condemnation and contempt - and in wrestling with how we make sense of Scriptures written from a perspective on human development, social relations etc which is fundamentally different from our own in many ways, some people have concluded that what the Scriptures are talking about is not the question of people who have developed with same-sex attraction as their primary orientation (that in fact the ancient world would not have recognised what today we call "homosexuality" at all), nor are the relationships forbidden in Scriptures long-term, committed, monogamous, faithful relationships.

That is a highly debatable point, and I'm not putting it forward here as my own position, I'm just trying to present that point of view fairly.

So, if you take all of that as a package, when you're presented with a gay person who is, in every other way, an exemplary Christian, who either does not have a relationship and is celibate or who adheres to fidelity and monogamy in his/her romantic partnership, there is a case to be made that that person is no less fit for the ministry than a straight person in the same situation. If that makes sense?

But unless the priest in your local parish is gay, you can probably ignore the whole thing very easily.

In USA there are married gay priests and Bishops. If they were celibate then I would not have a problem with them. Yes, that is my plan. Ignore it unless they put a gay priest in my parish.
To me the Bible is clear and I don't see how one can say they are a christian and explain this away "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Lev.
and of course Romans Romans 1:27
Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
How can I have a priest over me that does not obey the Bible?

 

[Paidiske]

How can I have a priest over me that does not obey the Bible?

That is a significant question.

The only thing I'd say about it is that all of us clergy are works in progress. You might have to decide which human flaws you can accept in your leaders.

 

[Mary7]

That is a significant question.

The only thing I'd say about it is that all of us clergy are works in progress. You might have to decide which human flaws you can accept in your leaders.

Oh yes we all have flaws! But to me, a major moral issue like that is one I could not accept and indeed was never accepted in any church in past times. God does not change. What was detestable to Him when the bible was recorded is still detestable to Him. A leader should be in agreement with the major moral issues.

 

[Albion]

Excuse me? Did I say that I was perfect? Of course not. Are you trying to be catty or is this a joke?

It is a well-travelled joke that is based upon a truth. Churches are made up of people who, being mortals, are imperfect. I am confident that it wasn't intended to be taken all that personally.