Episcopal Church - My childhood parish split

Poststructural Pub
1

On the Habemus Papam thread the following topic poped up which I thought worthy of its own thread:

quote: “Again - look at the ramifications that such change has wrought upon the Episcopal church.”

Yeah we’re poised to get the boot from the worldwide communion.

Now the bishops here have decided that since they’ve had their hands slapped they just will not consecrate ANY new bishops until at least 2006.
Putting off the inevitable confrontation of the pandora’s box they’ve opened up.

A little over a year ago I attended a meeting our bishop held re: the infamous deed. His “pit bull” told us that “they won’t kick us out of the Worldwide Anglican Communion- we’ve got the most money”!!!

Some attitude I came away from that experience more than a bit disolusioned

Being an Episcopalian, and seeing as how my childhood parish, which I no longer attend, has just split from the Episcopal Church, I wondered what other Episcopalians or Anglicans felt about this topic.

With my former parish, which my parents, until last week, were members of, the Priest (Father Ron) led a movement to split from the ECUSA. Until about 2 months ago, his only complaint to the parish was over the ordination of a gay bishop. Then, he announces that after a year of negotiations with the Bishop the real issue is a huge number of scriptural and other issues that the parish and the diocese were miles apart on and the gay bishop issue was only one small part of the bigger problem (this was a surprise to everyone but the vestry and Father Ron). Father Ron also sent out a mass mailing of propaganda with quotes he says showed were the formal policies and beliefs of the ECUSA which painted the ECUSA essentially as a non-Christian church. When my father, a retired teacher, asked for the citations to support the quotes the Priest used (most of which were from Bishop Spong after he retired and stated he was too liberal for the Episcopal church), Father Ron never responded. The local Bishop did meet with parishioners who didn’t want to split from the ECUSA providing the church’s formal positions on the issues the Priest said were out of step with the Anglican church (essentially, the statement of faith from the Book of Common Prayer - so they were the same as the Anglican Communion’s). Finally, in the weeks prior to the parish’s vote to split from the ECUSA, Father Ron repeteadly told the parishioners to “vote their faith” while also pointing out if they voted to stay in the ECUSA everyone working for the parish would be fired…talk about coercion - who wants to fire their friends?

Anyone else going through anything like this? It’s really torn up my parents who were members of the parish since it had less than 50 members (now nearly 2,000).

While I agree the ECUSA Bishops have opened a bit of a Pandora’s box, didn’t the issue of women priests face the same resistance as gay clergy without causing such rift? Doesn’t the nature of the Anglican Worldwide Communion leave room for the different churches to differ on issues? Wasn’t Jesus himself the ultimate radical and disturber of the status quo?

Eric

2

Well, yes, he was. At least that’s how I’ve seen his time here.

However, Jesus may be considered “radical” in that he was here to ensure that His Father’s commandments be obeyed.

I haven’t seen the use of the terms “God” and “Commandments” associated at all with the the demands of the gay/lesbian lobby, the “we demand women priests” crowd or the abortion on demand crowd, in either the case of the ECUSA or the Roman Catholic Church. These are pretty small groups. Vocal, but small.

3

This is all very puzzling to me.

I’m wondering if Jesus ever said we should have priests at all, and I wonder what he would say when the priesthood is an exclusive group with a heavily built up power structure systematically designed to enforce various kinds of compliance. I wonder what he would say about all the ways people judge each other unfit and fight to the point of breaking off contact with people who choose not to judge others unfit in just the same ways they themselves judge them. Etc., etc.

I’m puzzled when I see the name of Jesus being invoked to justify these things. You can make all kinds of arguments for the establishment of an organized Church with all its hierarchy, laws and rituals, but I would be hard pressed to see any reason to believe that this is what Jesus intended to be done in his name. Seems to me, he raged against some institutions in his own time that looked very similar to today’s churches.

Best wishes,
Jerry

4

Hmmmm. If you read the gospels with a starting notion of what “His Father’s commandments” means, then I guess that’s how it could look.
I just don’t see much of what conservatives call “the father’s commandments” in the actual historic utterings of Jesus.

5

However, Jesus may be considered “radical” in that he was here to ensure that His Father’s commandments be obeyed.

Interesting viewpoint - makes Jesus seem a bit like an inquisitor.

Whatever happened to the new covenant? My reading of the Gospels is that Jesus moved well beyond ensuring that the commandments be obeyed, and I agree with Jerry he never mentions a priesthood, bishopric or other such formal structure - instead, we are all to be “fishers of men”…

I’d give a lot to have a time machine to hop into to go back to Jesus’ time. Since Jesus didn’t write anything down himself, I’d sure like to ask him if the Gospels, and the new testament, got it right.

Eric

6

Inquisitor?

No, I don’t agree. But remember, they were (and are) called the 10 Commandments, not the 10 Suggestions. Just a point of reference there.

As for Jesus not mentioning the priesthood - I don’t know that is was necessary that Jesus be ultimately and directly credited one way or the other on that.

He did take the time to carefully choose 12 disciples. I wonder why he stopped at 12? Why not 1,500? A number of 12 is pretty small, and I suppose that some critics would see that as being pretty exclusive. And no women were in among the 12. Just men.

Matthew 4:19
“And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
(Note that this is not attributed to all of us, but rather to the 12).

And then Simon Peter, he singled out, ‘Upon this Rock I will build my Church.’

At this point I happily stand corrected… (re: emmline’s post about the commandments).

Jesus was not speaking of the “10 Commandments”, but rather he spoke often of HIS Commandments… to wit:

Jn 14:15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Jn 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me

1 Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments

1 Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

2 Jn 6 And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

Rev 12:17 who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Rev 14:12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

7

Jesus didn’t just “not mention” the priesthood. He was decidedly anti-clerical and anti-rabbinical. His disciples were fishermen etc. and not scholars of the scripture or trained clerics (he himself was a carpenter, not a cleric).

There is at least some historical argument that there was a woman among the twelve, and I think the dead-sea scrolls mention a much larger number of disciples.

As for “upon this rock I will build my church:” that verse has been revealed as a forgery… um, later correction of the text, iirc. I think it is very hard to argue, based on J.C.'s teachings that he wanted an organization with a hierarchy and professionals to be created. He never said so nor ever started such an organization himself.

8

Well I guess that (according to you) a great many Bibles will require some editing.
Here are but two (plenty more available)

King James Version: (Matthew 16)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

New International Version (Matthew 16)
18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e]

9

They’ve already been edited by Hieronymus (is that Jerome in English?).

But, what do I know. I may remember the thing with the rock completely wrong, so: never mind me.

10

Hmm.

Jerome died in the year 420.

Are you suggesting that for all these years the “Rock” passage has been continually passed off as fake?

And I note in some history of Jerome that he translated much of the New Testament… but one overview indicated that he translated all of the New Testmanent except the book of Matthew.

11

Well supported schools of thought suggest that the historical Jesus was quite egalitarian by gender in his treatment of friends/followers. I’ve read enough to presume that the voices and authority of women followers (eg, the gnostic gospel of Mary Magdalene) were suppressed, ruled heretical, and rejected by later compilers of the books which turned into the NT. As the gospels were recorded well after the fact, the 12 men piece seems to be a purposeful political choice. I think Jesus’ preferences on the matter were a bit too radical for other men of his era who went on to codify the religion.

edit: I’m beginning to annoy myself by jumping into yet one more C&F theology debate. I’m not sure why I do it. Strong belief systems can be very grounding in our chaotic existence, and it seems dumb of me to argue against anyone’s ground just because I’ve chosen the anti-gravity option.

12

emmline, with all due respect, I’m not even going to go there.

That whole issue is fraught with ‘no win’, from what I’ve seen. At best, it’s too much of a recent cultural makeover (The DaVinci Code), and at worst, it’s not a puzzle that will ever be solved.

:frowning:

13

You’re so right. See my edit.
(ps: thanks for the respect, whether or not any was due.)

14

Done. Now see my edit. :slight_smile:
Respect is due because I sense that your position re: Mary Magdalene is one of those that have prescribed a certain level of belief/faith in the DaVinci Code. (Treading carefully here… careful… careful… )

15

Yep, and me neither.
ps…The DaVinci Code was silly, but some of the research on which it was based was interesting. Not to worry, I may be a feminist, but I tend not to be ballistic.

16

In the meantime, we’ll always have folks that see the Virgin Mary…

http://comcast.net/providers/fan/popup.html?v=30181705&pl=30152109.xml&config=%2Fconfig%2Fcommon%2Ffan%2Fhome.xml


:roll:

“I think she’s trying to tell us something.” one woman said.

(yeah, like, “why are you here hanging around this highway underpass staring at a water stain when you could be doing something useful?”)

17

From the Gospel of Mark:

One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?” Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

So when Jesus says my commandments in the quotes in prior posts - what are we talking about?

Now that we’ve gone seriously astray…no other Episcopalians out there with thoughts on the ECUSA’s current struggles?

Eric

18

pokes head out of corner

Why do so many folks talk about Jesus in the past tense?

He was, of course, a historical figure, but he is still very much alive.

They don’t call it eternal life for nothing. Christ is eternal life.

The Roman Catholic Church is where the hierarchy and multiple priests/bishops/cardinals/etc originally comes from. They are not necessarily following Jesus in all matters, they follow the hierachy they created all those centuries ago, which ultimately leads to the position of what the world calls a “Pope”.

19

Sure. And Christ isn’t the same thing as Jesus.

20

Hmmm.

In what must surely be a case of targeted marketing, the page above is sponsored by “The Passion II”.


:astonished: