"My church isn't spiritually fulfulling." Baptist

[kalt]

I think a lot of this depends on the Protestant.

In the 1970s, a lot of Protestant churches changed the way they did Sunday school for kids. I grew up doing a “survey” of the entire Bible, from 1st grade on through 8th grade. It was taught like school, with homework assignments and workbooks and required memory of Bible verses. It was pretty tough and definitely not entertaining. I really enjoyed it because I was one of those geeky brains who loved getting perfect scores and and doing all my homework. But many kids hated it and a lot of kids dropped out of church after 8th grade. At any rate, by the time we finished 8th grade, we had been through the entire Bible.

But many churches stopped doing this “school approach” in the 70s and started doing a more “needs-based” “current” approach. I can remember singing a lot, and getting into small groups and talking over various current topics. Our church youth group still did a high school “Bible study,” but it was not so much teaching as it was discussing the Bible.

The younger kids went from doing homework to making mobiles, dressing up in Bible costumes and doing skits, doing crafts, etc. in their Sunday school classes.

Along with that change came a change in confirmation classes and other non-Sunday educational activities for children and young teens. Even though I was Baptist and we didn’t have confirmation, we DID have a “pastor’s class” that children attended up through 8th grade, where we were taught about church doctrine. And the clubs that we attended were more Bible than activity.

But in the 70s, our church and many others stopped having “pastor’s classes,” (kids were too busy to come to them anyway), and a lot of the confirmation classes became somewhat like the Sunday schools–more interactive, less lecture, less homework. VBS was once a “bible school,” but then it became more focuses on “loving the kids” and “giving them a positive experience in church.” (Perhaps it had something to do with the proliferation of divorces in the 1970s–you couldn’t just assume that a child had both a mom and a dad at home anymore). And a lot of the club ministries became more like scouting than Bible clubs.

I’m not criticizing the teaching METHODs. I do think that interactive teaching is so much more interesting than sitting quietly and listening to lectures and filling out workbooks.

Even the ADULT Sunday school classes changed. Many of these classes became more about the “teacher” than the subject.

So what happened is that the very detailed education of Christians stopped in the 1970s. Many kids grew up knowing very little theology and doctrine and Bible. They could list the Top Ten of Christian rock songs, but they didn’t know the Ten Commandments.

So now all THOSE kids are in their 30s and 40s, and they don’t necessarily know a whole lot. Of course there are exceptions; some Christians on their own studied the Bible in depth, along with systematic theology, apologetics, church doctrine, history, etc., and THOSE Christians are the ones that Catholics don’t seem to meet very often! If Catholics DO meet up with those educated Christians, they WILL get very good answers to a lot of their questions about Protestant beliefs.

But all too often, Catholics meet up with people like me who are old enough that we don’t remember what we were taught!–or with people who are younger me who were never taught to begin with.

What I’ve said above is a simplification and generalization, of course. But I’ve actually heard Protestant speakers in seminars describe it pretty much the way I’ve described it above, and plead for Christians (Protestants) to STUDY the tough topics and learn their faith.

Wow! Catholics and Protestants have that in common. What I know about Catholic doctrine, I learned on my own. Attending Catechism classes in the 70’s was truly a waste of time.

I still say that the Church owes me the education I paid for back then.

Luckily there are plenty of authorized sources for Catholics to read.

Are there any authorized sources for Protestants to read? Guides that a Protestant can study and know that they are getting the authorized version?

Maybe that doesn’t exist? Is there an accepted authority in Protestantism? Do the Baptists, for example, accept a teaching authority? Is there a committee that determines which doctrines are true and which are heresy?

 

[kalt]

To most Protestants, the “physical” is not “good.” At very best, it is “suspect,” and at the worst, it is sinful.

It is really hard for Catholics to understand this, because they weren’t raised this way. But Protestants, especially evangelical Protestants, are born and raised in a setting that does not recognize the eternal value of the physical.

When I was growing up, I was taught that I should seek to break away from the physical things of this earth and to concentrate on the spiritual things. My body was just a shell, it was my soul that was important. And nothing on this earth was of any eternal significance or importance. Only souls.

Often, we were told at the beginning of a church services, “It’s time to forget about everything else and concentrate on Jesus only.”

It’s that separation of physical and spiritual. A small child making physical demands makes it impossible to concentrate on the more important spiritual things. They do not comprehend the melding of physical and spiritual. This is not something that is in their concept of God and Christianity.

I’ve learned since becoming Catholic that this separation of the physical and spiritual is wrong. Jesus is the Illustration of God’s purpose for creating us physical and spiritual. Jesus did not disdain human flesh or the things of this earth, but became incarnate as a human being and lived on earth.

Protestants have a lot of problems accepting the physical. Many Protestants are very abstemious (although not so much anymore), avoiding alcohol, cigarettes, certain foods, and all drugs. They do this to shake off the physical and to concentrate on their soul and spirit.

**So to a Protestant, a physical object of any kind is not capable of having any spiritual value. **

In fact, the physical object takes our eyes OFF Jesus (Who is never present in a real physical way on this earth anymore).

The physical object is often seen as an idol or a channel for Satan to use to obsess or even possess humans.

When it comes to any physical image of God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, there is a group of Protestants that will NOT accept images because of the prohibition in the Ten Commandments. J.I. Packer, an extremely popular evangelical teacher and author, is one of the main teachers of this doctrine. To these Christians, the statues and images of Jesus, and even more so, of the Mary and the saints, represent outrageous disobedience to the BIBLE.

As for the crucifix, many Protestants are offended because Jesus has risen from the dead. They feel that a crucifix depicts Jesus as dead. It’s interesting how many Protestants, even though they glibly say, “Jesus died on the cross,” don’t necessarily seem to grasp that truth. I was a teenager at a showing of Godspell back in the 70s. It was the first time I had seen the show, and I said to my boyfriend (who is now my husband)–“What a blasphemy! They depicted God as actually dead!”

And my boyfriend looked at me and said, “Well, He did die. Jesus was God, and He really, truly died.”

It hit me like a brick. I had never really grasped that fact until I saw Godspell. I had just reeled off the sentence without understanding. And I think other Protestants are sometimes the same way about the death of Christ. (I think the Mel Gibson movie was really great to help people understand that God really did die.)

I hope this is helpful. To any Protestants who are reading this, yes, I realize that I am making generalizations. YOU and YOUR CHURCH may have taught something entirely different. I am speaking primarily of the evangelical Protestant churches.

I read that the crucifix has changed through the years. Apparently, at one time the crucifixes were incredibly graphic. The death of Christ was depicted in gorey detail.

Maybe it’s that death was a daily reality then. Today we’re not used to losing people to the flu. Our kids aren’t likely to die before they’re 5 years old.

Death isn’t the threat it once was.

I wonder, too, if this is why people don’t seem to worry about sin so much. Do we feel that we have plenty of time to deal with that “later”? Do we think that salvation is something we can think about when we’re old, because we have time to “straighten out”?

I notice that people tend to become more concerned about their religion as they get older. Maybe that’s natural. Maybe it’s that as we get closer to the inevitable, we realize that death is a reality that we’ve been blissfully ignoring for decades.

Is it possible that when the life expectancy was 30 something, people didn’t have the luxury of putting the inevitable aside for later? Jesus’ death on the cross to save us was a present reality for them, I think. Death was an ever-present threat. They understood death, and death and salvation were probably in their daily thoughts more than they are for most people today.

I’ll see if I can find links to some of the gorey crucifixes. Today’s crucifixes are mild in comparison.

 

[kalt]

All churches are different, no matter what denomination, their is different attitudes to each, or at least, that is what I have percieved out of the churches I’ve visited.

Not all baptists are under the same rules/leaders, their is the SBC, and then their is others, some are non-denom but call themselves a Baptist church.

I am a ex-baptist, and all Baptist churches are different, that is why when I see some people on here talking about baptists, I don’t reply cause they usually never get that just cause 1 church says one thing doesn’t mean the same for another church. If the church I was baptized at said “Gays go to hell” that doesn’t mean the baptist church I used to go to with my grandpa’s says the same.

I wonder if this is why the non-denominational thing is so popular now. If being Baptist doesn’t mean having beliefs in common, what difference does it make if you don’t claim a denomination?

If Baptists at individual Baptist churches are free to believe different things, what does Baptist mean?

What does it mean to be a Baptist?

 

[kalt]

Wow! Catholics and Protestants have that in common. What I know about Catholic doctrine, I learned on my own. Attending Catechism classes in the 70’s was truly a waste of time.

I still say that the Church owes me the education I paid for back then.

Luckily there are plenty of authorized sources for Catholics to read.

Are there any authorized sources for Protestants to read? Guides that a Protestant can study and know that they are getting the authorized version?

Maybe that doesn’t exist? Is there an accepted authority in Protestantism? Do the Baptists, for example, accept a teaching authority? Is there a committee that determines which doctrines are true and which are heresy?

To Cat.

It’s too late to edit my post, so I’m adding to it here.

I just read your profile and realize that you are Catholic. But maybe you know the answers to those questions anyway?

 

[Cat]

Wow! Catholics and Protestants have that in common. What I know about Catholic doctrine, I learned on my own. Attending Catechism classes in the 70’s was truly a waste of time.

I still say that the Church owes me the education I paid for back then.

Luckily there are plenty of authorized sources for Catholics to read.

Are there any authorized sources for Protestants to read? Guides that a Protestant can study and know that they are getting the authorized version?

Maybe that doesn’t exist? Is there an accepted authority in Protestantism? Do the Baptists, for example, accept a teaching authority? Is there a committee that determines which doctrines are true and which are heresy?

Of course there are Protestant sources to study systematic theology.

John Calvin wrote the first systematic theology for Protestants, called Institutes:

reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/

Apparently it’s 20 volumes long. But I know that many seminary students, not just in the Calvinist denoms (e.g. Reformed and Presbyterian), study it.

All of the different Protestant denominations have their works of systematic theology that their seminary students study. These books are available to the laypeople as well, although since they are textbooks, many of the laity don’t bother to plow through them.

Instead, the laymen read the popular systematic theology books, which are generally written using the textbooks as the source.

J.W.R. Stott wrote an excellent book that is still a best-seller: Basic Christianity.

J.I. Packer wrote Knowing God
monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/jipacker.html

There are lots of others. Each denom has their own favorite authors, which are accepted as “authoritative.” E.g., Chuck Colson (one of my heroes) has written so many books and is widely-accepted by evangelical Protestants as an intellectual authority. Francis Schaeffer (RIP) is another widely-accepted author with many books.

There is no one man or woman who is accepted as a “pope” in Protestantism. Sadly, Protestants have seen many of their heroes fall to sin over the decades, and I think this has created a distrust of human leaders in many Protestants.

 

[Cat]

Wow! Catholics and Protestants have that in common. What I know about Catholic doctrine, I learned on my own. Attending Catechism classes in the 70’s was truly a waste of time.

I still say that the Church owes me the education I paid for back then.

Luckily there are plenty of authorized sources for Catholics to read.

Are there any authorized sources for Protestants to read? Guides that a Protestant can study and know that they are getting the authorized version?

Maybe that doesn’t exist? Is there an accepted authority in Protestantism? Do the Baptists, for example, accept a teaching authority? Is there a committee that determines which doctrines are true and which are heresy?

Fascinating. I think it’s interesting that the decline in Catholic catechesis (on the heels of Vatican II) came at the same time as the decline in Protestant catechesis. This, to me, indicates that major shifts in society and culture were responsible for the decline, NOT Vatican II, as some Catholics seem to think.

 

[kalt]

Of course there are Protestant sources to study systematic theology.

John Calvin wrote the first systematic theology for Protestants, called Institutes:

reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/

Apparently it’s 20 volumes long. But I know that many seminary students, not just in the Calvinist denoms (e.g. Reformed and Presbyterian), study it.

All of the different Protestant denominations have their works of systematic theology that their seminary students study. These books are available to the laypeople as well, although since they are textbooks, many of the laity don’t bother to plow through them.

Instead, the laymen read the popular systematic theology books, which are generally written using the textbooks as the source.

J.W.R. Stott wrote an excellent book that is still a best-seller: Basic Christianity.

J.I. Packer wrote Knowing God
monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/jipacker.html

There are lots of others. Each denom has their own favorite authors, which are accepted as “authoritative.” E.g., Chuck Colson (one of my heroes) has written so many books and is widely-accepted by evangelical Protestants as an intellectual authority. Francis Schaeffer (RIP) is another widely-accepted author with many books.

There is no one man or woman who is accepted as a “pope” in Protestantism. Sadly, Protestants have seen many of their heroes fall to sin over the decades, and I think this has created a distrust of human leaders in many Protestants.

If there are authoritative sources on doctrine, why does the teaching differ between Baptist churches?

Is it that not all Baptists accept the authority?

It seems that if someone identifies himself as a Baptist (or any denomination), it should mean something.

 

[kalt]

Fascinating. I think it’s interesting that the decline in Catholic catechesis (on the heels of Vatican II) came at the same time as the decline in Protestant catechesis. This, to me, indicates that major shifts in society and culture were responsible for the decline, NOT Vatican II, as some Catholics seem to think.

Many believe that Vatican II was a response to the same changes in society, so that the decline in education was directly related to Vatican II.

IMO, the decline in many things in the Church are the result of a misinterpretation of Vatican II.

 

[SD_Catholic]

If there are authoritative sources on doctrine, why does the teaching differ between Baptist churches?

Is it that not all Baptists accept the authority?

It seems that if someone identifies himself as a Baptist (or any denomination), it should mean something.

Someone may know better than me, but I think there are certain things that they all (along with all Christians (Trinity, Resurrection, etc…)) believe which they refer to as “essentials”… the things they don’t agree on will usually be called “non-essentials”… but evidently they’re essential enough to start a new church (sad but true). Anyway I think they usually agree on the “basics”… As Catholics we believe all revealed truth is “truth”… We believe Jesus was the fullness of truth, so if he revealed it as truth we must believe it.

SD

 

[BareKnuckler]

I wonder if this is why the non-denominational thing is so popular now. If being Baptist doesn’t mean having beliefs in common, what difference does it make if you don’t claim a denomination?

If Baptists at individual Baptist churches are free to believe different things, what does Baptist mean?

What does it mean to be a Baptist?

I don’t know, I guess it’d depend on who the person is, and/or if the church is part of a larger group.

I don’t know, I am not a Baptist.

Well, I guess it means to go to a church that has Baptist in it’s name.

 

[Cat]

I wonder if this is why the non-denominational thing is so popular now. If being Baptist doesn’t mean having beliefs in common, what difference does it make if you don’t claim a denomination?

If Baptists at individual Baptist churches are free to believe different things, what does Baptist mean?

What does it mean to be a Baptist?

Please take a look at post #70 (mine). Here is a excerpt from it:

When you see the name “Baptist” on a church, the ONLY thing that you know is that this church subscribes to the idea that if there is any disagreement between the members, they should split and form a new church. Baptists are actually proud of their ability to split and re-form. This is the heart of being “Baptist”–the freedom to form new Baptist churches according to your own convictions about the Bible. That’s why the list of Baptist denoms is so huge.

 

[MarkBrown]

To Deacon Mark,

Thanks so much for your post. I like learning from different perspectives, since I’m Catholic since birth.

I wanted to ask you why do you go to a Catholic seminary? Are there other non-Catholic seminarians/deacons as well?

I also wanted to mention that when I was a child, I went to Catholic school but on Sundays, I went to an Episcopalian Mass with a friend.
[My parents did not go to church at all…and I wanted to go.]
My friend went to the same school as I, but on Sundays went to Episcopalian worship because her mom was Catholic and her dad Episcopalian, and that was their arrangement until all 4 kids were 18, then all of them chose Episcopalian.

At any rate, the Mass was similar. Maybe things had different meanings, but looked similar.

I also wanted to ask you something.
I used to go to communion in that church. I asked their priest if I could, explaining I was Catholic. He said so were they…and that I could…so I did. Every week
I just realized that a Catholic priest would probably disagree on that one, right?

Thanks for your post.

Sunflower,

You are very welcome. Let me try to answer your questions.

I attend a Catholic Seminary for two reasons. A) My prior seminary work was either evangelical or reformed. My Bishop wants me deprogramed . B) The Catholic seminary is closer to our catholicism. Interestingly I am the only student in the class seeking Holy Orders. The others are there for advance degrees to teaching or for parish work. There are two Priest from Africa in the class. Great to learn from them.

Depending upon the jurisdiction of Anglicanism, the Mass can be very similar to what you experience every Sunday. For example, the Mass(lasted two hours, then we had a baptism) in which I was ordained a Catholic lady I know made the comment “it was the most Catholic Mass she had seen in awhile” Yes she is faithful and attends Mass every Sunday. I do take what she said as excitment and being supportive. My parish is very traditional orthodox Anglican. As my Priest says “pre puritan Anglican”. That should open a can of worms!

Communion in an Anglican Church. In the States the Anglican Church, mostly, will allow any baptized Christian who has been confirmed or desires confirmation to the rail. Desire is a part, due to the fact the Anglican Church in American did not have a Bishop until after the Revolution. The C.O.E never sent one. Then we had to go to Scotland to get one for political reasons. Since Anglicans could not get confirmed, the desire was included in the rubric of communion.

What about those Christians who reject Real Presence in any form? They usually do not come forward. They are usually put off when Father turns with the precious Body and Blood and elevates it saying “behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.” They look nervous when we respond singing the Agnus Dei.

Would a Roman Catholic priest disagree with what you were told? Yes, I would expect him to do so.

Blessings

 

[Sunflower15]

…
And to be honest again, this is what happens with most questions to Protestants on this forum.

I don’t see this with the Jewish and Muslim posters here. When asked a direct question, they answer it.

Interesting. I always feel sort of like answering the phone and getting a script on the other side…they kind that you recognize because they don’t hear what you are saying and respond to it…they just “unload” whatever they heard somewhere “verbatim” whether it applies to the specific instance or not…Sad! We could actually understand each other better if we truly communicated.

 

[Sunflower15]

Sunflower,

You are very welcome. Let me try to answer your questions.

I attend a Catholic Seminary for two reasons. A) My prior seminary work was either evangelical or reformed. My Bishop wants me deprogramed . B) The Catholic seminary is closer to our catholicism. Interestingly I am the only student in the class seeking Holy Orders. The others are there for advance degrees to teaching or for parish work. There are two Priest from Africa in the class. Great to learn from them.

Depending upon the jurisdiction of Anglicanism, the Mass can be very similar to what you experience every Sunday. For example, the Mass(lasted two hours, then we had a baptism) in which I was ordained a Catholic lady I know made the comment “it was the most Catholic Mass she had seen in awhile” Yes she is faithful and attends Mass every Sunday. I do take what she said as excitment and being supportive. My parish is very traditional orthodox Anglican. As my Priest says “pre puritan Anglican”. That should open a can of worms!

Communion in an Anglican Church. In the States the Anglican Church, mostly, will allow any baptized Christian who has been confirmed or desires confirmation to the rail. Desire is a part, due to the fact the Anglican Church in American did not have a Bishop until after the Revolution. The C.O.E never sent one. Then we had to go to Scotland to get one for political reasons. Since Anglicans could not get confirmed, the desire was included in the rubric of communion.

What about those Christians who reject Real Presence in any form? They usually do not come forward. They are usually put off when Father turns with the precious Body and Blood and elevates it saying “behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.” They look nervous when we respond singing the Agnus Dei.

Would a Roman Catholic priest disagree with what you were told? Yes, I would expect him to do so.

Blessings

Very interesting. Now, do Anglicans [and Episcopalians] believe in the transubstantiation? After I grew up, I got the impression that this wasn’t the case.

I’m not familiar with the differences within the Anglicans. I have heard that some are “practically” Catholics and others would rather not [by a long shot]. In fact, I really don’t know much about Anglicans per se. What little I know if about Episcopalians…which I know changed the name upon the US independence from England, but is the theology the same?

The only thing I frankly do not feel comfortable with is that the Episcopalian Church seems too trendy for me…lseems to be trying to please too many people with too many extreme points. I’m not sure where that will get to eventually. As a culture, I like them very much, though.

Thanks for helping me understand!

 

[jsanturce]

I am glad that you posted your thoughts. It’s just that it sounds more like a political platform than your thoughts.

First of all, no, not only Jesus…but rather: the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit must be praised and worshiped! I am not aware of any Christians that worship anyone else.

Jesus Himself reaches “the lost” within their hearts, we simply witness to Him, by keeping His centuries-old teachings and traditions…the Holy Spirit does the “real” work. Or Heaven would be quite empty!

There is no way to argue with the other 2, but I doubt that these are nearly as important as the Sacraments! Vibrant or not…

Though, I wish you could know what it feels like to adore in the Presence of the Eucharist in an Adoration Chapel…I guess only Quakers could come close to understanding that “within” type of worship…Though it is quite special when in the Presence of Jesus in Full Glory “as He sits at the right hand of the Father” while right in front of our eyes! I have been literally moved to tears of joy! [and I rarely ever cry…] I can’t imagine anything more “vibrant”!

I agree about the “denominational names were made up by humans” part…I just didn’t want to go there…
Jesus did create a Church…it has split, unfortunately…and there are a few churches and traditions worldwide. But, denominations…well, I’m lost on that one…I don’t know why we have them, frankly.

Of course Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Remember there all God three in One.

Yes the Holy Spirit convicts but we must go and make disciples and preach to the lost and be unashamed of our faith. I dont see many catholics doing that. Im sorry. In matter of fact I never seen a catholic share his faith. But you are correct in saying the Holy Spirit does the work we just plant the seed.

The other 2 are much more important than man made sacraments.

The problem is protestants and catholics are at each other throats because of differences and yes there are many but we also share alot of beliefs. We both agree that Jesus is God we believe in the bible. But what seperates us major is
Faith/Works : Where catholics believe we must work to attain salvation and Protestants believe its only through repenetence and putting our trust in Jesus.
The pope being the head of the church, we believe its Jesus who is the head.

I love you guys and I dont want to argue but stay strong in the faith and hopefully the church can come to gether as one, one day the way Christ wants it. God Bless

 

[Sunflower15]

Of course Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Remember there all God three in One.

Yes the Holy Spirit convicts but we must go and make disciples and preach to the lost and be unashamed of our faith. I dont see many catholics doing that. Im sorry. In matter of fact I never seen a catholic share his faith. But you are correct in saying the Holy Spirit does the work we just plant the seed.

The other 2 are much more important than man made sacraments.

The problem is protestants and catholics are at each other throats because of differences and yes there are many but we also share alot of beliefs. We both agree that Jesus is God we believe in the bible. But what seperates us major is
Faith/Works : Where catholics believe we must work to attain salvation and Protestants believe its only through repenetence and putting our trust in Jesus.
The pope being the head of the church, we believe its Jesus who is the head.

I love you guys and I dont want to argue but stay strong in the faith and hopefully the church can come to gether as one, one day the way Christ wants it. God Bless

Love you too!

1. first Catholics don’t evangelize, but do “works”…either we do or we don’t…and, yep, in this forum I’m sharing my faith
2. if “the other two” refers to ministering and fellowship…NO WAY, that is NOT more important than the Sacraments! by definition a Sacrament is SACRED…and we won’t get into the “man-made part” though in a way you’re right, since Jesus is a MAN!

In the Catechism of the Church [and everywhere else!] Jesus is the HEAD of the Church…the Pope is the Vicar of Christ [stands in place of]…please, understand [you don’t have to agree, but at least understand what we ACTUALLY believe]

I attempt to understand what other people believe…even if I don’t agree. I sincerely try to not tell them what they believe, but rather listen to what they believe that they believe… I don’t think it’s intellectually honest to accuse someone of something they aren’t doing. And, it border on transgressing the 8th commandment… the one about bearing false witness with the intent to harm/discredit…

 

[MarkBrown]

Very interesting. Now, do Anglicans [and Episcopalians] believe in the transubstantiation? After I grew up, I got the impression that this wasn’t the case.

I’m not familiar with the differences within the Anglicans. I have heard that some are “practically” Catholics and others would rather not [by a long shot]. In fact, I really don’t know much about Anglicans per se. What little I know if about Episcopalians…which I know changed the name upon the US independence from England, but is the theology the same?

The only thing I frankly do not feel comfortable with is that the Episcopalian Church seems too trendy for me…lseems to be trying to please too many people with too many extreme points. I’m not sure where that will get to eventually. As a culture, I like them very much, though.

Thanks for helping me understand!

Yes some believe in Transubstantiation, some are Zwinglian in the view of the Eucharist.
The vast majority believe in the Real Presence as a mystery from God/Christ and do not try to explain it with transubstantiation, consubstantiation, memorialism etc. Jesus said paraphrasing “this is my body, this is my blood”.

Differences with Anglicanism can be a beign as the differences with the various groups within the Church Catholic, ie Latin rite, eastern etc etc. Or it can be huge with error and heresy incorporated into the church.

Anglicans and Episcopalians have the same form of Church government. Our ArchBishops are in charge of Churches, usually national like some of the Orthodox Churches. While the ArchBishop of Canturbury is respected, he is not a Pope. Matter of fact the current occupant is rapidily lossing respect and relevance with the vast majority of Anglicans.

Is their theology the same? Depends. Some Episcopalians are very orthodox and Christ loving. The leadership is not very orthodox. They appear to have an identity problem. Some priest think they can be muslim-christian, or druid-christian and some Bishops have no problem thinking themselves Buddist Christian…(N. Michigan though he is yet to have his election approved). The Anglican Church of North American, the one to be formed in June 2009, has some issues to work out. With the help of the Holy Spirit it will be done. The problems are going to be there due to the fragmenting of Anglicanism in North American. Many splinter groups left and formed around certain issues or personalities.

For Anglicans it is confusing, so I know it can be confusing for those looking at us. As Fr. Andrew, a catholic priest I attend seminary with, told me he is happy to see the Anglican Church here moving the way of the Anglican Church in Uganda (his home). He works with Anglican in Uganda and told me be patient as God will take care and do what is right. As he say, “call the faithful home”. I think that was a side ways comment to get my swimming suit.

Blessings