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

Thank you for your reply Anna!

You raise some very good points. TEC is the perfect example of what happens when one group gains control of a national church. In my opinion, we need much stronger protections put in place for minority opinions and beliefs (whether they be conservative, traditional, moderate, anglo catholic, or evangelical). Further, we need to structure the Church in way in which one group doesn't gain political and hierarchical control of the church like the revisionists have done. We need a system that strengthens the power of minority opinion dioceses and their bishops.

Like I said earlier, I can meet all these different groups at the table, however, we must ensure that these groups are actually welcomed to the table in TEC in the first place (traditionalists and even moderates feel out of place in our province). Also, we must really listen to each other and not pretend to listen to each other and try to find common ground. As I said earlier, I am against the vast majority of what is going on TEC at the top, but I can acknowledge that liberals and conservatives can learn from each other and can find some common ground to work from. Before I get blasted, no that doesn't mean that we have to agree or to dilute our message or beliefs.

As far as the Communion goes, I think that what would be good measures for our province would be good for many provinces in the Communion. Also, I think we all need to be worshiping from a BCP that is much more universal. The BCPs used today are sometimes radically different from province to province, lets get back to basics and strengthen our core, which has always been worship and the BCP. Further, we need some way to make us all more accountable to each other, provincially. We need to take the other provinces of the Communion into account before making radical decisions. Whether the Anglican Covenant or something like it is the answer is something that I don't know.

 

Sean,
I think this is an excellent assessment. If only you were a Bishop. . . .

More later. I'm exhausted.
Anna

 

Are you guys done yet?

...Scottish Monk

 

Why do we have to fight on this site ? Why can't we simply understand that we are not going to agree on everything and that regardless of our differences each persons opinion has value ..

Why do we have to retaliate and why do we have to attack each other in the first place ? What about the presumption of good will that we should be affording each other .And before one of you says anything i am included ..

Can you imagine how easier and more productive our lives would be if we strived to love each other as we love ourselves ..And no I'm not ignoring the issues I'm saying that this is Retarded the way we are going back and forth like this ...

 

Exactly ...Do these beautiful creatures argue like humans ..No .. they are alredys nuts ..

 

WHAT TO DO TO HAVE A MORE ORTHODOX TEC
1) Those more conservative theologically need to stay in TEC.
2) Those who are conservative theologically should be involved in outreach programs to build up the Body.
3) Those who are are conservative theologically should be more active in their churches.
4) Those more conservative theologically should convince those who have left to come back to the Communion, especially those in relatively small Anglican faith communities. At MOST, there is room for TEC and ACNA. IMHO, consolidation is in order, as has been started by the primate of Rwanda. I believe that we have 6 Anglican bishops in South Carolina. That's absurd.

 

All fine ideas mark1, many of us have said from the beginning that we need to find ways to stick together and keep conservatives/traditionalists in TEC.

Many of the conservatives left have a tendancy to not want to "rock the boat", many (including many moderates) have quit caring about the national church long ago and worry about their own parishes, and there are many more conservative/traditionalist/moderates that have no idea what is going on at the national level. Moderates spend way too much time on the fence about things and are often marginalized and pushed to the side. Conservatives, often times, give up and leave or they give up on the national church and concentrate on local stuff. The extreme element of this Church has stayed the course and now they are reaping the benefits of staying the course and forging onward. There was a time when TEC was called "The Republican Party at prayer", the revisionists did not leave the Church.

If moderates/conservatives/traditionalists/evangelicals/anglo-catholics can form a broad and basic coalition on the basics of what they agree on, they would not longer find themselves being led around by the extreme element of the Church. These groups spend way too much time fighting each other over small stuff and lose sight of the big picture (which is one of the points I was originally trying to make with this thread). Even if it's just a coalition formed to get the revisonists out our power, that would be a great start and then we can go back to figuring out where we stand on issues. If we let the revionists continue, what will be left of TEC in 10-20 years?

The fact there that there are multiple Anglican bishops (6 in S.C.) is very un-Anglican and embarrasing. I literally hear of new continuing Anglican groups in America almost every week. The continuing movement, has largely been a total failure (the ACNA being the possible exception, we shall see). You schism off once and the easier it is. These groups don't agree on something, no problem, they schism off and form an even smaller and more irrelevant church while the body of Christ suffers. We have to ask our traditionalist brethren, is it worse to have a gay priest somewhere in the church or is it even more un-Anglican and un-Christian to schism and have 6 Anglican bishops overseeing the same geographic area? I'm strongly against ordaining non-celibate gay priests, but is it truly schism worthy? These are the types of tough questions we have to ask ourselves and our brethren.

And again, to reiterate what mark1 said, get involved in outreach programs and stay active in your parishes!

I'd like to add that the traditionalist/moderate/conservative diocese that are out of step with the national church should appeal to the next Archbishop of Canterbury for help. I don't know who the next ABC is going to be or if he can or would even be willing to help, but we must appeal to him no matter who it is.

I think that these same ideas can be applied to provinces like the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of England, and other provinces.

 

Sean,
All good ideas from you and Mark.

We've talked before about how the AC would be in a better place if no one had broken away. Though I have heard of circumstances in which Parish Rectors were pressured to support ordinations of non-celibates and blessings of same-gender unions. So, we don't really know all the details regarding what led to the breaks with TEC. Also, I think some have left, because of what "Episcopalian" represents to the public, considering so much publicity about the same-gender issues. We come to the issue of how being "Episcopalian" affects our witness as Christians. Many do not understand that there are many orthodox Anglicans in TEC. So, we need to speak up whenever we can and set the record straight, so to speak.

Still, if we keep losing Conservative Anglicans, we could see the collapse of TEC or an expulsion from the AC.

I had asked Mark how to define Conservative and where do the moderates and liberals fit into the picture.

You've addressed this in part by asking whether or not ordaining non-celibate gay priests is "truly schism worthy." Obviously, for those of us still in TEC, the answer is no, at least for now.

I think the suggestion of "moderates/conservatives/traditionalists/evangelicals/anglo-catholics" forming a broad and basic coalition on the basics of agreement is a good idea; and I agree that we spend way too much time fighting each other over small stuff. Consider how difficult it has been to actually get to the issue of this thread.

I still have a question regarding the definition of Conservative. Obviously, we don't all share the same idea of what it means to be "moderates/conservatives/traditionalists/evangelicals/anglo-catholics." I have been called a "liberal" on this forum, when I am very conservative and orthodox in my beliefs.

I suppose, instead of labels, we may need to define a list of issues we can all stand behind and support, which is what I think you are saying. After the GC, I would say the Sacraments are at risk in regards to marriage; and Communion without Baptism, which I think will come up again next GC.

Much to think about,
Anna

 

Sean611...

Excellent comments. If we all focused more upon what we have in common, than our differences, then we would spend more time and resources on evangelism--and our results would show it. As in scholastic circles, I often think disagreement is often brought on by the personal quest for gain. And I think, in the U.S. at least, many of the differences are brought on by consumerism. But then, God speaks to each of us in different ways.

...Scottish Monk

 

Everyone...

Much to think about. Thank you for sharing your comments on this very important thread.

...Scottish Monk

 

Scottish Monk,
I agree that we must commit time and resources on evangelism, which right now includes taking a stand on the issues that have put a negative light on the name "Episcopalian." Hopefully, our evangelism efforts will restore the Episcopal name to one synonymous with faithfully and truthfully proclaiming the Gospel.

Anna

 

Anna,

Yes, we must fight for orthodoxy. There are Anglicans who are not orthodox Christians. They are not Christians as defined by the Creeds.

 

I prefer to just call them what they are. Heretics. (And that is not a term that I use for very many groups or very often.)

To call people like Bishop Spong, Diane Butler, Marcus Borg, and others "Christian" lends them credibility. These people are on the fringe, even in TEC and abroad, but many people would tell you that if they could blame one person for the woes in TEC, it would be Bishop Spong.

Edit--Bishop Spong was brought up on charges, I believe in the early 90s, maybe the late 80s initiated by the Prayer Book Society (many many priests and bishops signed on as well). TEC leadership refused to punish him or find him guilty of leaving the faith of the Church (I guess rejecting Christ's divinity doesn't warrant leaving the faith). In fact, many who signed on against Spong faced backlash from him and others who sympathize with him later.

The reason why this is significant is that it opened up TEC for a whole slew of "revisionists" who can take shots at traditional Christian orthodoxy with no fear of every being punished by the national church.

 

Sean,
I agree. The very foundation of the Christian/Anglican faith is being disregarded and trampled, with no consequences for the offenders. Holy Scripture and the Creeds have been tossed aside.

 

I am OK with using the term "heretic" for Spong and others who deny Christ's divinity, his miracles and/or the resurrection. Are we OK with calling the rest of the liberals our brothers and sisters in Christ?

 

Mark,
I'll have to think about that question, because protecting heretics and allowing them to remain in the Church is an issue.

 

No.