Posted on 04/28/2007 2:30:05 PM PDT by fgoodwin
Church History: America once an Episcopalian nation
http://www.thedailycitizen.com/articles/2007/04/28/news/features/features05.txt
http://tinyurl.com/383b4f
Friday, April 27, 2007 8:43 PM CDT
Statistically no group of Christians held a greater influence over the founding and initial direction of the United States of America than the Episcopal Church. According to the website www.adherents.com, fifty-five percent of the founding fathers were Episcopalian. In addition, Episcopalians comprised thirty-two percent of all Supreme Court Justices and more than twenty-five percent of all presidents in the past two and a quarter centuries of American history.
The Revolution may have been a “Presbyterian Parson's War,” as King George referred to it, but Episcopalians populated the fledgling nation. This is quite natural: the Episcopal Church was the Anglican Church, the national Church of England. Anglicanism was the official church of five colonies and held sway in most of the others. English appointed governors, military leaders, and land grantees were often required and usually quite happy to maintain membership in the Anglican Church when immigrating to the Colonies. Quite happy, that is, until the Declaration of Independence called for the end of British sovereignty over the colonies. Membership within the Anglican Church calls for submission to the British monarch. National independence led to the reorganization of Colonial Anglicans into the semi-autonomous Episcopal Church.
Comprising just under two-percent of the United States population, it would be easy to write off the Episcopal Church as a church whose power day is past. Yet, it remains a bellwether organization. In 2003, the Episcopal Church consecrated the openly homosexual Gene Robinson as Bishop of the New Hampshire Diocese. This event broke open a torrent that had long been an undercurrent within the Anglican Communion. First, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams issued what amounts to a cease and desist against the Episcopal Church. Then, in their 2006 “Message to the Nation,” the leaders of the Anglican Church of Nigeria made clear their position by declaring their “commitment to the total rejection of the evil of homosexuality which is a perversion of human dignity.” And now, perhaps most telling, is the exodus of conservative Episcopalians to the Reformed Episcopal Church (founded in 1873) and several new Episcopal bodies seeking the blessing and oversight of the British and Nigerian Church.
So, what is in store for the Episcopal Church? Schism, according to a recent article (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=676). Jordan Hylden writes that their continued rejection of the advice and discipline of the broader Anglican Church is nothing less than an
“Episcopal Declaration of Independence” leading to the inevitable division of the once great church: “Schism, which so many had hoped to avoid, is today closer than it has ever been. And it does not appear that anything will be done to stop it.”
Further, as American Episcopalians falter, the Anglican Church of Nigeria is taking up their mantle of influence. Paul Zimmerman, professor of History at New York University, describes this irony as “a sign that former missionaries did their job well.” In the March 3, 2007 edition of the “Cleveland Plain Dealer,” the professor wrote, “That's why African Christians stand so far to the right of their brethren in the West, on a host of religious and cultural questions. And that's why they're starting to evangelize us, to the chagrin of many Americas. The battle inside the Anglican Communion is only the first of many struggles that Americans can expect in the next few years, pitting conservatives from the Third Word against liberals in the West.” For almost half a millennium, Christians from the West told the rest of the globe how to think, behave and believe. Now, for the first time, we're getting a taste of our own medicine. For liberals, especially, it might be a very bitter pill.”
Please ping your Anglican List.
Thanx
Interesting choice of words: Bellwether. A wether is a castrated ram, and a bellwether is a wether who leads the rest of the flock (and who therefore wears a bell).
I find this rather hard to believe.
How many colonies had, as their official church, the Episcopal church?
Didn’t the Episcopalians eventually comprise most of the Federalist Party, and weren’t they, for the most part, opposed to the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson prior to and during his presidency?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
There has been a long and often close relationship between
the Anglican and Catholic Churches. In certain situations
there remains a mutual recognition of the validity of key
doctrines, liturgies, and practices. And the Catholic
Church continues to hold the faith and moral teachings as
taught by the Apostles.
I understand that there is also an Anglican Use liturgy
within the Catholic Church, wherein the Book of Common Prayer
is used for the Mass (with minor updates). So there is no need
to lose the liturgy Anglicans may be familiar with.
Resources for those interested in the Catholic faith:
Catholic Answers
www.catholic.com
A superb site for clearing away the myths propagated by too many.
Offers free on-line library that examines all the major issues,
free on-line archive of over 1,500 hours of radio/audio material,
plus magazines, books, pamphlets, tracts, videos, and more.
Coming Home Network
www.chnetwork.org
Provides fellowship, encouragement and support for Protestant
pastors and laymen who are somewhere along the journey or
have already been received into the Catholic Church.
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
www.biblicalcatholic.com
Dave Armstrong's monster site. Eclectic, fun, exhaustingly
detailed, personal, moving, and more.
And may God bless your journey where ever it takes you.
posted on 08/05/2003 5:19 PM PDT by polemikos
FYI
Polite speech for a homosexual seminarians' conspiracy to overthrow the church.
Politically active homosexuals have worked for 50 years to obtain by fraud the moral endorsement of a mainline church for their paraphilia. They're after the Presbyterians, Methodists, and Lutherans, too. They know they won't get Rome.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by Huber.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
Does that number include President Davis, who was Episcopal?
Virginia did, and it remained established after ratification of the Constitution. (And disestablishment was a slug in the financial guts.) Mind you, my impression is that one could believe a lot (or a little) and still be an Episcopalian. It wasn't a very theologically specific church.
Then you get that weirdness like the Church funeral for Versace.
“America once an Episcopalian nation”
And the West was once Orthodox Christian!!!!
http://www.orthodoxdetroit.com/
And the Southwest was Catholic. ;-)
Most Churches opposed Jefferson, because he denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was not a Christian.
Demography is destiny.
To populate is to govern.
The decline of the Episcopal Church (and the similar decline of the Congregationalists in New England) is a radical example of what happens to those who practice birth control.
It just goes to show that there's more to conservatism than adhering to the religion of one's founders! Look where we'd all be today if we were still an Episcopalian nation!
As an Episcopalian, can I receive the Eucharist if I attend Catholic Mass?
But so many other denominations arose and grew because ordinary people didn't feel the Anglican/Episcopalian establishment spoke for them. It looked distant, unconcerned, and tepid about religious faith, so people became Baptists or Methodists or joined another, more evangelical church.
Right now, there's some controversy among historians over which tradition was more important in American history: the older, more established churches like the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists, or more evangelical, enthusiastic, and proselytizing denominations.
Codswallop. The problem of the Episcopal Church today is the problem of America's schools, colleges and universities. All of these are administered by leftists. In college students get indoctrinated in deconstructionism, Lacanianism, feminism, queer theory, multiculturalism, and identity politics. Students take these ideas with them when then enroll in seminaries. Theology then reflects this nonsense.
Until the schools are reformed, the moral relativism of the educationists will continue to infect every institution in America, whether secular of religious.
MHGinTN asks "As an Episcopalian, can I receive the Eucharist if I attend Catholic Mass?"Please expand on my answer.+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
There are plenty of priests who will give communion to non-Catholics, but as far as I know, it is not allowed by the Vatican.
“Most Churches opposed Jefferson, because he denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was not a Christian.”
****
It’s interesting that, according to the eminent Jefferson historian/biographer Dumas Malone, the Baptists of that day supported Jefferson because of his belief in freedom of religion.
There is undisputably a weakness in the liturgical churches that makes them more vulnerable. My personal theory is that the high level of ritualism implies that religious truth is allegorical, while churches with few or no rituals (often accused of "rationalism") have no need to redefine "allegories" they don't believe are allegories to begin with.
There's a huge difference between adhering to the religion and those associated with the NAME of the religion.
My main point was that "palaeoconservatives" are wrong when they advocate a separate inherited traditional religion for each people (and this is what they advocate, whether they say it or not). There is a universal One True Religion and it is the duty of each and every human being who comes into the world to search for it. The religion of our Founding Fathers is of historical value, but it has no more bearing on abstract religious Truth than the religion of the founders of Saudi Arabia.
I reiterate again: Fundamentalists regard the Bible as a book of facts. The ancient liturgical churches long ago rejected the facticity of truth as a "modern" creation of the scientific revolution and fell back on "truth" being abstract and symbolic while "facts" are mundane and have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. This it is a "truth" that G-d exists but it is not a "fact" that He exists, making the existence of G-d the same type of existence as that of Santa Claus.
To the highly ritualized churches the Bible is the text of a ritual pantomime rather than a book of facts. As a matter of fact, the clergy of the highly ritualized churches are full of atheists/agnostics who go through the motions in order to make a good living (after all, religious ritual is a basic human need that persists after the "myths" have been rejected, according to Eliade). It is much easier to tell a Protestant preacher's ideological orientation from a sermon than that of an Armenian priest by his performance of a two hour ritual.
Thank you for your input. I will consider it in the provided context.
You are speaking from the perspective of the secular, public-sector basis. Do differentiate, if you will. I intuit from what you speak, but you hamfisted it a bit.
>>Then why have Fundamentalist and Pentecostal denominations escaped this nonsense? <<
Who says they have? Ever been to a black Pentecostalist church?
Some churches are more conservative because they are comprised of conservatives fleeing mainline denominations, but they are becoming perverted by leftists (Rick Warren as a great example) at alarming speed. They are created out of conservatives; There’s nothing in the structure of such churches which make them remain so.
Arminian, not Armenian. Armenians are an Eastern Orthodox from the Former Soviet Republic of Armenia. They are truly paleoconservatives.
True, but America was never an Episcopalian nation.
The majority of European settlers up to the Revolution were "dissenters" - Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Pietists, Catholics. And a good chunk of these Episcopals were actually Methodists - not a very clear distinction yet in those days.
The majority of founders were Episcopal because the English monarchy restricted voting, university education and military officerships to Episcopals by law.
As a result they were usually the wealthiest and best-connected people in the colonies, despite their status as a religious minority.
In my opinion, the American Revolution was largely a revolution "from above" - the colonial upperclass split into two factions: the Tories who hoped for preferment and the Founders who were tired of being shunted to the back of the line by toffs three thousand miles away.
The Founders were able to use the prestige their privilege gave them to make a change.
Ahem. I said "Armenian" and I meant "Armenian." Armenian priests perform two hour rituals (whether they actually believe in G-d or not). Arminians don't have priests or rituals.
I spent an entire summer attending an Armenian Apostolic Church, so I know what I'm talking about. But the Armenian isn't Eastern Orthodox; it's "Oriental Orthodox" (Non-Chalcaedonian); and they certainly aren't "palaeoconservatives" (in fact, many seem to have a leftist orientation).
Then why have Fundamentalist and Pentecostal denominations escaped this nonsense?
Who says they have? Ever been to a black Pentecostalist church?
My understanding is that most Black churches are as Fundamentalist theologically as they are leftist politically.
I have been to only one Pentecostal service in my life, and I immediately made up my mind that I would never, ever, EVER go to another one. And I haven't.
Some churches are more conservative because they are comprised of conservatives fleeing mainline denominations, but they are becoming perverted by leftists (Rick Warren as a great example) at alarming speed. They are created out of conservatives; There’s nothing in the structure of such churches which make them remain so.
I reiterate that the ritual nature of liturgical churches makes them more vulnerable to liberalism because they regard the Bible as a ritual text rather than a book of facts. I also consider the fact that Fundamentalist churches are made up entirely of "saved" individuals (ie, people who have had a mystical experience as adults) rather than people merely born into a church which is supposed to gradually save them throughout their lives as another reason for this.
:^D OK, touche’. It just seemed a little odd using a very rare, non-evangelical, foreign-based church as your example. But, yes, Methodists are often described as ArmInians, and they do have rituals and bishop, and, from what I gather, sometimes services that can go on for hours and hours.
>> I spent an entire summer attending an Armenian Apostolic Church, so I know what I’m talking about. But the Armenian isn’t Eastern Orthodox; it’s “Oriental Orthodox” (Non-Chalcaedonian); and they certainly aren’t “palaeoconservatives” (in fact, many seem to have a leftist orientation). <<
Oh, and the reference to the Orthodox being paleoconservative was a bit of a joke.
=]
The Episcopal Church, like other “mainline” Protestant denominations, never learned to discipline itself. Until after World War II, the clergy were kept in line by powerful men such as EI DuPont and JP Morgan. Many priests and bishops were essentially their employees, whom they kept in line (JP Morgan would never have tolerated Bps Pike and Spong).
After the war, these controllers faded away and new generations of clerics arose to “play” in their churches with endowments they had left. With neither the gumption nor the mechanism to exercise discipline, the ECUSA hierarchy chose to look the other way as heterodoxy and heresy crept into the seminaries.
The Catholics, Baptists and other Protestants never had a club of wealthy powerbrokers to maintain order. They therefore had to learn to discipline themselves in order to avoid ruin.
They were founded to escape that nonsense. Historically, the nonsense came first; fundamentalism started as a reaction to it.
My personal theory is that the high level of ritualism implies that religious truth is allegorical
I think that's a nonsensical theory.
I don’t think a liturgical basis necessarily makes a denomination more liberal than others.
Catholics and Orthodox both have as much (or more) ritual than Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, but I am not aware of Catholics and Orthodox struggling with issues of gay clergy.
But since I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, I could be mistaken.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘struggle’. If you mean having to contend with clergy who turn out to be willing to engage in homosexual behavior, then I’d have to say that every institution in the world, religious or not, has to ‘struggle’. But are these churches also ‘struggling’ with whether or not homosexual behavior is sinful and contrary to God’s law? I’d say not and that they are quite clear on what God’s law is in the matter.
As is my own denomination, which stems directly from the Episcopal line but has firmly parted ways with it, many years ago. We remain Catholic in our liturgy and Apostolic in our clerical lineage.
I might also mention we do not, that is NOT, consider the Bible in any way allegorical in the determination of doctrine, dogma or belief. It is a book filled with what God has Himself revealed to us and as such it is a compendium of religious fact. To utter doctrine contrary to the facts contained therein is instantly to go off the doctrinal rails. In my own studies I find that the Fathers ALWAYS consulted Scripture in their work and it was only in trying to co-ordinate the facts they found in Scripture that they could be thought of as theorizing. And their work could and can always be referred and compared to the source Scriptural data to see if it conflicts or denies revealed truth.
I would not speak for Romans or Orthodox but I would be surprised to read them disagree on this point, however we may disagree on what comprises doctrine.
Catholics and Orthodox both have as much (or more) ritual than Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, but I am not aware of Catholics and Orthodox struggling with issues of gay clergy.
You're joking, right? What was the whole priestly pederasty scandal about? The Catholic Church has been heavily infiltrated by homosexuals for decades now. And while the Orthodox Church may not be struggling with the issue, it will, because the Orthodox Church (like the Catholic Church) regards the Bible as the script of a ritual pantomime rather than a book of factual data. What begins as turning Biblical stories into non-literal allegories always ends in the doing the same thing to "faith and morals." ALWAYS.
Some of the very ancient churches of the orient are basically ethnic birthright religions and don't take doctrine seriously at all.
Fundamentalist Protestantism, in addition to insisting on the Bible as factual (rather than merely "true") subscribes to a theology that insists all chr*stians must be adult converts, and since most adult converts are "cradle chr*stians" (who are as expected to be "born again" by their families as Episcopal kids are expected to make their first communion) this adult conversion cannot by the very nature of things consist of an intellectual conversion to chr*stian doctrine (since it is already believed). The whole "born again" experience (a mystical experience akin to spirit possession) developed to provide this adult conversion experience to people who had already believed the doctrines their whole lives. A church made up of people who have all gone through such a dramatic experience are going to take their religion much more seriously than an old ethnic "birthright" church.
And I reiterate again to all readers that limiting the inerrancy of scripture to "faith and morals" is the beginning of the slippery slope that leads eventually and inevitably to liberalism of doctrine. Fundamentalists are protected by their belief that the Bible is not only infallibly "true" (whatever that may mean; I once heard a Catholic priest on TV say "Santa Claus is 'Truth' with a capital 'T'") but is innerantly factual. All the ancient churches, no matter how "conservative," will eventually fall because they have become too proud (and too snobbish, to tell you the truth of the matter) to subscribe to what they arrogantly dismiss as "hillbilly hermeneutics."
When all the historic churches have fallen the Fundamentalists will either be confirmed in their existing beliefs or (G-d willing) will embrace Noachism. But all non-Fundamentalist chr*stianity is a collapsing house of cards. ALL OF IT.
Oh . . . I forgot to mention that according the the “palaeoconservatives,” people like DuPont and Morgan were “secretly behind Communism”—an antipathy palaeoconservatism inherited from its populist-socialist parent.
Just in case you have forgotten.
“How many colonies had, as their official church, the Episcopal church?”
Of the original 13 in North America? I would wager that, other than Maryland, which was specifically established as a Roman Catholic enclave, the other 12 were officially Anglican. Even the Puritans of New England were part of the established Anglican church—wishing to purify it from Romanism, after their (stricter than Calvin) Calvinism. Of course in America, even as colonies, things were laxer than in the old country, and over time at least, more tolerance was offered to “sects” to practice Christianity as they saw fit.
Massachusetts under the puritanical Puritans for example, did allow other Christian groups...as long as they weren’t Quakers, (wild Pentecostals back then...) who were seen as beyond the pale in the 17th Century (a few got hung on Harvard Square, I understand). Pennsylvania and Maryland were the most tolerant though, hence we see the establishment of Quakerism, under Penn, as well as freedom for other even foreign sects (Mennonites and Moravians for example) in both states.
I know one reason for the term “meeting house” is that it was illegal in colonial days, in most colonies, to refer to places of meeting for other than Anglicans as “churches.” Hence our vocabulary today of the “Quaker Meeting House” even in places like Pennsylvania.
Oddly enough, most Americans don’t know that the established colonial churches CONTINUED getting state government support after 1776, mostly up until the 1820s and 30s. Since the federal Constitution only applied to the federal government, it took state legislatures to change their own state constitutions to outlaw official state churches...and the ACLU was nowhere to be found.
[rolls eyes]
It wasn't an "ethnic joke," and "rural American Fundamentalist Protestant" is not an ethnicity.
“As an Episcopalian, can I receive the Eucharist if I attend Catholic Mass?”
I wondered about that here in Slovakia.
As a FORMER Episcopalian from west Tennessee ( Senior Warden
for some years) I did take communion in the Catholic church here at Easter and Christmas, but I don’t speak Slovak, and they don’t speak English.
I doubt if God would be angry.
Yeah, I don’t really think Jesus is a Roman Catholic...or any other denomination for that matter!
Rome wouldn’t be happy with your taking the Eucharist, but, hey, it’s Jesus’ meal, isn’t it?
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.