For those of you who disagree with the direction the the Episcopal Church has gone with regard to homosexual marriage, ordinations, blessing of same-sex unions, and new ageism: for those of you who have decided to stay, what is your rationale for staying instead of leaving?
I left TEC and tried the ACNA for six months, and then returned to TEC. My reasons for returning to TEC relate to frustration with ACNA's lack of organization, lack or resources, inadequate clergy training, and clergy involved in schism for personal gain. I worshiped this morning at my local Episcopal parish because it offers the best high church liturgy in the small town where I live. ***** Frankly, it appears to me that you are starting this thread for schism reasons. Please examine your conscience for your motives. I pray that you will find and attend an appropriate Episcopal parish close to where you live.
Frankly, that is an insult and entirely false. I would have a difficult time knowing that my money was going to a denomination which had approved things directly opposed to the Gospel. If your conscience allows you to support apostasy, maybe you should examine your conscience.
Who says anyone is supporting apostasy? Scottish Monk is a godly, Christian man, and it seems his point is true. The burden of proof is upon you, prove that schism is okay.
Then burden of proof is not upon me. Prove that it is okay to support apostasy with your presence and your money. BTW, if schism is always wrong, then the church in England sinned when ol' King Henry separated it from Rome because of marital and progeny issues. Tell me, when will you be returning to Rome?
Haha, if that's the game you want to play, count me out. Laughable, really. Scottish Monk is completely right, you're mongering for schism and I, for one, am not going to participate.
This is an American problem. We generally don't believe in community or authority. We believe that each individual should decided who is right and what is best. So, here in America, it seems OK to have schisms of schisms. Yes, you certainly have a "right" as an American to decide who is apostate and who is heretical and to leave the Anglican Communion. Worldwide, the Anglican Communion is indeed have problems. However, both sides would like to salvage the idea of Communion, an idea that seems foreign to so many in the US. I live is coastal South Carolina where SEVEN Anglican bishops claim jurisdiction. This is NOT the Anglican model. And I am told that this is all fine because of schisms against Rome 500 years ago. No, it is not alright of have seven Anglican bishops. ==== That being said, I understand the positions taken by Bishop Lawrence in South Carolina and his close friends at ACNA. At least they have consulted with AC primates and have sought the blessings of primates.
That is completely false. What's the matter? Can't stand the truth of history? If you're so much against schism, I'll be expecting your submission to Rome. Please inform us when it is accomplished. Still waiting for you and anyone else to show how you justify supporting apostasy by your presence and your money. Show me where in the Bible there is support for such. On the contrary, scripture says the opposite; read 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
If I was in the TEC, the only way I could justify staying there is if I could see that my money did not go to the national church, and, if my diocesan bishop was apostate, that it did not go to the diocese. Actually, I don't think I could be a member of a church in a diocese with an apostate bishop, like Gene Robinson.
Just as an aside, the Anglican Divines universally argue that there was no schism from Rome on England's part, but rather that Rome created the schism by her novel teaching. England was merely returning to its ancient faith, practiced by the Celts and Anglo-Saxons before the Norman-Roman invasion of 1066. I have great respect for that view of history, as argued by Jewell, Taylor, Bramhall, and later minor divines. That 'schism' was essential on England's part, as Rome had already created the material of the schism by her evil doctrines. Staying in TEC no matter how evil it becomes may be somewhat like Erasmus refusing to leave Rome. Thankfully TEC does not enshrine heresy in its canons (does it?), unlike Rome of the 1530s.
This is indeed a central issue. For Bishop Lawrence, the new canons with regard to gender identity were the reasons he left the Convention, and ultimately the Communion. Others in the 70's left because they thought that female priests constituted heresy. The question is the definition of heresy, and also at what point schism is justified. I agree that Rome that became in schism with the Church. HOWEVER, the Anglican Church kept many of the Roman changes (such as filioque). After all, the Anglican Church did not join the Orthodox churches, but rather decided to step out on their own (or with the Reformation churches, depending on perspective).
The question is not only the definition of heresy, but also, I would say, the definition of apostasy.
This is a very important post, anglican74. I hope you don't mind if I offer some of my opinions... The statement about schism = heresy was quite shocking to me as well. There are three distinct levels here: Schism - leaving a visible church for reasons of discipline and authority under Christ. Heresy - leaving a visible church for reasons of disagreement on fundamental doctrine about Christ. Apostasy - leaving a visible church because of a total denial of Christianity. Is it sheer apostasy to officially recognize the goodness of active homosexual-love by ordaining and consecrating gay priests and bishops, or is it simply heresy? Disobedience to Christ? Is denying one command of the Lord a denial of every Command?
I like the posts that have been put here since my last one. I keep going back to my question which I still would like to get an answer to: Is it possible for an orthodox Anglican to stay in the TEC in good conscience? If your diocesan bishop is orthodox, I suppose that would make it easier to stay, but then what do you do about your money going to support the national church? Still, on further reflection, how does an orthodox diocesan bishop stay in the TEC in good conscience? These are questions that I wonder how orthodox Anglicans would answer.
Bishop Lawrence of North Carolina has just departed recently. There are no orthodox bishops left apart from Bishop Love of Albany. The national church, now, apart from one bishop, is in a state of apostasy. But I see Hackney's point of the difficulty in labeling TEC in the state of apostasy, because the anti-Christian things they do can be categorized as 'personal beliefs'. They happen to be accepted by all of the clergy and the ruling government, but the official Formularies and Doctrines remain orthodox. As Hackney recently pointed out, the TEC even still prints the 39 Articles in the back of their BCP, which makes it a binding formulary, still. So what we have is a Church which is formally orthodox, but then turns around, disregards its orthodoxy, and in practice professes heresy. Who is to blame then, the Church and the Body, or the officers and the clergy? Liberals are amazing at creating these logical pretzels, while we wade through which, they have a hearty laugh, and advance their agenda.
What about Bishop Duncan Gray of Mississippi? Would he be considered orthodox? Just in the last 10-15 years, many small Episcopal churches in my part of the state have closed or cannot hold regular services. I really feel for them, as I have talked with the members, and they are conservative -- some very much so. They don't know what to do, as they see their little churches dying but have no other options available, as they see it.