Episcopal church without gay marriage

“For what is a Man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has nought.
To say the things, he truly feels,
And not the words, of one who kneels.
The record shows, I took the blows,
And did it my way.”
-Frank Sinatra

 

Thanks for sharing about that bunch. News of their success in reaching the lost with the Gospel is worth a hundred 'likes'!

Is there a link to this church? I'd like to see what all they are teaching.... I'd like a look at their curriculum or study plan.

 

I hear what you’re saying, and I believe every word of it. What you’ve described is how it should be done. Not “liberal”, not “conservative”, or any other labels, but rather, what does the Scripture actually say, and what are we supposed to do with that? It’s beautiful. I wish there was more of that here in the States. I can’t emphasize enough how toxic it’s gotten here, and unfortunately that toxicity is largely coming from one direction. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve talked to young people who are spiritually curious and yearning for something more, yet are totally closed off to Christianity because of what some ignorant, bigoted minister or overzealous layperson had to say about some culture war issue. I see it all the time, and it’s incredibly disheartening.

 

I've looked around for one, but couldn't find it. As far as I can tell all of their communication and networking is done by text message. Not to let you down after building you up, but to be honest I think I might have commented too soon - yes they have huge classes, but I tried to ask them what church they went to and the name and they were pretty uncomfortable and dodged the question. I don't mean to cast doubt on them without any information but my immediate thought is that was a warning sign.

 

Thanks for looking. I suppose their reluctance could cut either way. It might be a cult. Then again it might be that they want to avoid denominational labeling because of all the infighting between denoms. It's hard to be certain, but the fact that they are drawing substantial numbers of unbelievers into Bible studies suggests that the supernatural power of God may be at work through them.

Don't they even have a name they go by? No web page? Hard to imagine not having one these days.

 

No web page, mailing list, facebook page, instagram or anything. Which, you know... red flags.

Anyway I figured I'd scope them out some more because so far everything I've seen in their bible studies have been all good, well run and well taught, so I don't want to be dismissive just because they're highly decentralised.

 

It would seem your latest posts on this thread validate (or at least do not contradict) what I was originally saying. More “liberal” churches are a victim not only of the decline of Christianity in the West in general (the Roman Catholic Church loses far more members each year than the Episcopal Church does, for example), but also of the decline of the West itself. On top of that, we have to overcome propaganda that ultimately aligns fundamentalism with the political far Right (fascism/nationalism) in the name of “Christianity”, which turns away millennials and Gen-Xers. I see this all the time. There are some things we could be doing better but it’s not from lack of trying.

 

If the young generations are turned away by traditionalism, then why are traditional Christian churches blooming? While the liberal Churches are filled with boomers, and shedding members like it's going out of style?

There are dozens of articles that describe the phenomenon of millennials and Gen-Z seemingly attracted to the traditional and orthodox expressions of Christianity.

The Evangelical churches are faithful to Christ, and filled with young people. So are traditional liturgical churches. My own parish (hardline 1928 BCP), is 50% filled with young families (each with 3-5 children).

Here are other articles and podcasts speaking on the phenomenon:

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-rise-of-latin-mass-youth



Podcast: https://anglican.audio/2018/07/03/fh22-youthful-traditionalism/

---

This is what the future of the Church looks like:

 

Yes, it would be interesting to hear if you eventually spot any glaring heterodoxy or heresy in their teachings.

I'm itching to know what they're doing right to bring in so many potential converts. It might be something we in the US can duplicate. Even if there turned out to be some errors being included in the lesson plans, these errors could be weeded out.

 

Which “traditional” Churches? There are plenty of styles focused on “church growth” but I’d hardly call these “traditional”. You and I both know from personal experience that the EO are great at bringing in converts, yet the EOC in America never seems to grow as a whole. The RCC loses more members each year than any other American denomination by far. Where are all these “blooming”, “traditional” churches? It seems to me that if they’re blooming, they’re not traditional, and if they’re traditional, they’re not blooming. People need to see that Christianity offers them something they can’t receive anyplace else, and that it’s not a time-consuming act to remain in good standing despite acting in good faith. Of all the denominations, I would have thought Methodism in particular would have had the best grasp on all this, but that hasn’t turned out to be the case. They’re in the same boat the rest of us are. I think a revival of Benedictinism might be the answer, but only time will tell.

 

Here. This was posted just a few days ago:

 

I’m sympathetic to Catholics concerned about the TLM but any interest in it is a drop in the bucket.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/08/orthodoxy-and-the-latin-mass

 

I think that what we are witnessing in our generation is the gradual disintegration of the hypocrisies of organised religion and the demise of organised Christian religion itself, rather than the demise of the actual Christian faith.

Denominations, from Roman Catholicism to the Scottish 'We Freeze' deliberately misspelt, are wedded to the idea that THEY are the only true church and that being a disciple of Christ in their esteemed, exclusive company involves faultless following and stringent adherence to every 'rule' espoused by the leadership, in order to preserve the obvious 'purity' of its membership.

This is what really drives the desire of the 'acceptable righteous' to expel any who fail to 'live up to' whatever standards the 'acceptable righteous' have decided or have become convinced the religion requires of them, and that they are demonstrably able to abide by themselves. (If we must do it, so must you, or be expelled from our denom.)

It is a mistake to think that any of the Christian Denominations are actual 'Christianity' itself. None of them as organisations measure up to what Christ would expect of them as organisations. All of them are in various degrees of unworthiness. They are all entirely made up of 'unworthy servants of Christ' Luke 17:10. Their only differences are in the nature of their deficiencies. Some are too arrogant, some are too lax, some are too bigotedly exclusive, some are too rich, some are too 'super spiritual', some are too 'worldly', some are too self satisfied and complacent, some are too anxious to preserve their 'purity of doctrine' to the extent of rejecting and discouraging sinners joining, who would otherwise prove to be an embarrassment to such 'successful and faithful', followers of Jesus Christ.

My advice to any Holy Spirit filled, true disciple of Jesus Christ who has found a church that needs no reform, has complete purity of doctrine and is as welcoming and understanding of sinners as was Jesus Christ - leave it - your job has been done, your destiny as a disciple of Christ for that church is fulfilled - you are needed elsewhere, in a church that has not yet reached such dizzy heights of heavenly righteousness.

To nearly quote a famous President of the USA: "Think not how your church should adopt your moral and spiritual standards but rather how your own moral and spiritual standards reflect Christ's".

One's opinion on whether it is sinful to 'bless' same sex relationships in church hinges on some underlying assumptions which may or may not be valid.

(1) Is it the church's job to regulate people's behaviour by imposing rules of conduct upon them or rather to lead people into an understanding of what Christ has done for them, and leave them to regulate their own behaviour in the light of their new understanding of Christ's teaching?

(2) Is blessing any couple's commitment to one another in vows of faithfulness also necessarily approving of any and every sexual act which they may choose to engage in subsequently? Do we really believe this to be true?

(3) Is the swearing of marriage vows about the quality of the couple's relationship or merely gaining permission from the church, to engage in certain sexual acts, exempting them from guilt for the sin of fornication?

It seems that some denominations have left the decision to the individual who performs the ceremony on whether same sex 'marriages' should be preferred over profligacy, and recognised by the church as commitments to a monogamous relationship. Also that the person conducting such a 'blessing' is not expressing any endorsement whatever, or permission by the church, for any sexual acts whatever.

That should be entirely the responsibility and concern of the individuals themselves.
.

 

So the Episcopal Church is losing a diocese every single year, while in my parish and here are example of churches are actually growing, and mostly filled with young people. Yet the most you can do is sniff at them with dismissal, because they are passionate for the historic Christian faith.

 

Or incurably hooked on tradition. Numbers are no guide to faithfulness of following. John 6:66-69. Of course there are those who would not consider this a good reason for staying in a church that does not preen their theological fleas, maybe because it has too many 6's in it for their superstitious liking.
.

 

The most self indulgent, self aggrandising, self satisfied, self congratulatory, arrogantly independent, godless load of tripe ever written and sung.
.

 

If possible I would give a "like" to your first five paragraphs, and then cover the remainder with six feet of earth topped with sod to prevent the stench.

 

What could possibly justify such smugness? Local conditions vary. Being "passionate for the historic Christian faith" is no excuse for schism, and I've personally never had any attraction to the ACNA for precisely that reason. I want to be part of the real thing, not some breakaway group. And I have zero interest in taking sides in the culture wars. It's hard enough to deal with demographic trends and population flight, competition with pop culture and the like, without other people who call themselves "Anglicans" poaching your members and then pointing the finger at you. I have no sympathy for that, and I do personally resent it, especially when I have to respond to it on an ostensibly "Anglican" site. That being said, I'm not "sniffing" at anything, I'm just doing the math. It would take about 20% annual growth for 20 consecutive years for the ACNA to equal the the current size of the Episcopal Church, and that's not a terribly inspiring goal. It's also statistically very unlikely. More fundamentally, the ACNA has all the same identity problems the Episcopal Church does and is no more hermetically sealed off from the broader North American cultural ethos than the Episcopal Church is. The same thing that has happened to canonical Anglicans and every other mainline denomination will happen to the ACNA as well. It's just a matter of time.

 

Well said. I often wonder if the Church should simply opt out of blessing marriages altogether. There are definite pros and cons there. In any event, what I think is probably the best way forward is to return to the historic position of upholding chastity as the ideal, and leave the fulfillment of that to individual members' consciences.

 

Is that even possible? RCs would say they are the real thing. EO would say the same of themselves. (Even Coca-Cola claimed to be the real thing. )

The point is, "the real thing" has nothing to do with 'who was there first,' as if we were playing 'king of the hill.' It has nothing to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury or who is in communion with Canterbury. The 'real thing' is the universal church of Jesus Christ, wherever His members may be found.

The universal church is constantly in danger of being taken in wrong directions by lousy leaders who've been misled by the enemy's whispers. One could say that the GAFCON and ACNA churches who either stayed with or returned to the path intended by Jesus Christ are more "real thing" than the Canterbury communion churches who've strayed from the path. Canterbury may have been "king of the hill" of orthodoxy before GAFCON, but Canterbury came down off the hilltop while deceiving themselves that they still stood atop it.