Episcopal church without gay marriage

I fail to see how these dots connect. Admittedly, some of us are trying to resist the surrender of US freedoms and legalities to the rising global-governance movement, and some of us favor economic and border security policies that will help preserve the nation's integrity and our citizens' safety. And some of us oppose raising taxes for the purpose of financing more free handouts to people who won't work. How exactly do those things hinder the spread of the Gospel? Please elucidate, because I don't see any connection.

Frankly, if Christians would take the Great Commission seriously on a personal level, nothing could stop the spread of the Gospel. The problem lies with the lukewarm/cold hearts and minds of the vast majority of pew warmers (some of whom no longer even bother to warm a pew!)

 

Canada wholeheartedly blesses it, sadly- the St. Rupert's Land diocese helped lead the charge- excepting a loose alliance of laity and clergy in the Anglican Communion Alliance. Interestingly, a lot of overlap between the Alliance and the Prayer Book Society that rejects the Book of Alternative Services.

 

It’s really not that difficult. It’s not “pro-life” to merely oppose abortion and then not care what happens to those children (or their mothers) after they’re born. It’s not “pro-family” to take a hardline against LGBTQ households and then publicly support separating children from their parents at the southern border. It’s not “fiscal responsibility” to cut taxes far below any sustainable, responsible level while maintaining a military that accounts for more than the rest of the world’s defense spending combined. When Christians vocally support these hypocritical positions which have nothing to do with the Gospel, it discredits the Gospel and harms all churches’ efforts to grow, not just the “conservative” ones, but the so-called “liberal” ones as well. “Liberal” churches have to break through stereotypes propagated by conservatives on top of clearing the usual evangelistic hurdles. I see this all the time. It’s a real problem, and I place much of the blame for it on those on the Right who equate being a good Christian with being a strange blend of public policy nationalist, economic libertarian, and social authoritarian.

 

No need for the blackpills. The Church has always for thousands of years been just 1 generation of extinction. It’s always been a struggle to get the next generation onboard as much as the previous ones were. And yet here we are. The descendants of heroes, saints, and martyrs.

First and foremost, God will preserve the Church. Whether it will only be among the poor, or not, isn’t material to the larger point, that the Church is indestructible.

Secondly, for most of the last 2000 years, Christianity has existed among the affluent as much as among the poor. The wealthy even took the time to ostentatiously show their piety, by leading processions, having private chapels, by endowing cathedrals. Even as recently as 50-60 years ago, the Christian billionaires have endowed schools and hospitals (how else do you think these were built).

We are going through a moment, a mere blip in the vast and majestic history of the Church. This too shall pass. Our duty is to be faithful, and nourish God’s kingdom within our little corner of the world.

 

Whatever it is, it's got to be better than murdering them in the womb. God is the master of their fate, not us.

Do you take homeless people into your own home? Do you let them just barge in and stay, even if they have kids with them? If not, why not? Why is their plight not laid at the door of their corrupt home regimes rather than the US? If the US is so horrible, why are so many so desperate to come here? Should all countries be borderless, or just the US? Does Canada, Australia or the UK allow untrammeled immigration from abroad? If not, can't the same arguments be leveled against them? And doesn't illegal immigration fall under the passage in Romans 13:1-7? If your first act upon entering a different country is to break the law, it is unfair to the citizens to let that violation go unpunished.

Which churches advocate for abortion, ordain homosexuals to the ministry, and claim to "marry" two people of the same gender together? It's not "stereotyping" to say that liberal churches are doing these things.

Of course you do, because liberals are the only good people, aren't they? As if "progressivism" hasn't been the primary driver of human misery and death throughout much of the 20th century and into the 21st. As for being authoritarian, don't make me laugh. Just look at the draconian COVID-19 policies in so-called "liberal" jurisdictions here and abroad. Leftists are the most authoritarian people on earth. Who genuflects to the likes of China, Cuba, Venezuela, and other communist/socialist regimes? Who enforces online censorship and "cancel culture"?

Does God's word carry authority for Christian life, or does it not? We can boil down the above arguments into that simple question. If the Bible is not authoritative, then what is? How is the Gospel to be sourced and transmitted, if not from God's holy Word? If this is a "conservative" notion, I'm happy to wear that mantle. The Gospel is not in any way comparable to the godless postmodernist claptrap that stands in opposition to it.

 

I wasn’t talking about “rich or poor”. The key word in what I said is “development”. I was talking specifically about the breakdown of stable communities as a result of the high social and geographic mobility that’s really only been possible on a wide scale since the Industrial Revolution. That and the Information/Technology Revolution have presented genuinely new problems for the church insofar as they have contributed to the further instability of concrete communities. Now the only thing stable about them is the concrete itself. Alternative fixed common reference points then had to be found in order to sustain the atmosphere of community on which historic Christian practice is premised.

 

You’ve completely missed the point I was making (I suspect deliberately), and I think my meaning was clear. You’re equating the Gospel with one side in the “culture wars”. I’m saying the Gospel rises above all that. Also, not all authoritarian regimes are necessarily leftist (Russia certainly isn’t, nor are the leaders of Poland, Hungary, etc.), and I wouldn’t characterize any of the places you cited as bastions of progressivism.

So, let me get this straight: A person who points out the hypocrisy of advocating saving the unborn just so they can live a life of poverty, crime, and despair - even though American society has the ability to alleviate that suffering - must, in your mind, be advocating murder? And a person who advocates humane enforcement policies at the border somehow favors lawlessness and “untrammeled immigration”? You’ve got to be kidding. That isn’t worthy of a response.

 

You also avoided answering any of the questions I actually posed. I think we can just leave this sit where it is -- it is very clear to me that we are poles apart on nearly every issue relevant to this discussion. In the interest of keeping the peace, I will withdraw.

 

I didn’t answer your questions because you didn’t respond to what I actually said, and you instead tossed around a bunch of culture war language to caricature me instead of producing a thoughtful reply worthy of this Forum. My reply should not have been surprising. Yes, I think withdrawing is best, I agree.

 

What hardline ifs being taken? Homosexuals can marry and adopt children. What more do they want?
The gospel of Christ cones from the same God who decreed adulterers be stoned. No Christian should be “supporting” LGBT

 

An “LGBTQ household” is a contradiction in terms, kind of like a pregnant man. A household is a divine institution, and its constitution was designed by God and by Nature, to be a very specific thing, the same among all nations and races and peoples. Anything against it is not a household by definition, at best. And really more like an abomination. This is not even a Christian belief, but a human belief, arising out of nature, and shared by all nations and races and peoples. It is not subject to dispute or alteration.

 

It may be illegal to say this in Australia, or a least on the very fine edge.

 

A court can declare that a dog is really a cat; that doesn't make it so.

 

All a Christian has to do is a pinch of incense to Caesar. Right? No need to suffer, get humiliated, tortured, go to the lions. That’s extreme, not something Christians do or have done. It’s ok to have one’s beliefs so long as you don’t take things too seriously. A Christian’s #1 duty is to not take things too seriously. Right?

When my children were baptized, they swore a lifelong oath, to fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil.

 

I don’t think there’s any place for this sort of rhetoric in today’s world. It advances no good, and doesn’t advance the Gospel.

Ultimately, I came to this site to discuss Anglicanism, not to get caught up in silly “culture war” nonsense, or defend my canonical Anglican province against fundamentalist-minded schismatics. If I had wanted to do either of those things I would’ve joined Facebook or Reddit instead. I hope at some point you and others here arrive at more enlightened views.

 

Thanks for explaining your thought process on this matter.

I would hope that you are able to appreciate that in many situations there is not a single 'right way' to do things, and that it's not always possible to forecast exactly which approach will be more effective than another. Obviously each of the opposing groups sincerely believes their pathway will be best for the people in the long run, and obviously each group 'demonizes' the other group's ideas to excess. Perhaps we should all try to see the other perspective more than we now do.

Let's look at the points you've raised from the 'other' view, one at a time, okay?

Honestly, is that what you think of conservatives? That they actually don't care what happens to children and mothers? I'm a conservative. Is that what you think of me? Ouch. I hope this is hyperbole, because we really do care. The difference of opinion is on what means and methods will fit the best interests of all who are involved. Conservatives see the poor track record of welfare systems; they see that providing free stuff has disincentivized people from working when they are able and has helped cause the rise of irresponsible/absentee fathers. Children of welfare homes are far more likely to join gangs and/or engage in criminal activities. We believe in teaching people to act responsibly, earn their own keep and obtain the self-pride and satisfaction of achievement, and pass on good moral values to their children. For those who need a helping hand, we believe that the church, not the state, should provide that help; this helps ensure that the money is used responsibly with minimal bureaucratic overhead, that the givers are blessed, and that the receivers see the generous love of Christ at work. Teaching people that the government is their Provider is anti-God, and it encourages an attitude that the world owes them whatever they need whether they merit it or not.

Yet again, I cringe to think that you might believe this is what conservatism intends to accomplish by having well-controlled border access. Conservatives do not see separating kids from parents as the best way to handle things at the border, but it's currently the way we're forced to do it under the wonky laws and regs created by the government (mostly through Democratic efforts, but Repubs are not innocent either). Ideally, there would be no separation within families because there would be no one crossing the border illegally if conservatives had their way. Ideally, people who legitimately have cause to claim asylum (very few claimants do) would be allowed in as family units, and far less people would suffer separation because all others would be well discouraged by (1) strong, effective leadership and messaging, and by (2) a well-fenced, well-manned border, from making the trip to the border in the first place. Central and South American nations have responsibilities to their own citizens; the U.S. citizens are not responsible for righting all wrongs and enriching all of the poor, nor do we have the resources as a nation to undertake the role of 'policeman to the world,' but Christians individually and as the Church can certainly take actions to help some of them. As with the previous social issue, progressive and neo-liberal Christians abdicate their individual responsibilities by forcing the burden upon all members of the State via marginally effective, bureaucrat-controlled governmental initiatives that flail about and mostly fail... but at least they make the progressives feel like 'they did their part.' This is how conservatives look at it. Can you appreciate the merits of this perspective, even if you don't agree with it?

Conservatives have the belief that cutting taxes encourages economic growth, increases disposable income, and by the greater spending and incomes causes an increase in collected tax revenue. This belief is based upon factual patterns of economic behavior, not just in US history but going back much further in time. High taxation tends to lead to fiscal instability, and sometimes to revolution. The US was created on the principle of keeping government off the backs of the citizens, keeping the federal government in check (minimizing its power), keeping taxes low and freedom to innovate high. Anyhow, for the past decades there is zero relationship between tax rates and military spending; the government is simply borrowing money at irresponsible rates to spend willy-nilly on whatever the party in power prefers (and to line the pockets of the powerful in the process). But maintaining the citizens' safety through a standing military is one of the Constitutional duties of our federal government (whereas all the social programs are ultra vires usurpations of authority), so conservatives really have little patience or sympathy for the argument that we need to remove spending from public security and apply it to social programs. Were we to be invaded by China or bombed into oblivion by Iran, North Korea, or Russia, how much good would the social programs have accomplished, anyway? Again, you might disagree with this assessment, but can you discount it as a completely meritless and unworthy viewpoint, worthy only of hyperbole and dismissiveness?

 

Aaaah. There it is. I've been waiting for it, and lo! It finally came.

Enlightened.

Romans 1:22

My light is the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the light of the world (John 8:12).

 

There should be some separation between theology and politics. However, I totally understand our theology should and does impact our political views. Capitalism, immigration, and the military are issues that aren't as Biblically one-sided as one may suppose. I am a social traditionalist, but I am not really a big fan of what passes as "modern" capitalism. IMO Capitalism/consumerism has done more to destroy a Christian ethic than the bogeyman of "socialism." Many traditionists are starting to understand this.

 

I agree, actually. Though I would argue that what America has now is not "capitalism" but "mercantilism". "Capitalism" died sometime around the time Lyndon Johnson implemented the Great Society (or when FDR implemented the New Deal during the Depression), and the corpse was buried once and for all when Nixon took us off the gold standard and loosened the antitrust regulatory framework. The USA hasn't had a capitalist economic system for more than a half century now.

Also, the relationship between tax rates and revenue is called the Laffer curve. When tax rates go too high, revenue actually goes down. This has been observed in practice many, many times. But it's a lesson our government has to re-learn every ten years or so.

EDIT: I'd actually call our system "socialist-mercantilist", because most of the money our government spends goes to social programs. (Not to the military as a lot of people claim.) Social Security and Medicare alone consume about 40% of the federal budget (and it's only that low due to financial trickery by debt-financing entitlement spending).

 

I agree with the rest of your post, but this line specifically, in my experience, is untrue. Sure there is an perception of a barrier, as liberal young people see the church as something hostile that they should oppose, and therefore it seems like the challenge of evangelism is even harder than usual. But, from what I have seen, that's actually not true.

There's this evangelical church run entirely by young people that has been trying pretty hard to recruit me lately, and I've attended a few of their bible studies to see what's going on. What I have seen absolutely floors me. Australia is having another COVID outbreak so their study sessions have gone online, I attended one a few days ago. They had 109 people in a Zoom call, almost all of them atheists/agnostics, with a few possibly non-practicing Christians. These people show up three times a week to read the bible together! Atheists! All of them under 30, most (by appearances) under 22. All located in one city, most of the recruitment done on University campuses (not exactly a bastion of people open to conservative branded institutions).

It's insane to me how quickly this church is growing. They do these bible sessions for 6 months, they cover almost everything of importance in the bible, from Genesis to Revelation, 3 times a week, and most of the session converts/find their faith again and become regular church goers. I haven't attended one of their actual services to see how the actual Sunday church sessions are attended, but it cannot possibly be smaller than the bible study. They don't talk about conservative opinions or why churches aren't actually 'problematic', they've got no interest in defending the church from the culture. The session I went to someone brought up abortion after the lesson was over, one of the other people in the Zoom went on a bit of a tirade about how it's murder. By the visible reactions of people in the Zoom call, it's clear almost everyone else was uncomfortable. The teachers handled it perfectly, and they did it by ignoring the hurdle all together. They just said "Let's not listen to what one priest told us on television, or another person says you're supposed to believe. If you want to know what Bob thinks do you ask Alice what Bob thinks? Or do you ask Bob himself? So let's ask God. And God tells us the answer where? In the bible. So we'll get to that eventually, but for now, let's just remember to get our answers from the bible.".

My point is, I think scripture overwhelms any actual barriers or hurdles we think exist. Liberal churches don't actually have to break through stereotypes, they just think they do. I've seen with my own eyes if you just focus on the Good News, and ignore all the noise, people receive it with the same enthusiasm they have for the past 1900 and a bit years. All hurdles and barriers are just in our heads.