I'm a twice weekly CofE communicant. I'm on the Parochial Church Council, the Deanery Synod and a sidesperson. I help with transport and office duties and I'm on the coffee rota. The Cof E is part of my life, and I'm happy with it. And I seem to fit in. The Vicar regards me as "one of us". And yet here, in this forum? No. There's a reference to "the myriad of others who disagree" with me. Yet these people all seem to come from splinter groups, no longer formally part of the Anglican Communion. I'm happy, they are discontent. That's not what I expected form an "Anglican Forum". What a pity. Am I the only happy person here?
Seagull, you seem to be confused about who the members are on this forum. By and large, most people are members of churches in communion with Canterbury, as am I. I am very happy that you are active in your parish, but I fail to see how any of that makes you happy and anyone who disagrees with you unhappy. And while I'm also very glad for you that your lady priest regards you as "one of us (Anglicans)," I don't think you, or your lady priest for that matter, have the authority to act as a the gold standard for what is or is not Anglican. Anglicanism is bigger than your particular parish, diocese, or even national church. I'll tell you something I've seen during my time on this forum. Newer members are generally surprised by the diversity of opinion and opposition they encounter when they begin posting. I think this is because, at the parish level people's ationships are rarely theologically focused. This, however, is not really the case on a forum that disucsses Anglican issues from an orthodox and traditional perspective. When new members are "called" on unorthodox views that are generally tolerated/accpeted without argument at their parishes, a period of transition occurs where the new member has to process that genuine broadness that is the Anglican landscape. This, as a matter of course, is frustrating to the new members and they generally become defensive of their views. I remember that I did too when I first came here. Some act out this defensiveness by leaving the forum in a huff. Others tend to become less active but continue to read. Some become obsessed with trying to read everything they can about the historic Anglican wirters to try to see exactly what a "orthodox, traditional Anglican" looks like and post huge chunks of quotations from them to back up every point they make, mistakenly thinking that those who oppose their positions had never done similar or better research themselves (I'm guilty of this one). But probably one of the nastier ways this defensiveness manifests in new members is when they begin to dismiss and marginalize those with whom they disagree as being in some way inauthenticly Anglican--imposters--because they don't toe the line that the new members are accustomed to. You have found that there are a myriad others here who disagree with you. Congratulations! Welcome to being truly anglican. As someone who's grown up in this church surrounded by Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics, Evangelicals, Traditionalists, and Liberals, the one thing we do better than anything else is disagree with each other. But we do so in a way that is not disagreeable. That's why, when someone begins to declare or imply that others here are not truly anglican by saying that the forum is only a "purported" Anglican forum or to call another active member's denomination a church in quotation marks or to theorize anyone who disagrees with him as unhappy members of splinter groups, I find it incredibly rude and insanely arrogant. The fact is that liberalism in Anglicanism is but one stream of Anglicanism, one that is new and small, a minority in the church. The Anglican Communion, in sheer numbers alone, is overwhelmingly conservative given that Aftrica and Asia make up most of the Anglican Communion. They are traditional and orthodox, and heavily conservative.
That's an honest question. I won't speak for others, but for myself I see you as being happy with what the church has become, not what it used to be. Coming out of the crumbling ECUSA I'm well versed in some of your comments as of late, and your efforts to assert that you are "main stream". I am truly happy that you're active and content, but please understand that for many of us we mourn the loss of the historic Church and faith. The infamous 3 legged stool has become the executioner of anything historic and/or conservative. You must understand that this forum is not for the CoE, but for historic Anglicanism, which many see Canterbury departing from. When scripture, creeds, articles, and church fathers must be marginalized to justify a practice, trouble is more than on the horizon. Jeff P.S. To answer your question, I am very happy. I have found a home in a Restoration Movement church, and we're active as a family, parent, and grandparent. The outreach in the community is unparalleled around here, and my plans to become a Police Chaplain are again focused and on course.
Jeff and Lowly Layman One of the rules of this Forum is not being derogatory about the CofE, which is just as well, because many people are (just as they are about our Beloved Sister Church). In the short time I have been here, one newcomer was, and was rightly cautioned. I'm not saying that you are being "derogatory" but you are certainly being critical when you assert/imply that we are departing from "historic Anglicanism", whatever that is. I have never heard of "the infamous three legged stool". I don't "mourn the loss of the historic church and faith", and I write as someone with a History degree. I've mentioned that I was an agnostic for many years (1966- 2001) and the Church I returned to differed in various ways to the one I left, but it was still the CofE I knew and loved. The church I go to subscribes to "Affirming catholicism". Whether that puts us out of the mainstream, I'm not sure. But whatever your views of the CofE, remember that we are the mother church of the Anglican Communion and at least to a degree its benchmark. I simply cannot accept that we have betrayed traditional, historic Anglicanism.
seagull, I apologize, I assumed you wanted a factual response to your question and not politically correct pablum. Like it or not, you asked why people weren't happy and I simply provided part of the answer, and that involves change. I suppose my remarks could be considered "derogatory" if you consider change to be bad, but you must admit that there's been more change in the last 30 years, than in the entire history of the church. If you deny this, ask yourself how many women were ordained by Bishop Cranmer? How many openly gay priests were there in 1720? Was the CoE actively involved in assisted suicide in 1930? Even your modern day church is split down the middle with female Priests and Bishops, and simply because they exist doesn't mean that sizable portions of it's members don't agree. I'm also puzzled at an Anglican with a history degree who's never heard of "Scripture-Tradition, and Reason" within the context of the church. Jeff
I am very happy, so what have you done for Christ? Have you witnessed for Him? Have you fed the poor? Do you stand up for the Word of God or do you reject it because it is old and arcane. Do you defend true Historic Apostolic Christianity against the post modernism the has crept into the Church. We can do a lot for our local Church but if we do nothing for Christ we have completely missed the boat.
No women were ordained by Archbishop Cranmer. I doubt if there were any openly gay priests in 1720. I suspect that homosexuality was a capital offence then. It certainly was a criminal one. As far as I know, there is no bar to someone with a homosexual orientation being a CofE or RC priest. But there is still a bar to an open, practicing homosexual becoming one. The great majority of members of the CofE are in favour of women priests and bishops.
i) Not enough. But I try to adhere to Christ's teachings. ii) Not sure what you mean by that. iii) I give to various charities, including Oxfam and Christian Aid. iv) Yes. And it is not old and arcane. v) It doesn't need defending in the way you state.
Not according to the latest vote by your House of Bishops, but you eloquently just demonstrated the great imbalance of the 3 legged stool (public opinion trumping established doctrine and 2000 years of history). Jeff
A believer who is concerned for souls doing as St. Paul tells us to in Romans 16:17, 1 Tim 5:20, and Titus 3:10
I am a traditional Christian worshipping in TEC. I don't believe in every direction TEC has taken...but then I have never been in any church where I agreed with everything. My Associate Rector is a woman. I share the common cup with some folks I suspect are homosexuals. This post is to announce I am happy. That is all.
To save me researching, please tell me about the latest vote of the House of Bishops. I thought that over two thirds were in favour of women bishops. What's the three legged stool?
As seeking posted, it's Scripture, Tradition, & Reason, but the reality of reason usually turns out to be the sway of public opinion and pressure, and not usually by a majority. Jeff