|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: ECUSA vs. The C of E
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
Does a marriage break up when one of the partners starts sleeping with someone else? Or when they finally get round to getting a divorce?
Have noticed quite often marriage/partnerships break up when they stop listening and talking to each other...
The knooky side comes in later.
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
TEC, I suppose.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
An attempt to follow-up the OP. So what are the real differences between Church of England and ECUSA? Its hard to tell because I'm only very familiar with one of them. But some wild guesses:
- The establishment still hobbles Church of England in many ways. Not an issue in the USA.
- On the other hand Establishment it has given the CofE a rather different model of service to the whole community, which means that it has got very good at not dropping any component part entirely. Its much harder for even the most liberal Church of England clergy or lay people to contemplate going out of communion with all those nasty Nigerians and sexist Sydneysiders - or their equivalents in Britain - than it seems to be for some ECUSAns. We imagine ourselves as being able to carry on living together in one church structure because, on the whole, thats what we have done in the past.
- The Church of England still harbours feelings of being The Church, at least in England. A sort of default version of Chritianity.
- US bishops and dicocesan bureaucracies have much, much, more control over parishes than English ones do.That's mainly because of the legal setup of the English church, but also partly because elected bishops inherently have more popular authority than appointed ones, and at least partly because the dioceses are smaller. From All Saints Battersea to Wisdom of God Kingswood the Bishop of Southwark has something like 350 parishes to care for. However proactive he wants to be there is no way he, or even his three suffragans, can monitor goings-on in alll of those places.
- ECUSA still seems to be the church of the social elite in a way that the CofE hasn't been for a long while. Paradoxically that means both churches are consistently politically to the left of the governments of their respective countries.
- CofE is in a far less openly Christianised environment than ECUSA and so was perhaps earlier (by about a century) to see its homeland as the mission field. Both evangelicals and Catholics could pray for "the conversion of England" in the late 19th century (though they meant different things by it!)
- British theological liberalism is not typically more left-wing than theological conservativism (whether of catholic or evangelical flavour). In fact the opposite might be true. Most Americans, on the other hand, seem to assume a simple equation between political and theological liberalism. I expect this might make it hard for lefty orthodox British Christians to fit into US churches. (*)
- The ordination of women is no longer a big deal for most of the Church of England, including most Evangelicals. It is a very big deal for a minority of Anglo-Catholics. The same is true of ECUSA, but some Americans (of the few who ever think about churches abroad) seem not to realise it. Maybe Forward in Faith speak loudly enough that they drown out the vast majority. In this aspect the two are perhaps much more similar than they realise.
- As far as I can tell there really are low-church Anglican churches in the USA, and also evangelical ones, at least in some states (**). And there are bishops and priests who hold to a traditionally orthodox view of God and Christ. But some Brits (of the few who ever think about churches abroad) seem not to realise it. Maybe liberal-catholic Bishops speak loudly enough that they drown out many other voices, at least when heard from abroad. In this aspect the two are perhaps a little less different than they realise.
(*) For example somene who is both gay and black, from a Pentecostal background but increasingly into liturgical worship, found no natural church home in the US setup - perhaps fitted in better with UCC than ECUSA, but thought them more theologially liberal than they would have liked)
(**) A friend of mine recently came back from a semester at Yale. She says that she was surprised to find almost all the Episcopalian churches around New Haven lower down the candle than she expected
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moveable_type
Shipmate
# 9673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted.
Except that it wouldn't. I can think of three who do precisely that within about a five mile radius, with no particular show of pretense.
Three is conservative. I would think: Ottawa, Toronto, Niagara, New Westminster, at least.
What is quite rare, and this may be a legacy of the Jim Ferry affair, is to have openly gay, out n' proud clergy who have made the church a full-time career.
Posts: 1062 | From: Toronto | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jerusalemcross
Shipmate
# 12179
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Thanks for the gracious apology.
A (clergy) friend [not in your neck of the woods, pete173]once said - rather flippantly - that probably the only things which could remove a freehold cleric from her/his post, other than death, would be (a) hand in the till (b) orgies at the Vicarage e.g being a scandal to the congregation(c) being convicted of a criminal offence. And it would have to go to an ecclesiastical court anyway, wouldn't it? Not be decided by a Bp. As I understand it, this is quite different to ECUSA and other parts of the AC. Is this something to do with the CofE being Established (my ignorance, I'm afraid) , canon law or something else?
[ 12. January 2007, 16:33: Message edited by: jerusalemcross ]
--------------------
What's the difference between an organist and a terrorist? You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Posts: 305 | From: somewhere west of Eden | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
Having been a part of a congregational meeting with my Bishop about property and governance (not my parish), I will state that it's pretty difficult for a bishop in TEC to remove a "rogue rector" (exceptions as noted above, I imagine) although it may have been tougher at this particular parish because they actually own their property (the Diocese does not), which is highly unusual in TEC.
The bishop noted that the person most at danger from a "rogue rector" in that parish was the curate ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
It's to do with freehold, which means that the cleric has a job for life with freehold of property (parsonage, church building, graveyard). Thus he/she cannot be removed unless found guilty of an ecclesiastical offence.
Non freehold clergy are being (effectively have been) brought under employment protection legislation, which means that they can no longer be removed on notice unless they have reached the end of their contract.
We are moving over to common tenure, which will put all clergy onto an equal footing, and will actually have the effect of establishing rights tantamount to freehold for all clergy except those in title posts or posts limited in length by available money. Some clergy are worried at the erosion of freehold, but they will paradoxically be in a stronger position because they will have recourse in extremis to both ecclesiastical and secular employment protection.
The Clergy Discipline Measure has been introduced, consolidating the provisions for taking action against clergy for offences in relation to money, "conduct unbecoming" or matters criminal. All of this has checks and balances built in, so that no bishop could depose someone in the way in which it appears to be possible in ECUSA.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
ken: A few comments on your observations which, overall, I think were quite good.
As to the issue of women's ordination: There is overwhelming general acceptance of this concept in TEC, both among clergy and laity. It is true that there are three dioceses (out of 100 domestic dioceses) that do not recognize it, but I suspect that in all three there are significant minorities of laity that think otherwise. However, if a split occurs in the American church, I would suspect that the conservative branch will have fewer women clergy, and will ordain fewer women clergy in the future than the TEC remnant.
As to the issue of TEC's social status: I think this varies from geographic region to region. I think that it can be argued that TEC is a church of intellectual elites, as the Presiding Bishop so inelegantly put it a while ago. So, think college professor instead of corporate executive.
In terms of "lowness" -- I have no experience of C of E worship, but my experience of TEC worship is that the vast majority of parishes could probably be described as "liberal Catholic" -- Eucharist at every service, but liturgy that is not in any sense spiky. There are of course significant exceptions -- the St. Spike's of certain Eastern cities as well as the low church variants found in places like Virginia. But even in "snakebelly low" Virginia, adherence to the Rite II Eucharist at most services is fairly common, IMHO.
Finally, the institutional character of the C of E -- its link to the state, to the very historical fabric of England -- is almost entirely missing in the US. Only with respect to some of the Southern colonies was Anglicanism in a similar position, and then only for approximately 150 years. After the Revolution, the Episcopal Church in Virginia had to be reconstructed almost in whole in the early 19th century.
TEC is a "denomination" -- it is not "the Church."
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The Clergy Discipline Measure has been introduced, consolidating the provisions for taking action against clergy for offences in relation to money, "conduct unbecoming" or matters criminal. All of this has checks and balances built in, so that no bishop could depose someone in the way in which it appears to be possible in ECUSA.
pete173, could you name or link to some representative samples of the US cases you're thinking of? I don't know if I'm thinking of the same kind of bishop/rector-congregation struggles that you are, or not.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Maybe it's time for a poll. I'd hazard a guess that the English Anglicans on the Ship would overwhelmingly vote in solidarity with TEC. And I think if you put the question to most congregations around the country they would too. Anyway, you've got my vote. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And mine
And mine
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LA Dave
Shipmate
# 1397
|
Posted
For what it is worth -- the Rev. Mark Harris, a priest in the Diocese of Delaware and a member of TEC's Executive Committee (which helps to run the church between Gen Cons) has published on his website a long missive called "The Vocation of the Church" questioning TEC's membership in the Anglican Communion. The piece introducing the missive is headed: "Enough: it is time to move on."
Posts: 981 | From: Take a guess | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The Clergy Discipline Measure has been introduced, consolidating the provisions for taking action against clergy for offences in relation to money, "conduct unbecoming" or matters criminal. All of this has checks and balances built in, so that no bishop could depose someone in the way in which it appears to be possible in ECUSA.
pete173, could you name or link to some representative samples of the US cases you're thinking of? I don't know if I'm thinking of the same kind of bishop/rector-congregation struggles that you are, or not.
I think what I'm alluding to is the use of the "abandonment of communion" charge, used by +Smith against the Connecticut Six; by +Leidel against Geromel; by +McKelvey against Harnish. I'm trying to contrast the quite clear aversion on the part of brothers and sisters in ECUSA to any kind of discipline being exercised on moral or theological grounds with the very strong discipline exercised against clergy for saying they are out of fellowship with their diocesan bishop. It seems that the biggest "sin" you can commit in ECUSA is to be out of fellowship with your bishop.
By contrast, we have no such power on this side of the pond, should we even want to exercise it. Clergy can put two fingers in the air to their bishop and we have no recourse whatsoever.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Pete173 said
quote:
I suppose ECUSA feels like the CofE would if the liberals ever actually won. And if they did, I'd have left.
And then Paige said something and was reminded by someone else that
quote:
Paige, I shouldn't worry about speaking to him as if he were a normal human being: that's why he comes on here
The original sentiment seemed more the domain of a young theology student at Oak Hill who's just discovered blogging and not that of a bishop. We'll just say that it was best expressed in here over a pint than at a meeting in the real world.....
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
But Pete, re the powerless of CofE bishops to deprive their clergy or accuse them of abandonment of communion:
There has been plenty of moaning about 'power plays' by 'revisionist bishops'. What is the substance of this complaint. I do remember one case of a clergyman who was deprived by his bishop but the clergyman won the appeal. If you're right - that bishop's don't have that sort of power - what are Chris Sugden and others groaning about?
RR
[ 12. January 2007, 17:43: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted. Given that this is the practice in most Anglican churches, folks should not be surprised that there is widespread miscomprehension as to why Bp. Robinson continues in office. The intensity and length of the international response may reflect a concern with other ECUSA approaches and characteristics as the domestic US response has much to do with cultural politics, but that's another discussion.
Actually, I think it's entirely germane to this discussion. If they don't know why Bishop Robinson continues in office, then they really don't understand our polity, never mind our cultural politics.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
pete173, thanks -- I'll read about those.
gwai, it wouldn't come to an argument about property at all if the bishop wasn't saying "out, you can't be rector of an Episcopal church in my diocese." Which isn't the same as saying "you're not Christian" by a long shot.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
But Pete, re the powerless of CofE bishops to deprive their clergy or accuse them of abandonment of communion:
There has been plenty of moaning about 'power plays' by 'revisionist bishops'. What is the substance of this complaint. I do remember one case of a clergyman who was deprived by his bishop but the clergyman won the appeal. If you're right - that bishop's don't have that sort of power - what are Chris Sugden and others groaning about?
RR
Well, that's a very good question, and one which I am spending an interminable amount of time on at present. We have a meeting this weekend where we are trying to tease out precisely what the perceived problems are, and what can be done to resolve them. The Conservative Evangelicals seem to think that they are out of communion with a large number of bishops over here. You may have seen the stuff on Anglican Mainstream
Keeping them in will be a tough call.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted. Given that this is the practice in most Anglican churches, folks should not be surprised that there is widespread miscomprehension as to why Bp. Robinson continues in office. The intensity and length of the international response may reflect a concern with other ECUSA approaches and characteristics as the domestic US response has much to do with cultural politics, but that's another discussion.
Actually, I think it's entirely germane to this discussion. If they don't know why Bishop Robinson continues in office, then they really don't understand our polity, never mind our cultural politics.
A fair point, and there are several points in this thread which suggest that there is more than a little bit of polity miscomprehension-- we can see that shipmates are being helpful and trying to explain their own local realities.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
My new year's resolutions are twofold: To read Hebrews quite a lot this year and to learn to like it/understand it/figure out why it made it into the Canon of Scripture. The other thing will be to try and understand what the Presiding Bishop of TEC is trying to say. I've read four or five things she's written and seen a couple of videos of her speaking. I keep butting up against this Wall of Language which seems deliberately constructed to weaken propositions. I'm not at all ECUSA bashing - had a great summer spent in the Diocese of Alaska as a summer intern when I was in seminary - lots of fun with the Ecumenical Cursillo folks from Ketchikan Alaska and Prince Rupert B.C. that summer. I've got an episcopalian summer intern coming over here from the U.S. this summer to work with me in Scotland. Can someone refer me to something KJS has written, recorded or videoed that is clear as to what she thinks on a subject?
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Reading between the lines on Sugden's stuff and other stuff which appears on Anglican Mainstream or Mainline or whatever: It appears that there has been an unwillingness to ordain certain people on demand without going through the normal channels of discernment and not supporting the establishment of certain missions right next to an existing community of faith. Is that more or less what the complaint seems to consist of or have their been many cases of Evangelical clergy being hounded out by liberal bishops?
RR
And by the way: Anglican Mainstream is tolerable. Many of the 'conservative' blogs stateside are terrible. You want to wash your eyes out after reading them.
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
I haven't looked at the examples pete173 mentioned yet, Gwai, so they may have that flavour.
I was thinking of situations from before the recent rash of rampant flying bishops, e.g. where the presenting incidents seemed to be along the lines of rectors refusing their female bishop to come confirm (surely only the tip of the iceberg in the situations in question, but still...). I think in those cases the rector (and congregation) are not saying they're in another diocese, or not Episcopalian, but nevertheless their position becomes an issue that can be forced and does get forced.
I understand pete173 to be saying such things can't happen that way in the CofE. In addition to pointing to disparities in which kinds of things cause these kinds of forcing battles.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
There has been plenty of moaning about 'power plays' by 'revisionist bishops'. What is the substance of this complaint. I do remember one case of a clergyman who was deprived by his bishop but the clergyman won the appeal. If you're right - that bishop's don't have that sort of power - what are Chris Sugden and others groaning about?
This was the Coekin case that featured heavily on these boards at one time. His bishop's (Tom Butler of Southwark) response to the perceived offence was to withdraw his licence immediately. However, this was reinstated after an appeal to the ABoC and a successful church court hearing.
I too am very curious about Pete173's comment about apparent episcopal powerlessness. This seems to minimise completely the value of the bishop's licence to minister. So I would like to ask him under what circumstances CoE bishops are able and justified in withdrawing a clergyman's licence? And what are the consequences of a withdrawn licence?
Do clergy in the USA/Canada/elsewhere operate under a similar bishop's licence?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
ECUSA still seems to be the church of the social elite in a way that the CofE hasn't been for a long while.
This is not currently true of the ECUSA and has not been true for a long time (50 years?). In particular, it may never have been true in many (but not all) regions west of the Alleghenies.
Indeed, the church of the social elite [those that still have church] in the U.S. these days is more likely to be of a con evo sort. That's certainly true in these parts.
This hardly makes the ECUSA diverse with respect to class - but it is resolutely middle class rather than the church of the elite.
Along other lines:
To my mind, the key way in which ECUSA differs from the C of E is that we have proportionally far fewer self-identified "evangelicals" or Calvinists.
The role of bishops is a red herring. Our polity has been the essentially the same since the first general convention to the consternation of none over the years. Indeed, the role of bishops varies across the provinces of the communion. In the ECUSA, bishops certainly have a teaching role. As in some other provinces, synod "outranks" bishops. Unlike some other provinces, the laity are part of synod.
Certainly not every province seems as adept as ECUSA in providing theological and scriptural bases for their actions and policy. I certainly don't see scripture, tradition or reason in any permutation at work in the Church of Nigeria's support for the criminalization of association between gays and lesbians.
? Change title of thread to: ECUSA found not to be Evangelical - Shock Horror! ?
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
To my knowledge, Canadian licensing rules are on a diocesan basis, sometimes as canon, sometimes as diocesan policy. Parochial and extra-parochial clergy get them as a matter of course, as do retired and canonically-resident-elsewhere-but-living-here clerics, usually attached to a particular church; they are normally only lifted For Cause and most places have an appeal mechanism either to a diocesan tribunal (I believe in Toronto) or to the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province (we have 4). However, bishops have been known to lift licences arbitrarily (I can think of two examples from previous bishops of Ottawa) and (in the far past) ++John Charles Roper preferred to request the return of licences (including from the infamous Trebitsch Lincoln) from errant clergy.
The fairly peremptory withdrawal of licences by +Michael Ingham was one of the manifestations of trouble in New Westminster a few years ago, and their restoration was an aspect of a recent appeal decision (was it the Panel of Reference?).
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
This has been an interesting discussion, and I'm sorry to chime in so late.
The ECUSA social elite are a myth, at least locally. I've been involved in the ECUSA for many years now and have yet to meet anyone who is wealthy and/or upper class.
I've heard many stories here and elsewhere about budget struggles, priests only serving 1/2 or even 1/4 time because the churches can't afford to pay them otherwise and so on (my church included). If there are any rich Episcopalians out there, they're in stealth mode.
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
While raised on the frontier with Our Great Southern Neighbour, my intimate knowledge of the workings of ECUSA is limited to upstate NY and to eastern Florida. Class-wise, they are as different as chalk and cheese.
The eastern Floridians were solid golf club retirees and quite quite comfortable. However, they did fork out for worthy causes and maintain some uncomfortable ministries (try prison work lately?) by volunteer work. While they complained about their child`s tuition at Swarthmore, they were able to pay it and to buy them a starter condo. There was one black parishioner, but she was a retired professional of Caribbean origin. They did not think of themselves as élite, but I would have classified them as such.
In upstate NY, while a few wealthy older families can be found in the parishes along the Saint Lawrence River, most of them were were middle class with a good sprinkling of poorer people. On my visits to churches, I found a very broad spectrum (class-wise) and people seemed very comfortable with each other.
Chatting with US folk over the years, I think that the notion of Episcopalians as the rich folk is an outdated stereotype-- unquestionably Episcopalians provided a strong strain in national leadership but, like the Quakers, that had more to do with the specific subculture than sheer cash. Not only do you have the diversity of a very variegated US, but there are dozens of historical and ethnic strains in ECUSAn history, resulting in a difficult to generalize-about population. I wouldn't even try.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
One thing you will find about TEC: you can go into almost any Episcopal Church on Sunday, and it is using the Book of Common Prayer or some authorized addendum to it. I know there are exceptions (St. Gregory Nyssa of San Francisco comes to min), but they are exceptions.
We don't get hymn sandwiches in TEC, even in places where a non-ordained Worship Leader (lay reader) with license to preach is taking the services. In these cases, the congregation is probably using either the Rite I or Rite II daily offices.
We are people of the book (BCP). So, from St. Luke's to St. Luke's, you have a chance to recognize the service.
I find that those congregations and people that take the time to work with the BCP are more content with the denomination, even when there are disagreements. The BCP provides something in common for all of us. (Those that use it because they have to are more likely to wonder why the bother.)
It sounds like people in TEC consent to the US BCP; clergy in the C of E assent to the 39 Articles.
And about a bishop's control over the clergy in a diocese: Yes, there licenses that can be pulled. Abandonment of communion is a possible charge. But, the bishop is not an absolute monarch. Instead, the bishop is more like a prosecuting attorney. Everything is subject to trial and appeal. Most bishops don't have the resources to spend on stuff like this.
And, it is very hard to impossible for a diocesan bishop to prevent a priest from taking a position in a parish (rector, or assistant/associate/curate) if the priest is already canonically resident in that diocese.
+Pete173, you need to talk with several of your US colleagues in a variety of dioceses on what a bishop really can do over here, either canonically or practically.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think that most conservative evangelicals in the UK would be surprised to find Pete reckoned as one of them.
As I say "according to posts on this thread".
I think most American Episcopalians would be astonished to discover that a bishop in the Church of England would prefer to attend divine worship with the Sojourners because the local Episcies were too liberal.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hooker's Trick
Admin Emeritus and Guardian of the Gin
# 89
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mgeorge:
The ECUSA social elite are a myth, at least locally. I've been involved in the ECUSA for many years now and have yet to meet anyone who is wealthy and/or upper class.
The "elite" question is complicated by the fact that in the United States "upper class" means "rich". ECUSA is not a millionaire's club at prayer. Some ECUSA parishes, are, however, stuffed to the rafter with crusty old worthie, DAR members and the like.
Posts: 6735 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think that most conservative evangelicals in the UK would be surprised to find Pete reckoned as one of them.
As I say "according to posts on this thread".
I think most American Episcopalians would be astonished to discover that a bishop in the Church of England would prefer to attend divine worship with the Sojourners because the local Episcies were too liberal.
I certainly was. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think that most conservative evangelicals in the UK would be surprised to find Pete reckoned as one of them.
As I say "according to posts on this thread".
I think most American Episcopalians would be astonished to discover that a bishop in the Church of England would prefer to attend divine worship with the Sojourners because the local Episcies were too liberal.
I certainly was.
Yes, me too. And pete173's comments on this thread have pushed me considerably further toward the feeling that the Anglican Communion can go fuck itself than I was a few days ago.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
I think most American Episcopalians would be astonished to discover that a bishop in the Church of England would prefer to attend divine worship with the Sojourners because the local Episcies were too liberal.
The majority of clergy I know in the C of E wouldn't go to TEC normally, except out of curiosity.
But then the C of E is so broad that pretty much all the other denominations in the UK could fit inside it, so the differences between denominations are often much less than differences within the C of E...
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
Custard: How are you using "broad"?
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But then the C of E is so broad that pretty much all the other denominations in the UK could fit inside it, so the differences between denominations are often much less than differences within the C of E...
Yes, it's good like that.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
But then the C of E is so broad that pretty much all the other denominations in the UK could fit inside it, so the differences between denominations are often much less than differences within the C of E...
Well, I guess, from the time of Queen Elizabeth 1, there was a very conscious devolopment of a National Church, both with its Catholic (Universal Western) roots in history and establishment, but also, as in the 39 Articles, ultimately basing its beliefs on the Bible. Catholic and Protestant.
The "Anglican compromise", and I'd call it more a brilliant synthesis of the two, which, with the general policy of the Tudors (except Mary), did, sometimes through morally contentious worldly action, bring peace, unity and prosperity to an England riven by strife during the Wars of the Roses.
The concept of a broad, National Church of this sort was elucidated in F.D. Maurice's "The Kingdom of Christ."
Certainly, in England, and, in my country, Australia, the Anglican Church does seem to see itself as a Church for everyone in the nation. I suspect, even in the successor state to the 13 rebel colonies in North America, many churchpeople, ordained and lay, would hold this view. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I guess you would find it very difficult to have a totally anarchic "fee form" Church in perpetual danger of imminent collapse. So I take + Pete's points on the need for some sort of sane church governance with some discipline (fair, open and appelable). I also appreciate his very real Anglican scholarship and the practical problems he raises from his experience as a bishop.
My feeling is that I would not wish the already fractured Anglican Communion to break up entirely. Some of the alternatives out there are truly horrific. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mgeorge
Shipmate
# 10487
|
Posted
That is true--it seems the ECUSA has more aging members and gray hairs than anyone else, and my church is definitely guilty of that. At 40+ I'm a relatively young member. At this rate, the ECUSA may simply die of old age, schism or no schism.
What keeps us old? I've seen a lot of unwillingness to change, too many old members who make it their mission to hold up and derail any sort of change, and young members simply giving up in frustration.
Posts: 1021 | From: By the beach | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
It may be that the numbers are skewed by the baby-boomers reaching their dotage. There are simply more of us geezers living than any other age group.
[ 13. January 2007, 05:10: Message edited by: Gort ]
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Our parish has quite a few young families, actually. Probably not in comparison to the general population, but healthy numbers nonetheless. One couple -he lapsed RC, she unchurched- decided to join our church because they have an autistic child, and they noticed how lovingly all types of people among us were treated, so they decided our church would be a good place to bring their child.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mixture IV
Shipmate
# 5353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The majority of clergy I know in the C of E wouldn't go to TEC normally, except out of curiosity.
And the majority of clergy I know in the C of E would instinctively see TEC as their home if in the US. I guess it just goes to underscore the diversity of experience of "church" in the C of E.
For my part, it never occurs to me that TEC is any different as an expression of "my home" than the C of E. In Rome last weekend, I had to decide which of the two Anglican churches (one C of E, one TEC) to attend for Sunday Mass. I based my decision on shortest walk. Period!
Mixture IV
Posts: 74 | From: South Coast, UK | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mixture IV:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
The majority of clergy I know in the C of E wouldn't go to TEC normally, except out of curiosity.
And the majority of clergy I know in the C of E would instinctively see TEC as their home if in the US. I guess it just goes to underscore the diversity of experience of "church" in the C of E.
Same for the majority of clergy I know. I do know some folks who would hesitate, but many of them struggle with the breadth of Anglicanism full stop and would be in search of a particular kind of 'bible believing' or charismatic experience.
A good many people I know of in local CofE congregations are also quite happy to 'adopt' TEC churches when they visit the USA.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Whether or not one approves of the Bishop of New Hampshire's domestic life, parallel practice in the Anglican Church of Canada would, in most dioceses (I only know of 3 exceptions of the 29) get them fired from their parishes and their licences lifted. Given that this is the practice in most Anglican churches, folks should not be surprised that there is widespread miscomprehension as to why Bp. Robinson continues in office. The intensity and length of the international response may reflect a concern with other ECUSA approaches and characteristics as the domestic US response has much to do with cultural politics, but that's another discussion.
I think that is fair enough. What bothers me about all this is not that most of the Anglican Communion thinks that TEC went too far. It is the way that the Anglican Communion is going from a position of having no disciplinary mechanisms to a disciplinary mechanism which says that if you fall foul of the dominant fraction you will get the book thrown at you whereas if you are in good standing with the dominant fraction you will be treated much like the British Attorney General treated BAE when they were being investigated for bribing the Saudi Government. If we are going to go down the route of pan-communion governance then the rules ought to apply to everyone across the board. Otherwise any disciplinary measure is going to look entirely arbitrary. This will do nothing for the credibility of the Communion and everyone will feel justified in breaking the rules whenever they feel strongly about it and can get away with it on the grounds that everyone else does.
Maybe TEC were out of order but if I were an TECCIE I would be disinclined to back down given that no-one seems to be interested in giving TEC a fair hearing and the disciplinary system seems to be weighted as to whether or not one is an ally of Nigeria.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Can someone refer me to something KJS has written, recorded or videoed that is clear as to what she thinks on a subject?
I imagine that K Jefferts (1985) "Gonatus ursabrunae and Gonatus oregonensis, two new species of squids from the northeastern Pacific Ocean" (Veliger vol 28 pp 159-174) is pretty clear.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneviève
Mother-Hatting Cat Lover
# 9098
|
Posted
Exactly, Callan--although I don't think that +Gene's living with a partner is a morally bad thing.
It is also my understanding that Lambeth gave a pass on issue of polygamy at the request of the African church some time ago. methinks there is a serious double standard going on here.
--------------------
"Ineffable" defined: "I cannot and will not be effed with." (Courtesy of CCTooSweet in Running the Books)
Posts: 4336 | From: Eastern US | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
It is also my understanding that Lambeth gave a pass on issue of polygamy at the request of the African church some time ago.
That's false.
Also there is no "the African church" in the Anglican Communion - there are different ones, with widely different views on how polygamists should be treated. And indeed different views on most of the things that the Anglican Communion differs with ,itself about, from theological liberalism to women priests, to dressing up to preside at Communion, to the length of the sermon. Though not, we have to point out, over homosexuality - with the one exception of the South Africans.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Can someone refer me to something KJS has written, recorded or videoed that is clear as to what she thinks on a subject?
I imagine that K Jefferts (1985) "Gonatus ursabrunae and Gonatus oregonensis, two new species of squids from the northeastern Pacific Ocean" (Veliger vol 28 pp 159-174) is pretty clear.
Or, try something more recent.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
Exactly, Callan--although I don't think that +Gene's living with a partner is a morally bad thing.
It is also my understanding that Lambeth gave a pass on issue of polygamy at the request of the African church some time ago. methinks there is a serious double standard going on here.
It would suit my position to argue that Lambeth allowed polygamy so the Africans should reciprocate. However, I read somewhere that Lambeth didn't - but cannot remember where I read it.
I would be grateful for some references.
[ 14. January 2007, 16:12: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
