Why not live in the present? Let's stop bickering about the past.

Discussion in 'Navigating Through Church Life' started by Sean611, Aug 3, 2012.

  1. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    This thread is inspired by all the recent theology threads in which everyone is discussing/bickering about what they think Anglican theology is and why we must live in the 1600 or 1700s or why the Oxford Movement was great or sucked, but I feel the need to point out the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

    What purpose does all of this arguing about what the Church of England was in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s really accomplishing for us today? Yes, we must be informed of our history and our heritage, but these "glory days" are not here right now.

    IMHO, we must concentrate on what's relevant for today. The real question is, where is the Anglican Church moving in the future and how will we all be able to stay in Communion with one another, despite our differences?

    If the Anglican Communion comes to a point of complete fracture and schism into irrelevance, how does that advance Christ's Church?

    Edit- I love church history and tradition and I love the discussions on this board, however, I feel like these questions are relevant as well as questions about our past.
     
  2. Adam Warlock

    Adam Warlock Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    262
    Visibility confirmed. Proceeding to next mission objective: reading of the post. :D

    I completely agree. And this is coming from someone who likes to argue and speculate about history. There are present concerns, tasks, assignments, and problems. They require at least as much attention, if not more. And the glory days - however we choose to define them - will only return by God's grace. We must play the Anglican hand that we were dealt, and it's not an especially easy one.

    Communion is not easy either. Admitting that the historic parties/factions are now actually one Church is hard to do. But there it is. A primary goal is figuring out, in real terms, how we can walk together and with whom. I believe that a knowledge of history can help us with that, but we must be able to recognize that today's battles are not identical (or even analogous) to those of the past.
     
    Scottish Monk and Sean611 like this.
  3. mark1

    mark1 Active Member

    Posts:
    164
    Likes Received:
    113
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I will agree that we should kneel at the altar with our brethren today.
     
    Scottish Monk and Sean611 like this.
  4. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Thank you for your reply. The splits and disagreement on social issues we are seeing in Anglicanism are the same splits/issues that can be seen in the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Evangelical, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and in Charismatic churches. We are certainly not alone, as these issues have engulfed Christianity. That's why i'm always cautious in thinking that the "grass is greener" in other churches.

    Social issues and splits on theology have been a part of the church since the beginning and we should talk about them. It's is my hope, that when these social issues/fads and splits pass, that we will still be a Church and still be in Communion with one another. However, there may come a time or a period where being an Anglican in the Communion and being a Christian is no longer possible, I pray that doesn't happen and like to hope that it won't, but it is nevertheless a possibility. I'm hopeful that our current problems and disagreements work themselves out and that we can walk together.

    I recently read an article written by a TEC priest that said that those not in line with the leadership and that think of leaving or want to leave are the ones that should leave (and she said that she means that in an "unfriendly" manner). I hope that these attitudes are not the prevailing attitudes of liberals/conservatives in TEC and the world wide Communion. Where is our Anglican "reason" in all of this?
     
    Scottish Monk likes this.
  5. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Thanks for your reply and well said Adam! You know me as one who likes to argue and speculate about theology and history as well, guilty as charged! :D

    It is my hope that, while we continue to talk/argue/bicker about history and theology, we can talk about Communion and how we walk together and with whom we walk with, like you said. It's not going to be easy, but I feel that Anglicanism and the Communion has a lot to offer and it's my hope that our differences don't stop us from sharing what we have in common with other Christians and inquirers.
     
    Scottish Monk likes this.
  6. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    "To know the past is to know the future."

    Under your assumption, why study the Church Fathers?
     
  7. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Lol, I like and appreciate many of your posts Hackney, but give me a break! I'm not going to bother answering your snarky remark about Church Fathers.

    I never said that history is unimportant or that we should quit studying our past and our traditions. What I thought I clearly said, is that we spend way too much time focusing on what Anglicanism is to us and living in our own "glory days" that we neglect the problems of the present. Tell me Hackney, has all the fighting and bickering changed anyone's mind? I didn't think so. We should continue having these conversations, but we must never forget that we are living in our current era of Anglicanism and with our current problems. No doubt, in order to understand our problems, we must have knowledge of the past and our church history. However, we are spending a lot of time arguing about what this Anglican divine said or what this leader of the Oxford Movement said that we sometimes forget that we lose sight of what it is to be in Communion in the first place. We have current problems that are just as big, if no bigger, than trying to show everyone why "my" interpretation of the Reformation or the divines is better than yours.

    Adam said:

    "I believe that a knowledge of history can help us with that, but we must be able to recognize that today's battles are not identical (or even analogous) to those of the past." I think some of us have a hard time admitting this.

    I should have known that this thread would only invite snarky remarks, while completely ignoring the thread at hand. I hope i'm not being overly sensitive, but can we stay on topic and discuss the post at hand? So, go back your regularly scheduled programming of arguing about the 17th century church and why we all should be Protestant. :rolleyes: Maybe someone could explain to me how being a 17th Century Protestant solves all of our current issues that the Communion faces?
     
    Scottish Monk likes this.
  8. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    I'd like to know still why we should study the Fathers, if focusing on correct interpretations of the past is unimportant.

    If Anglicans have no clue what our Church was, how on earth will we be able to change it for the good in the present? I think a poor understanding of the Church in the past is the cause of the problems of the contemporary Church. And, my historical inquiries have never been about some form of traditionalism or antiquarianism, my goal has always been to learn from the past to apply that to the present and change the future. That's why, if you've been to my blog the subtitle was, "Reviving Protestant High Churchmanship in North American Anglicanism." I've changed that to read now, "A Forum for Orthodox Churchmen in the Episcopal Church and wider Anglican Family." Always referencing the present.
     
    Scottish Monk likes this.
  9. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Hackney, many of the posters on here would disagree with you on what you think our Church was or should be. We have "battled" it out in the other threads. If we don't see our past in the same way and are unwilling to listen to each other and actually learn something from one another, then what purpose does our discussions serve? If you're only willing to accept that your reading and understanding of our history is what should be applied to understand our problems today, where does that leave those who disagree with you? To me, finding some sort of common ground to stand on is a good first step in understanding each other and hopefully walking in our journey as Anglicans together.
     
    Scottish Monk likes this.
  10. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    Of course. The point is that getting along shouldn't triumph over genuine conviction. I'm all for charity and community work but when it is devoid of Gospel faith it is useless.
     
    Scottish Monk likes this.
  11. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    I absolutely agree that "getting along" shouldn't triumph over genuine conviction, however, when genuine conviction starts hurting our relationships with those who passionately disagree with us, then I feel we must take a step back and evaluate what it is we are trying to accomplish and whether or not we are moving forward or even doing any good.

    I agree that community and charity work without the Gospel faith is disconcerting, when done by a church, but perhaps useless isn't the right word. I'm sure there have been many people on the receiving end of charity, christian or not, that wouldn't call it useless.
     
    Scottish Monk and Toma like this.
  12. Toma

    Toma Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,402
    Likes Received:
    1,128
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I'm sorry, but I have to:

    Matthew 10:

    34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
    35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father,a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
    36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

    If we speak the truth, the world will hate us. Genuine conviction always trumps "moving forward" together, I think. :)
     
  13. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Yes, but what is being accomplished by all these discussions and disagreements? The satisfacation of ego maybe? If two people stand in stark contrast to one another and the way they view the past, who is to decide who is correct? What is being accomplished by two sides who shout their beliefs at the top of their lungs and refuse to actively listen to each other?

    The problem with many arguments and discussions is that the two parties arguing often believe that they are 100% right and the other side is wrong. Who has the genuine faith and the truth in these discussions and who decides it? That's why I say we should evaluate what we are accomplishing and be open to listening to one another.
     
  14. Scottish Monk

    Scottish Monk Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    429
    Likes Received:
    317
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi all...

    There are many good comments in this thread.

    Currently, I am reading around in several Caroline Divine resources. Just yesterday, I studied the first part of the homily for the days of Rogation Week (That all good things cometh from God) in the Book of Homilies (Regent College Publishing, 2008, p. 475, lines 14-39) to learn about the Caroline view of the omnipresence of God. Let me tell all of you, that I found this sermon very interesting. Much more to the point than the treatment of omnipresence of God in the Doctrine in the Church of England (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1938, p. 44-45). The scholar or Bishop in the 1600s--whoever it was--just said it better and very much in keeping with my question. I think every Anglican should read (or hear) the sermons in the Book of Homilies.

    However, I will say that Thomas Oden's discussion of the omnipresence of God in his Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: The Living God (Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, p. 67-69) was also very comprehensive, with several references to the Church Fathers (Augustine, Origen, Cyprian, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Richard Watson, John Calvin, and John Wesley).

    My point is we need the historical perspective, as well as the current perspective. However, we live in the here and now and somehow what we learn from the historic writings must be applied in the here and now.

    ...Scottish Monk
     
    mark1 and Sean611 like this.
  15. Anna Scott

    Anna Scott Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    585
    Likes Received:
    471
    Hackney,
    There is such a thing as being stuck in the past---not saying you are; but even on a thread that calls our focus to the present, you are still in the past.

    Your comment is inappropriate, considering what Sean actually said.

    Sean is not saying or suggesting that getting along should triumph over genuine conviction. Nor is he saying or suggesting that charity and community work should be devoid of Gospel faith.

    Why even make comments like that?

    Again, Sean is not saying past interpretations or the Church Fathers or Anglican History are unimportant.

    That is a broad charge against our current challenges. I really don't think a poor understanding of the Anglican Church past, is responsible for our most challenging issues today---such as same-gender ordinations/unions. Many other Churches, outside Anglicanism, are facing the same issues--as Sean has already pointed out.


    Sean is asking us to look at where we are today and what we are facing.

    How would you answer his two questions?

    Anna
     
  16. The Hackney Hub

    The Hackney Hub Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    536
    Likes Received:
    385
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    The Episcopal Church
    How is my comment inappropriate? Sean claims that understanding X period in history is irrelevant. Why are the Church Fathers treated any differently? If Thomas Cranmer isn't important, why is Ignatius?

    I stated what I felt where the implications of Sean's comments about "getting along" and community work.

    I believe that the current leadership of TEC has no clue what the Episcopal Church has been about. For one, the understanding of the office of the Presiding Bishop is not understood at all by +Schori. This is one example of how contemporary issues result from a faulty understanding of history.
     
  17. Sean611

    Sean611 Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    219
    Likes Received:
    242
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Anglican Catholic
    Here is what I said, Hackney:

    "What purpose does all of this arguing about what the Church of England was in the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s really accomplishing for us today? Yes, we must be informed of our history and our heritage, but these "glory days" are over with and they are not coming back (unless, of course, it's God's will that it does come back). Heck, many of us can't even agree on what the "glory days" were!"

    "I love church history and tradition and I love the discussions on this board, however, I feel like these questions are relevant as well as questions about our past. "

    "It is my hope that, while we continue to talk/argue/bicker about history and theology, we can talk about Communion and how we walk together and with whom we walk with, like you said. It's not going to be easy, but I feel that Anglicanism and the Communion has a lot to offer and it's my hope that our differences don't stop us from sharing what we have in common with other Christians and inquirers."

    "I never said that history is unimportant or that we should quit studying our past and our traditions. What I thought I clearly said, is that we spend way too much time focusing on what Anglicanism is to us and living in our own "glory days" that we neglect the problems of the present. Tell me Hackney, has all the fighting and bickering changed anyone's mind? I didn't think so. We should continue having these conversations, but we must never forget that we are living in our current era of Anglicanism and with our current problems. No doubt, in order to understand our problems, we must have knowledge of the past and our church history. However, we are spending a lot of time arguing about what this Anglican divine said or what this leader of the Oxford Movement said that we sometimes forget that we lose sight of what it is to be in Communion in the first place. We have current problems that are just as big, if no bigger, than trying to show everyone why "my" interpretation of the Reformation or the divines is better than yours."

    And here I agreed with you, but I doubt you saw that:

    "Perhaps I was vague here or perhaps you misunderstood me (or maybe both :D) . What I meant is that we must study the past and our traditions and heritage, but we cannot forget or neglect the problems that face the Church today, nor can we ignore them. If we are too busy worrying about arguing about the Church of yesterday, then we neglect where the Church is today and where it will be tomorrow. Of course, as Hackney said, if we don't understand the Church of yesterday, the how can we understand the Church of today and tomorrow? I agree with him and you, but when two people spend a massive amount of energy arguing over something that neither side is willing to listen to, then what is really being accomplished? What has been accomplished by the discussions on this forum, has anyone changed their mind on the way they see Anglicanism and the Reformation? I feel like these discissions are still very important and relevant, but not at the expense of ignoring what faces us today and how we chose to see our relationship to others in the Communion."

    Please show me where I discounted history and tradition and said that Cranmer isn't important? You surely cannot be reading my posts and coming to these conclusions. If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but don't put words in my mouth when you either ignore or don't even read what I put.
     
  18. Adam Warlock

    Adam Warlock Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    325
    Likes Received:
    262
    In case it was invisible in my last post :D, I am a huge fan of history - both world and church. I will discuss the most obscure events and their lasting implications. When it comes to the task of theology, historical theology is my preferred method. I collect Patristic works and stuff them into my overcrowded bookcase whenever possible!

    I have expressed a similar sentiment to Sean's before, though perhaps not quite so clearly. I live in the tension of "nothing new under the sun" and "today's problems are different." History is useful in addressing today's problems. History does not offer simple solutions such as "blame the Oxford Movement" or "use only 16th or 17th or 18th century theologians to resolve the challenges of the Anglican Communion."

    I'm not accusing anyone of making the above statements, either. :D

    Anyway, we are faced with a situation that is graver than most people know. Actual parishes and clergy are faced with the choice of full Communion with other Anglicans or adherence to biblical orthodoxy. People whose beliefs greatly differ are Confirmed as members within the same Church and Communion, though some formerly promoted beliefs are now actively discouraged. When a diocese leaves its national Church, or when some provinces declare themselves in communion with breakaways rather than the national Church, the implications are absolutely enormous. This is the reality in which we live. The Golden Age/Good Ol' Days won't save us from the current mess. Again, history helps us form solid plans and responses; but it alone won't help us work through implications of Communion in a Church that is much broader than we might like.

    Something like that :p
     
    Sean611 likes this.
  19. Anna Scott

    Anna Scott Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    585
    Likes Received:
    471
    Hackney,

    Once again, how would you answer Sean's questions:

    1. . .The real question is, where is the Anglican Church moving in the future and how will we all be able to stay in Communion with one another, despite our differences?​

    2. . . .If the Anglican Communion comes to a point of complete fracture and schism into irrelevance, how does that advance Christ's Church?

     
    Gordon likes this.
  20. Anna Scott

    Anna Scott Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    585
    Likes Received:
    471
    TEC has been moving into uncharted waters for some time now, especially with the same-gender issues and other positions that threaten the Sacraments--such as Communion without Baptism.

    I think we must consider our commitment to Holy Scripture and to the Gospel expressed clearly in the Creeds we confess, and to the Sacraments rightly administered by validly ordained Priests. I think secularism has infiltrated TEC; and has become a great threat to our Communion.

    The Anglican Communion may indeed reach a point of coming apart---more so than what we are seeing now. Divisions take us farther away from Christian unity; but when Holy Scripture and Sacramental Christianity are abandoned, fracturing and schism may be inevitable. In the end, we must all stand firm in the truths of the Christian faith handed down from the Apostles.

    Peace and blessings,
    Anna
     
    Sean611 likes this.