Episcopalians/Anglicans and Mary

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t know how GurneyHalleck is defining “neo-pagan.” I’m not 100% sure he knows.
But I define it in its usual sense as someone who practices a form of modern spirituality allegedly derived from ancient polytheism. The husband and wife (both priests) to whom I referred wrote a liturgy that was on a website officially sponsored by the Episcopal Church. This liturgy addressed God in female terms and explicitly identified this female God with the “Queen of Heaven” whose worship is denounced in Ezekiel. The husband was also a participant on a neopagan email list. As I said, both of them were disciplined by their bishop (Bishop Bennison of Philadelphia, no conservative). And the liturgy was taken off the website. (Admittedly, this probably wouldn’t have happened if a conservative Episcopalian writing for Christianity Today had not “blown the whistle.”)

Clearly there are Episcopalians who incorporate neopagan elements into their Christianity. However, this is not the official practice of the Episcopal Church, and the fact is that it happens in Catholicism as well. Again: understand that by “neopagan” I mean specifically the worship of other gods (or God under a name clearly at variance with Christian revelation) and other practices clearly condemned by Scripture and Christian tradition. Many conservative Christians regard any use of nontraditional language for God, or any use of practices derived from Eastern Religions, Native American traditions, etc., as neopagan. That may be what Gurney is talking about.

Edwin

There are many elements of ancient paganism that we see in history: abortion/infantacide, female priests (only gnostic Christians would try and adapt such a silly notion), homosexual and bisexual acts, the belief in goddesses alongside a male god, the idea that there are several ways to heaven with no firm orthodoxy or theology, the idea that the religions neighboring the pagan religion in question can be incorporated into a synchretism, loose morality. You’re looking at the term neo-pagan in a druidic sense with a bunch of folks hanging out at stonehenge sacrificing virgins. I’m looking at a supposedly “Christian” group that apologizes to Hindus for doing the unthinkable—trying to evangelize them!! Imagine that! Following the Great Commission!? I’m also looking at a group that has priestesses, condones abortion and has high-profile “clergy” touting abortion as a “blessing.” I’m also looking at a group that embraces homosexuality, bisexuals, transexual cross-dressers and even thinks they make great clergy I’m also seeing a group of people that worship, not just prays with, worships with Hindus and non-Christians, has high profile people including leadership saying that Jesus is “a” way to God, not “the” way presupposing there are other avenues to salvation apart from Our Lord. I’ve heard Schiori and other lunatics saying that God is a female goddess and the pitiful attempt to throw the feminist ravings of Gloria Steinham into this “church.” There is no such thing as right or wrong, just come as you are and feel good about what you already are. This is a pagan sect in my opinion clothed in Christian garb. You are correct in one sense that even the pagans whether they be the cult of Magna Mater or Mithras or Isis, heck, all of those cults at least demanded SOME sense of penance or self-sacrifice and spirituality. The Episcopal Church would probably be more pagan in spirituality and less-demanding or inspiring even than these. Yes, I do know what I mean when I make definitions, Edwin, and I always assume, even though we usually disagree, that you know what you’re talking about. Please extend me the same courtesy. You’re a very intelligent guy. I never assume anything…you know what the word assume is in syllables!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There was a neo-pagan priest some years ago. He was defrocked by a liberal bishop. So your claim is simply false.

This rebuttal assumes I am speaking of ONE man or ONE case rather than a body of statements, mentalities, and moral cowardice accumulated over decades. The Episcopal Church is neo-pagan in its character, makeup, some clergy, and its morality or lack thereof…

False. You cannot point to a single official teaching of the Episcopal Church saying this. The Presiding Bishop made an unfortunate remark which was interpreted in that sense.
Everything about this travesty of a leader is unfortunate. She is a disgrace and has caused a cataclysm of destruction and in-fighting as well as splintering and chaos since her “ordination” and installment. She is nothing short of a disgrace, period.

False right back at ya…Buddhists becoming bishops, Bishops worshipping with Hindus allowing them to take communion as well as worshipping with fire in their traditions melding the two, gee, I wonder what that is? hmmmm

What does common sense have to do with it?

It is against tradition. I don’t think it’s against good ecclesiology, and it may be mandated by orthodox Christology (once the traditional belief that women are imperfect males is rejected, as it clearly is by just about all Christians today).
** I love it when common sense doesn’t mean anything! LOL Women as clergy is an absurdity and it is definitely against good ecclesiology. No doubt. Your attempt to link masogony or sexism or the idea of women being half a man, etc. doesn’t hold water. Women were respected by Our Lord and held in high regard. Look at the company he kept and His treatment and statements about women. Jesus was no coward and He was not afraid to buck the system. Your post presupposes He was. Your response presupposes that Jesus wanted female clergy but didn’t want to do so because of the prejudice and backward culture He lived in. This is ridiculous. Jesus was NEVER afraid to make waves, buck the system, or go against the grain…calling Himself the Christ, healing on the Sabbath, touching lepers, walking in the company of prostitutes, dining with tax collectors, hanging out with Romans, healing gentiles, arguing with Pharisees and Sadduccees and ripping them to shreads publicly, knocking over money changers’ tables around the temple, you name it, Jesus was a moral champion for what He believed in and never backed down. Trust me, if Christ had wanted female apostles, He would’ve indeed made it so (to quote Captain Picard ). Jesus had plenty of amazing women in his entourage including the Blessed Virgin and Mary Magdalene. For goodness sakes, if any woman deserved to be an apostle, it was those two holy and loving women. Both were holy, close to Christ, devout, and unafraid to preach the truth or point to Christ. And yet…Our Lord didn’t make them apostles. Was it because He lived in a sexist and primitive society and He was intimidated and unwilling to “go there” or was it because the nature of man is male, and a priest offers up sacrifice and sacraments as a father, a male, in the person of Christ, also a male, and women who are mothers cannot be fathers. Perhaps there is more to it than the Oprah Winfrey theology of the Episcopalians.**
Edwin