Discussion in 'Faith, Devotion & Formation' started by bwallac2335, May 19, 2019.
How did they get so liberal? What happened here?
The seminaries were infiltrated in the 30s and 40s. The first fruit (so to speak) was Bishop James Pike, who in the 1950s began to openly preach heresies that contradicted the sacred scriptures and the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition.
"His outspoken, and to some, heretical views on many theological and social issues made him one of the most controversial public figures of his time. He was an early proponent of ordination of women, ... , and the acceptance of LGBT people within mainline churches. [...] Late in his life he explored psychic experimentation in an effort to contact his recently deceased son." ... "Pike's theology involved the rejection of central Christian beliefs. His writings questioned a number of widely accepted beliefs, including the virginity of Mary, the Mother of Jesus; the doctrine of Hell, and the Trinity."
Everything fell apart when, after he was brought to trial in an ecclesiastical court, he was acquitted on all charges.
"Heresy procedures were begun in 1962, 1964, 1965, and 1966, each growing in intensity, but in the end the Church decided it was not in the denomination's best interest to pursue an actual heresy trial."
Then, in the 1970s, you have the (illegal) ordinations of women deacons, and then women priests (etc) in 1977, which obliterated the historic Ministry. The 1979's revised "Book of Common Prayer" saw the annihilation of the historic Anglican Prayerbook tradition within TEC.
Then you had Bishop Spong in the 1980s help start the Jesus Seminar, which argued, quite literally, that Jesus did not exist. He was not disciplined.
"A prominent theme in Spong's writing is that the popular and literal interpretations of Christian scripture are not sustainable and do not speak honestly to the situation of modern Christian communities. ... He rejects the historical truth claims of some Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth (Spong, 1992) and the bodily resurrection of Jesus (Spong, 1994)." ... "In 1991's Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, Spong argues that St. Paul was homosexual, a theme satirised in Gore Vidal's novel Live from Golgotha."
Then in 2003, Gene Robinson having declared love for his male partner, was put up for consecration as an actual bishop. And it passed, and he became bishop, a successor to the Apostles. He was not disciplined (in fact he was celebrated).
"Robinson is widely known for being the first priest in an openly gay relationship to be consecrated a bishop in a major Christian denomination believing in the historic episcopate"
Of course in 2014 this happened, but who's counting by now: 1st Openly Gay Episcopal Bishop to Divorce Husband
You probably think I'm a fan of Spong but I'm not really. I find with him it is easier to find what is not true about Christianity than what is true. I find his theories a bit forced. He thinks Paul is gay, Paul says he has an affliction, I'm sure if Paul was gay he would say something like he was suffering under a sin. I'm sure I've read in Spong somewhere that he can trace Paul's homosexual development in the Bible after hearing allegedly similar stories from his gay friends. I looked up my Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism but couldn't find it there, must be another book.
Yeah, I’m always skeptical whenever there’s some newly discovered slant on theology that went undiscovered for the first two millennia of Christendom. That’s not how it works.
Not sure who those guys were but I went to college with a guy who is a gay married Episcopal Priest who advertised after the recent abortion laws that you could come visit him on vacation and he would be ok with you getting an abortion while you were with him. That was the gist of his post.
Louie Crew, a chief homosexual activist in the Episcopal Church (and once on track to become a bishop) has written an essay precisely detailing how he had corrupted the Episcopal church in the 80s and 90s....
Full-text of his essay, since it had been taken down from the web:::
Besides pet baptisms, they can have chihuahuas as deacons. They'll also serve eucharist bread crumbs to goldfish, and thanks to the idea that the dead in heaven are not truly dead but still alive in some way or another, have dead enbalmed priests lying in caskets commissioned to do services so they can save themselves the trouble of finding another one. Ironically enough, I had Roman Catholic priests, at least two or so, agree to bless some rabbit's feet that I had, whereas my petitions to the local Episcopal churches to do the same have come up negative, something that I didn't really expect from so liberal a church. (Part in bold is entirely factual).
I do not know how they arrived at where they are today. I can only think one of the problems is that enough people did not resist or did not resist strongly enough. I doubt all members of said church were that liberal and welcomed the changes.
I would say, in my opinion, that they have gone so far as to be considered heterodox at least. Sadly, rather than acknowledging they have gone to far those Anglican churches in the liberal, secular West are following suit.