Is anyone following the US Anglican/Episcopal drama?

[AreaCode7O7]

If you think "WTF?" when reading my thread title, you're in good company. If even a few other people here are aware of this I'll be surprised. If you Google it, be aware that most news articles cover the sensationalist aspects, not the actual causes and effects going on.

If you are following it, what's your opinion?

 

[So]

I think that nobody outside of a few crackpots cares.

 

[DainBramaged]

What's going on?`

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
What's going on?`

Easiest classification is internal church politics that will probably result in a split that leaves the African/South American churches opposed to the US/Canadian churches. The details probably don't matter much to anyone outside of the church, as So points out, although "a few" translates to 77 million worldwide.

From a practical standpoint it could result in less charitable aid money going from the US to some in need third world countries like Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, etc.

 

[sandorski]

Must be over "Moral" issues? That's the only time "drama" gets going on in Church Politics. :laugh:

 

[Adam8281]

Yes, I follow it pretty closely. As for my opinion, well, it's a bit complex, but overall I'm more sympathetic with the non-westerners. I probably won't go too deep into it all here, though, to avoid the debacle this thread would inevitably become.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Must be over "Moral" issues? That's the only time "drama" gets going on in Church Politics. :laugh:

Manifests itself in "moral" issues but differing opinions on Biblical authority and interpretation is the root cause, so you're pretty close.

Adam, just curious if there was anyone else on the forums that was watching it. I read a lot of perspectives (and some not especially nice things) from the bloggers and wondered if another human being or two would be interested in a civil PM conversation about it. Where are you located?

 

[Adam8281]

Sure, I'm happy to PM about it. I'm in Raleigh, going to law school. But before that I got a master's degree in theology. I'm not actually Episcopalian - I'm Presbyterian - but I follow the issues in theology journals, magazines, etc. If you want, you can PM me your thoughts, and I'll look forward to responding.

 

[nakedfrog]

Just what Christianity needs, more splitters!

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Just what Christianity needs, more splitters!

Interestingly enough everyone involved agrees but everyone has a different opinion about who left who.

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Just what Christianity needs, more splitters!

This pattern isn't exclusive to Christianity or even religion. It's human nature- dividing nations, tribes, politics, WOW raid groups, etc.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

im sure JC will be down in a little bit to settle the matter, based on all the heathens in the world and genocides going on im pretty sure he isnt too busy

 

[Turin39789]

A good friend from high school became an Episcopalian minister after getting his undergrad in computer engineering.

I think I know the rough background, essentially US church allowed homosexual clergy and African churches said we leave now?

 

[Feanor727]

I follow it insofar as the parish I attend (albeit irregularly) is St. Vincent's Cathedral in the FW Episcopal diocese...

As far as commentary goes, I don't fully agree with all of the theological views behind the various split, but TEC is doing a spectacular job of handling things badly. IMO, formation of the new North American Province is a good thing, and will lend legitimacy to their cause provided they (or the other conservative provinces, for that matter) don't try to break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Aren't the Anglicans and Episcopalians two of the most liberal sects? Need links, no way am I sorting through Google for something as broad as "Anglican/Episcopal".

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
A good friend from high school became an Episcopalian minister after getting his undergrad in computer engineering.

I think I know the rough background, essentially US church allowed homosexual clergy and African churches said we leave now?

That's the common media interpretation. I think this quote sums up the cause a little more accurately, in a way both sides would agree with:

"But in actuality the breaking of the union is over a battle over a literal versus non-literal read of The Bible. As breakaway "Anglican" Bishop John-David Schofield and (non-breakaway) Episcopalian Bishop Jerry Lamb agreed (both interviewed on a radio show I produced this week, both from the same San Joaquin region in California) this is really about scripture, namely who has the power to interpret words: present day 'you' (says the Anglican Communion) or the 'you' (say the breakaway folks) who wrote the words in the past. It's about a fundamentalist reading of The Bible."

Radio show referred to, interviews begin at 10:00 http://airamerica.com/node/91956

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Aren't the Anglicans and Episcopalians two of the most liberal sects? Need links, no way am I sorting through Google for something as broad as "Anglican/Episcopal".

slacker. Googling "episcopal anglican split" returned this news result

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/us/06episcopal.html

 

[dennilfloss]

If I were to leave the Roman Catholic church, I'd probably join The Anglican Church of Canada. In fact, I feel closer to the latter on some issues and I have looked briefly into this. The United Church of Canada is also appealing.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
Aren't the Anglicans and Episcopalians two of the most liberal sects? Need links, no way am I sorting through Google for something as broad as "Anglican/Episcopal".

Heh, interesting that your familiarity with them kind of underscores the cause of the fuss. There's a portion that would prefer not to be known of one of the most liberal sects. (Episcopal is the US word for Anglican, so it's technically one group.)

 

[Feanor727]

Ah, so you're referring to the larger split, rather than a few parishes/diocese in the US breaking away from TEC?

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Feanor727
Ah, so you're referring to the larger split, rather than a few parishes/diocese in the US breaking away from TEC?

Mm, they seem to be kind of intertwined at this point. Individual parishes have left here and there since 1979, when they replaced the 1928 BCP, but the ones that have been leaving over the last year or so have been getting connected with the other countries. So I suppose my question was ambiguous because I think of it as being rather ambiguous in that sense.

 

[Feanor727]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Feanor727
Ah, so you're referring to the larger split, rather than a few parishes/diocese in the US breaking away from TEC?

Mm, they seem to be kind of intertwined at this point. Individual parishes have left here and there since 1979, when they replaced the 1928 BCP, but the ones that have been leaving over the last year or so have been getting connected with the other countries. So I suppose my question was ambiguous because I think of it as being rather ambiguous in that sense.

Fair enough. Since I reside in a diocese which has split, I guess I take a more micro-cosmic view.

As far as the larger split goes, one of the defining characteristics of the Anglican Communion is compromise. Moreover, since there is no central authority (Canterbury is first among equals), there's no real reason for the provinces to break communion. No one is telling them that they can't interpret the Bible literally, and the non-literal interpretation going on in other branches of the communion doesn't affect them.

 

[AreaCode7O7]

Originally posted by: Feanor727

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: Feanor727
Ah, so you're referring to the larger split, rather than a few parishes/diocese in the US breaking away from TEC?

Mm, they seem to be kind of intertwined at this point. Individual parishes have left here and there since 1979, when they replaced the 1928 BCP, but the ones that have been leaving over the last year or so have been getting connected with the other countries. So I suppose my question was ambiguous because I think of it as being rather ambiguous in that sense.

Fair enough. Since I reside in a diocese which has split, I guess I take a more micro-cosmic view.

As far as the larger split goes, one of the defining characteristics of the Anglican Communion is compromise. Moreover, since there is no central authority (Canterbury is first among equals), there's no real reason for the provinces to break communion. No one is telling them that they can't interpret the Bible literally, and the non-literal interpretation going on in other branches of the communion doesn't affect them.

Which diocese are you in? Sounds like you're a stayer rather than a goer? Would you be interested in a PM discussion?

 

[jagec]

How about a summary for the lazy, or at least a snide letmegooglethatforyou?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
I think this quote sums up the cause a little more accurately, in a way both sides would agree with:

"But in actuality the breaking of the union is over a battle over a literal versus non-literal read of The Bible. As breakaway "Anglican" Bishop John-David Schofield and (non-breakaway) Episcopalian Bishop Jerry Lamb agreed (both interviewed on a radio show I produced this week, both from the same San Joaquin region in California) this is really about scripture, namely who has the power to interpret words: present day 'you' (says the Anglican Communion) or the 'you' (say the breakaway folks) who wrote the words in the past. It's about a fundamentalist reading of The Bible."

The problem that the breakaway folks have not addressed (and seem unable to address) is the question of exactly when and why the "'you' who wrote the words in the past" became codified in stone thereby eliminating any interpretive ability by "present day 'you'".

If present-day people have no authority or ability to interpret scripture, then Luther's reformation was entirely in vain and any individual study of the Bible becomes futile because, obviously, we cannot come onto any new truth because "truth" is fixed dogmatically in the doctrines of the church and cannot be revised or challenged by any of the laity. A strict fundamentalist reading of the Bible obviates any necessity for a personal understanding of one's relationship to (and with) God effectively rendering Christians unthinking servants of whatever view is set forth from "the church".

ZV