|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: CPAS = GAFCON?
|
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
No, the fact is that I don't like Evangelicals, or Fundamentalists, they being one and the same in American usage.
Grammatica,
As a "liberal Christian" and a member of TEC, I really have to object to this assertion, which is simply not correct.
"Evangelicals" and "Fundamentalists" are not the same ... not even "in American usage." Jerry Falwell was a "Fundamentalist" and quite happy to identify as such. He disagreed strongly with a number of those who called themselves "Evangelicals." Indeed, one of the markers of a "Fundamentalist" is that his church will not belong to the "National Association of Evangelicals" because this organization if too inclusive of theological diversity and not "separatist" in relation to "liberals." Evangelicalism in the United States is certainly more "conservative" that it is in England, and more likely to tie itself to the political Right. But it is still a relatively "big tent." Just have a look at their List of Member Churches. To add to this, there are Evangelicals in most "mainline" denominations, who hold a variety of views, some very "conservative," some quite "moderate."
To use a cliche, 'some of my best friends are Evangelicals,' and your statements here about them are offensive to me. I'm sorry you "don't like Evangelicals". I would suggest that one way to change this attitude would be to try to broaden your experiences. You could start by learning about Jim Wallis (whose wife was one of the first women ordained in the CofE... and apparently the "model" for "The Vicar of Dibley"!) and reading one of his recent books. It's really a shame that you'd never heard of him. After you've learned about Jim Wallis, move on to Tony Campollo and his wife Peggy. For a start, try the Wikipedia Article about Tony and Peggy. You would also find it useful to learn about gay Evangelicals, like Mel White (Jerry Falwell's one-time ghost-writer) and Dr. Ralph Blair, founder of EVANGELICALS CONCERNED.
I could continue the list with folks like Ronald J. Sider, Philip Yancey, TEC's own Fleming Rutledge (try telling her Evangelicals don't allow women to preach!), Brian McLaren....
In short: Evangelical-bashing is not helpful... and, I'll repeat, your equation of "Fundamentalist" with "Evangelical" is incorrect AND insulting to both "Evangelicals" and "Fundamentalists".
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Call Me Numpty
I say pleasantly surprised because, quite frankly, they do find themselves being oppressed by the ruling revisionist elite that is busy embarking on wholesale apostacy in their own church.
I'd be surprised if this were true, Numpty. I thought the whole situation had arisen because of the democratic nature of TEC. TEC had been asked, and had agreed, that such things as Bishop VGR's consecration would not happen, but the leadership couldn't deliver in the face of the, either, bloodymindedness/being led by the Spirit, you take your pick, of the faithful of New Hampshire. Now, I would argue that TEC should have been upfront about the extreme unlikeliness of being able to carry out such a policy of restraint, and that the rest of the AC , knowing the democratic nature of the Episcopalian Church, should not have asked it of them, but I still can't cast this as a revisionist elite in some unspecified way forcing their will on a reluctant laity.
Of course, if you mean that TEC is anxious not to let its assets be removed along with departing congregations, I think that, if the boot were on the other foot, evangelical Anglican bishops might well send off dissenting congregations with their peace, but almost certainly not with their property. Indeed, it would be totally illegal to do so.
I also think, as I have said before, that the charge of apostasy first made by ES, and repeated by you, is unfounded as regards TEC as a whole (though I concede there may possibly be some apostates within its ranks, as there probably are within those of the CofE), and it is a very emotive and perjorative term, possibly bordering on bearing false witness, and is unlikely to cool already over-heated debate.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Grammatica said:
Of course, whatever TEC and the rest do, it would still be possible for you to say: "it seems to me that TEC is apostate" or "schismatic" or "removing itself from the Communion." That statement will be true if it seems to you that TEC is apostate [etc], whatever the facts of the case may be.
Here is an analogous case. The statement "I believe pigs can fly and do advanced algebra" is true as long as I believe it. However, though I may believe, passionately, that pigs can fly and do advanced algebra, in fact, it is the case that they cannot.
I find this statement fascinating. Would you please explain to me how your analogy is designed to function? I ask because from where I'm sitting it really does look like you're saying that something is actually true because you believe it; even though it isn't really true&trade, true. Is that what you're saying?
[ 22. June 2009, 17:59: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
2) Spong's theses, for which he has not been disciplined and despite which he remains a member of the House of Bishops are clearly apostate - see here
Apostasy refers to disaffiliation from one's religious tradition. Since Bishop Spong insists that he is a Christian, whatever the problems with his beliefs, he is NOT "apostate." If you want to call him a "heretic," be my guest. He'd probably be the first to admit that his ideas are "heretical" as measured against traditional "orthodoxy."
That said, I do wonder, as a point of comparison, how would a bishop who held views similar to Spong's be "disciplined" in the CofE? Was +David Jenkins "disciplined"?
[ 22. June 2009, 18:07: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ianjmatt
Shipmate
# 5683
|
Posted
As one of those who the OP may be referring to as an Evangelical who is open on many of the issues that GAFCON seem so upset with, and as someone who has spent the last five years travelling between the US and the UK, and involved in publishing some of the 'left wing' US authors mentioned (such as Shane Claiborne, Brian MacLaren, Rob Bell etc) I am so disheartened by the tone on this thread.
Most Christians of any flavor seem to me to be more concerned with living a life that is worthy of the name Christian (however imperfectly), but there is a militant tendency on all the different wings of the Anglican church that cannot tolerate others thinking they are wrong. I suppose I expect it more of the conservatives, as they are so concerned with 'pure doctrine' etc. I guess I am more disappointed with illiberal liberals who are ready to flame anyone who may think they are wrong.
But either way - it always ends up just like this thread - generating more heat than light. Ho hum.
Posts: 676 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
quote:
Grammatica said:
Of course, whatever TEC and the rest do, it would still be possible for you to say: "it seems to me that TEC is apostate" or "schismatic" or "removing itself from the Communion." That statement will be true if it seems to you that TEC is apostate [etc], whatever the facts of the case may be.
Here is an analogous case. The statement "I believe pigs can fly and do advanced algebra" is true as long as I believe it. However, though I may believe, passionately, that pigs can fly and do advanced algebra, in fact, it is the case that they cannot.
I find this statement fascinating. Would you please explain to me how your analogy is designed to function? I ask because from where I'm sitting it really does look like you're saying that something is actually true because you believe it; even though it isn't really true&trade, true. Is that what you're saying?
No, you have it backwards. If I think that pigs can fly, then it is true that I think pigs can fly, even though it is not true that pigs can fly. It is true that I believe it, but what I believe is not true.
[ 22. June 2009, 18:28: Message edited by: Grammatica ]
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Good. 'Tis a pity many in the TEC can't tell the difference.
[ 22. June 2009, 18:38: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Dubious Thomas
That said, I do wonder, as a point of comparison, how would a bishop who held views similar to Spong's be "disciplined" in the CofE? Was +David Jenkins "disciplined"?
I should hope not. David Jenkins is well within the spectrum of orthodoxy, notwitstanding attempts in the media at portraying him as saying the exact opposite of what he actually said (conjouring tricks with bones, anyone?)
But of course, you are absolutely right. Don Cupitt is probably the nearest the CofE has to a JSS, and I don't think he's ever been disciplined.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
As one of those who the OP may be referring to as an Evangelical who is open on many of the issues that GAFCON seem so upset with, and as someone who has spent the last five years travelling between the US and the UK, and involved in publishing some of the 'left wing' US authors mentioned (such as Shane Claiborne, Brian MacLaren, Rob Bell etc) I am so disheartened by the tone on this thread.
Most Christians of any flavor seem to me to be more concerned with living a life that is worthy of the name Christian (however imperfectly), but there is a militant tendency on all the different wings of the Anglican church that cannot tolerate others thinking they are wrong. I suppose I expect it more of the conservatives, as they are so concerned with 'pure doctrine' etc. I guess I am more disappointed with illiberal liberals who are ready to flame anyone who may think they are wrong.
That's a very good point. My inclination would be to feel the same; but on reflection, it seems to me, that that attitude is as if to say one expects better behaviour - more generosity, more openness, tolerance etc - from liberals, rather than the 'purely doctrine' conservatives.
The fact is, surely, God holds us all to the same level of loving one another, regardless how narrowly or broadly we interpret our faith?
There's also an aspect of this view, that says one shouldn't expect censure from those with a liberal stance; as if to be liberal means to be without any cross-able bounaries, or faculty of judgement (as opposed to good old judgementalism!). It seems to boil down to what it is we're willing to be tolerant about.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Good. 'Tis a pity many in the TEC can't tell the difference.
Well, I see you feel compelled to resort to cheap shots. Does that mean you no longer have an argument?
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Ok..
Reporting as a liberal to moderate member of TEC who happens to believe strongly in spreading the gospel.. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Yes, TEC is strongly democratic. It's a wonderful thing and can be a pain at the same time. We are also very, um..., independent even among ourselves. Diocese A might say one thing where Diocese B says something quite different. And nothing "official" may be done about it. There is no real strong top down structure in TEC.
And that means that also Bishop A could say something that the majority of people in Diocese A could roll their eyes at and continue on without caring. It makes life interesting and makes it difficult to impossible for anyone (including the PB) to pin us down on anything.
The problem for me as a "closet fundamentalist" is that there are no churches that I know of that maintain the apostolic traditions (communion, the 3 or 4 order of ministry, etc.) and allow me to read the Bible and allow me to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit as to what it means to me and what I should do.
What is coming out of GAFCON to me is a checklist of things that I must believe (outside of the Nicene creed) that I simply can't check off on. I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell me how to interpret scripture. They can help and guide, but I don't believe in being told believe or else.
I believe strongly in spreading the gospel as far and wide as it can be. I believe that people have the right to believe what they wish about the ordination of women, gays, marriage as long as they can back up those beliefs with scripture (I don't have to agree with their interpretations, but I would like something to back it up.)
If CPAS believes in spreading the gospel to anyone who wishes to hear it without preconceptions of whether or not the church will end up liberal, conservative, high, low or inbetween, then YEA!
If they want their members to realize that there are people outside of their community who want to spread the gospel and are wanting their members to see if they want to help, but aren't saying that they HAVE to, then what's the problem?? I just don't see it.
(and NO, I refuse to defend TEC in this thread. It's not the point of it. AND I only defend my own beliefs and choices, not others. I cannot speak for them.)
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But of course, you are absolutely right. Don Cupitt is probably the nearest the CofE has to a JSS, and I don't think he's ever been disciplined.
Dear old Eric certainly disciplined Anthony Freeman, though.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But of course, you are absolutely right. Don Cupitt is probably the nearest the CofE has to a JSS, and I don't think he's ever been disciplined.
Neither was he a bishop, or even a parish priest for very long (if at all). He's been a teacher for most of his career. So no question of church discipline arises.
We nasty evangelicals don't believe in censoring what university teachers say. Its not like we're Catholics ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It seems to boil down to what it is we're willing to be tolerant about.
And going by what we read online it seems that that least some theological liberals in the USA are intolerant of evangelicals.
And that's been the case in this thread. The spiteful parody of what Pete173 wrote wasn't a good advertisment for American liberal Anglicanism.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
There's also an aspect of this view, that says one shouldn't expect censure from those with a liberal stance; as if to be liberal means to be without any cross-able bounaries, or faculty of judgement (as opposed to good old judgementalism!). It seems to boil down to what it is we're willing to be tolerant about.
I can be tolerant of others' views, but when lies and half-truths about TEC are repeated as fact, it make my blood boil. For this I make no apologies.
Others on this thread have "boiled" at my characterization of evangelicals. Again, I can say it is true of the Bible Belt evangelicals among whom I live. I accept that it does not fit everyone who calls herself an evangelical, and I was wrong to imply that it did.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The spiteful parody of what Pete173 wrote wasn't a good advertisment for American liberal Anglicanism.
Pete173 was in a very good position to know that he was repeating half-truths and untruths about TEC without comment or correction. He deserved being taken down for that.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Good. 'Tis a pity many in the TEC can't tell the difference.
Well, I see you feel compelled to resort to cheap shots. Does that mean you no longer have an argument?
It depends how you read it. If you'd said it (and you have), it would - no doubt - be true&trade.
[ 22. June 2009, 20:50: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Grammatica, the fact you don't agree with Pete123's opinion, makes that your opinion - something he and others are permitted to disagree with in turn. Interpreting his opinion and ideas - no doubt based on his own experience and knowledge of the topic - as a deliberate telling of half-truths and lies is something you're hardly in a position to know; unless you're either claiming to be psychic, or a very close personal acquaintance of Pete123's.
I'm sure many people here will not have agreed with his post, in part or wholly, but it would have made a stronger argument on your part if you hadn't smart-arsed his post to invent your own.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on Hill
Shipmate
# 12183
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The spiteful parody of what Pete173 wrote wasn't a good advertisment for American liberal Anglicanism.
Pete173 was in a very good position to know that he was repeating half-truths and untruths about TEC without comment or correction. He deserved being taken down for that.
Grammatica
You are getting boring - repeating a bad point doesn't make it better.
Pete173 was not repeating half-truths as if they were true (though he may believe some of them) - rather he was describing the position as it would be described by the people who might think FCA a good thing, or which might motivate someone to write a letter like the one which triggered this thread.
The position he put may be true or false (you clearly think false, but some of what you have posted would confirm people who believe this kind of thing in their views). Pete173's point was that it was the actual position held by a group of people. Actually those people are not a strong part of the debate on this thread at the moment - so your arguments here are going to do very little to convince people who hold that view to change - they are not here to hear you.
As the actual position and belief held by a group of people in England (they exist, I have met some of them) - the fact that this kind of view is held is material to the context in which the FCA launch is being organised. My reading is that Pete173 is not wholly supportive of this move (but he will express himself clearly enough).
You may not like the kind of person Pete173 describes, but he has not given a false description. To suggest that it is a false or malicious description is a gross misreading of what he has actually written.
PS
I would add to Pete173's list of motives a possible financial/ fundraising one (given the global context) - though he is in a better position than I am to know whether this is likely.
--------------------
God appointed a worm that attacked the bush so that it withered.
Posts: 171 | From: Berkshire | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The spiteful parody of what Pete173 wrote wasn't a good advertisment for American liberal Anglicanism.
Pete173 was in a very good position to know that he was repeating half-truths and untruths about TEC without comment or correction. He deserved being taken down for that.
In fairness to Bishop Pete, I didn't read his post as being his own opinion on TEC, but rather an explanation of the opinion of a sizeable section of the evangelical constituency here in the UK, people who are not necessarily that well informed about TEC polity, but who are familiar with the works of, say, Jim Packer (yes, I know that's Canada, but the distinction is probably lost on the people whose views +Pete was recording). Hell, I'm pretty ignorant of TEC, but I have done a bit of research, so for those who see the whole shebang as a distraction from mission, and don't share even my very limited knowledge, then these views (ie uncritical acceptance of what "famous names" tell them,) are unfortunate but probably not surprising.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
I suspect that there's no point in engaging with the grammatician. There's not much comprehension going on. Nor does spelling it out seem to work. Plenty of interrogatives and imperatives. But no conditional mood. The thread has become a train wreck, and I reckon that this has reached a full stop.
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
quote:
what's CwoB?
Communion without Baptism?
Thanks! Again, do they really do that?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyMartyr
Shipmate
# 11162
|
Posted
They most certainly do... and not even used as a "converting ordinance," just allowed with no type of limits or conditions.
--------------------
You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle if you do not pity Jesus in the slum.
Posts: 259 | From: the Land of Ingham | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Any evidence for that? If confirmed...oh dear!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
quote:
what's CwoB?
Communion without Baptism?
Thanks! Again, do they really do that?
In my time as a Christian, I've been a member of three churches, one Methodist and two Anglican. In each one, the celebrant has invited people to come to the Lord's table with a variation of "This is the Lord's table, and anyone who loves the Lord, or would like to love the Lord, is invited by Him to come and dine!" Ergo, you have CwoB, because, almost certainly, someone to whom that invitation is given will not have been baptised. My experience of Anglican churces other than those of which I have been a member suggests that the practice is widespread, even in the CofE. I would be surprised if it were much different amongst TEC, and would think it is amongst the separatist wing that is most likely to be found.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
They most certainly do... and not even used as a "converting ordinance," just allowed with no type of limits or conditions.
Surely, by definition, a converting ordinance must have no limits or conditions? You are casting your bread upon the water, n'est-ce pas? How might limits and conditions be imposed in such a circumstance?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
JJ, I know that a lot of the free churches have that practice, but in an Anglican Church? Even within evo CofE parishes, I haven't heard of that; our parish certainly doesn't do it.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
JJ, I know that a lot of the free churches have that practice, but in an Anglican Church? Even within evo CofE parishes, I haven't heard of that; our parish certainly doesn't do it.
Dunno, maybe it's a North-West thing? It's certainly what I've grown up with. When a new vicar at my previous Parish expressed some surprise at our custom and practice, we thought him very strange. What happens in your church? How are people invited? "Any baptised person in good standing...." is a formula I have heard at other churches from time to time.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
If a formal invite is given at all, yes. I guess it's kind of assumed most of the time.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Thinking about it, both my Anglican Parishes have had pretty close associations with the respective local Methodists (even to the extent, on one occasion, of being able to hear the Local Preacher's sermon over our PA, courtesy of a new radio mic and a clash of frequencies ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ). It may be something we picked up from them.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
I've quite often heard Anglican priests give invitiations with words like "all who love the Lord". George Carey used to thirty years ago.
I suspect that if you asked them they would explain that they mean "... and are baptised and in good standing with their own churches" or something like that, but that they don't want to use bureaucratic jargon in the liturgy. And that they never intended to invite the unbaptised.
In the last few months our vicar has started explicitly mentioning baptism at the Communion. It is a it clumsy from a liturgical point of view. But sometime between the Peace & the EP she'll say something along the lines of "It is our practice at this church to come up to the altar rail and kneel or stand to receive Communion. If you are a visritor from another church please feel free to come to Communion. If you do not want to recieve the bread and the wine or if you are not baptised pleace and you want a blessing come up to the rail and keep your arms folded" There are a couple of othe rpoints as well and she probably puts it better than that. But I noticed a couple of weeks ago that she has started mentioning not being baptised as a reason for not taking Communion.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan_of_Quark
Anchoress of St Expedite
# 9887
|
Posted
Both CofE places I attend regularly have this kind of welcome/fencing hybrid, but just before the beginning of the service, where I think it's less of an awkward rhythm change, i.e. after a "good morning" and before "In the name of the Father..."
One place talks about people from other denominations who are used to receiving communion in their own church being welcome. The other states that this is a service in the Anglican tradition and others are welcome. Sometimes, but not always, I've heard "baptised and..." as part of these, especially if there is a baptism or other ceremony with a lot of one-time visitors, when we will get the long version including how to come up for a blessing, as in ken's church.
--------------------
"I want to be an artist when I grow up." "Well you can't do both!"
further quarkiness
Posts: 1025 | From: The Book Depository | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!
Well, you were the one who seemed to be suggesting that CwoB was a 'problem'. But any church that doesn't interrogate newcomers as to their baptismal status and/or EXCLUDE peope of unknown status from communion is allowing it to happen.
Seems quite unexceptional to me, personally. I've often heard visitors told that they are welcome to join in, and I've never ever heard anyone being told NOT to join in.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
In all TEC churches that I have attended, it has always been that "all baptized Christians" are allowed to receive. Recently, it may have softened, but more telling people that it is all right not to receive if they do not wish.
I've never heard that "it did not matter" if you were baptized or not.
(The only exception I know of was when I attended a church where the children showed up and the parents did not. The youngest child (3 years old) may have received once or twice. However, do you want to tell a 3 year old that they can't have Jesus?)
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Ah - so it's OK for PECUSA to pick off orthodox parishes in the US... 'They came for the Communists but I wasn't a communist...'
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Are you referring to TEC? (The "P" was dropped sometime back. If so, what sort of paranoid fantasy scenario is this? (If the above scenario wasn't so spectacularly non-factual I would have merely contented my self with a ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) )
TEC is not "picking off" anyone. No one kicked out those who split.
CAVEAT: I tend to be very linear-minded (and literal-minded) so forgive me if i'm missing some irony
[ 23. June 2009, 12:36: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
For what it's worth....
There certainly is debate in the Episcopal Church over the issue of "communion without baptism," and there are, without any doubt, parishes that practice a radically "open communion" with an invitation that says something like "all are welcome to receive the consecrated Bread and Wine," with no statement about baptism and an implicit expectation that non-baptized persons might receive.
These parishes are disobeying existing canons, and a resolution passed at the 2006 General Convention. They are aware of this, but see what they are doing as a case of "civil disobedience."
Here's a link to a blog post by Tobias Haller BSG, a TEC theologian, "Muddy (Baptismal) Waters". Note that Br. Haller's post begins with reference to a recent article on the issue in the Spring 2009 Anglican Theological Review.
The issue has also been dealt with in other Episcopal Church blogs. For example, there's this reflection by CREEDAL CHRISTIAN.
In short (sort of!): There is no official policy in TEC advocating communion of the unbaptized, and there are in fact official statements against it; however, there are parishes that practice offering communion of the unbaptized, and there are those who are arguing for formal acceptance of the practice (at least as a licit option for those parishes that wish it).
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Dubious Thomas
In short (sort of!): There is no official policy in TEC advocating communion of the unbaptized, and there are in fact official statements against it; however, there are parishes that practice offering communion of the unbaptized, and there are those who are arguing for formal acceptance of the practice (at least as a licit option for those parishes that wish it).
Much the same as the CofE, then - don't ask, don't tell! Hardly evidence of unbridled apostasy within TEC.
What is your feeling here, DT? Is it mostly the dissenting parishes (ie those allied to Gafcon) who would be most likely to offer an open invitation (on this side of the pond, the more evo a parish, by and large, the less likely it is to stand on ceremony) or is it the "radical inclusionists" who are the flagbearers for CwoB?
[ 23. June 2009, 21:25: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
What is your feeling here, DT? Is it mostly the dissenting parishes (ie those allied to Gafcon) who would be most likely to offer an open invitation (on this side of the pond, the more evo a parish, by and large, the less likely it is to stand on ceremony) or is it the "radical inclusionists" who are the flagbearers for CwoB?
In my experience (and I'll emphasize that I really only can comment on this basis), it is "radical inclusionists" who affirm CwoB. Those who are theologically "conservative" (on the "usual suspect" issues) are also "conservative" on this issue: since restricting communion to the baptized is classic Christian teaching, they affirm it. Of course, were circumstances different, and they didn't tend to see this as another of those things "those people" do, they might be more willing to reconsider this practice: witness the folks in Sydney who are preparing to overthrow 2,000 years of Catholic teaching that only an ordained presbyter can preside at the Eucharist.
But...it's also worth noting that agreeing with CwoB is not a "membership requirement" for holding "inclusive" views on the ordination of LGBT people and the blessing of same-sex relationships. Many folks who are "pro-gay" are anti-CwoB, not seeing the two issues as equivalent: one is concerned with how we treat the baptized and the other is concerned with how we treat the non-baptized. Indeed, I would (personally) argue that, if baptism is as significant as advocates of including LGBT people in all the sacraments argue it is (and I think it is!), then logically we should not offer communion to the unbaptized: The slogan is, "All the sacraments for all the baptized" ... not "One of the sacraments for the unbaptized...but we'll hold the line on all the other ones!"
Tobias Haller, whose blog post I linked in my previous note, is a strong advocate for full inclusion of LGBT Christians in the life of the Church (he's written a book setting out the case, Reasonable and Holy), but he opposes CwoB.
For the record.... I am a member of a parish that practices CwoB. I disagree with the practice, but I see no reason to leave a parish I love (for so many reasons) because I disagree over this issue.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Ah - so it's OK for PECUSA to pick off orthodox parishes in the US... 'They came for the Communists but I wasn't a communist...'
Are you referring to TEC? (The "P" was dropped sometime back. If so, what sort of paranoid fantasy scenario is this? (If the above scenario wasn't so spectacularly non-factual I would have merely contented my self with a )
TEC is not "picking off" anyone. No one kicked out those who split.
CAVEAT: I tend to be very linear-minded (and literal-minded) so forgive me if i'm missing some irony
It can be seen as being "kicked out" if you are thrown out of the church building where you have worshiped for years and years.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
It can be seen as being "kicked out" if you are thrown out of the church building where you have worshiped for years and years.
It "can be," certainly, but that hardly means it is correct to see it that way.
Why should people who leave a denomination be able to keep a building that belongs to the denomination they are leaving?
Imagine a Roman Catholic parish that decided to leave the Roman Catholic Church. Would they be able to leave with their building just because that was "where [they] have worshipped for years and years?" Or, to be more to-the-point: what would the CofE do if a congregation decided it no longer wished to be part of the CofE? Would it allow the group to take its building?
Perhaps TEC should be more "sacrificial" in dealing with those who leave, and "suffer [themselves] to be defrauded" rather than going to court (1 Corinthians 6:7). But, were TEC to do this, it would not be a case of the departers being in the right; it would be a case of TEC not asserting its own rights.
...of course, the departers who fight so hard to hold onto these buildings when TEC sues for them have a scriptural text they might consider, too: "And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (Matthew 6:40).
Personally, I think we'd all be better off if we headed back into the catacombs and worshipped over the bones of the martyrs! (A parish in the diocese of Atlanta worships in a park because that's where the homeless are! ... Church of the Common Ground)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
Yes, but if you see yourself as Anglican, is leaving one part of the church that you see as sliding into heresy and joining one that you see as not, really leaving the church?
It's not like you are really leaving, just reorganizing...
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Yes, but if you see yourself as Anglican, is leaving one part of the church that you see as sliding into heresy and joining one that you see as not, really leaving the church?
It's not like you are really leaving, just reorganizing...
Your question is really a theological one...and I reject its basic premise, that TEC is "sliding into heresy".
Be that as it may, we can't settle issues of property on theological grounds. This is a matter of polity. The Anglican Communion doesn't own the buildings used by TEC congregations. TEC does. So, another province of the Anglican Communion has no right (either in canon law OR, more importantly, in American law) to alienate TEC's property.
Imagine an American Roman Catholic congregation voting to switch to the Polish National Catholic Church. Would the Roman Catholics allow them to take their building... just because the group to which they were switching was accepted to be validly "Catholic"? No.
Let's turn this around and run a scenario more to-the-point. What if a liberal CofE congregation were to decide that they preferred being part of TEC? Would they be able to disaffiliate from the CofE and take their building? I very much doubt it....
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
I'm playing Devil's advocate here (somewhat). I actually don't believe TEC is sliding into heresy. Yet.
I quite understand the legal implications of what is going on.
I also know that there are spiritual implications (which I'm trying to point out), and I sincerely wish that each side would actually listen to the other.
I see sincere heartbreak on both sides. I also see both sides simply do things just to make the other angry.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TheMightyMartyr
Shipmate
# 11162
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!
Sadly, I have the service leaflets to prove it.
This is taken from page 13 of the October 12, 2008 Harvest Thanksgiving Service:
Share the Gifts
If you know the brokenness of life, its fractures within and its division without, then you have participated in the broken body of Christ and you are invited to share in the breaking of bread. If you desire to know the love of god that overcomes indifference and despair, if you desire the reconcilication that over comes estrangement and alienation then you are invited to share the cup of the new covenant.
No requirement for baptism there...
--------------------
You cannot claim to worship Jesus in the Tabernacle if you do not pity Jesus in the slum.
Posts: 259 | From: the Land of Ingham | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
What if a liberal CofE congregation were to decide that they preferred being part of TEC?
That is the only analogy that works. I imagine the answer is 'no' in most cases. However, there are some parishes that didn't hand over ownership to the dioceses. One of my former parishes was very proud of the fact that they'd managed (somehow, I don't really understand it) to transfer ownership to the Safegaurd Saint Seraphim's Trust or whatever, rather than the DBF or whoever.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Dubious Thomas writes:
quote:
So, another province of the Anglican Communion has no right (either in canon law OR, more importantly, in American law) to alienate TEC's property.
Not forgetting, of course, that there are Episcopalian dioceses and parishes in the Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, Taiwan, Colombia, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, one British colony and about half a dozen European countries (including France, which has some very interesting laws about church ownership), where US laws have a limited reach (the days of gunboats and Marine landings are gone, one hopes). The question is not (as threads ad nauseum) remind us, what other provinces want to alienate or not, but the property rights of particular parishes or dioceses as distinct or not from those of TEC.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
What if a liberal CofE congregation were to decide that they preferred being part of TEC?
That is the only analogy that works. I imagine the answer is 'no' in most cases. However, there are some parishes that didn't hand over ownership to the dioceses. One of my former parishes was very proud of the fact that they'd managed (somehow, I don't really understand it) to transfer ownership to the Safegaurd Saint Seraphim's Trust or whatever, rather than the DBF or whoever.
There are a few cases of non-standard church ownership in the CofE - most are evangelical proprietary chapels of the Victorian era. And of course the sector chaplaincies aren't owned by the CofE.
But of the regular 10,000+ PCC parish churches, I would guess that no more than 100 have non-standard arrangements.
There is no question that the established CofE can repossess the 99% of other churches, vicarages and PCCs, if any congregations leave and will get the support of the English courts to do so. A congregation can leave and continue to rent the CofE building from the PCC (and at least one RC community did that with consent post-1994). Even if 51% of PCCs resigned the system would still reassert control.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheMightyMartyr:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Picking up on the 'no formal invite being given' point, that's part of what lay behind my question to TheMightyMartyr: is it the case that an invitation is being given that expressly denies the requirement for baptism or is it just that no invitation is being given at all? If it is the latter, ISTM to be rather unfair to interpret that as permitting CwoB; at no time when I've attended Catholic Mass have I ever heard a formal invitation given, and yet I don't think I'll find anyone here claiming that the Catholic Church believes in and practices CwoB!
Sadly, I have the service leaflets to prove it.
This is taken from page 13 of the October 12, 2008 Harvest Thanksgiving Service:
Share the Gifts
If you know the brokenness of life, its fractures within and its division without, then you have participated in the broken body of Christ and you are invited to share in the breaking of bread. If you desire to know the love of god that overcomes indifference and despair, if you desire the reconcilication that over comes estrangement and alienation then you are invited to share the cup of the new covenant.
No requirement for baptism there...
Nor here:
quote:
YE that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
