Episcopal Church Split

[Heartablaze]

Over the past few months, I've been hearing about this split between the conservative, traditional Episcopalians and TEC in America(although I know it's been going on for a few years at leas). It seems that it has come down to two issues, but one superseding the other: women clergy and gay acceptance/clergy. At the Lambeth conference, clergy voted in favor of keeping the liberal practices. Now there are a lot of churches who decided to leave the church over that issue, many joining CARA, a missionary organization of the Nigerian Anglican Church. About one Atlanta church

Are there any Anglicans/Episcopalians on this board? I know that many outside of this denomination are interested in the ongoing battle of ideals(I am one of them). What do you make of this?

These are some of my thoughts on the issue:

Although I am a female, I do not see women as clergy part of the tradition of the church or in scriptures. I know there were a few deaconesses in the early church, but as far as I can tell, a man should still be the head of a church(although, to be honest, I wish that were not true). That doesn't mean, however, that we should just go with our feelings on this. I think that there might be exceptions to this rule, such as prophecy, but I don't know.

All of that to say: I think that this is a very important issue, not to be taken lightly. I think that splitting over this could be worthwhile and that while testing the waters is something that is worthwhile, it should be apparent that throughout the church, just as Christ is the husband and the church his submissive bride, so should the church follow that example. From the church's founding, it has been radical, for sure. Many in The Episcopal Church like to quote Galatians 3:28 . And can we disagree? We are all able to come to the throne of the father, we are all new creations in Christ. However, we are all not carbon copies, nor are we all called to the same purposes, just like the whole body cannot be a mouth. I think that we women can teach, but there is a time and a place that is appropriate. Such as this instance in Acts:

Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.- Acts 18:24-26(NIV)

And for the second issue: I do not see how this is even debatable if you take the epistles to be the word of God. I mean, how can we tell homosexuals that they are okay if our holy book completely condemns the practice? Romans 1:17-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9. And how then can we elect unrepentant sinners to be the shepherds of the church? Jesus is very clear about this:

Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. -Luke 3:8(NIV)

If our leaders are not doing this, how can those who look up to them do this? And on a side note, we can't take our Christian heritage for granted.

Leaders in TEC also like to use the Ephesians verse and expand it to include homosexuals, because they desire to be progressive and more 'relevant' to the culture, but in doing that, what do they need to throw out?

[Little Shepherd]

I read about this a few days ago, and all I can say is that it's about time! I believe we need to be very careful what we as Christians allow to become dividing issues -- splits of this sort are never to be done lightly -- but the Anglican/Episcopal church has become so thoroughly corrupt that I believe it is truly the right thing for those who want to hold to true Biblical Christianity to do.

[themuzicman]

The story of Priscilla and Aquila only serves to show us that women are capable of understanding the gospel and communicating it clearly to others, including men.

Unfortunately, we have texts such as 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 and 3, which provide us with evidence for why men are to be pastors.

Michael

[JonLanceBarker]

I read about this a few days ago, and all I can say is that it's about time! I believe we need to be very careful what we as Christians allow to become dividing issues -- splits of this sort are never to be done lightly -- but the Anglican/Episcopal church has become so thoroughly corrupt that I believe it is truly the right thing for those who want to hold to true Biblical Christianity to do.

I know a good group for them to join.

[JonLanceBarker]

Although I am a female, I do not see women as clergy part of the tradition of the church or in scriptures. I know there were a few deaconesses in the early church, but as far as I can tell, a man should still be the head of a church(although, to be honest, I wish that were not true). That doesn't mean, however, that we should just go with our feelings on this. I think that there might be exceptions to this rule, such as prophecy, but I don't know.

The Orthodox position in a nutshell, more or less.

Women are allowed to teach/preach where they are qualified, and they have been allowed to be deaconesses (for the purpose of baptizing women when baptism was done in the nude), but they have never been priests. (Nor have they ever been altar servers, as far as I know.)

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

Why who knows. We might just want to offer them an apple or two. I agree women should not be leaders in a church. It would violate the very prohibition against casting pearls before swine in my opinion.

Moderated By: Johnny

Ecclesiology is for orthodox Christians only.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Heartablaze]

I read about this a few days ago, and all I can say is that it's about time! I believe we need to be very careful what we as Christians allow to become dividing issues -- splits of this sort are never to be done lightly -- but the Anglican/Episcopal church has become so thoroughly corrupt that I believe it is truly the right thing for those who want to hold to true Biblical Christianity to do.

Yes, I think this is something that is very important. I had a friend stay with me a couple of years ago. I had not seen her for a while, and had no idea what she believed. I thought that she might be a little liberal, but not in the extreme that she was. It was through her that I got a glimpse of the Episcopal church, and saw that it was apparently very accepting, if it was what she was. Traditional hymns made her cry(it was around Easter, though, so I think the songs were more about the death of Christ), she thought that everyone was right in their own way, etc. I at first thought that this was a personal thing, but now I think that this type of liberal thinking was helped along by her church.

The story of Priscilla and Aquila only serves to show us that women are capable of understanding the gospel and communicating it clearly to others, including men.

Unfortunately, we have texts such as 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 and 3, which provide us with evidence for why men are to be pastors.

Michael

Yes, but what I mean is that some may go to the extreme of saying that we women should never tell any man anything, never teach, etc., but that is obviously not the truth. In essence, the keeping silence passage can be taken to the extreme. But yes, there is no NT passage I can see that shows a woman pastor.

The Orthodox position in a nutshell, more or less.

Women are allowed to teach/preach where they are qualified, and they have been allowed to be deaconesses (for the purpose of baptizing women when baptism was done in the nude), but they have never been priests. (Nor have they ever been altar servers, as far as I know.)

Can you elaborate on the first sentence?

[Jezz]

The Orthodox position in a nutshell, more or less.

Women are allowed to teach/preach where they are qualified, and they have been allowed to be deaconesses (for the purpose of baptizing women when baptism was done in the nude), but they have never been priests. (Nor have they ever been altar servers, as far as I know.)

Nuns can be altar servers, but generally speaking women cannot be altar servers.

[JonLanceBarker]

Can you elaborate on the first sentence?

The second sentence WAS my elaboration.

[RBerman]

The split in the Episcopal church was a long time coming, prefigured by similar splits in the Presbyterian and Lutheran mainline churches. I'm not aware of any similar activity in the Methodist Church for some reason, even though there are plenty of conservative churches and horrendously liberal ones in that denomination.

[anglicanformary]

Over the past few months, I've been hearing about this split between the conservative, traditional Episcopalians and TEC in America(although I know it's been going on for a few years at leas). It seems that it has come down to two issues, but one superseding the other: women clergy and gay acceptance/clergy. At the Lambeth conference, clergy voted in favor of keeping the liberal practices. Now there are a lot of churches who decided to leave the church over that issue, many joining CARA, a missionary organization of the Nigerian Anglican Church. About one Atlanta church

Are there any Anglicans/Episcopalians on this board? I know that many outside of this denomination are interested in the ongoing battle of ideals(I am one of them). What do you make of this?

I'm an Episcopal/Anglican..do I count?

The recent announcement of the formation of a non-geographical Third Province (The Anglican Church of North America), backed by the Primates of the Global South (primarily Africa and the Southern Cone) is but the most recent developement in the soap opera of the Anglican Communion.

A little history (though I'm sure to be wrong on many particulars): The problems with TEC/Anglican Communion in its current form stems back at least to the failure in 1964 to depose, or even discipline Bishop Pike in the American Church, and in England with +John Robinson. (although some go back to 1920 when the Lambeth Conference relaxed its total ban on the use of birth control) This paved the way for the continued infiltration of a liberal theology and practice, which has consistently sought to reinterpret or 're-imagine' the Scriptures, and elevate experience, and cultural advancement at the expense of enlightened reason (They make much of Richard Hooker's so-called three-legged stool of Theolgy Scripture, Tradition, Reason, while ignoring that this stoolis lopsided, with Scripture having a greater prominence than the other two) until you get what you see now.

In 1976, when the General Convention 'regularized' the 'Philadelphia 7' (women who had been 'ordained' deacon or priest), one segment saw the writing on the wall, and came up with the Affirmation of Saint Louis They were also mad at what they perceieved to be the watering down of Faith and Practice in the new revision of the Prayer Book. They left forming what became known as the Continuing Anglican movement, but that initial group soon fractured over personalities and petty politics. Now we have a veritable Anglican Alphabet Soup of small, competing Anglican-derived churches, most of them in the Anglo-Catholic spectrum.

In a way its sad, that the straw that breaks the camel's back, and which really got the African Primates and Churches dander up was the homosexual ordination/'marriage' issue -then again, the African Church is mostly Evangelical and African culture, I think, remains more patriarchial than the West, and don't see women at the Altar as a possibility, Plus the proximity of a number of the Churches to Muslim countries and mission fields gives homosexuality a greater signal, so to speak, on their radar.

[Heartablaze]

I'm an Episcopal/Anglican..do I count?

The recent announcement of the formation of a non-geographical Third Province (The Anglican Church of North America), backed by the Primates of the Global South (primarily Africa and the Southern Cone) is but the most recent developement in the soap opera of the Anglican Communion.

A little history (though I'm sure to be wrong on many particulars): The problems with TEC/Anglican Communion in its current form stems back at least to the failure in 1964 to depose, or even discipline Bishop Pike in the American Church, and in England with +John Robinson. (although some go back to 1920 when the Lambeth Conference relaxed its total ban on the use of birth control) This paved the way for the continued infiltration of a liberal theology and practice, which has consistently sought to reinterpret or 're-imagine' the Scriptures, and elevate experience, and cultural advancement at the expense of enlightened reason (They make much of Richard Hooker's so-called three-legged stool of Theolgy Scripture, Tradition, Reason, while ignoring that this stoolis lopsided, with Scripture having a greater prominence than the other two) until you get what you see now.

In 1976, when the General Convention 'regularized' the 'Philadelphia 7' (women who had been 'ordained' deacon or priest), one segment saw the writing on the wall, and came up with the Affirmation of Saint Louis They were also mad at what they perceieved to be the watering down of Faith and Practice in the new revision of the Prayer Book. They left forming what became known as the Continuing Anglican movement, but that initial group soon fractured over personalities and petty politics. Now we have a veritable Anglican Alphabet Soup of small, competing Anglican-derived churches, most of them in the Anglo-Catholic spectrum.

In a way its sad, that the straw that breaks the camel's back, and which really got the African Primates and Churches dander up was the homosexual ordination/'marriage' issue -then again, the African Church is mostly Evangelical and African culture, I think, remains more patriarchial than the West, and don't see women at the Altar as a possibility, Plus the proximity of a number of the Churches to Muslim countries and mission fields gives homosexuality a greater signal, so to speak, on their radar.

Hi anglicanformary! You certainly count. I've taken a hiatus from internet in the holidays, so I haven't been back to visit t-web in a while.

So, what part of anglicanism do you follow? I'd guess the more conservative, from your descriptor. How is your church home dealing with all of this?

[anglicanformary]

Hi anglicanformary! You certainly count. I've taken a hiatus from internet in the holidays, so I haven't been back to visit t-web in a while.

So, what part of anglicanism do you follow? I'd guess the more conservative, from your descriptor. How is your church home dealing with all of this?

Who me, conservative? Just because I do not believe a woman should not be exercising a Headship over the Body of Christ that Jesus through Paul says is exercised by every man over his family in the same way that Christ is the Head of the Church and the Head of man, or that the Church has any business elevating a man in an intimate relationship with another man to the priesthood, yet alone the episcopacy, or that the attempt to re-interpret Holy Scriptures to allow such activities is a good thing,...nah....why would you think that makes me conservative?

I'm just a simple Bible believing Christian who doesn't like what he sees happening to the Church he was born into and loves dearly as the Bride of Christ

Why yes I am a Catholic Christian holding to the Anglican Way as set forth in the classical Book of Common Prayer, why do you ask?

As to my home parish...well three-four years ago I could tell you exactly how we were coping with it (our rector was the Secretary for Forward in Faith, North America, and we had strained relations with the Diocese, to the point of having an Episcopal Visitor exercise pastoral sacramental functions in place of the Bishop of Atlanta) but with a new priest-in-charge the parish as a whole wants to pretend that the conflicts in the wider Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion have little to no impact on our life as part of the Body of Christ.. Indeed Father doesn't like the monikers of 'conservative' and 'liberal' or 'traditional' or 'revisionist', believing that they hamper the effective work of the Gospel.

As for mysel, I am clearly uncomfortable with the downward drfit of my Church, but have no viable alernative to go to (Catholic Christians are by definition under a Bishop, and without a godly Bishop to adhere to, I'm stuck where I am...at least the Body and Blood of Jesus are still present on the Altar every Sunday at church, and I still hear the Word of God preached where I am, even if not in the starkest of terms (at least the physicality of the Incarnation and Resurrection are not called into question here)