Can the Episcopal Church be saved?

[DeusExMachina]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought “What an ODD question!” Then I read your post and note that you are Episcopalian.

I am sorry that the differing views between some parts of the church has caused you pain. I am a cradle Episcopalian with 16-years of Episcopal Church schooling under my belt and I hail from SC. I have watched the divide splinter my childhood church (which was established in the 1700s) to some extent. It has been hard on my 84-year-old aunt, the matriarch of our family.

I have also been a catechist in my own parish in Georgia for the last 8 years and, from that vantage point, I can tell you that rumors of the death of TEC are greatly exaggerated! We are a smallish church (800+ members) with a vibrant, well-attended, well-supported youth program for all our children. The message of Christ has taken purchase in our hearts and we certainly do not sense any “division.”

I love TEC with all my heart and I will continue to serve God through it, with love and humility, to the end of days. I doubt those days are bearing down, though. I find it unfortunate when TEC is discussed in terms I would rather reserve for Politics, but so be it.

Peace be with you, DEM.

I’ve a question if you dont mind.Is your parish a remnant of what some call the “old PECUSA” by any chance?

 

[Little_Sheep]

I’ve a question if you dont mind.Is your parish a remnant of what some call the “old PECUSA” by any chance?

I don’t understand your question. My understanding is that PECUSA is a lesser known title for TEC. It is not, after all, an embarrassment to be Protestant.

My parish was started from “scratch” 54 years ago in a school cafeteria by a handful of the faithful. Now we have our own beautiful campus and are knocking on a thousand members. We offer, among other things and ministries, the most-heralded Christ-centered preschool in my county.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I don’t understand your question. My understanding is that PECUSA is a lesser known title for TEC. It is not, after all, an embarrassment to be Protestant.

My parish was started from “scratch” 54 years ago in a school cafeteria by a handful of the faithful. Now we have our own beautiful campus and are knocking on a thousand members. We offer, among other things and ministries, the most-heralded Christ-centered preschool in my county.

I meant still use the old prayer book, the articles, and teach proper christian morals. But I’ll take your “proud protestant” and “Christ-centered” as a yes.

 

[commenter]

Just to put a personal point on my own perspective, I too don’t see any of this division in my own parish. And parish life is quite vibrant and not really waning at all. Our most recent confirmation/reception/baptism class was quite large and indeed they’ve had to have an extra baptism/confirmation/reception mass every year for the last couple of years in August in addition to the traditional dates on Easter, Pentecost, and All Saint’s Day to keep the numbers at the 3 more traditional days manageable.

And I agree, I too am not fond of seeing our church discussed like a political party.

I don’t understand your question. My understanding is that PECUSA is a lesser known title for TEC. It is not, after all, an embarrassment to be Protestant.

My parish was started from “scratch” 54 years ago in a school cafeteria by a handful of the faithful. Now we have our own beautiful campus and are knocking on a thousand members. We offer, among other things and ministries, the most-heralded Christ-centered preschool in my county.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately. Do you think it is possible to “save” the Episcopal Church, and why or why not? While I think it can be done, the facts a few unique problems: the unorthodoxy which is thought to be widespread in the Church is coming mostly from the hierarchy, rather than from in the pews; further more, it isn’t like these clergy are on the fringe either, if anything they’re a majority. This is further complicated by the fact that their isn’t very much of a doctrinal standard they can be held to, atleast not any more. So, with all that in mind, can it even be done?

Your definition of “saving” it may differ greatly from mine.

To me, the most desirable outcome is for as many Anglican (from TEC, ACNA, Continuing, etc) parishes, clergy and faithful as possible to join the ordinariate. Reunification with Rome will (A) provide leadership that I think the Anglican tradition sorely needs (B) preserve the unique Anglican identity many of us even in the Catholic Church love and cherish and (C) ensure the future of these traditions for centuries to come.

I cannot condone the state of schism that exists between my Church and yours so to me the ideal scenario is reunification in a way that accepts, preserves and protects the beautiful traditions Anglicans can contribute.

 

[exnihilo]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately. Do you think it is possible to “save” the Episcopal Church, and why or why not? While I think it can be done, the facts a few unique problems: the unorthodoxy which is thought to be widespread in the Church is coming mostly from the hierarchy, rather than from in the pews; further more, it isn’t like these clergy are on the fringe either, if anything they’re a majority. This is further complicated by the fact that their isn’t very much of a doctrinal standard they can be held to, atleast not any more. So, with all that in mind, can it even be done?

Mainline Protestantism as a whole in the US is in trouble. Christianity in general is on a decline in the US. From a purely financial standpoint I think the Episcopal Church will shrink considerably in the near future. From a doctrinal standpoint I think it will move further left rather quickly. I think the folks who would have most resisted the move have left or will leave. Africa, which apparently is an anchor for all of Christianity, doesn’t have any real influence on the Episcopal Church as it does for other groups. However, it is important to note Protestantism, at least in modern America, has been exceptionally good at holding together despite serious internal doctrinal differences. I think the real problem will be simply financial as people in the future will not have much of a commitment to the church. Doctrinally I don’t see it ever recovering.

 

[Usige]

It’s a fair concern, and one that may end up coming to pass. That said, it may not. Remember one of the hallmarks of Anglicanism has for a long time been unity despite difference. How can it not be when you’re talking about a church that runs the gamut from practically Catholic to nearly reformed Protestant.

I guess my point is, how far can you stretch the definition of Anglicanism and still have it mean anything? Anglicanism always reminds me of that movie/book, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Short, tall, slim, or curvy, the pants conform to anything you put them on. To be honest Anglicanism seems to have more to do with a historical memory then anything like a cohesive theology that defines Anglicanism. To go back to the analogy of stretching things to fit. If you stretch and cut a bag to make a skirt and I take the same bag and make it into a hat, are either of us still wearing a bag? At what point are we no longer professing the same faith? Are there going to be more like the realignment and continuum that finally say, enough, we are not espousing the same faith? If so then who is the Anglican and who is it that has left the faith behind?

Is the only definition of Anglicanims being in some type of communion with Canterbury? If so what even defines “being in communion” when there seems to be many thing not held in common with an ever increasing divergence every year?

I love TEC with all my heart and I will continue to serve God through it, with love and humility, to the end of days. I doubt those days are bearing down, though.

Just curious for you and Padres1969 (as the main supporters of the progressiveness of TEC). Do you love TEC or do you love that TEC matches you beliefs?

Let’s say there is a 2030 Lambeth conference and moved by the Holy Spirit the primates all decide that the last 100 years were a mistake and set them on the wrong course. They resolve that the use of birth control is wrong, women cannot be ordained, and homosexuality is a sin that cries to God. Would you remain in TEC or Anglican in general?

I know the above is almost inconceivable, but it’s a mind experiment to see if you see your church as leading the people to God, or if the people are leading your church to what ever they desire. Padres mentioned that conservative elements have put a rein on the progressive elements, but as an outsider I have yet to see any social progressive element that TEC hasn’t proudly embraced. Anglicanism seem to revel in casting of traditional teachings of Christianity (first to embrace divorce, first to embrace contraceptives, first church that claims apostolic orders to embrace female ordinations, etc). If the Anglican church reversed direction and cast off embracing progressive stances, would you still believe it is leading people to God?

 

[Padres1969]

I guess my point is, how far can you stretch the definition of Anglicanism and still have it mean anything? Anglicanism always reminds me of that movie/book, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Short, tall, slim, or curvy, the pants conform to anything you put them on. To be honest Anglicanism seems to have more to do with a historical memory then anything like a cohesive theology that defines Anglicanism. To go back to the analogy of stretching things to fit. If you stretch and cut a bag to make a skirt and I take the same bag and make it into a hat, are either of us still wearing a bag? At what point are we no longer professing the same faith? Are there going to be more like the realignment and continuum that finally say, enough, we are not espousing the same faith? If so then who is the Anglican and who is it that has left the faith behind?

Is the only definition of Anglicanims being in some type of communion with Canterbury? If so what even defines “being in communion” when there seems to be many thing not held in common with an ever increasing divergence every year?

To answer your second part first, no, communion with Canterbury is not required to be considered Anglican. Many groups that are considered Anglican today are not in communion with Canterbury.

With your first question, I’m not sure there’s the kind of boundary you’re looking for on defining what is and is not Anglican. I mean it seems pretty clear that believing in what is contained in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds is required (or as close to required as you’ll get). I mean as part of the confirmation rite for example you’re required to reaffirm your belief in that pretty much across the board (GKC can correct me if I’m wrong). Other beliefs or practices also unify the Anglican church based on the Books of Common prayer, liturgy, etc… But beyond that you start to get into variations even among those churches in communion with Canterbury. However the one thing also shared by all of the Anglican churches is decent from the Church of England.

Now is it possible for some Anglican Churches to start to consider some of their fellow Anglican churches as not being Anglican anymore? I suppose it’s possible and wouldn’t be any different than Roman Catholics not considering other Catholic Churches like the Polish National Catholics or Old Catholics as truly being Catholic anymore even though they still are considered Catholic by the outside world and themselves.

Just curious for you and Padres1969 (as the main supporters of the progressiveness of TEC). Do you love TEC or do you love that TEC matches you beliefs?

Let’s say there is a 2030 Lambeth conference and moved by the Holy Spirit the primates all decide that the last 100 years were a mistake and set them on the wrong course. They resolve that the use of birth control is wrong, women cannot be ordained, and homosexuality is a sin that cries to God. Would you remain in TEC or Anglican in general?

I know the above is almost inconceivable, but it’s a mind experiment to see if you see your church as leading the people to God, or if the people are leading your church to what ever they desire. Padres mentioned that conservative elements have put a rein on the progressive elements, but as an outsider I have yet to see any social progressive element that TEC hasn’t proudly embraced. Anglicanism seem to revel in casting of traditional teachings of Christianity (first to embrace divorce, first to embrace contraceptives, first church that claims apostolic orders to embrace female ordinations, etc). If the Anglican church reversed direction and cast off embracing progressive stances, would you still believe it is leading people to God?

If the ECUSA reversed course on all those matters you speak (female ordination, contraception, accepting those who’ve divorced/remarried, etc…), given Anglicanism’s history I’m sure there would be an element of the ECUSA in your thought experiment that would remain where the ECUSA is today if the national church reversed course to 1930 or 1540. And so yes I’d remain Anglican with that part of the church. Think of it as a reverse ACNA if you will.

Now that’s not to say a reversed course ECUSA wouldn’t still be leading people to God in some fashion. It just wouldn’t be in the manner I believe Christ would have agreed with or would be best. If you get right down to it, your thought experiment isn’t really a hypothetical for me personally. I was faced with a Roman Catholic Church that I was raised in and a member of once which wasn’t leading people to God in a manner I believed was the best way to do so or fully reflective of Christ. And it nearly destroyed my faith before I ultimately left. That said, I don’t believe the RCC isn’t leading people to God in some fashion (clearly otherwise I wouldn’t be posting here ), just not the best fashion. And please don’t take that as an insult against the RCC or your beliefs.

 

[GKC]

With your first question, I’m not sure there’s the kind of boundary you’re looking for on defining what is and is not Anglican. I mean it seems pretty clear that believing in what is contained in the Nicene and Apostles Creeds is required (or as close to required as you’ll get). I mean as part of the confirmation rite for example you’re required to reaffirm your belief in that pretty much across the board (GKC can correct me if I’m wrong). Other beliefs or practices also unify the Anglican church based on the Books of Common prayer, liturgy, etc… But beyond that you start to get into variations even among those churches in communion with Canterbury. However the one thing also shared by all of the Anglican churches is decent from the Church of England.

One would have to research the range of the “Common” Books. The 79 Book, in the Confirmation Rite, repeats the Apostle’s Creed, as was also done in the Baptismal Rite, and references those vows in the Confirmation, in a renewal of the Baptismal Covenant. The 28 Book references the Creed, without repeating it, in Confirmation, and does the same, also referencing the Commandments and the Pater Noster, in the Baptismal Rite, and references those Baptismal vows in the Confirmation. The CoE, AFAIK, is similar to the 79 form.

 

[Little_Sheep]

I meant still use the old prayer book, the articles, and teach proper christian morals. But I’ll take your “proud protestant” and “Christ-centered” as a yes.

Did I say I was a proud Protestant? I said that there is no shame in being a Protestant. In general, my Christianity is not something I am “proud” of, but it is something that has nourished me forever. And, of course, my particular tradition is part of that nourishment.

I love ALL versions of our Prayer Book and, of course, we teach proper Christian morals.

I can’t begin to understand why someone might put “Christ-centered” in quotes. Very strange to me…

 

[Little_Sheep]

I guess my point is, how far can you stretch the definition of Anglicanism and still have it mean anything? Anglicanism always reminds me of that movie/book, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Short, tall, slim, or curvy, the pants conform to anything you put them on. To be honest Anglicanism seems to have more to do with a historical memory then anything like a cohesive theology that defines Anglicanism. To go back to the analogy of stretching things to fit. If you stretch and cut a bag to make a skirt and I take the same bag and make it into a hat, are either of us still wearing a bag? At what point are we no longer professing the same faith? Are there going to be more like the realignment and continuum that finally say, enough, we are not espousing the same faith? If so then who is the Anglican and who is it that has left the faith behind?

Is the only definition of Anglicanims being in some type of communion with Canterbury? If so what even defines “being in communion” when there seems to be many thing not held in common with an ever increasing divergence every year?

Just curious for you and Padres1969 (as the main supporters of the progressiveness of TEC). Do you love TEC or do you love that TEC matches you beliefs?

Let’s say there is a 2030 Lambeth conference and moved by the Holy Spirit the primates all decide that the last 100 years were a mistake and set them on the wrong course. They resolve that the use of birth control is wrong, women cannot be ordained, and homosexuality is a sin that cries to God. Would you remain in TEC or Anglican in general?

I know the above is almost inconceivable, but it’s a mind experiment to see if you see your church as leading the people to God, or if the people are leading your church to what ever they desire. Padres mentioned that conservative elements have put a rein on the progressive elements, but as an outsider I have yet to see any social progressive element that TEC hasn’t proudly embraced. Anglicanism seem to revel in casting of traditional teachings of Christianity (first to embrace divorce, first to embrace contraceptives, first church that claims apostolic orders to embrace female ordinations, etc). If the Anglican church reversed direction and cast off embracing progressive stances, would you still believe it is leading people to God?

Good questions. I love TEC - the very same Church that excommunicated my grandmother when she divorced her first husband! I do not perceive TEC or Anglicanism in political terms. I do not perceive TEC as “liberal” or “conservative.” I see us as a Church intent on seeking God’s direction and carrying out Christ’s commandments. Like other churches, we have our struggles.

As I have said before, I know many many Catholics who hold the same views about certain social issues as many Episcopalians do. We’re all just human beings doing the best we can down here. The main difference between Episcopalians and Catholics is that y’all have a Pope. Good on you for that. I have great respect for Catholicism. After all, Catholicism is a meaningful part of TEC’s past and present. I see no problem with people of good faith hanging out on different beams of the rainbow. God bless!

 

[anon67074017]

I suppose that the Episcopal Church could be saved if they merged with the more conservative Church of England. I doubt that is going to happen though.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I suppose that the Episcopal Church could be saved if they merged with the more conservative Church of England. I doubt that is going to happen though.

Sorry? The Church of England is in England. TEC is primarily in the US. Totally separate provinces and governances. They are autonomous. I am kind of chuckling imagining it.

 

[Padres1969]

Sorry? The Church of England is in England. TEC is primarily in the US. Totally separate provinces and governances. They are autonomous. I am kind of chuckling imagining it.

Plus the COE isn’t as “conservative” as he seems to think.

 

[anon67074017]

Sorry? The Church of England is in England. TEC is primarily in the US. Totally separate provinces and governances. They are autonomous. I am kind of chuckling imagining it.

The Episcopal Church came out of the Church of England.

 

[GKC]

The Episcopal Church came out of the Church of England.

True. Roughly after 1783.

 

[GKC]

Plus the COE isn’t as “conservative” as he seems to think.

Yep.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Plus the COE isn’t as “conservative” as he seems to think.

Exactly… there is quite a procession of women becoming Bishops these days. Are we at 8 yet?

And as to same sex unions, there are openly married clergy taking on public roles now. (We all know that not so publicly out clergy are part of the make up of the church, just as in the RC church.) Liturgical blessings of unions are in the making. So, the Church of England may be a bit behind other Anglican Provinces, like TEC, the Church in Canada, etc, but not that far behind these days.

 

[GKC]

Exactly… there is quite a procession of women becoming Bishops these days. Are we at 8 yet?

And as to same sex unions, there are openly married clergy taking on public roles now. (We all know that not so publicly out clergy are part of the make up of the church, just as in the RC church.) Liturgical blessings of unions are in the making. So, the Church of England may be a bit behind other Anglican Provinces, like TEC, the Church in Canada, etc, but not that far behind these days.

Nope.

 

[Padres1969]

The Episcopal Church came out of the Church of England.

True, but as has been mentioned, all of the provinces of the Anglican Communion are independent.