I am an Emeritus CofE Reader, looking for a community of open minded Anglicans who appreciate the broad and inclusive nature of Christ's church, and the embodiment of that principle in the Anglican Communion in its Parish System of Pastoral Care and Ministry. I am, by virtue of this principle an "Anglo-Catholic Charismatic Evangelist", neither Catholic nor Evangelical but Reformed with a 'generous view' of atonement theology. As a duly licensed Reader I have sworn the oath of orthodoxy you suggest when I was annointed and commissioned to teach and preach in The Church of England. Having read the Rules of the online community here, I am concerned that the whole breadth of Anglicanism is not adequately represented and some contentious decisions of General Synod are declared to be 'Modern Errors', rather than theological differences of opinion between brethren. Am I stumbling into either a "Forward in Faith", "Reform", or "Real Anglican Church", etc. enclave, sect or something of the sort? Or is this representative of the spirit of the Anglican Church I have known and served for 72 years. Please accept my apologies for disturbing the peace, if I have come to the wrong place. I don't wish to be subjected to the kind of treatment I have experienced on some other 'Denominationally Doctrine Driven' Forums recently. Gal.5:13-15. Can someone welcome me and put my mind at rest?
Hello and welcome, Chris. Nice to have you here. I would say that most of the regular posters here are on the conservative side. I consider myself to be a Laudian, High-Church sort, and I actually do belong to Forward in Faith US (as well as the SKCM), but I also like to think that I am open-minded and tolerant of other's opinions. I completely reject, for instance, Calvinist theology, yet I deal often with Anglicans of a Calvinist bent. I think we can all get along if we try. Most of the posters here (with a few exceptions) are not too hard-core one way or the other. I hope you find the forum to your liking.
It is pretty conservative old-fashioned stodgy Anglicanism type stuff, not really liberal and open-ended as may be found in the CofE of today's age... Then again you may soon be seeing transgender priest(esses) so it seems that today's CofE has strayed away from the CHurch of England of the heroic ages, but I am just a lowly layman (not be confused with @Lowly Layman)
Ahh yes, if only we could go back to the days when Jews didn't eat with gentiles and the saved were all circumcised. I just can't cope with all this change. I don't have a problem with 'old-fashioned stodgy' as long as it is not 'obstructive'. I have been a chorister since age 7 1/2 and love Matins and Evensong. This priest(esses) issue I find objectionable though. I am married to a Priest, who was once addressed by a Roman Catholic with "So you're one of them new priestesses then"? Her calm, restrained and polite reply was "Yes I am an ordained Priest in the Church of England". Turning the other cheek is the right thing to do in the face of an insult, or so we are told by Our Lord. I am of course a layman myself, Readers are licensed to preach, teach and conduct funerals, not ordained. One might say we are the NCO's of the church.
Hi Peteprint: Thanks for your reply. I have an Anglo-Catholic background, with Charismatic Evangelical overtones and ecumenical experience from my years in The RN, where I worshipped at the nearest church to wherever I was stationed. Got to know and understand a lot of peoples differing points of view that way and it helped me decide pretty much where I stand theologically as an individual too. "WE can all get along if we try" is in my opinion a very Anglican approach to the business of 'discipleship'. Being seen to be 'right' is marginally less important than being 'kind'.
And when you are surrounded by transgender clergy, will you 'turn the other cheek as well'? As we both know from the scriptures, the main heretics that Christ excoriated were the hypocrites, the priests in high places who'd rather appear good than to be good, and who always playd false piety rather than sacrifice and submit to the eternal revelation of God and the Church Our Lord was never afraid to drive out the evil-doers, and St. Paul drove out the heretics from the apostolic Church These are our divine exemplars
I don't envisage a time or situation of that extremity ever actually happening to me. I don't think I would fear such a prospect though. Love is supposed to cast our fear. 2 Tim.1:7. 1 Jn.4:18. We often fear what we do not understand, and knowledge is the key to unlock prejudice. Lk.11:52. I am sure that whatever it is that impels a person to seek medical intervention for gender reassignment should not be labeled or pidgeon-holed into the same category as 'gypsies, tramps and thieves' as Cher sang about. (That's showing my age I think). Talking of thieves, it was them that Christ drove from the temple Matt.21:13. not people confused about their sexual identity. I thank God that I have no such confusion over mine and make the effort required of me by Christ to be understanding of others problems and 'judge with true judgment'. Jn.7:24. St. Paul was not, according to NT scripture, a 'heretic hunter' by nature. He had too many issues in his own past to be judgmental about trivial misdemeanors. He certainly came down hard though on some people in Corinth and Galatia, who were clearly behaving very badly indeed. There is evidence that some were selfish, greedy, misogynistic, sexually licentious and dishonest. That is true, but I don't think 'gender reassignment' or 'gender confusion', actually equates to any of those things. The things which qualify a person for the priesthood are, integrity, honesty, compassion, insight, understanding etc. In fact those qualities we find in Our Lord himself, he is our example and a faith in His Atonement is the first requirement of priesthood. Gender is an irrelevance, since ALL true followers of Christ and his teaching are 'a holy priesthood' regardless of gender. 1 Pet.2:5. 1 Pet.2:9. Rev.1:6, Rev.5:10, Rev.20:6. Just as Baptism is the Sign and Seal of The New Covenant and pertains to both male and female believers. So Priesthood is the calling of every disciple male or female, ordination being the 'calling' to serve the believing community of those who are already 'the priesthood of all believers'.
I am one of those people who enjoys researching Anglicanism, but sees most 'Catholic' things as simply cute little novelties for entertainment, similar to Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. Not that I see the whole of Christianity as a farce, but just that I find Catholic practices amusing for the most part. I'm currently a non-denominational Protestant who has prayed the Anglican rosary and reads from the KJV and Book of Common Prayer from time to time. If I had to choose a branch of Catholicism to affiliate with, however, it would be traditional Anglicanism and not Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy.
Hi BibleHoarder: Anglican'ism is not something I have ever gone in for. I try to avoid most 'isms'. They tend to be 'one way streets' on the road map of wisdom. The good ol' CofE has the distinction of being both Catholic and Reformed. What that generally means in reality is that it did not throw the 'catholic baby' out with the Indulgences and Transubstantiation 'dirty bath water', when it tried to formulate what it really considered 'Important, essential and fundamental to the Christian faith'. Thus, on the one hand we have certain theological and church praxis red lines which as Anglicans we cross warily, if at all, yet at the same time we are tolerant of theology and praxis which may steer quite close to those 'red line' essentials. Thus the 39 articles are nowadays seen by most to be a sensible framework, a foundational set of principles, which can be referred back to, (some being rather of their own era), rather than a 'rigid set of Laws, set in stone, and written by the finger of God'. They are still a good yardstick by which to measure praxis. I'm glad that the CofE has not in my own experience 'interrogated' or 'policed' its parishioners on whether any of its ceremonial evokes amusement. So we like dressing up, swinging smoky handbags, and singing 'chanty stuff', so what! We know what we mean by it. We don't demand that others find out. Lots of folks ditch stuff overboard to get their boat afloat. Whatever floats your own boat, I say! As long as it doesn't sink anyone else's.
My stay here has been mostly enjoyable. However, having been prosecuted on charges of heresy, accused of breaking my oath and threatened with the removal of my 'Anglican' identity, and cancellation of my membership of this internet forum, I fear that I am shortly going to be forced to depart from this community. That would be a shame. On joining, my first post in this thread expressed some reservations. With respect to the dignity and authority of those who will be making the decision whether to excommunicate me I simply say: "Hier stehe ich kann nicht anders." - I am fed up with this 'Diet of Worms'.
@BibleHoarder: I actually had no intention of getting mixed up in your thread BibleHoarder, (I don't contribute where I'm not appreciated, but thanks for letting me know). Logically your petition was unnecessary, since you have already, 'had me ignored', thus ensuring you will henceforth receive no contributions at all from me. You shut the door, not me. It is just as well for all the human race though that God does not retaliate by 'ignoring US' when We 'ignore' Him. That is why I have not retaliated and ignored you back. I think we should try to be like God. Don't you? Heb.12:14. Listening still but still complying with your wishes. Regards Tiffy.
I think we as a Church whole we are served best when we are forced rub up against others of whom we do not always agree, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another,” (Proverbs 27:17). I growing up was Reformed and my best friend a Roman Vatican I Catholic. Our saying and relationship was “In Essentials unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In all Things Charity.” (Rupertus Meldenius).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_necessariis_unitas,_in_dubiis_libertas,_in_omnibus_caritas The motto has a significant history, and the article in Wikipedia may be of interest to some. I went to look because I had always thought it was Augustine of Hippo, as that is the attribution I have normally seen, and now I know better. Thankyou.
You are welcome. If you like Rupertus (“In essentials Unity, in Non-Essenials Liberty, in All things Charity.”) you might enjoy Pope Gregory’ advice to Augustine of Canterbury: “Augustine of Canterbury’s third question: Since there is but one faith, why are the uses of Churches so different, one use of Mass being observed in the Roman Church, and another in the Churches of Gaul? Answer of the blessed pope Gregory: Your Fraternity knows the use of the Roman Church, in which you have been nurtured. But I approve of your selecting carefully anything you have found that may be more pleasing to Almighty God, whether in the Roman Church or that of Gaul, or in any Church whatever, and introducing in the Church of the Angli, which is as yet new in the faith, by a special institution, what you have been able to collect from many Churches. For we ought not to love things for places, but places for things. Wherefore choose from each several Church such things as are pious, religious, and right, and, collecting them as it were into a bundle, plant them in the minds of the Angli for their use.” (From The Eccleiastical History of the English Speaking People, Book I, Chapters 29-33, Bede, Penguin Publishers, or Fathers of the Church, Registrum Epistolarum, Book XI, Letter 64).
Was that Gregory XIII? The quote sounds unusually ecumenical and easygoing for a pre-Vatican II pope.