Small o orthodox

[Deegie]

The Church has long had doctrinal standards and they are by and large enshrined in the BCP just as you've been pointing out to us. BUT there are now many Episcopalians who no longer want to be bound by them...and no one is forcing them to.

So as for yourself, there's no issue here about what Anglicanism stands for. There's only an issue of which group of Anglicans you want to stand with, if either.

Well put, sir! The Anglican reformers seem to have had roughly the same view of Scripture's inspiration that the Continental ones did. It is only in more recent times that some in the church have been trying to revise or nuance that.

 

[allipalli]

Switching gears slightly, I don't quite see your dilemma/struggle. The Church has long had doctrinal standards and they are by and large enshrined in the BCP just as you've been pointing out to us. BUT there are now many Episcopalians who no longer want to be bound by them...and no one is forcing them to.

So as for yourself, there's no issue here about what Anglicanism stands for. There's only an issue of which group of Anglicans you want to stand with, if either.

That is precisely my dilemma -- which group of Anglicans to stand with. For the past nine years I've worshipped at both TEC and AMIA. When I moved to Washington state I ended up at TEC mainly because the ACNA/PEARUSA is far away and I had an unreliable car. Now I have a new car and going to the ACNA church is a possibility.

In a way, as an observer, I like going to a variety churches. It's interesting to hear varying perspectives. I think I should get more involved, though.

When I go to TEC, I sometimes get uneasy that nearly half the priests around here are openly gay and nearly half are women. I worry that it might be cavalier to disregard or dismiss several sections of the Bible. One Episcopal priest told me that people just need to know God and if they're happy knowing God through Islam, he's fine with that -- is that even a Christian perspective? Yet, that seems common in TEC. I rarely get anything useful from the sermon either. OTOH, I love the spirit of inclusiveness. Who am I to judge? I'm not convinced of the inerrancy of scripture myself. I appreciate that there's a real respect for both women and homosexuals. I appreciate the open-mindedness of not over-simplifying the complexity of scripture.

The AMIA churches that I went to in Colorado were great. The preaching was really thought-provoking and useful in my daily life. They had great cell groups with people who really wanted to study, learn, pray, and improve themselves. OTOH, I also found bigotry in those churches. Many of those people are just using Bible passages to justify their prejudices.

So in the one denomination I'm concerned about large passages of the Bible possibly being dismissed and in the other I'm concerned about large segments of the population possibly being dismissed.
--
Putting that larger issue aside for a moment, the much less important issue that prompted the OP was the main index of this forum. There are a few sections that say, "orthodox Christian Only." Since I had been told by an Episcopal priest that Episcopalians aren't considered orthodox, I wondered if that's who they were trying to exclude. After all, it doesn't say, "Christians Only." I tried asking a moderator a couple weeks ago, it got muddled, she wanted to take it up in a series of private messages, and I don't think she ever understood what I was asking. I'm still unsure who is intended to participate in the "orthodox Christian Only" sections, though I am decidedly Christian. I have no doubt on that point.

 

[Yardstick]

'o'rthodox christians are generally considered to be those who affirm the creeds. So Episcopalians are orthodox, unless they are lying when they recite the creeds. Such people are generally well tolerated in TEC but it is not the actual position of TEC.

 

[Gnarwhal]

'o'rthodox christians are generally considered to be those who affirm the creeds. So Episcopalians are orthodox, unless they are lying when they recite the creeds. Such people are generally well tolerated in TEC but it is not the actual position of TEC.

Pip pip, well said!

 

[Albion]

Putting that larger issue aside for a moment, the much less important issue that prompted the OP was the main index of this forum. There are a few sections that say, "orthodox Christian Only." Since I had been told by an Episcopal priest that Episcopalians aren't considered orthodox, I wondered if that's who they were trying to exclude. After all, it doesn't say, "Christians Only." I tried asking a moderator a couple weeks ago, it got muddled, she wanted to take it up in a series of private messages, and I don't think she ever understood what I was asking. I'm still unsure who is intended to participate in the "orthodox Christian Only" sections, though I am decidedly Christian. I have no doubt on that point.

I believe that subscription to the Nicene Creed is the equivalent of orthodoxy around here, and that the CF "Rules" are pretty clear about that. Of course, there are plenty of people in orthodox churches who don't believe what the church says it adheres to, and there are churches that only give lip service to traditional doctrines. But if you don't sport some icon like the Mormon or JW or "Other" in CF and you don't explicitly post a statement that denies the Trinity or some other Nicene tenet, you're considered orthodox.

 

[Deacon001]

They are there, all right. But in contrast to the historic BCP, in this book they were placed in a section for "Historic Documents" so to remove the presumption that they are in any way an official statement of faith. This is widely seen as completing the demotion of the Articles from authoritative to optional to not even that.

Aha, I missed the significance of that. One of the subtler hints that the 1979 book rejects the historic faith.

 

[ebia]

Aha, I missed the significance of that. One of the subtler hints that the 1979 book rejects the historic faith.

This is bordering on calling an STR member church heterodox, which is not acceptable.

 

[Albion]

Aha, I missed the significance of that. One of the subtler hints that the 1979 book rejects the historic faith.

I'm sure that most members today, particularly those who have grown up using the 1979 book, would also miss it. But the purposes behind the little changes of wording and positioning were well known back then and were hotly debated during the run-up to the book getting its final approval from General Convention.

 

[PaladinValer]

Several years ago I had a conversation with an Episcopal priest. He explained to me that in the Episcopal Church there's no sense of orthodoxy. He said that orthodox means "right thinking" and that TEC is a "big tent" of many differing viewpoints within Christianity. He explained that the Episcopal Church doesn't have a statement of faith like the Presbyterian Book of Confessions, apart from the Nicene, Apostle's and (one other?) creeds.

If I understood him correctly, TEC doesn't take a position on anything other than the creeds. Is that right?

What about the various Anglican denominations? Do they have a sense of orthodoxy?

The priest is not using the term "big tent" very well.

The "big tent" has to do with the concept of in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love. Doctrine and dogma are unifying, but things like high/broad/low-churchship or emphasizing the Catholicity or protesting nature of the Church (in other words, not ignoring the other) are non-essentials, and all of them need to accept the other if they hold to the true essentials.

The Nicene Creed is essential. Those who say otherwise are not being good Anglicans, and those who reject the Creed are not Anglican at all.

 

[Deacon001]

This is bordering on calling an STR member church heterodox, which is not acceptable.

Here we go...

 

[Deacon001]

I'm sure that most members today, particularly those who have grown up using the 1979 book, would also miss it. But the purposes behind the little changes of wording and positioning were well known back then and were hotly debated during the run-up to the book getting its final approval from General Convention.

Yes, that was before my time but I have read about it. Then I happened to walk into a bookstore and found a 1662 BCP. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

[PaladinValer]

This is bordering on calling an STR member church heterodox, which is not acceptable.

Yup.

And I cannot begin to give a litany of the former long-standing posters we've lost because of it too; pretty much all of them resoundingly sound in Nicene theology.

 

[Deacon001]

Yup.

And I cannot begin to give a litany of the former long-standing posters we've lost because of it too; pretty much all of them resoundingly sound in Nicene theology.

*Sigh*

 

[allipalli]

in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love

That's beautiful, thank you.

Maybe I should just return to my old habit of attending more than one church. I really don't have opinions on these topics and it avoids taking a stand for a single position. Maybe church membership is not for me.

 

[Albion]

That's beautiful, thank you.

Maybe I should just return to my old habit of attending more than one church. I really don't have opinions on these topics and it avoids taking a stand for a single position. Maybe church membership is not for me.

My friend, I would be sorry if you went away unsatisfied. When you wrote the OP, it looked like you were posing a question about the nature of the church at present. It seemed rather on the academic side and that you were interested in information for its own sake.

Then the discussion became somewhat more involved. Then it began to look more and more like you are hoping to find a congregation or denomination to feel at home with and in synch with.

If that's more or less correct to say, I am afraid that we didn't quite pick up on what you were after earlier in the thread.

But I know that all of us would like to be of some help to you, so please direct our attention to what we can examine now or what issues you still have to deal with--anything like that, if we were a little slow on getting to the real issues.

 

[allipalli]

My friend, I would be sorry if you went away unsatisfied.

Oh, it looks like I've been unclear yet again. I meant that last comment very literally. I'm an engineer and think in very literal, straightforward terms. I may have been expressing some exasperation with my own inability to come to a distinct conclusion about one branch of the church being more "right", but I didn't mean to say I was unsatisfied with the help I've gotten here. I appreciate all the knowledge passed along and the time taken to answer.

As for this thread, I do feel guilty for leading STR members into this conflict. I wasn't being very smart about how emotionally charged these issues are for some.

When you wrote the OP, it looked like you were posing a question about the nature of the church at present. It seemed rather on the academic side and that you were interested in information for its own sake.

Then the discussion became somewhat more involved. Then it began to look more and more like you are hoping to find a congregation or denomination to feel at home with and in synch with.

If that's more or less correct to say, I am afraid that we didn't quite pick up on what you were after earlier in the thread.

Yes, I've been all over the map here. I suppose that I should have started three separate threads for everything I was thinking about. I will tell you that you are a slightly intimidating group to an ordinary Christian who has not been to seminary. I didn't want to just barge in and bombard you with a half dozen threads filled with questions.

But I know that all of us would like to be of some help to you, so please direct our attention to what we can examine now or what issues you still have to deal with--anything like that, if we were a little slow on getting to the real issues.

Thanks, I'll take you up on that but haven't got time at the moment.

 

[ebia]

Oh, it looks like I've been unclear yet again. I meant that last comment very literally. I'm an engineer and think in very literal, straightforward terms. I may have been expressing some exasperation with my own inability to come to a distinct conclusion about one branch of the church being more "right", but I didn't mean to say I was unsatisfied with the help I've gotten here. I appreciate all the knowledge passed along and the time taken to answer. As for this thread, I do feel guilty for leading STR members into this conflict. I wasn't being very smart about how emotionally charged these issues are for some. Yes, I've been all over the map here. I suppose that I should have started three separate threads for everything I was thinking about. I will tell you that you are a slightly intimidating group to an ordinary Christian who has not been to seminary. I didn't want to just barge in and bombard you with a half dozen threads filled with questions. Thanks, I'll take you up on that but haven't got time at the moment.

Part of the problem is that STR is home to anyone who is a member of any church that regards itself as Anglican. Not only is the Anglican Communion itself very diverse, some here are members of churches who split from the Communion precisely because they regard other Anglicans as beyond the bounds.

 

[Mockingbird0]

My entire childhood was in the days of the 1928 Prayer Book. Throughout those years, including those of trial-use liturgies, I never once heard the Thirty-nine articles mentioned. They were never mentioned in any sermon I heard. They were never mentioned in Sunday school. They were never mentioned in confirmation class. They were not mentioned in the old book's "Offices of Instruction" on pages 283-295 or in the catechism on pages 577 and following. Except for the wording taken from article VI, they are absent from the old book's ordination rites.

The Thirty-nine Articles in those days weren't even like the mad aunt in the attic whom everyone knows about but no one mentions. In the case of the articles, almost no one even knew about them. I would not have known then that they existed either if I hadn't been an inquisitive youth and explored the Prayer Book on my own.

Hence any claim that the Thirty-nine Articles have somehow been "demoted" in the present Prayer Book does not stand up to scrutiny. In the old days the Articles already had, in practice, no status that they could be demoted from. The present Prayer Book may even be said to have raised the profile of the Thirty-nine Articles somewhat, since it places them in a section together with other items of interest, such as the Chalcedonian definition.

 

[Albion]

My entire childhood was in the days of the 1928 Prayer Book. Throughout those years, including those of trial-use liturgies, I never once heard the Thirty-nine articles mentioned. They were never mentioned in any sermon I heard. They were never mentioned in Sunday school. They were never mentioned in confirmation class. They were not mentioned in the old book's "Offices of Instruction" on pages 283-295 or in the catechism on pages 577 and following. Except for the wording taken from article VI, they are absent from the old book's ordination rites.

The Thirty-nine Articles in those days weren't even like the mad aunt in the attic whom everyone knows about but no one mentions. In the case of the articles, almost no one even knew about them. I would not have known then that they existed either if I hadn't been an inquisitive youth and explored the Prayer Book on my own.

Hence any claim that the Thirty-nine Articles have somehow been "demoted" in the present Prayer Book does not stand up to scrutiny.

There are two glaring mistakes in that analysis.

1. What happened in your parish or with your rector does not decide anything. We all know that there are liberal parishes and then there are conservative parishes, etc.

2. The placement of the Articles in the new book was done in order to suggest that they are only a historical memento. That was well known -- and widely discussed -- at the time that the proposed new book was being considered for adoption, whether or not you remember this or ever knew it.

Of course, you can say that the practical effect of the move was negligible because most people don't pay much attention to the Articles in any case, but that's not what you were trying to argue. And it's not that good an argument, anyway, since you do not know what use of the repositioning (and retitling) might be made by the next round of revisionists. It is entirely likely that any future debate over the Articles will feature someone pointing to the 1979 book and saying that its placement, etc. "proves" something about "the church's historic stance," blah blah blah.

 

[mark46]

I am a bit confused. Are you discussing this from the persective of those Americans who use the 1979 prayer book?

It is my understanding that many world Anglicans (1/3 or so) have affirmed the GAFCON's Jerusalem Declaration that affirms the importance/authority of the Articles. I was under the impression that ACNA had also done so (perhaps not). Obviously, the interpretation of various articles was left open to debate.

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

There are two glaring mistakes in that analysis.

1. What happened in your parish or with your rector does not decide anything. We all know that there are liberal parishes and then there are conservative parishes, etc.

2. The placement of the Articles in the new book was done in order to suggest that they are only a historical memento. That was well known -- and widely discussed -- at the time that the proposed new book was being considered for adoption, whether or not you remember this or ever knew it.

Of course, you can say that the practical effect of the move was negligible because most people don't pay much attention to the Articles in any case, but that's not what you were trying to argue. And it's not that good an argument, anyway, since you do not know what use of the repositioning (and retitling) might be made by the next round of revisionists. It is entirely likely that any future debate over the Articles will feature someone pointing to the 1979 book and saying that its placement, etc. "proves" something about "the church's historic stance," blah blah blah.