OT: The Episcopal Church - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 6, 2006

OT: The Episcopal Church

Date: Jul 6, 2006

It must be nice to belong to a religion that has no dogma or orthodoxy. You can believe anything you want to. Getting rid of sin is a neat idea.

Date: Jul 7, 2006

"What is at stake here is the very soul of the Episcopal Church and Anglicanism. Our Anglican theology and heritage has held for centuries against radical liberalism or radical conservatism, maintaining that God’s truth is to be ultimately found in the tension of those extremes, and not in the extremes themselves. Today, human sexuality has become the front where those seeking to undermine Anglican identity for their definition of truth are waging the battle."

What a very "comfortable" position for that church to take, especially since Christ was a radical, rebel extremist to the religion of his time. But if you are looking for "customers" the middle is where you can get the most.

Date: Jul 7, 2006

I recommend a blog called titusonenine, which is "conservative" but not mean-spirited.
Please keep in mind that the political divisions of conservative vs. liberal do not necessarily apply here. We are beginning to say Revisionist vs. Reasserter, for instance.

Shrug, we do have a creed, one formulated at the Council of Nicea. Whether people hold to it is another matter. We also have doctrine, contained in the Thirty-Nine Articles. Unfortunately, those Articles got left out of the 1979 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, except as an appendix in "Historical Documents." As I said before, some of the issues go back a long way. It won't matter before long, the whole shootin' match is about to collapse. The American church in its arrogance sort of forgot that there are less than three million of us, and more than 70 million in the rest of the world.

Comfortable, someone who is a better historian than me can argue with you about whether Jesus was all that radical.

Thomas Cranmer, remember that your namesake went to the stake for his belief. That's not the action of someone seeking the via media. There isn't going to be a middle much longer, if there's even one now.

Date: Jul 7, 2006

LVN,

Would an Episcopal priest with a live in girlfriend be appointed a bishop, or would "living in sin" exclude him? We do know that a man "living in sin" with another man can be a bishop in the Episcopal church. The bible and centuries of Christian tradition are pretty clear on both situations. The U.S. Episcopal church appears to have jumped the tracks on this one in the interest of political correctness.

Date: Jul 7, 2006

LVN wrote:

Unfortunately, those Articles got left out of the 1979 revision of the Book of Common Prayer,

Did the green book that first replaced the 1928 prayer book have a name? Was there a blue book revision after that? I distinctly remember the furor in my church when the interim prayer book was introduced but know that it was a good decade before the 1979 version was adopted and I can't remember the details.

Date: Jul 7, 2006

LVN wrote:

... Comfortable, someone who is a better historian than me can argue with you about whether Jesus was all that radical. Thomas Cranmer, remember that your namesake went to the stake for his belief. That's not the action of someone seeking the via media. There isn't going to be a middle much longer, if there's even one now.

LVN, my history is rusty. Was the person who put Thomas Moore to death the same person who started your church?

Date: Jul 7, 2006

Thomas Cranmer and St. Thomas More were both men who died for their faith, on opposite sides. I was just pointing out to "Cranmer" that it has historically been hard to stay in the middle in trying times.

Shrug, an Episcopal priest who was divorced twice and married for the third time was made a bishop recently, and caused great consternation in the church, but little attention in the press. As far as jumping the tracks, well, that's part of why a number of dioceses are in the process of jumping ship.

Rite I, I don't remember the transitional PB. There are some riches in 1979 (like the offices), but when I got married, I had the priest dust off a 1928, and I have specified 1928 for my own funeral service. One of the good things that happened at GC was that the call for another Prayer Book revision was defeated. Guess nobody has the stomach for any more stress! In this hour, I am turning to the traditional prayer "for all sorts and conditions of men" which is in both books, and says, "More especially we pray for thy holy Church universal; that it may be so guided and governed by thy good Spirit, that all who profess and call themselves Christians may be led into the way of truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life."

Date: Jul 7, 2006

On the prayer-book issue, I recall that the current book, formally adopted in 1982, enjoyed a brief existence as a provisional draft, 1979-82, give or take a year. I had the old one drilled into my head as a kid, and I've never been able to memorize the new service. Stuck in the past, I am.

Date: Jul 7, 2006

LVN wrote:

In this hour, I am turning to the traditional prayer "for all sorts and conditions of men"

Thank you for responding. I did a quick google and couldn't find anything but I am sure that there was an avocado (sort of the popular kitchen color of the time) paperback book that served as an interim prayer book in the late sixties. Doesn't matter. I find some traditional prayers especially relevant right now as well. For the Church, For Schools and Colleges, In Times of Conflict, and For My Enemies (in original form) are some of my favorites.

Date: Jul 7, 2006

Of course, once upon a time, Methodists were considered to be nothing more than Anglican holy rollers. (And for the record, Pentecostals aren't mutant "hardshell Baptists," but are rock'n'roll Methodists.)

At times like these, I just whip out my copy of The Perfection of Wisdom and ask myself WWBD? (Buy the book. Dr Jamieson is a personal friend & needs the royalties.)

Date: Jul 7, 2006

qwerty wrote:

I had the old one drilled into my head as a kid, and I've never been able to memorize the new service. Stuck in the past, I am.

You sound like me with the KJV. I can't memorize Bible verses from the NIV, which is my preferred translation, because I learned King James at my mother's knee.

For all you non-Anglicans, don't forget that the King James Version of the Bible, and the English Book of Common Prayer are among the greatest literary gifts to the English language.

Thanks, Vict. I knew but had forgotten, that Pentecostalism did grow out of the Weslyan holiness movement.

Date: Jul 7, 2006

Invictus wrote:

At times like these, I just whip out my copy of The Perfection of Wisdom and ask myself WWBD? (Buy the book. Dr Jamieson is a personal friend & needs the royalties.)

Does Dr. Lares know him? She goes to Cambridge pretty regularly. Maybe she could say hello for you.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

C.L. Letter--Christ's message is 'repentance'

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060708/OPINION02/607080311/1009/OPINION

"Neither the Episcopal nor any other denomination has any business ordaining anyone unrepentant of sin."

Date: Jul 8, 2006

Seems to me this church was based on corruption from the very beginning. Cranmer "goes with the flow" to such an extent he would have been ideal for the Thames administration. Seems that having gay clergy is a very minor deal considering this history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer

"The King and his councillors found Cranmer a willing advocate for Henry's desired annulment from Catherine of Aragon and he became involved with the case as a researcher. He and Foxe compiled the Collectanea Satis Copiosa (the sufficiently abundant collection) in 1530, giving legal and historical precedent of cases such as Henry's, allowing the King to build an academic case to break with Rome." ...

"By January 1533 Henry found out that Anne Boleyn, the woman Henry wanted as his wife, was pregnant. This added urgency to the matter of the King's annulment and they were married in secret by the end of the month." ...

"In May, Cranmer declared the marriage of Henry to Catherine of Aragon void and Anne Boleyn his lawful wife. In doing this, Cranmer went directly against the Pope's command. In September, Anne gave birth to Henry's second daughter Princess Elizabeth. Cranmer was the godfather."...

"In 1538, he condemned the views of John Lambert when he denied transubstantiation. Lambert was burnt at the stake, but Cranmer later came to adopt his views."...

"...he was subsequently tried for heresy and, being found guilty, made several recantations, as he said later, in order to avoid execution."

Date: Jul 8, 2006

Should we start quoting some old-time Southern Democrats on the subject of race? I mean, what's your point? I think "founded on corruption" is a pretty strong statement, which overlooks the fact that some sort of Reformation was coming in England anyway and the king set his sails to the prevailing wind.

I'll see your Wikipedia and raise you a Prayer Book Society:

" King Edward was succeeded by his sister Mary, a convinced Roman Catholic, who remembered Cranmer's responsibility for her mother's unhappy divorce from her father. Accused, tried and sentenced to death for treason, he was spared by Mary until he was finally tried for heresy.

Sentenced for that offense and publicly degraded, Cranmer recanted almost his whole position, affirmed transubstantiation (a more physical belief in the presence of Christ in the bread and wine an Communion) and the supreme authority of the Pope in the English Church.

Nonetheless he was sentenced to death, when finally given the opportunity to speak before and during his execution (at Oxford on March 21st, 1556, by burning at the stake, a form of execution restored by Mary that he had abolished) he renounced his recantations and his cowardice, holding the hand with which he had signed the documents outlining his recantation into the flames.

That final apparent indecision and weakness is in fact, I think, the result of his deep consistency. He genuinely trusted in the role of lay authority, represented by the King or Prince, in the Church's life.

The final difficulty of Cranmer's life was that Mary, the Prince whom he obeyed, was obedient to the Pope.

We must honour Thomas Cranmer and be grateful to him, for in the English Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Homilies, he helped translate and reform the faith and worship of the English speaking world, recalling it to a simpler more direct proclamation of Christ and the Gospel. His faith enriches ours day by day and week by week whenever we pick up the scriptures, open the Prayer Book, and indeed, whenever we open our mouths, for along with Shakespeare, the English Bible (revised again in 1611, admittedly) and the Book of Common Prayer are as formative of our very language as they are of our faith."

David Garrett

I'm sorry, but to equate any of the great figures of the Reformation and/or the Counter-Reformation to anybody in the Thames administration is repugnant to me.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

LVN, sorry if I came on too strong and offended. Here is someone who didn't "go with the flow" or "recant their beliefs" to save their neck. http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/morebio.htm

I would think that "reformation" of a corrupt system is fine, but changing scripture or its interpretation while emotionally & politically involved in the issues is another issue entirely. Or perhaps you believe God spoke to Cranmer on this matter similar to the way it was done with the issue of slavery after centuries of having a different interpretation.

Certainly you can see why atheists have trouble understanding why theist believe scripture, and its interpretation, are directions from an All-Power and All-Knowing being. Some consider that church history is evidence that such a being doesn't exist or at least is not communicating with humans.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

Atheist, your roots are showing.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

LVN wrote:

Atheist, your roots are showing.

LVN, you maybe correct. But what about my argument? (I'm still trying to recruit you.

)

Date: Jul 8, 2006

Atheist wrote:

Certainly you can see why atheists have trouble understanding why theist believe scripture, and its interpretation, are directions from an All-Power and All-Knowing being. Some consider that church history is evidence that such a being doesn't exist or at least is not communicating with humans.

If your students misunderstand, misuse, or misapplies the text in your course, does that invalidate the truths of physics, or of chemistry, or whatever?

If, to use my earlier example, at one time many white Southerners were Democrats and were racists, does that mean you can't be a Democrat today?

When Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men were created equal, and owned slaves while he wrote it, does that make the statement itself invalid?

Church history isn't evidence of anything except that human beings are capable of messing up just about anything they do. It's no different than political history, or the history of science for that matter.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

Atheist

I have to give you high grades on your effort to convert folks to your religious order. Even the Jehovah Witness group could take a lesson from you.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

LVN wrote:

Atheist wrote: Certainly you can see why atheists have trouble understanding why theist believe scripture, and its interpretation, are directions from an All-Power and All-Knowing being. Some consider that church history is evidence that such a being doesn't exist or at least is not communicating with humans.

If your students misunderstand, misuse, or misapplies the text in your course, does that invalidate the truths of physics, or of chemistry, or whatever?

Nice reply, LVN. However, people could not use the statements of those students as evidence that I existed, taught them anything, or that there were truths to science. Your statement assumes we already know the answer, while all we have are people making statements and writing books.

The analogy also breaks down in that we never have anyway of knowing which church doctrines are true and which are mistaken and will be changed by a later generation, for example: slavery, homosexuality, etc, etc. And all of this is just for the Christian churches. We can all see on the news what is happening to Islam. Surely this All-Knowing being would have known his "communications" were deficient and being All-Good would want to correct His/Her/Its error. Being All-Powerful it should not have been such a problem. I must conclude that at least one of these assigned characteristics is wrong or it doesn't exist.

Finally, politicians and scientists don't claim to speak for a Perfect Being. I have no problems with their statements. From my experience, I expect the politicians to often be less than truthful while the statements of scientists are generally factual.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

Cossack wrote:

Atheist I have to give you high grades on your effort to convert folks to your religious order. Even the Jehovah Witness group could take a lesson from you.

Well, Cossack, when we canvas a neighborhood we like to ride bikes traveling in groups of two, wearing white shirts and ties . Presently, I don't have a bike and since an atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in gods (I just say the supernatural) we don't even know who we are. So, as soon as I find another one, we will be touring your neighborhood.

P.S. Atheism is a lack of belief. It is a "religion" like bald is a hair style.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

P.S. Atheism is a lack of belief. It is a "religion" like bald is a hair style.

Atheists and other religious folks have one thing in common. They are committed and emotionally involved in their beliefs. Bald is a hairstyle in the same way that zero is a number. Nonetheless, these discussions beat reading about USM administrators who are the real zeros.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

Cossack wrote:

P.S. Atheism is a lack of belief. It is a "religion" like bald is a hair style.

Atheists and other religious folks have one thing in common. They are committed and emotionally involved in their beliefs. Bald is a hairstyle in the same way that zero is a number. Nonetheless, these discussions beat reading about USM administrators who are the real zeros.

Cossack, I don't have any beliefs in the supernatural. If people supply evidence I will gladly repeat that evidence is all my arguments. Please let me correct your analogy. Zero is a number. However, No hair is not hair. However, I agree with your comment about most USM administrators. (I finished "Quest for the mace" and really enjoyed it.)

Date: Jul 8, 2006

where do numbers exist? does zero not denote the absence of a quantity in the same way that bald denotes, in a more specific way, the absence of hair?

Date: Jul 8, 2006

Atheist, this thread started as an off-topic conversation about the Episcopal Church. All threads tend to wander, but can we please not go back to "how do you know there is/is not a God?" -- that topic has been visited so many times on this board I've lost count. I wonder why you seem to have an obsession with it?? Neither I nor anyone else can persuade you (or anyone else) into belief. I can never come up with that one perfect statement you seem to be waiting for. It's either true or it's not. If it's not, then neither of us is any worse off at the end. If it is, well . . . you'll be rather surprised, won't you.

FWIW, C.S. Lewis was raised in the church, and then became an atheist as an adult. The story of his change of heart is too long to tell here, but you might look into it if you are really interested in how a supremely rational, brilliant mind made that leap.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

curious hare wrote:

where do numbers exist? does zero not denote the absence of a quantity in the same way that bald denotes, in a more specific way, the absence of hair?

Very interesting questions, Curious Hare. I'm no expert, but I would say numbers exist as ideas in our mind as relationships of things. I agree that zero is a number, which when applied to objects denotes the absence of the objects. I agree that bald denotes the absence of hair. My point was that theist who want to call atheism a belief, even though it is the absence of belief, would say bald is a hair style even though it is really the absence of hair. What do you think? Does this make sense and answer the questions?

Date: Jul 8, 2006

LVN wrote:

Atheist, this thread started as an off-topic conversation about the Episcopal Church. All threads tend to wander, but can we please not go back to "how do you know there is/is not a God?" -- that topic has been visited so many times on this board I've lost count. I wonder why you seem to have an obsession with it?? Neither I nor anyone else can persuade you (or anyone else) into belief. I can never come up with that one perfect statement you seem to be waiting for. It's either true or it's not. If it's not, then neither of us is any worse off at the end. If it is, well . . . you'll be rather surprised, won't you. FWIW, C.S. Lewis was raised in the church, and then became an atheist as an adult. The story of his change of heart is too long to tell here, but you might look into it if you are really interested in how a supremely rational, brilliant mind made that leap.

LVN, I agree we have discussed some of this earlier. You, unlike I, don't seem to be disturbed by what belief in the supernatural has caused and is causing people to do worldwide. As you know, I consider it irrational and therefore very dangerous. I hope your belief is not insurance to "Pascal's Wager". How often during a typical month do you hear someone question the existence of God?

Would you believe I'm presently reading "Mere Christianity"? However, I have found many logical errors in the first book. Just one example: he never even considers the source of "Human Nature" to be evolution, but quickly claims a source external to the universe.

Date: Jul 8, 2006

LVN,

I did my part; we are now debating the context and quality of zero. I believe that zero exists and some people do not. As far as the Episcopal Church is concerned, I fear that things will get worse before they get better. The Episcopal Church was one of the first to have folks confusing Hubert Humphrey and his entourage with Jesus and the twelve disciples; so I am not surprised that it is in turmoil. It may be best to find another church in which to worship and practice your faith. I wish you well.