Episcopalian Church moving towards Unitarian Universalism?

[Sy_Noe]

But perhaps this is a more pertinent question. Can any Episcopalian say with a reasonable amount of certainty that their church will recover from its errors? Or if not that, stay the same as it is now?

Maybe some Episcopalians don’t necessarily believe with certainty that they are errors. And some may even open their hearts and minds and be progressive enough to not necessarily stay the same but to be open to evolving understanding.

 

[Contarini]

I think some in the episcopalian church on this forum are misunderstanding the question. Its not whether or not the UU or the EC are the same now but whether or not the EC is heading in the direction of the UU. For my part, perhaps the EC won’t go as far as UU, but it does seem to be heading in that liberal a direction, in which more and more of Christianity is being redefined, made acceptable for the modern man.

And I think it is quite clearly not heading in that direction.

The younger clergy are, generally speaking, more orthodox than the older ones. There’s been a pretty significant retrenching around creedal basics combined with social liberalism.

Spong’s version of Episcopalianism seems a lot less exciting and appealing, I think, than it did 20 years ago. (I say “I think” because it never was appealing to me at all–but when I first became Episcopalian a lot of people talked as if he had all kinds of fresh, valuable things to say even if they didn’t agree with him. I just don’t hear that kind of talk so much any more. He’s been heard and more or less rejected without any kind of formal condemnation, in a very Anglican way.)

But perhaps this is a more pertinent question. Can any Episcopalian say with a reasonable amount of certainty that their church will recover from its errors? Or if not that, stay the same as it is now?

That is the more pertinent question. This is precisely the bottom line for me.

I am not at all confident that all the things presently insisted on by the Catholic Church are true (like the male-only priesthood). But I am pretty much as confident that if these things are false the Church will eventually figure it out as I am that Christianity itself is true.

I have no such confidence with regard to the Episcopal Church, or any Protestant community.

Edwin

 

[Michael1978]

That’s how I came to think about the Catholic Church but in reverse. That the more conservative the CC has become, the harder it is for liberals to remain.

I’m certain that’s true. Even many of Jesus’ disciples could not handle his teachings and turned away from Him.

 

[Michael1978]

Maybe some Episcopalians don’t necessarily believe with certainty that they are errors. And some may even open their hearts and minds and be progressive enough to not necessarily stay the same but to be open to evolving understanding.

Who determines whether a teaching by the church is error or not?

 

[7_Sorrows]

That’s how I came to think about the Catholic Church but in reverse. That the more conservative the CC has become, the harder it is for liberals to remain.

That is true, but many liberals remain hoping or trying to change the Church.

 

[Sy_Noe]

That is true, but many liberals remain hoping or trying to change the Church.

I’m not one of them. I’ve never thought I could change the Catholic Church.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’m not one of them. I’ve never thought I could change the Catholic Church.

Individually, probably not. But if there are enough liberals someday- more than conservatives- it might happen.

 

[commenter]

That is true, but many liberals remain hoping or trying to change the Church.

Terms like “liberal” and “conservative” are borrowed from the political arena, and are misleading when applied to churches. There are Episcopalians (and Catholics, Protestants) who are orthodox in Christian faith. Then there are others who are not.

That second group started the dishonest trend of labeling everything a liberal or conservative position. But protecting the life of unborn children isn’t “conservative”, it is humane. Abandoning the sanctity of marriage isn’t liberal, it’s abandoning the sanctity of marriage. Claiming you are a Christian minister, then teaching trusting people doctrines from the secular media instead of the gospel, isn’t liberal; it’s “bait and switch”.

 

[Contarini]

Individually, probably not. But if there are enough liberals someday- more than conservatives- it might happen.

Of course, as traditionalists recognize, it already has

Pope Emeritus Benedict, the Very Model of a Modern Conservative, is a flaming liberal by pre-Vatican-II standards.

And Pope Francis is off the map. . . .

And I’m sorry, but I’m not buying the line about “conservative and liberal not applying to churches.” They apply just fine. Better in fact than they do to modern American politics.

All human communities are political.
And all communities and traditions have more conservative and more liberal wings, with the precise referents of these highly relative terms changing over time.

Edwin

 

[Sy_Noe]

Individually, probably not. But if there are enough liberals someday- more than conservatives- it might happen.

Well I’m just thinking if that were to happen, wouldn’t faithful conservative Catholics have to remain in the faith if they believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church? I mean in that case, take for instance if a Pope appointed enough liberal Cardinals to elect a liberal Pope and there were more liberal bishops, then wouldn’t they be considered to be apostolic successors in Christ’s Church?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Well I’m just thinking if that were to happen, wouldn’t faithful conservative Catholics have to remain in the faith if they believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church? I mean in that case, take for instance if a Pope appointed enough liberal Cardinals to elect a liberal Pope and there were more liberal bishops, then wouldn’t they be considered to be apostolic successors in Christ’s Church?

Well look at the Episcopal church. Many conservatives have left because of the move to the left - women priests and bishops, homosexuality, gay marriage blessings or marriages.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well look at the Episcopal church. Many conservatives have left because of the move to the left - women priests and bishops, homosexuality, gay marriage blessings or marriages.

Yes but does TEC make the same claim about itself as Catholics do about theirs? Catholics say theirs is the one and only true church. So how could a conservative leave the faith if Christ led what they believed to be His one and only true Church in a more liberal direction?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes but does TEC make the same claim about itself as Catholics do about theirs? Catholics say theirs is the one and only true church. So how could a conservative leave the faith if Christ led what they believed to be His one and only true Church in a more liberal direction?

no the TEC does not make that claim.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Yes but does TEC make the same claim about itself as Catholics do about theirs? Catholics say theirs is the one and only true church. So how could a conservative leave the faith if Christ led what they believed to be His one and only true Church in a more liberal direction?

Indeed. There are some people in both the RCC and TEC who say, ‘I don’t like what’s happening, but this is the Church and I’m staying here.’ And you try to find community and a place where you feel safe to worship.

The Church has gone through upheavals before and it will again. If you want a good read on how these necessary upheavals have changed the church, and about every 500 years, do read a bit of Phyllis Tickle. She has it down pat.

 

[commenter]

Indeed. There are some people in both the RCC and TEC who say, ‘I don’t like what’s happening, but this is the Church and I’m staying here.’ And you try to find community and a place where you feel safe to worship.

The Church has gone through upheavals before and it will again. If you want a good read on how these necessary upheavals have changed the church, and about every 500 years, do read a bit of Phyllis Tickle. She has it down pat.

You can also read “Orthodoxy” by G. K. Chesterton. Written while he was Anglican, it describes what orthodoxy is, for Anglicans, Catholics, Christians in general. Orthodox Catholics aren’t necessarily “conservative”. Orthodox Catholics support Vatican II, which preserved doctrine but applied the Church’s pastoral practice to a very different world. Not all changes are “upheavals”. Some development occurs, guided by God, though a single human agency.

The difference between Episcopal and RC is that the RC has (besides Scripture and Tradition) the Magisterium, which orthodox Catholics are obedient to. (There are other Catholics, mostly liberal and some conservative, not obedient to it). The Episcopal Church does not have a magisterium. They rely only on Scripture and Tradition. Episcopalians/Anglicans have leaders, but neither they, nor other Christians, attribute anything like Magisterium to them. The leaders themselves don’t claim it.

But I urge you to read “Orthodoxy”. Regardless of your position or denomination, you find the (Anglican) Chesterton defines the issues involved.

 

[Contarini]

Indeed. There are some people in both the RCC and TEC who say, ‘I don’t like what’s happening, but this is the Church and I’m staying here.’ And you try to find community and a place where you feel safe to worship.

The Church has gone through upheavals before and it will again. If you want a good read on how these necessary upheavals have changed the church, and about every 500 years, do read a bit of Phyllis Tickle. She has it down pat.

Too pat, in my opinion

Edwin

 

[7_Sorrows]

You can also read “Orthodoxy” by G. K. Chesterton. Written while he was Anglican, it describes what orthodoxy is, for Anglicans, Catholics, Christians in general. Orthodox Catholics aren’t necessarily “conservative”. Orthodox Catholics support Vatican II, which preserved doctrine but applied the Church’s pastoral practice to a very different world. Not all changes are “upheavals”. Some development occurs, guided by God, though a single human agency.

The difference between Episcopal and RC is that the RC has (besides Scripture and Tradition) the Magisterium, which orthodox Catholics are obedient to. (There are other Catholics, mostly liberal and some conservative, not obedient to it). The Episcopal Church does not have a magisterium. They rely only on Scripture and Tradition. Episcopalians/Anglicans have leaders, but neither they, nor other Christians, attribute anything like Magisterium to them. The leaders themselves don’t claim it.

But I urge you to read “Orthodoxy”. Regardless of your position or denomination, you find the (Anglican) Chesterton defines the issues involved.

thank you for your good post. when I was a member of the episcopal church I learned about the 3 legged stool - scripture, tradition and I believe reason was the third leg of the stool, but I don’t know how reliable my memory is. The reason is why so many episcopalians don’t feel they need to believe in certain parts of the Bible or can interpret them how they want to.
I hope to read this book by G. K Chesterton - Orthodoxy.

 

[Thorolfr]

Maybe some Episcopalians don’t necessarily believe with certainty that they are errors. And some may even open their hearts and minds and be progressive enough to not necessarily stay the same but to be open to evolving understanding.

 

[GKC]

thank you for your good post. when I was a member of the episcopal church I learned about the 3 legged stool - scripture, tradition and I believe reason was the third leg of the stool, but I don’t know how reliable my memory is. The reason is why so many episcopalians don’t feel they need to believe in certain parts of the Bible or can interpret them how they want to.
I hope to read this book by G. K Chesterton - Orthodoxy.

I always recommend it.

It is a very personal book; as he said in the introductory chapter: “This is not an ecclesiastical treatise but a sort of slovenly autobiography”. It is not so much an exposition of why one should believe in Christian orthodoxy (which he briefly defines as the Apostle’s Creed), but of how he himself came to believe it.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I always recommend it.

It is a very personal book; as he said in the introductory chapter: “This is not an ecclesiastical treatise but a sort of slovenly autobiography”. It is not so much an exposition of why one should believe in Christian orthodoxy (which he briefly defines as the Apostle’s Creed), but of how he himself came to believe it.

thanks! I will put it on my reading list!