Charity Toward Other Christian Faith Practices

Yes, I continue to return and participate, though not as often before. I never expected to see traditional Biblical and Anglican positions on moral and ethical issues attacked here. But such is the condition of the postmodern "church".

 

We're into interesting historical discussion if we wish to discuss tradition. I reread this thread just now. I would like to take an example.

Re: Antichrist.

The Church in England faced attack from RC countries and the RC church from the time of Henry VIII through to its solidification of its identity and practice probably at the earliest in the 1660s, but we might even consider that it was 150 years later than that. Politically, those who would attack England and its nascent empire were attacking both nation and church, because they were one and the same. If you are under attack, vilifying those who would conquer you is de regueur. We must see the historic attacks on the Romans as part of this context. -- we don't do this any more. England/the UK has repealed the Test Acts as of 1828, which tells us that we are nearing 200 years of tolerance of RCs within the English tradition.

Further, it appears that we are continuing dialogue with the Roman Church on matters concerning all of us, and progressively at least, understanding the different positions and issues in a respectful way. That does not presuppose emotion, but does mean that we need to temper the feelings with respect. -- I have been guilty of responding in uncharitable ways in these forums, and I acknowledge and apologise for this. My wish would be for there to be vigorous debate, but with humour and kindness. Seriousness does not have to be grim nor horrid. That would be my opinion on this.

 

An Outline of the Faith commonly called The Catechism...

Q: What does this mean about human life?
A: It means that all people are worthy of respect and honor, because all are created in the image of God, and all can respond to the love of God.

Q: How is the Church described in the Bible?
A: The Church is described as the Body of which Jesus Christ is the head and of which all baptized persons are members. It is called the People of God, the new Israel, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and the pillar and ground of truth. (from The Book of Common Prayer)

And still Admin "consults" about changing TOS to require respectful treatment to all members of His Church?

 

That's not a part of the historic anglican catechism, but a revision (and a poor one imo) that is only used in TEC. i doubt that it would be considered binding or even influential to the AF Admin as a formulary. The historic catechism document is available on this site for your research

 

Question. What is thy duty towards thy neighbour?
Answer. My duty towards my beighbour, is to love him as myself, and to do to all men as I would they should do unto me. To love, honour, and succour my father and mother. To honour and obey the King, and all that are put in authority under him. To submit myself to all my governors, teachers, spiritual pastors, and masters. To order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters. To hurt no body by word or deed. To be true and just in all my dealing. To bear no malice, nor hatred in my heart. To keep my hands from picking and stealing, and my tongue from evil speaking, lying, and slandering.

 

The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, 1979

 

Amen

 

Now this is something I can get behind.

 

"...To keep my hands from picking and stealing, and my tongue from evil speaking, lying, and slandering."

Yep, I'd say that pretty much covers it. It doesn't appear to exempt fellow Christians with whom we disagree. Go figure.

 

True. But is telling uncomfortable truths because they are true equivalent to evil speaking?

 

If you hurt them by your word?

 

Well, indeed. The Apostles, and others, have not shown timidity; and yet an Anglican should "hurt no body by word nor deed". An Anglican should hurt no body by word nor deed, yet Anglicans and other Christians have not always been timid about hurting, either way. This is at the heart of many of the debates here, and many of the arguments about what it is or is not permissible to say. How far is one governed by the past, and which past is one governed by? I would humbly suggest, as an Onlooker, that we cannot always be bound by the past. In the words of the Queen in another context, we can bow to the past without being bound by it. What is acceptable today? Good manners, acceptance of diverse opinions, a willingness to listen, a wish not to offend.

 

The Catechism, BCP, 1662. There's a bit of a problem. Or perhaps it's a bit of the past that can be jettisoned?

-edited for continuity.
Admin

 

Once again, there is a vast difference between challenging belief and speaking ill of believers. I only advocate for a rule that is respectful and charitable toward individuals. Challenge beliefs all you want. Is that so un-Christian or non-Anglican? Is respect toward persons too much to ask for on this forum?

 

I'm not sure you've found a contradiction in the Catechism, but if you have it merely supports my point, or rather one of the interconnected points I was trying to make. There are many contradictions in the history of the Church and, especially in the Anglican community, a wealth of different viewpoints in different parts of the past, viewpoints with which one might sympathise or which one might loathe. Because commenter A sympathises with one and commenter B with another they may be justified historically in calling one another heretics. But it is not necessary to be bound in that way: fellow Christians calling each other by defamatory epithets is not, in today's world, fulfilling their duty to their neighbour, however justifiable it might be by reference to the living past. Similarly there was a time when a member of the English Church could call the Bishop of Rome "the Antichrist" and times when he couldn't. We have no need to be bound by either of those pasts: to refer to the Pope in that way is simply not, in today's world, fulfilling one's duty to one's neighbour – one's neighbour in this case being not only the Holy Father but those millions of Roman Christians who share our space. Yes I do, as a mere Onlooker, understand that this causes problems in defining what is and what is not orthodox Anglicanism. Anglicanism survives partly because it is adept in humbly accepting that it cannot always avoid that sort of problem.

 

Regarding TOS, see above. I have already made my recommendation to Admin.TOS requires no derogatory comments about Anglicans. I have been advocating (with no success) for Admin to revise TOS to include no derogatory comments about Christians. There seems to be a reluctance to prohibit speaking in a derogatory fashion about Christians of non-Anglican traditions. Admin stands silent. Not to decide is to decide.