Posted on 08/01/2003 12:10:34 PM PDT by sitetest
This would not be wise. The same approach has been standard operating procedure within the American Catholic church for decades now, and it basically leads to a churh that stands for nothing. If the laity can (and does) ignore at will any teaching of the church it wishes yet not force the chirch to reevaluate those teachings, then what is left? A church whose teachings arent relevant and a laity with no spiritual anchor. Nobody wins.
I tend to think that the schism may be the route most appropriate, the church splinters into factions but at least within those factions there is a consistent set of beliefs.
"epi" = "over"
"scopos" = "to look, or see"
Therefore, an episcopos is an overseer.
And so Robinson fails the qualification twice:
Oh well. They aren't interested in what the Bible says.
It really surprises me that you use both the 1928 and 1979 BCP!
Communion Parishes in the Episcopal Church are not threatening to leave, but promising to stay. They will not leave behind property, people, prayer books and primates. Rather they are committed to reclaiming and renewing an Episcopal Church now gone astray. Communion Parishes in the Episcopal Church includes prelates, priests, parishioners and parishes who have sought the godly counsel and protection of the Primates of the Anglican Communion as a means to stay in Communion with the larger Church while at the same time maintaining their membership in and commitment to the re-creation of healthy and holy ECUSA. This is a coalition of Episcopalians and their Parishes who will remain in their properties, minister to their people, worship and teach using the Prayer Book, and maintain communion with the Primates.
The strategy assumes that God will allow us to grow. We already know that the other side is withering (something like 75% of ECUSA parishes have fewer than 37 members).
It's gotten worse than that in my parish. Not only are there no Bibles placed in the pews, even the Book of Common Prayer has been removed. The services are printed in their entirety in the weekly bulletin.
We Episcopalians don't know our Bible, because it's never emphasized. Rector started 13-week adult Bible study programs a few years back using materials from the Baptists, and the response has been strong. Deep hunger among the mostly traditional/conservative Episcopal laity for knowledge of the Bible and its truths.
The sad part is the Church is being [mis]led by a leftist clergy and a small minority of radical Socialists and homosexual laymen.
The following story, which appeared on Patrick Madrid's blog right after the homosexual "victory" in Texas, is almost prophetic with regard to the above statement.
WHY NOT BI-SEXUAL POLYGAMY? [ Dwight Longenecker ] 28 Comment(s)
| 6/24/2003 4:09:52 AM | |
I was fascinated by the detail of one comment from a Canadian that folks North of the Border have put a new item on the liberal agenda: they want to recognise polygamy between people of various sexual inclinations. Here's how the argument will go: Let's imagine things just ten or twenty years down the line. By now homosexual 'marriage' is accepted as a mainstream alternative. But what about those people who live in a threesome? Why shouldn't they get 'married'? The permutations are endless: a homosexual man with another man and his wife, a lesbian with her girlfriend and her girlfriend's husband, a man who simply wants two or three or however many wives, a woman who wants to have two or three or more husbands. A man who's had a sex change living with another man and his wife.... When you think about it, there is even less Biblical opposition to polygamy than to homosexuality. In fact, as far as I know there is no Biblical condemnation of polygamy. In fact, you could say there is downright support for polygamy--the patriarchs were polygamous. Christians in Africa might support it as it is a part of their recent traditions. The Mormons would support it. Liberal Christians would say, 'Isn't this a better alternative to divorce?' Instead of Sally divorcing John and marrying Harry she could just marry Harry too. That way the children would have not just one father but two! Wouldn't that be great! What a great big, loving family! Utilitarian arguments for polygamy are endless. By marrying extra wives or husbands you cut divorce costs, you lower your overheads, you can combine incomes and have a better standard of living, more hands to help with the children and housework, a renewal of the extended family... blah blah blah... Think of the benefit for relationships. If George is married to Mildred, but admits that he sometimes has homosexual inclinations he doesn't need to sneak around and be hypocritial and deceitful. He doesn't need to 'repress' his sexuality. He can just marry his boyfriend and that way they can all be 'fulfilled.' Liberal Theologians will call this 'triune marriage'. They will spin theories about how this reflects the Holy Trinity, and how it is a fuller, richer and more mature understanding of Christian marriage. Sexologists will explain how a marriage with homosexuality as an integral part will enhance and fulfill the 'maleness' and 'femaleness' in all the partners. You know, without any authority and with a bit of imagination and you can make elephants fly.
|
|
Thus, we use the '28 BCP at the 8:00 service, which is small, and we also use it for Big Things, such as the special service following 9/11. (The Great Litany is unbeatable for such services.)
I put this question to a liberal Anglican priestess once in Toronto. Her response: "Quality means more than quantity! We attract and keep people of quality!"
All of them were smart enough as teenagers that they would have questioned why I would discipline them for any of their misdeeds which were ONLY of the "Thou shalt not" variety when an officer of the national church was a practicing, non-repentant of an abomination.
A rhetorical question, no? If not, I'll supply the answer:
And Jesus answered them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." (Luke 5:31-32)
"Liberal theology" boils down to a belief that God's will matches secular trends -- there's no such thing as "sin". (They're "the righteous.") There's no need for salvation, and a liberal church offers nothing to set it apart from the secular world. So why waste a Sunday morning by attending?
Orthodoxy holds that we're all sinners. We look for a place that accepts our repentence, and helps us to know and do God's will. We know we're broken -- we have no desire to be told that we're not. We want to be healed, and God promises to heal us. People want to go to a church that preaches the message of salvation.
Scripture is full of places where God rewards those who humbly approach Him in reverence and obedience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.