Any Episcopalians?

Julio3000 said:
I think that the current divisions in the community have less to do with Spong and more to do with the same kind of liberal/progressive vs. conservative/traditional questions that exist in most mainline protestant churches. There were schisms over the ordination of women in the 70s and over the ordination of gays in the 2000. I'm not sure what your friends' particular situations are, but in my experience, Spong is irrelevant.

Gays is acceptable, most religions have no problem with that,

Well, not exactly. I'd guess that's the main reason that BB's friend's parish is in communion with the Primate of Rwanda and not the ECUSA.
Click to expand...

Oh, and I almost hate going here, but it needs to be said, I think a measure of the divide is because of Western arrogance and racism.
 
BedellBrave said:
It's a pet peeve of mine - so pardon me if this comes across wrong; but, I don't care for loosely bandying about the term "heretic." Heretic, at least in regards to Christianity, has fairly clear and historical parameters. It typically means a rejection of one or more of the central teachings of the Church found enumerated in the great Ecumenical Creeds of the Church - think Apostles and Nicene Creeds. So if you have begun in communion with an orthodox church and then reject the Trinity, or the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, or his virgin birth or resurrection or return, etc., you've earned the term "heretic." I think you need to just drop the idea that you are Christian. But if you haven't and don't then the label "heretic" doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I did not think of it the way you explained. By your definition I am not. So, what am I? I do not believe in religion but I am a Christian.
 
AerchAngel said:
Fair enough. I did not think of it the way you explained. By your definition I am not. So, what am I? I do not believe in religion but I am a Christian.
Click to expand...

Good question AA - you give intellectual assent to the creedal doctrines of Christianity, yet you aren't covenantally connected to the Church (via a church) which the NT would call the Bride of Christ. I think the latter is/should-be a result of the former, rightly understood. In other words, truth faith and love for Christ will be evidenced in fruit, of which is publicly professing faith in Christ and committing yourself to a group of fellow sinners which make-up a part of the Bride He loves. Sure they'll have their faults, their sins, their short-comings, but so will/do you and it is within the commitment that you assist others and they you. You aren't alone in where you are now AA - claiming faith, but a part from a commitment to the church. It's at least quite an American, western, individualistic trend. But honestly, it is also a very foreign concept to Christianity pictured for us in the NT and even within most of the pages of Church history.
 
BedellBrave said:
Oh, and I almost hate going here, but it needs to be said, I think a measure of the divide is because of Western arrogance and racism.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but I'm talking more about the divide within the ECUSA and not the overall Anglican disharmony.
 
BedellBrave said:
Good question AA - you give intellectual assent to the creedal doctrines of Christianity, yet you aren't covenantally connected to the Church (via a church) which the NT would call the Bride of Christ. I think the latter is/should-be a result of the former, rightly understood. In other words, truth faith and love for Christ will be evidenced in fruit, of which is publicly professing faith in Christ and committing yourself to a group of fellow sinners which make-up a part of the Bride He loves. Sure they'll have their faults, their sins, their short-comings, but so will/do you and it is within the commitment that you assist others and they you. You aren't alone in where you are now AA - claiming faith, but a part from a commitment to the church. It's at least quite an American, western, individualistic trend. But honestly, it is also a very foreign concept to Christianity pictured for us in the NT and even within most of the pages of Church history.
Click to expand...

thank you. I really mean that.

I confess, I visit most religions and their churches just to watch, feel and learn. I will not participate any Mosques until they decry killing people who won't convert or respect women, eat bacon and drink alcohol and I have been invited more than once. They asked and I just say to them,. "Do you condemn what your brothers and sisters do in the name of your allah? Do you not give females the respect they should have?" I am disappointed when they say, they have no power to say those things, only the Iman could do that. Right then in there I say "If a man tells you what you can and cannot do, then I do not want to be a part of it".

What scares me is that my best friend growing up gave me the same answer when he asked me to come to a prayer session and see the Muslim faith.

Oh, so not to bash Muslims, I declined Christian base faiths of Jews, Jehovah Witness and Mormons as well, they creep me out.
 
Julio3000 said:
You may be right, but I'm talking more about the divide within the ECUSA and not the overall Anglican disharmony.
Click to expand...

Notice how many of those within the ECUSA talk about the the Anglican churches in the Third World (same sort of thing I think we heard in the recent words of a German RC bishop...). Then consider which Episcopalian/Anglicans have no problem putting themselves under the jurisdiction of Rwandans, and others. It's fascinating to me and at least to me quite ironic.

But so as not to just critique some else's house, I think about how hesitant even conservatives within my own Reformed world are to actually listen and seek to learn from Third World theologians.

Still a lot of colonialism, racism and the like lurking in our proud Western hearts...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top