(EDIT: Originally, I planned on leaving TEC at the end of the year for the ACA. However, traveling that distance isn't going to work. I really have no idea what the future holds, but I'm remaining in TEC at least until the end of the year. I edited this post to reflect that change.)
After serious discernment, it is possible I will be leaving the Episcopal Church for another Christian church body. As of yet, I have no idea of where I might go or if I might try to stick it out in TEC after this year ends.
Here are some possibilities:
The ACA is a continuing Anglican Church and part of the Traditional Anglican Communion and tends to lean in an Anglo-Catholic direction. Going in this direction would not be without its challenges as this parish is about an 80 minute drive and I would be able to attend a max of two services a month. That said, the ACA matches my Anglican theological beliefs very well and it seems to be a stable body.
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) is also an option. The option is local, the parish is awesome, and the worship is very liturgical.
Stick it out in TEC. This is what I'd like to do, but the actions of GC78 could make this very difficult.
Regardless of what happens, I will be mostly focusing on Anglicanism in general, as I don't want to be one of those bitter people (and I'm not bitter btw) who do nothing but write hit pieces on their former church.
As always, thanks for reading the blog and I hope, despite some changes, that you will stick around and continue to follow this blog. God Bless!!
Monday, April 6, 2015
Monday, March 16, 2015
Being Christian (Anglican) and Being Libertarian
This blog has kind of been neglected over the last several months. I just haven't had anything of much substance to talk about that hasn't already been beaten to death in other posts. Instead, let us get back to the original purpose of this blog. The purpose of this blog is to reflect on Christianity (Anglicanism in particular) and the experiences of being an Anglican Christian.
It is not my intention to make this a Christian political blog (there is certainly enough of them already). That said, it can be quite tough to be a libertarian and to be a Christian. In fact, it can be tough to be a Christian not be an ardent follower of the Democrat and Republican parties. The Christian Church is pretty sharply divided by secular politics today, a sad and inexcusable truth. What's even more interesting is that the extremes tend to run their respective denominations. In the mainline, you will find leadership that is almost exclusively in the progressive liberal Democrat political camp. In evangelical churches (and some Lutheran, etc.), you will find that most of the leadership that is almost exclusively in the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. Sadly, it is my opinion that the leadership in both these camps take their politics far more seriously than their spiritual beliefs. Why do I say this? Well, you will find Christian leaders making excuses and issuing resolutions supporting the Iraq War when a Republican President takes us to war (looking at you Southern Baptist Convention). On the other side, you will find Christian leaders that were super vocal when a Republican administration goes to war and bombs countries, yet strangely quiet when a Democrat President does the same. Even more strange, you will hear of no resolutions from the mainline condemning Drone Strikes that have killed countless innocent children, yet you heard plenty about gun control after the school shootings (looking at you TEC and other mainline churches). Rather than stand up for the Gospel, which belongs to no 21st century political movement nor party, our Christian leaders are more intent on standing up for their political party and dancing around issues that contradict the Gospel. Ironically, these extreme elements have a lot in common, both spend all of their time being thankful they are not like "those Christians."
So, what do you do if you're a Christian and don't belong to the Democrat or Republican Party? What do you do if you're a Christian that doesn't subscribe to the extreme left or extreme right? Unfortunately, you are going to have a hard time finding a denomination to call home. Whether you are an independent, middle of the road, or especially when you are libertarian. You can find many blogs expressing such frustrations all throughout the world of blogging.
For those who are unfamiliar, libertarianism is essentially the belief that other people are not your property. Essentially, you have no right to force yourself or your beliefs onto others. If you have ever seen the flag with the tag-line "Don't Tread On Me," that pretty much sums up libertarianism. With the rising popularity and the rising tide of young libertarians, many have noticed that the established powers are starting to push back. It seems like every other article these days is a libertarian smear piece: "Libertarians Are Selfish," "Libertarians Are Racists," "Libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity," "Libertarians are Libertines," and on and on and on. In fact, a Roman Catholic Cardinal recently held a conference on libertarianism and its incompatibility with Catholicism. Ironic, considering some of the most famous modern libertarians are Roman Catholic (Lew Rockwell, Thomas Woods, Jeff Tucker). The head of the Southern Baptist Convention recently said that libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity. However, the war-mongering, murdering, drone-bombing, and civil rights/liberties violating Republican and Democrats are apparently perfectly in-line with Christianity! What is it about these libertarians that drives the status-quo crazy and drives Christian leaders on the right and left into a fit of rage? Well, libertarianism challenges current power structures and libertarianism doesn't require you to submit to a certain set of moral beliefs. Take gay marriage, for example. Libertarians can be both for and against gay marriage, so long as neither side uses force to force their beliefs onto someone else. Consenting adults have the right to marry and I have the right to agree or disagree with it. The fact that one doesn't have to be forced into the "correct" belief makes progressive and conservative heads explode.
So far, this post might be sounding like an apologist piece for libertarianism above all else, however, that isn't true. Libertarians just don't like being treated like they can't be Christians or they can't be concerned with the plight of the poor. The purpose of this post is the show the utter hypocrisy of those who say these things, yet advocate and apologize for their own parties/political beliefs above all else, including the Gospel. If the the church leaders want a one word explanation for why less people go to church these days it would be hypocrisy and all sides are guilty of it.
Lastly, it's important to understand that there are two types of Christian libertarians. There are those who believe that the Gospel advocates not specific political philosophy/movement and there are those who believe that the Gospel has a strong libertarian message. One of the chiefs arguments for this second group is that Jesus NEVER used force when advocating his beliefs. Considering that progressive and conservative Christians relish in the use of force, this second group of libertarians may be onto something. I have been called a child murderer by some of my fellow "open-minded" and "diversity loving" Episcopalians for supporting the 2nd Amendment.
In conclusion, I hope this blog does a lot to open-minds. Your fellow libertarian parishioners are not the evil people many would have you believe. Whether or not you agree with or abhor libertarian principles, hopefully you can learn to respect them and treat them just as you would your fellow progressive and conservative Christian brethren. Furthermore, libertarian Christians are generally not looking for a church that rubber stamps their political beliefs, we are essentially just looking for a church that isn't bat shit crazy, for lack of a better explanation.
Part 2 Coming Soon
It is not my intention to make this a Christian political blog (there is certainly enough of them already). That said, it can be quite tough to be a libertarian and to be a Christian. In fact, it can be tough to be a Christian not be an ardent follower of the Democrat and Republican parties. The Christian Church is pretty sharply divided by secular politics today, a sad and inexcusable truth. What's even more interesting is that the extremes tend to run their respective denominations. In the mainline, you will find leadership that is almost exclusively in the progressive liberal Democrat political camp. In evangelical churches (and some Lutheran, etc.), you will find that most of the leadership that is almost exclusively in the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. Sadly, it is my opinion that the leadership in both these camps take their politics far more seriously than their spiritual beliefs. Why do I say this? Well, you will find Christian leaders making excuses and issuing resolutions supporting the Iraq War when a Republican President takes us to war (looking at you Southern Baptist Convention). On the other side, you will find Christian leaders that were super vocal when a Republican administration goes to war and bombs countries, yet strangely quiet when a Democrat President does the same. Even more strange, you will hear of no resolutions from the mainline condemning Drone Strikes that have killed countless innocent children, yet you heard plenty about gun control after the school shootings (looking at you TEC and other mainline churches). Rather than stand up for the Gospel, which belongs to no 21st century political movement nor party, our Christian leaders are more intent on standing up for their political party and dancing around issues that contradict the Gospel. Ironically, these extreme elements have a lot in common, both spend all of their time being thankful they are not like "those Christians."
So, what do you do if you're a Christian and don't belong to the Democrat or Republican Party? What do you do if you're a Christian that doesn't subscribe to the extreme left or extreme right? Unfortunately, you are going to have a hard time finding a denomination to call home. Whether you are an independent, middle of the road, or especially when you are libertarian. You can find many blogs expressing such frustrations all throughout the world of blogging.
For those who are unfamiliar, libertarianism is essentially the belief that other people are not your property. Essentially, you have no right to force yourself or your beliefs onto others. If you have ever seen the flag with the tag-line "Don't Tread On Me," that pretty much sums up libertarianism. With the rising popularity and the rising tide of young libertarians, many have noticed that the established powers are starting to push back. It seems like every other article these days is a libertarian smear piece: "Libertarians Are Selfish," "Libertarians Are Racists," "Libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity," "Libertarians are Libertines," and on and on and on. In fact, a Roman Catholic Cardinal recently held a conference on libertarianism and its incompatibility with Catholicism. Ironic, considering some of the most famous modern libertarians are Roman Catholic (Lew Rockwell, Thomas Woods, Jeff Tucker). The head of the Southern Baptist Convention recently said that libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity. However, the war-mongering, murdering, drone-bombing, and civil rights/liberties violating Republican and Democrats are apparently perfectly in-line with Christianity! What is it about these libertarians that drives the status-quo crazy and drives Christian leaders on the right and left into a fit of rage? Well, libertarianism challenges current power structures and libertarianism doesn't require you to submit to a certain set of moral beliefs. Take gay marriage, for example. Libertarians can be both for and against gay marriage, so long as neither side uses force to force their beliefs onto someone else. Consenting adults have the right to marry and I have the right to agree or disagree with it. The fact that one doesn't have to be forced into the "correct" belief makes progressive and conservative heads explode.
So far, this post might be sounding like an apologist piece for libertarianism above all else, however, that isn't true. Libertarians just don't like being treated like they can't be Christians or they can't be concerned with the plight of the poor. The purpose of this post is the show the utter hypocrisy of those who say these things, yet advocate and apologize for their own parties/political beliefs above all else, including the Gospel. If the the church leaders want a one word explanation for why less people go to church these days it would be hypocrisy and all sides are guilty of it.
Lastly, it's important to understand that there are two types of Christian libertarians. There are those who believe that the Gospel advocates not specific political philosophy/movement and there are those who believe that the Gospel has a strong libertarian message. One of the chiefs arguments for this second group is that Jesus NEVER used force when advocating his beliefs. Considering that progressive and conservative Christians relish in the use of force, this second group of libertarians may be onto something. I have been called a child murderer by some of my fellow "open-minded" and "diversity loving" Episcopalians for supporting the 2nd Amendment.
In conclusion, I hope this blog does a lot to open-minds. Your fellow libertarian parishioners are not the evil people many would have you believe. Whether or not you agree with or abhor libertarian principles, hopefully you can learn to respect them and treat them just as you would your fellow progressive and conservative Christian brethren. Furthermore, libertarian Christians are generally not looking for a church that rubber stamps their political beliefs, we are essentially just looking for a church that isn't bat shit crazy, for lack of a better explanation.
Part 2 Coming Soon
Monday, August 18, 2014
The Feast Day of St. Mary the Virgin and Anglo-Catholic Worship
I had the pleasure of being able to attend an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal parish this past Sunday, while visiting family. This was significant because the service was a celebration of the feast day of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I should note that my parish certainly leans in a "high-church" direction and some certainly lean in a Catholic direction (including myself), however, it was the first opportunity I've had to attend a self-identifying Anglo-Catholic parish that was celebrating the feast day of the BVM.
This opportunity was also significant because my mother, who was raised and who raised us Jehovah's Witness, was able to attend this service with my family. My mother, who is disfellowshipped and shunned by some of her family, has converted to Christianity and is currently looking for a place to attend and a Church to call home. I was really praying that she enjoyed the service and would contemplate the Anglican tradition and trinitarian baptism.
The service was incredible. This down-town parish was built in 1858 and has been an Anglo-Catholic beacon in this region and has been serving the poor in the down-town area since its inception. The solemn procession was filled with the smells of incense. The statue of the Blessed Virgin was blessed and collects to the BV filled the church. Hymns, sung by an amazing choir, proclaimed the honor and dignity that is due to St. Mary. All-in-all, it was an experience that made use of all the human senses in proclaiming Christ as Lord and Mary the Mother of our Lord. The priest asked us in his sermon to focus on the faith that the BV had in God and to focus on the importance of Mary and her place as Mother to the Lord. This was followed by a powerful Eucharist, that was chanted and sung.
After the service and during the car ride, I asked my mother what she thought. She said she had never seen anything more meaningful and more beautiful in her life. She already plans on taking classes on the Anglican tradition and plans on speaking with the Rector about being baptized! Thanks be to God!!
This opportunity was also significant because my mother, who was raised and who raised us Jehovah's Witness, was able to attend this service with my family. My mother, who is disfellowshipped and shunned by some of her family, has converted to Christianity and is currently looking for a place to attend and a Church to call home. I was really praying that she enjoyed the service and would contemplate the Anglican tradition and trinitarian baptism.
The service was incredible. This down-town parish was built in 1858 and has been an Anglo-Catholic beacon in this region and has been serving the poor in the down-town area since its inception. The solemn procession was filled with the smells of incense. The statue of the Blessed Virgin was blessed and collects to the BV filled the church. Hymns, sung by an amazing choir, proclaimed the honor and dignity that is due to St. Mary. All-in-all, it was an experience that made use of all the human senses in proclaiming Christ as Lord and Mary the Mother of our Lord. The priest asked us in his sermon to focus on the faith that the BV had in God and to focus on the importance of Mary and her place as Mother to the Lord. This was followed by a powerful Eucharist, that was chanted and sung.
After the service and during the car ride, I asked my mother what she thought. She said she had never seen anything more meaningful and more beautiful in her life. She already plans on taking classes on the Anglican tradition and plans on speaking with the Rector about being baptized! Thanks be to God!!
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Concerns:Trying to be Anglican in the Episcopal Church
I want to thank everybody who has read and commented on this blog. I could have never imagined that this blog would be closing in on 4,000 views, incredible! I am humbled and thankful for all that have read and shared my blog with others. This blog started out as a project to talk about all things Anglican (and some things Jehovah's Witness) from the prospective of a lay Episcopalian and I have really enjoyed the comments, friends, and conversations that have come about because of this blog.
Truth be told, I'm have some concerns I'd like to share. These last few months, I've been in contact with several friends who finally given up on and left TEC. Most of these friends have gone the Roman route, while another has decided to give Lutheranism a shot (Missouri Synod). The truth is, many of us have very deep reservations when it comes to the direction of TEC and its leaders. Anglicanism is in our heart and soul, however, if something is no longer recognizable as being Anglican and being an Anglican makes you an outsider, then what is to be gained by staying? These are questions that I sometimes ask myself. I belong to a wonderful, welcoming, yet very traditionalist parish. I have no qualms with my parish nor with my bishop.
That being the case, I do have some pretty major qualms with many other bishops and those who serve at the national church level. One of my biggest concerns is the possible passage of Communion Without Baptism at the 2015 General Convention. The Episcopal Church spent the 70s convincing people that baptism is where one enters the Christian Church and is when one can partake in the Eucharist. What does it say about our catholicity if one doesn't even have to be a Christian to share in the Eucharist feast, let along believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? St. Paul warns us that such an open-table Eucharist policy is dangerous, not for the Church, but for the person who is not yet ready to receive. Baptism before Communion has been the norm for two-thousand years and we might throw this tradition out the window just so some imaginary person may feel more welcome. Not only will a number of Episcopalians leave if this happens, nobody else will join the church because we have lifted the "restriction" of being baptized before taking Communion. People who are interested in joining the church become baptized after all!
My next major qualm with TEC leadership is that there is no accountability when it comes to heretical priests and bishops. I know that "heretic" is a dirty word amongst us Anglicans, however, we have to have some accountability for those who abandon the faith and practices or this church, otherwise we just as well be Unitarian. TEC has spent some 22-24 million dollars litigating those who left TEC and took the church property with them. In some cases, priests and bishops have been pressured or removed or even charged with abandoning the Episcopal Church simply because they are not progressive enough on some issues. Yet, the dean of Washington National Cathedral describes himself as being a "non-theistic" Christian (an atheist Christian), who does not believe in marriage or in God (read here). Not only has this man not been charged with abandoning the faith of this church, he has been promoted to one of the most prestigious Cathedrals in all of America! Thus, some priests are not allowed to have differing views over homosexuality, yet some priests can openly deny belief in God and nothing happens (except that they get promoted!). Sadly, we can do this all day long when it comes to those in leadership positions in the Episcopal Church. The horror stories are all out there for those to read. There are parishes that have Hindu and Buddhist worship hours and there are those parishes that have allowed pagan festival to be conducted in the parishes. We have Bob Dylan Masses, gay disco Masses, and plain disco Masses (gay disco mass). If I were a gay member of this church I would be incredibly offended of such actions and many are. We have the dean of a divinity school call abortion a sacrament and get rewarded for her "prophetic witness." (read in horror) There are those who refuse to refer to God as the Trinity in the liturgy and instead uses deist language like "great being" or "creator." Heck, it is even a mystery whether or not the Presiding Bishop herself even believes in the divinity of Christ! (read here) I'd like to think that this stuff is rare and blown out of proportion, but it is more common than many of us would like to admit I'm afraid.
My next major complaint is that if one is not a staunch supporter of 21st century progressive liberal politics, then they are made to feel like they don't care about social justice. Truth is, I'm not a progressive or a conservative. However, all of the national leadership's solutions when it comes to social justice issues is basically the platform of the progressive liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It is pathetic just how partisan they are and how the only solutions they are interested in are progressive solutions. I would like to inform the progressive liberal social justice "gurus" that progressive liberalism didn't exist in the days Christ walked this earth and that there is nothing in the bible that affirms or doesn't affirm progressivism or any other political "ism." If you don't support gun control, high taxes, government expansion, and assaults on civil liberties, then you are going to feel like an alien in this church at times. Why do we need to constantly take these church dividing stands that are likely to do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. I just don't think the average politician cares about the political beliefs of a denomination that has an average Sunday attendance that is less than the population of moderately sized U.S. cities.
Sadly, I sometimes feel embarrassed to tell people I'm Episcopalian. I've had people very seriously ask me if Episcopalians were still considered Christians or if they considered themselves to be Christian! These people are not asking this because they think we are Roman Catholics, but because of all the nonsense that they hear about going on in the Episcopal Church. The sad thing is, those who truly adhere to the Creeds, tradition, the Bible, and the BCP are bound to feel uncomfortable and like they don't belong even though they are devoutly Anglican! The Episcopal Church is not the Unitarian church or the universalist church, it is an Anglican Church! Denying the Trinity is not Anglican. Denying the Creeds is not Anglican. Gay disco Masses are offensive and are not Anglican. Calling abortion a "sacrament" is offensive and not Anglican (I feel that it's satanic). Holding traditionalist clergy to differing standards than "progressive" clergy is not Anglican. Christians suing each other for property is not Anglican. Communion without baptism is not Anglican....and the list goes on.
Is all hope lost? I don't think so. The influence of such theologians as Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, and, especially, John Spong has been wavering considerably (and never really caught on with the laity to begin with). The youth that are coming out of seminary have a strong interest in traditionalism and Anglicanism. The question remains, will these new seminarians be too little too late? That is the million dollar question.
In conclusion, I currently have no plans to leave TEC. That said, it is something that is constantly on my mind. How much longer will this Anglican be allowed to be Anglican in an Anglican Church? Sounds silly, but it is a legitimate concern. If Communion without baptism passes, are we still Anglican? The truth is, I believe in Anglican Christianity and I believe that a church can be inclusive without selling the whole of Christianity down the river, while avoiding church dividing secular political issues. I recently saw a poster on another site say that when he decided to leave TEC, his Episcopalian friends told him you are just looking for a "perfect church" and a perfect church does not exist. The poster agreed with this sentiment, however, he asked that he only wanted to find a parish that was still Christian and not a steaming pile. Sadly, he couldn't find a parish that was Anglican in any sense of the word. How common is this? We are heading in a direction where the Episcopal Church is inclusive of all things, except Anglicanism.
Thoughts?
Truth be told, I'm have some concerns I'd like to share. These last few months, I've been in contact with several friends who finally given up on and left TEC. Most of these friends have gone the Roman route, while another has decided to give Lutheranism a shot (Missouri Synod). The truth is, many of us have very deep reservations when it comes to the direction of TEC and its leaders. Anglicanism is in our heart and soul, however, if something is no longer recognizable as being Anglican and being an Anglican makes you an outsider, then what is to be gained by staying? These are questions that I sometimes ask myself. I belong to a wonderful, welcoming, yet very traditionalist parish. I have no qualms with my parish nor with my bishop.
That being the case, I do have some pretty major qualms with many other bishops and those who serve at the national church level. One of my biggest concerns is the possible passage of Communion Without Baptism at the 2015 General Convention. The Episcopal Church spent the 70s convincing people that baptism is where one enters the Christian Church and is when one can partake in the Eucharist. What does it say about our catholicity if one doesn't even have to be a Christian to share in the Eucharist feast, let along believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? St. Paul warns us that such an open-table Eucharist policy is dangerous, not for the Church, but for the person who is not yet ready to receive. Baptism before Communion has been the norm for two-thousand years and we might throw this tradition out the window just so some imaginary person may feel more welcome. Not only will a number of Episcopalians leave if this happens, nobody else will join the church because we have lifted the "restriction" of being baptized before taking Communion. People who are interested in joining the church become baptized after all!
My next major qualm with TEC leadership is that there is no accountability when it comes to heretical priests and bishops. I know that "heretic" is a dirty word amongst us Anglicans, however, we have to have some accountability for those who abandon the faith and practices or this church, otherwise we just as well be Unitarian. TEC has spent some 22-24 million dollars litigating those who left TEC and took the church property with them. In some cases, priests and bishops have been pressured or removed or even charged with abandoning the Episcopal Church simply because they are not progressive enough on some issues. Yet, the dean of Washington National Cathedral describes himself as being a "non-theistic" Christian (an atheist Christian), who does not believe in marriage or in God (read here). Not only has this man not been charged with abandoning the faith of this church, he has been promoted to one of the most prestigious Cathedrals in all of America! Thus, some priests are not allowed to have differing views over homosexuality, yet some priests can openly deny belief in God and nothing happens (except that they get promoted!). Sadly, we can do this all day long when it comes to those in leadership positions in the Episcopal Church. The horror stories are all out there for those to read. There are parishes that have Hindu and Buddhist worship hours and there are those parishes that have allowed pagan festival to be conducted in the parishes. We have Bob Dylan Masses, gay disco Masses, and plain disco Masses (gay disco mass). If I were a gay member of this church I would be incredibly offended of such actions and many are. We have the dean of a divinity school call abortion a sacrament and get rewarded for her "prophetic witness." (read in horror) There are those who refuse to refer to God as the Trinity in the liturgy and instead uses deist language like "great being" or "creator." Heck, it is even a mystery whether or not the Presiding Bishop herself even believes in the divinity of Christ! (read here) I'd like to think that this stuff is rare and blown out of proportion, but it is more common than many of us would like to admit I'm afraid.
My next major complaint is that if one is not a staunch supporter of 21st century progressive liberal politics, then they are made to feel like they don't care about social justice. Truth is, I'm not a progressive or a conservative. However, all of the national leadership's solutions when it comes to social justice issues is basically the platform of the progressive liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It is pathetic just how partisan they are and how the only solutions they are interested in are progressive solutions. I would like to inform the progressive liberal social justice "gurus" that progressive liberalism didn't exist in the days Christ walked this earth and that there is nothing in the bible that affirms or doesn't affirm progressivism or any other political "ism." If you don't support gun control, high taxes, government expansion, and assaults on civil liberties, then you are going to feel like an alien in this church at times. Why do we need to constantly take these church dividing stands that are likely to do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. I just don't think the average politician cares about the political beliefs of a denomination that has an average Sunday attendance that is less than the population of moderately sized U.S. cities.
Sadly, I sometimes feel embarrassed to tell people I'm Episcopalian. I've had people very seriously ask me if Episcopalians were still considered Christians or if they considered themselves to be Christian! These people are not asking this because they think we are Roman Catholics, but because of all the nonsense that they hear about going on in the Episcopal Church. The sad thing is, those who truly adhere to the Creeds, tradition, the Bible, and the BCP are bound to feel uncomfortable and like they don't belong even though they are devoutly Anglican! The Episcopal Church is not the Unitarian church or the universalist church, it is an Anglican Church! Denying the Trinity is not Anglican. Denying the Creeds is not Anglican. Gay disco Masses are offensive and are not Anglican. Calling abortion a "sacrament" is offensive and not Anglican (I feel that it's satanic). Holding traditionalist clergy to differing standards than "progressive" clergy is not Anglican. Christians suing each other for property is not Anglican. Communion without baptism is not Anglican....and the list goes on.
Is all hope lost? I don't think so. The influence of such theologians as Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, and, especially, John Spong has been wavering considerably (and never really caught on with the laity to begin with). The youth that are coming out of seminary have a strong interest in traditionalism and Anglicanism. The question remains, will these new seminarians be too little too late? That is the million dollar question.
In conclusion, I currently have no plans to leave TEC. That said, it is something that is constantly on my mind. How much longer will this Anglican be allowed to be Anglican in an Anglican Church? Sounds silly, but it is a legitimate concern. If Communion without baptism passes, are we still Anglican? The truth is, I believe in Anglican Christianity and I believe that a church can be inclusive without selling the whole of Christianity down the river, while avoiding church dividing secular political issues. I recently saw a poster on another site say that when he decided to leave TEC, his Episcopalian friends told him you are just looking for a "perfect church" and a perfect church does not exist. The poster agreed with this sentiment, however, he asked that he only wanted to find a parish that was still Christian and not a steaming pile. Sadly, he couldn't find a parish that was Anglican in any sense of the word. How common is this? We are heading in a direction where the Episcopal Church is inclusive of all things, except Anglicanism.
Thoughts?
Friday, May 23, 2014
Political Correctness VS. Theological Reflection
This post is inspired by a fantastic blog post I read on the blog catholicity and covenant. The title is called "The Anglicans George Weigel doesn't know."
In it, the blog poster responds to sharp attacks on Anglicanism, by Roman Catholic commentator George Weigel, regarding the selling out of Christian orthodoxy to political correctness and whatever society decides is good.
George Weigel says that women's ordination and same-sex blessings are sell outs to modern society that started with the supposed acceptance of contraception in the 1930s.
Here is what the poster says in response to contraception:
"As for the two issues raised by Weigel - contraception and women priests - Anglicanism's developing doctrine on these two issues may be presented in terms of conformity to modernity, but they need not be. The 1930 Lambeth resolution on contraception was no acceptance of an understanding of sexuality defined by a contraception mentality:
The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience."
This certainly doesn't sound like approval and the Episcopal Church leaves these issues to the believer's conscience. Perhaps Weigel would be better served by worrying about the 98% of Roman Catholic women who have used contraceptives?
Moving on to women's ordination, the poster says:
"Regarding the ordination of women as priests, in 2009 +Rowan reminded us that the Anglican decision to ordain women to the ministerial priesthood, while it can be dismissed as conforming to modernity, is rooted in explicitly theological reflection:
"The claim of certain Anglican provinces is that the ordination of women explicitly looks to an agreed historic theology of ordained ministry as set out in the ARCIC report and other sources ... But for many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women, which in their view threatens to undermine the coherence of the ecclesiology in question."
In some cases, are such arguments framed in political correctness terms? Of course, but for the those who are centered on the "Trinity" and a "Christological center", the arguments are rooted in theological reflection, not conforming to society.
The blogger finishes up by saying:
"The same can be said for the on-going debate surrounding human sexuality. Thus, for example, +Rowan's 'The Body's Grace' and Sam Wells' more recent 'Wholly Holy', quite clearly do not argue for a conformity to modernity but, rather, seek to reflect on the phenomenon of committed same-sex relationships in light of the Trinitarian and Christological centre.
It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that Weigel doesn't really know and doesn't 'get' Anglicanism. Admittedly his experience may be defined by encounters with those in TEC still shaped and defined by the liberal protestant agenda of the 60s and 70s. Many of us, however, who are catholic, evangelical, charismatic or liberal Anglicans simply will not recognise ourselves in Weigel's descriptions."
Arguments can be made supporting same-sex blessings by deeply rooted theological arguments. The blogger points out that the liberal protestant agenda of the 60s is largely gone from the episcopacy of the Church of England. Theological arguments regarding these issues can be made, but they must be rooted in a Christological and Trinitarian understanding and the not the political/theological understandings of 1960s liberal protestantism, which has little use for deep theological reflection. Parishes that are conservative, evangelical, catholic, liberal, and Charismatic that have this focus on the Trinity and a Christological center will not match the descriptions of Anglicanism given by George Weigel. That is the claim of the blogger and I am inclined to agree.
As far as TEC goes, where is the Trinitarian focus and the Christological center when presenting arguments for same-sex blessings? Can we claim, like the Church of England, that our episcopacy has largely moved on from the liberal protestantism of the 60s? Unfortunately, I don't think so and that gives guys like Weigel all the ammunition they need to fire away at TEC. When are we going to get serious about rooting our arguments in deep theological reflection and not in the political agenda of the 60s? If we want people to bother with church on Sunday, then we need to be able to feed them good theology, theology that is rooted in the Trinity, that is rooted in the physical Resurrection, that is rooted in a Christological center. Are Episcopalian leaders going to continue to throw the baby out with the water and sell Christian orthodoxy down the river or are they going to finally get serious about rooting their arguments in theological reflection and a Trinitarian understanding? Doing theology the "Spong" way is an embarrasement to those who take Anglicanism seriously.
Thoughts?
In it, the blog poster responds to sharp attacks on Anglicanism, by Roman Catholic commentator George Weigel, regarding the selling out of Christian orthodoxy to political correctness and whatever society decides is good.
George Weigel says that women's ordination and same-sex blessings are sell outs to modern society that started with the supposed acceptance of contraception in the 1930s.
Here is what the poster says in response to contraception:
"As for the two issues raised by Weigel - contraception and women priests - Anglicanism's developing doctrine on these two issues may be presented in terms of conformity to modernity, but they need not be. The 1930 Lambeth resolution on contraception was no acceptance of an understanding of sexuality defined by a contraception mentality:
The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience."
This certainly doesn't sound like approval and the Episcopal Church leaves these issues to the believer's conscience. Perhaps Weigel would be better served by worrying about the 98% of Roman Catholic women who have used contraceptives?
Moving on to women's ordination, the poster says:
"Regarding the ordination of women as priests, in 2009 +Rowan reminded us that the Anglican decision to ordain women to the ministerial priesthood, while it can be dismissed as conforming to modernity, is rooted in explicitly theological reflection:
"The claim of certain Anglican provinces is that the ordination of women explicitly looks to an agreed historic theology of ordained ministry as set out in the ARCIC report and other sources ... But for many Anglicans, not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women, which in their view threatens to undermine the coherence of the ecclesiology in question."
In some cases, are such arguments framed in political correctness terms? Of course, but for the those who are centered on the "Trinity" and a "Christological center", the arguments are rooted in theological reflection, not conforming to society.
The blogger finishes up by saying:
"The same can be said for the on-going debate surrounding human sexuality. Thus, for example, +Rowan's 'The Body's Grace' and Sam Wells' more recent 'Wholly Holy', quite clearly do not argue for a conformity to modernity but, rather, seek to reflect on the phenomenon of committed same-sex relationships in light of the Trinitarian and Christological centre.
It's difficult not to come to the conclusion that Weigel doesn't really know and doesn't 'get' Anglicanism. Admittedly his experience may be defined by encounters with those in TEC still shaped and defined by the liberal protestant agenda of the 60s and 70s. Many of us, however, who are catholic, evangelical, charismatic or liberal Anglicans simply will not recognise ourselves in Weigel's descriptions."
Arguments can be made supporting same-sex blessings by deeply rooted theological arguments. The blogger points out that the liberal protestant agenda of the 60s is largely gone from the episcopacy of the Church of England. Theological arguments regarding these issues can be made, but they must be rooted in a Christological and Trinitarian understanding and the not the political/theological understandings of 1960s liberal protestantism, which has little use for deep theological reflection. Parishes that are conservative, evangelical, catholic, liberal, and Charismatic that have this focus on the Trinity and a Christological center will not match the descriptions of Anglicanism given by George Weigel. That is the claim of the blogger and I am inclined to agree.
As far as TEC goes, where is the Trinitarian focus and the Christological center when presenting arguments for same-sex blessings? Can we claim, like the Church of England, that our episcopacy has largely moved on from the liberal protestantism of the 60s? Unfortunately, I don't think so and that gives guys like Weigel all the ammunition they need to fire away at TEC. When are we going to get serious about rooting our arguments in deep theological reflection and not in the political agenda of the 60s? If we want people to bother with church on Sunday, then we need to be able to feed them good theology, theology that is rooted in the Trinity, that is rooted in the physical Resurrection, that is rooted in a Christological center. Are Episcopalian leaders going to continue to throw the baby out with the water and sell Christian orthodoxy down the river or are they going to finally get serious about rooting their arguments in theological reflection and a Trinitarian understanding? Doing theology the "Spong" way is an embarrasement to those who take Anglicanism seriously.
Thoughts?
Monday, May 12, 2014
Why Secular Society Doesn't Care About the Church and the Effects of Negative Crossover
As the Episcopal Church continues its attendance, baptism, confirmation, wedding, and membership free fall, many in TEC are scratching their heads and wondering why? First of all, it is true that there are a whole host of factors that have an impact on church membership and attendance. In some cases, it is a matter of a larger number of older members dying, while the birth rate in the church declines. It is true that most denominations are experiencing decline, however, most are not in the same membership free fall as TEC. Why the free fall and why has society not given us a look?
So, what does church attendance/membership and secular society have in common with each other and how does this relate to negative crossover? Well, TEC has prided itself on becoming more "inclusive" and more open, welcoming all to attend and give our church a shot. However, the execution of this "inclusiveness" has left a lot to be desired. First of all, watering down theology and watering down the transforming power of the Gospel is not bringing in anybody new. Why would anybody who normally doesn't care about church all of the sudden get excited about a message that has been watered down to the point that there is no message? They wouldn't, that is why they stay home on Sunday and watch football. Furthermore, some vague "Oprahfied" spirituality message with a very small amount of Jesus just isn't appealing. The truth is, secular society doesn't want to attend a church that looks no different than secular society. I don't know why that is so hard for the national leadership to fathom. While the leaders of the church are patting themselves on the back about how much they look like society, desperately trying to get societies rubber stamp, faithful Anglicans are leaving in droves. Jesus says that many in society won't like the message, he didn't say to "fashion thy message on the values of society and form your message on the popular whims of society and hope to gain their approval."
Moving on, how does this relate to negative crossover? Negative crossover is when a change alienates those faithful before the change, while not attracting anybody new. This new watered-down theology has alienated those who are faithful to the church and faithful to the power and transforming nature of the Gospel message. Truth is, Anglicans can go to the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, or a variety of other churches and get the "meat and potatoes" of the Gospel, without it being watered down to the point of being nothing. On top of that, secular society doesn't care about this new watered-down Gospel and there is no mad rush to get to their local Episcopal parish to hear that it doesn't matter what you think or believe.
For a prime example of negative crossover, take a look at the idea of Communion without baptism. Many of those who support the measure say that we must be more "inclusive" and that it may make some feel "unwelcome" if they are unable to receive Communion since they are not baptized. Without getting into many of arguments of why this may be one of the dumbest ideas ever, let's look at what this says about the Episcopal Church. First of all, it says that our Communion means almost nothing and that it is more of a power meal if anything. Secondly, it says that baptism, membership in Christ's church, means almost nothing. Third, it says that so-called "feelings" and "experience" trump Tradition, Scripture, and Reason! I've spoken to a TON of Episcopalians who have said they are gone if this church changes the cannons to allow Communion without baptism. They contend that Sacramental theology would be diluted to the point of being almost useless and it would represent a clear departure from apostolic Christianity and they are absolutely right to think that way. Moving on, who is going to start coming to TEC because they can now have Communion without being baptized? Are our leaders really naive enough to think that there is going to be a mad rush to get to the local TEC parish after this change? No, nobody will care. Waiting to be baptized before Communion actually encourages a person to become a baptized Christian in the first place!! Thus, with one swift move, you alienate a large number of Episcopalians, while not bringing any new people to church. Mind boggling isn't it?
In the end, what brings people to church? It's really simple actually and it can be found in the bible, preaching the transforming power of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, while proclaiming Christ is risen! Christ is risen indeed! Jesus tells us to go and proclaim the Gospel to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If we as a church start to believe that Christ is risen and proclaim the Gospel, then others will start to believe it too. If we do that, then maybe we get God's seal of approval, rather than societies. Thoughts?
So, what does church attendance/membership and secular society have in common with each other and how does this relate to negative crossover? Well, TEC has prided itself on becoming more "inclusive" and more open, welcoming all to attend and give our church a shot. However, the execution of this "inclusiveness" has left a lot to be desired. First of all, watering down theology and watering down the transforming power of the Gospel is not bringing in anybody new. Why would anybody who normally doesn't care about church all of the sudden get excited about a message that has been watered down to the point that there is no message? They wouldn't, that is why they stay home on Sunday and watch football. Furthermore, some vague "Oprahfied" spirituality message with a very small amount of Jesus just isn't appealing. The truth is, secular society doesn't want to attend a church that looks no different than secular society. I don't know why that is so hard for the national leadership to fathom. While the leaders of the church are patting themselves on the back about how much they look like society, desperately trying to get societies rubber stamp, faithful Anglicans are leaving in droves. Jesus says that many in society won't like the message, he didn't say to "fashion thy message on the values of society and form your message on the popular whims of society and hope to gain their approval."
Moving on, how does this relate to negative crossover? Negative crossover is when a change alienates those faithful before the change, while not attracting anybody new. This new watered-down theology has alienated those who are faithful to the church and faithful to the power and transforming nature of the Gospel message. Truth is, Anglicans can go to the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, or a variety of other churches and get the "meat and potatoes" of the Gospel, without it being watered down to the point of being nothing. On top of that, secular society doesn't care about this new watered-down Gospel and there is no mad rush to get to their local Episcopal parish to hear that it doesn't matter what you think or believe.
For a prime example of negative crossover, take a look at the idea of Communion without baptism. Many of those who support the measure say that we must be more "inclusive" and that it may make some feel "unwelcome" if they are unable to receive Communion since they are not baptized. Without getting into many of arguments of why this may be one of the dumbest ideas ever, let's look at what this says about the Episcopal Church. First of all, it says that our Communion means almost nothing and that it is more of a power meal if anything. Secondly, it says that baptism, membership in Christ's church, means almost nothing. Third, it says that so-called "feelings" and "experience" trump Tradition, Scripture, and Reason! I've spoken to a TON of Episcopalians who have said they are gone if this church changes the cannons to allow Communion without baptism. They contend that Sacramental theology would be diluted to the point of being almost useless and it would represent a clear departure from apostolic Christianity and they are absolutely right to think that way. Moving on, who is going to start coming to TEC because they can now have Communion without being baptized? Are our leaders really naive enough to think that there is going to be a mad rush to get to the local TEC parish after this change? No, nobody will care. Waiting to be baptized before Communion actually encourages a person to become a baptized Christian in the first place!! Thus, with one swift move, you alienate a large number of Episcopalians, while not bringing any new people to church. Mind boggling isn't it?
In the end, what brings people to church? It's really simple actually and it can be found in the bible, preaching the transforming power of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, while proclaiming Christ is risen! Christ is risen indeed! Jesus tells us to go and proclaim the Gospel to all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If we as a church start to believe that Christ is risen and proclaim the Gospel, then others will start to believe it too. If we do that, then maybe we get God's seal of approval, rather than societies. Thoughts?
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
What We Do When Extended Family Doesn't Care For Our Church?
I was inspired to write a post about this topic when I saw several threads on a Christian forum that detailed the experiences of a person whose extended family did not accept the Episcopal Church (mainly due to liturgy, sacraments, and a perceived liberalism at the national level). This isn't isolated to the Episcopal Church, as this topic/issue comes up over and over again and I'm sure many of us have experience in dealing with family who comes from a different faith background.
Unfortunately, I have first-hand experience with dealing with extended family who doesn't accept my faith. My mother's extended family are made up of mostly Jehovah's Witnesses (two aunts and uncles, a cousin, and a grandma). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that all other faiths are a part of "Christendom" and are of the devil. In many ways, Anglicanism and Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't be much further apart when it comes to theology and worship. Fortunately, I was never baptized in the Jehovah's Witness faith, therefore, my extended Jehovah's Witness family are actually allowed to talk to me. That being said, we never "argue" about religion or theology. The fact is, if a Christian is well formed in their faith and are able to make a reasonable defense of that faith, you will generally have the respect of your family, even if they do not agree.
Sadly, letting your family run roughshod over you and running your Church into the ground isn't going to help anything. You don't have to argue with your family, but you should make it abundantly clear that bashing your faith is hurtful and you should be able to explain why you believe the way you do. This why it is important to attend bible study and study materials on your own. One of the best New Testament bible study series out there is the "For Everyone" series by retired Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright. N.T. Wright's series is set up as being introductory and offers understandable answers. Also, if you are interested in study bibles, I'd highly recommend the Oxford Study Bible. (\For more info on the Episcopal Church, see this blog post New to the Episcopal Church
Remember, your family may never accept your faith, but if you are well formed, you may gain their respect.
So, what have your experiences been? Have you faced family who are unable to accept you faith?
Unfortunately, I have first-hand experience with dealing with extended family who doesn't accept my faith. My mother's extended family are made up of mostly Jehovah's Witnesses (two aunts and uncles, a cousin, and a grandma). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that all other faiths are a part of "Christendom" and are of the devil. In many ways, Anglicanism and Jehovah's Witnesses couldn't be much further apart when it comes to theology and worship. Fortunately, I was never baptized in the Jehovah's Witness faith, therefore, my extended Jehovah's Witness family are actually allowed to talk to me. That being said, we never "argue" about religion or theology. The fact is, if a Christian is well formed in their faith and are able to make a reasonable defense of that faith, you will generally have the respect of your family, even if they do not agree.
Sadly, letting your family run roughshod over you and running your Church into the ground isn't going to help anything. You don't have to argue with your family, but you should make it abundantly clear that bashing your faith is hurtful and you should be able to explain why you believe the way you do. This why it is important to attend bible study and study materials on your own. One of the best New Testament bible study series out there is the "For Everyone" series by retired Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright. N.T. Wright's series is set up as being introductory and offers understandable answers. Also, if you are interested in study bibles, I'd highly recommend the Oxford Study Bible. (\For more info on the Episcopal Church, see this blog post New to the Episcopal Church
Remember, your family may never accept your faith, but if you are well formed, you may gain their respect.
So, what have your experiences been? Have you faced family who are unable to accept you faith?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)