Some of these comments I saw - WOW!

[graceandpeace]

Stumbled upon something called "reimagining TEC" - I guess a website trying to receive feedback from church members? Some of the comments made my jaw drop.

One person wanted to "let go" of the Nicene creed. Another person wanted the church to use feminine language about God (call Him "Mother").

I have been warned about "progressiveness" of TEC - but these sorts of statements are not even progressive, they are just plain anti-Christian, IMO.

To be fair, most of the feedback seemed pretty sane... But just wow to some others!

Do you think this craziness will prevail in TEC one day?

 

[PaladinValer]

Stumbled upon something called "reimagining TEC" - I guess a website trying to receive feedback from church members? Some of the comments made my jaw drop.

One person wanted to "let go" of the Nicene creed. Another person wanted the church to use feminine language about God (call Him "Mother").

I have been warned about "progressiveness" of TEC - but these sorts of statements are not even progressive, they are just plain anti-Christian, IMO.

To be fair, most of the feedback seemed pretty sane... But just wow to some others!

Progressive is a word that has been wrongly utilized by both "liberal" and "conservative" (which also mean nothing) groups. A look into the dictionary should clarify what it means and how it should actually be used.

As for those comments, to be honest, they reflect a minority, and the only reason why they seem so common and/or vocal is because the so-called "conservative orthodox traditionalists" (whether they use one, two, or all three terms, they who do often aren't what they claim) are either being overzealous bigots, power-hungry xenophobes, or the similar...just like those they oppose! Schism schism schism, just like demand demand demand, is just....wrong.

Real orthodoxy is far more pastoral than either such side. The ultra-conservatives are just as bad as the ultra-liberals, just as Ango-Papists and Crypto-Calvinists/Presbyterians are equally non-Anglicans. True Anglican orthodoxy is neither liberal nor conservative; it is merely orthodoxy. It is the Nicene Creed along with the Apostle's Creed and Chalcedonian Definition; it is lex orandi lex credendi; it is Scripture, Tradition, Reason; it is the Articles taken in their actual context; it is pastoral care judiciously used (not indiscriminately used!); it is not falling into the idiotic trap of "love the sinner; hate the sin"; it is finding ways to give without giving up on the historic faith.

Do you think this craziness will prevail in TEC one day?

I think what will prevail is the day when people will realize that true orthodoxy isn't overzealous idiocy, and not only do the self-proclaimed "orthodox" et al need to begin to act it, but the "progressives" need to realize that not only are so many of them treating their opposites as monolithic but that some really do rationally argue and that they are usually right. And the monolithicism that the so-called "orthodox" label the "progressives" with is pretty sickening too. I mean, how often have such "progressives" been staunch Nicene defenders and believers? QUITE OFTEN! More so that the "traditionalists" at times.

 

[Albion]

Stumbled upon something called "reimagining TEC" - I guess a website trying to receive feedback from church members? Some of the comments made my jaw drop.

One person wanted to "let go" of the Nicene creed. Another person wanted the church to use feminine language about God (call Him "Mother").

I have been warned about "progressiveness" of TEC - but these sorts of statements are not even progressive, they are just plain anti-Christian, IMO.

To be fair, most of the feedback seemed pretty sane... But just wow to some others!

Do you think this craziness will prevail in TEC one day?

Those views are already commonplace. It's not as though these particular posters or bloggers were way out in left field.

 

[Sayre]

I'm not too concerned about progressives
It quickly becomes clear there is little substance to what they offer. I don't mean this in a nasty way but I'd like a more sure and substantive basis of belief.

 

[graceandpeace]

Progressive is a word that has been wrongly utilized by both "liberal" and "conservative" (which also mean nothing) groups. A look into the dictionary should clarify what it means and how it should actually be used.

As for those comments, to be honest, they reflect a minority, and the only reason why they seem so common and/or vocal is because the so-called "conservative orthodox traditionalists" (whether they use one, two, or all three terms, they who do often aren't what they claim) are either being overzealous bigots, power-hungry xenophobes, or the similar...just like those they oppose! Schism schism schism, just like demand demand demand, is just....wrong.

Real orthodoxy is far more pastoral than either such side. The ultra-conservatives are just as bad as the ultra-liberals, just as Ango-Papists and Crypto-Calvinists/Presbyterians are equally non-Anglicans. True Anglican orthodoxy is neither liberal nor conservative; it is merely orthodoxy. It is the Nicene Creed along with the Apostle's Creed and Chalcedonian Definition; it is lex orandi lex credendi; it is Scripture, Tradition, Reason; it is the Articles taken in their actual context; it is pastoral care judiciously used (not indiscriminately used!); it is not falling into the idiotic trap of "love the sinner; hate the sin"; it is finding ways to give without giving up on the historic faith.


I think what will prevail is the day when people will realize that true orthodoxy isn't overzealous idiocy, and not only do the self-proclaimed "orthodox" et al need to begin to act it, but the "progressives" need to realize that not only are so many of them treating their opposites as monolithic but that some really do rationally argue and that they are usually right. And the monolithicism that the so-called "orthodox" label the "progressives" with is pretty sickening too. I mean, how often have such "progressives" been staunch Nicene defenders and believers? QUITE OFTEN! More so that the "traditionalists" at times.

Thanks for your response. I do realize minority opinions can be passionate & vocal. I just didn't realize some went that far out in left field. So far, with the church I am visiting, I feel okay with what has come from the pulpit.

 

[PaladinValer]

Thanks for your response. I do realize minority opinions can be passionate & vocal. I just didn't realize some went that far out in left field. So far, with the church I am visiting, I feel okay with what has come from the pulpit.

I'm glad to hear this. I know this has been difficult for you and I am overjoyed that you've found a spiritual home where you have. May God be praised!

It wasn't said because anyone was ignorant that few=/=all, but as a reminder to all truly. Even I need to remember and remind myself of it once in a whole. After all, we're only human.

 

[Sean611]

There is a baby boomer feminist that goes to my parish that refers to to God as "she" during one sentence in the Nicene Creed and then she uses "he" in all other places. It makes me cringe almost everytime I hear it, however, I don't really see the big issue. This lady is "liberal," yet very orthodox theologically. If it helps her to think of God in a more feminine way, then so be it. That said, I think that these things should be left to private devotions and that referring to God as "she" during the Creed is a bit disrespectful and smacks more of trying to make a statement than anything else. That said, everybody else in my parish just ignores it, not a big deal.

As PV has mentioned, the people that think this way are in the minority and most Episcopalians are completely unaware that some of these things go on. As 2015 approaches, I pray that a moderate is elected Presiding Bishop and that the church can start to heal wounds and move on from all this nonsense and politicking. Presiding Bishop's (and Bishops) need to realize that they represent ALL members in the church, not just the radical political wing that they identify with, whether it be extremely liberal or extremely conservative.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Progressive is a word that has been wrongly utilized by both "liberal" and "conservative" (which also mean nothing) groups. A look into the dictionary should clarify what it means and how it should actually be used.

As for those comments, to be honest, they reflect a minority, and the only reason why they seem so common and/or vocal is because the so-called "conservative orthodox traditionalists" (whether they use one, two, or all three terms, they who do often aren't what they claim) are either being overzealous bigots, power-hungry xenophobes, or the similar...just like those they oppose! Schism schism schism, just like demand demand demand, is just....wrong.

Real orthodoxy is far more pastoral than either such side. The ultra-conservatives are just as bad as the ultra-liberals, just as Ango-Papists and Crypto-Calvinists/Presbyterians are equally non-Anglicans. True Anglican orthodoxy is neither liberal nor conservative; it is merely orthodoxy. It is the Nicene Creed along with the Apostle's Creed and Chalcedonian Definition; it is lex orandi lex credendi; it is Scripture, Tradition, Reason; it is the Articles taken in their actual context; it is pastoral care judiciously used (not indiscriminately used!); it is not falling into the idiotic trap of "love the sinner; hate the sin"; it is finding ways to give without giving up on the historic faith.



I think what will prevail is the day when people will realize that true orthodoxy isn't overzealous idiocy, and not only do the self-proclaimed "orthodox" et al need to begin to act it, but the "progressives" need to realize that not only are so many of them treating their opposites as monolithic but that some really do rationally argue and that they are usually right. And the monolithicism that the so-called "orthodox" label the "progressives" with is pretty sickening too. I mean, how often have such "progressives" been staunch Nicene defenders and believers? QUITE OFTEN! More so that the "traditionalists" at times.

I pretty much go with what Paladin Valer said here.

My church is probably off pretty far to the "progressive" left so far as how many of the congregation believe, in both politics and religion. And yet we stick to true Anglican orthodoxy in the lex orandi lex credendi sense, and there is little discernible political partisanship from the pulpit. I'm happy with that, and I think by and large the congregation is happy with it too. Even though we are a motley crew, it keeps us united.

 

[Doctor Strangelove]

I think it is accurate to say that in general, and especially with the leadership, things in TEC are strongly slanted to the left or "progressive" side. That is unlikely to change.

 

[MKJ]

I think it is accurate to say that in general, and especially with the leadership, things in TEC are strongly slanted to the left or "progressive" side. That is unlikely to change.

Yes. There is no evidence that even very heterodox views, including among the clergy and bishops, are considered a problem.

What is probably a little more concerning on a parish level is that there can be a real lack of surety even in a very orthodox parish. Things may go along very well for years, and then a new priest comes, or someone brings up an issue at the general meeting, or whatever, and suddenly there is a totally new direction or even direction is then imposed by the bishop, and there is little recourse.

I would say that potential lack of stability is one of the major concerns for someone considering joining a more orthodox Anglican parish.

 

[Sean611]

I think it is accurate to say that in general, and especially with the leadership, things in TEC are strongly slanted to the left or "progressive" side. That is unlikely to change.

In regards to homosexual issues and in regards to some secular political issues, I think that you are right.

That being said, I think the theology of Spong, Crossan, and Borg is on its last legs in the Episcopal Church. Those who are coming out and have been coming out of seminaries in recent times are quite orthodox on theological issues and have a deep love of liturgy and tradition. It seems that those who were raised without the influence of the 60s are not nearly as hostile to tradition and orthodox theology.

Take two examples:

Father Scott Gunn runs the Forward Movement. While being socially progressive, he is very theologically orthodox. The Forward Movement is the most influential publisher in the Episcopal Church.

Derek Olsen serves as secretary for Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. He is perhaps best known for the fantastic online St. Bede's Breviary. He is also working on an Anglican Breviary and just finished with editing and revising the St. Augustine Prayer Book.

There many more examples of these types of Episcopalians in leadership positions in the Episcopal Church. In no way am I trying to apologize for the wrong in TEC nor am I sticking my head in the sand. I believe, along with many others, that the theological heterodoxy among TEC leaders is on its way out, after all, everybody gets old.

That being said, I don't think TEC is going to be rolling back issues related to homosexuality.

 

[PaladinValer]

In regards to homosexual issues and in regards to some secular political issues, I think that you are right.

That being said, I think the theology of Spong, Crossan, and Borg is on its last legs in the Episcopal Church. Those who are coming out and have been coming out of seminaries in recent times are quite orthodox on theological issues and have a deep love of liturgy and tradition. It seems that those who were raised without the influence of the 60s are not nearly as hostile to tradition and orthodox theology.

Take two examples:

Father Scott Gunn runs the Forward Movement. While being socially progressive, he is very theologically orthodox. The Forward Movement is the most influential publisher in the Episcopal Church.

Derek Olsen serves as secretary for Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music. He is perhaps best known for the fantastic online St. Bede's Breviary. He is also working on an Anglican Breviary and just finished with editing and revising the St. Augustine Prayer Book.

There many more examples of these types of Episcopalians in leadership positions in the Episcopal Church. In no way am I trying to apologize for the wrong in TEC nor am I sticking my head in the sand. I believe, along with many others, that the theological heterodoxy among TEC leaders is on its way out, after all, everybody gets old.

That being said, I don't think TEC is going to be rolling back issues related to homosexuality.

I know this is going to be an asides question, but...

...how's your Lent Madness bracket doing?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

That being said, I think the theology of Spong, Crossan, and Borg is on its last legs in the Episcopal Church. Those who are coming out and have been coming out of seminaries in recent times are quite orthodox on theological issues and have a deep love of liturgy and tradition. It seems that those who were raised without the influence of the 60s are not nearly as hostile to tradition and orthodox theology.

I don't think Borg is nearly as heterodox as Spong. I rather like Borg and have been enjoying reading him, though I think Wright won the debate in their joint Two Visions book.

 

[pyramid33]

A better question to the original post is, do you think it is fair to continue to decieve the innocent into thinking the world is any good?

What a wonderful world - LOUIS ARMSTRONG. - YouTube

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

A better question to the original post is, do you think it is fair to continue to decieve the innocent into thinking the world is any good?

What a wonderful world - LOUIS ARMSTRONG. - YouTube

Great song! And it's especially ironic and poignant when wandering the wastelands of Fallout 3, trying to survive while fighting off cannibals, brigands and mutant monsters.

(that song, and others like it, are included in the game's soundtrack)

 

[Sean611]

I know this is going to be an asides question, but...

...how's your Lent Madness bracket doing?

Not too good this year, it actually may end up being my worst year yet. Instead of voting for who I would like to win, like I usually do, I voted for who I thought Episcopalians would vote for....it hasn't worked out for me thus far lol.

 

[Mockingbird0]

Stumbled upon something called "reimagining TEC" - I guess a website trying to receive feedback from church members? Some of the comments made my jaw drop.

One person wanted to "let go" of the Nicene creed. Another person wanted the church to use feminine language about God (call Him "Mother").

I have been warned about "progressiveness" of TEC - but these sorts of statements are not even progressive, they are just plain anti-Christian, IMO.

To be fair, most of the feedback seemed pretty sane... But just wow to some others!

Do you think this craziness will prevail in TEC one day?

Of course we have our fringe elements, but you are not likely to encounter the influence of their ideas much. I have never been to a parish that I deemed a liturgical outlier, and only two such places, which I have never visited and know of only by report, come to mind easily: St. Clement's, Philadelphia (said to be an extreme Anglo-Catholic parish) and St. Gregory Nyssa, San Francisco (said to engage in some quirky liturgical practices.)

The first proposed American Prayer Book (1785) did not have the Nicene Creed, though this Creed was restored in the book that was finally adopted in 1789. Some people seem to have had scruples about some of the Creed's wording, which they deemed unscriptural. So the idea of sticking to the Apostles' Creed alone is not new.

And though I am myself very skeptical of the feminine-language apparatchiks, and find it annoying when a preacher, speaker, or writer repeats the word "God" in order to avoid referring to God as "he", I feel I must in fairness recognize that to call God "Mother" as well as "Father", as Juliana of Norwich (d. 1416) did, is not in-and-of-itself "anti-Christian."

 

[Albion]

Of course we have our fringe elements, but you are not likely to encounter the influence of their ideas much. I have never been to a parish that I deemed a liturgical outlier, and only two such places, which I have never visited and know of only by report, come to mind easily: St. Clement's, Philadelphia (said to be an extreme Anglo-Catholic parish) and St. Gregory Nyssa, San Francisco (said to engage in some quirky liturgical practices.)

The first proposed American Prayer Book (1785) did not have the Nicene Creed, though this Creed was restored in the book that was finally adopted in 1789. Some people seem to have had scruples about some of the Creed's wording, which they deemed unscriptural. So the idea of sticking to the Apostles' Creed alone is not new.

And though I am myself very skeptical of the feminine-language apparatchiks, and find it annoying when a preacher, speaker, or writer repeats the word "God" in order to avoid referring to God as "he", I feel I must in fairness recognize that to call God "Mother" as well as "Father", as Juliana of Norwich (d. 1416) did, is not in-and-of-itself "anti-Christian."

Well, if Julian of Norwich did it, it must not be a problem. If it's that easy to overlook serious wrongs in the church, of course we aren't going to notice that the fringe has become the norm.

 

[Sean611]

Of course we have our fringe elements, but you are not likely to encounter the influence of their ideas much.

I think that this part is really important to emphasize. The more I read about the history and development of Christianity, the more it becomes clear that there have always been fringe groups, sects, and elements in the Church, whether that church be Catholic, Protestant, or anything in-between. Now, this doesn't mean we stick our head in the sand or ignore confronting such fringe elements.

However, there is no denomination on the face of the Earth that doesn't have fringe elements somewhere. When I sometimes struggle with the things going on in TEC, I always remind myself that many Christians believe that dinosaurs and man walked the Earth at the same time. To me, this is as egregious as a teaching as almost anything in TEC. I have come to realize the "perfect church" is a myth and the grass in never really greener.

That said, you will hear of every little controversy that goes on in TEC because there are Anglican groups/websites that are dedicated to focusing on negative news only, mis-reporting stories/quotes, and reporting on everything strange/controversial thing that is said anywhere in TEC by any Episcopalian. They have an agenda to promote and they only (mis) report stories that further their agenda. In no way am I denying the strange things that goes on in some places in TEC (like the non-theist Cathedral dean, for example), however, most denominations don't have agencies/groups dedicated to reporting every little shred of negative news they can find.

 

[Try]

I don't think Borg is nearly as heterodox as Spong. I rather like Borg and have been enjoying reading him, though I think Wright won the debate in their joint Two Visions book.

I think Borg is just as heterodox as Spong, just better at hiding it, and more gracious to those who disagree with him. Ultimately Borg does not affirm that the physical resurrection is an essential part of the Christian faith, and he explicitly denies that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Any way you slice it that's heresy.

That said, I do not think that Borg's views are those of a majority the members of The Episcopal Church.