why i currently don't attend "weekly"
Feb. 27th, 2005 11:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyearthis topic came from a comment in another blog concerning the (hopefully only temporary) sepration of the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Community of Canada from the English Church (only the second such separation in history, the first being at the time of the Episcopal church's founding after the American Revolution; the brits were unsurprisingly unwilling to consecrate Amercan bishops -- but the Scottish Anglican church DID on the grounds that a few minor changes were made to the book of common prayer. one such change is that there are 4 paragraphs in the Episcopal wedding prayer, the third of which is scottish in origin. The original Anglican work only has 3.)
one of the reasons i went into self-imposed exile from the episcopal community was that it, like the country itself, was degrading into loud conservatism vs. loud liberalism in ways that had consequences for parishoners that I couldn't respect. One example on the liberal side of going to far was the female bishop of DC.
side note: she came from my original church, Good Shephard in VA, a moderate community in the right way -- slightly conservative reverand (true conservative, not reactionary -- if the church changed, he followed the church and its changes rather than trying to reverse it), slightly liberal assistant reverand, and the balance they established moved that church beautifully for almost 20 years before the reverand was consecrated Bishop in VA. David always, even with his slight conservative bent, emphasized keeping the dialog open when it came to controversial matters; he had his justified opinions, but never attempted to tell others their views were wrong in themselves without evidencial support from the bible and historical documents, nor would he be so glued to his own that he couldn't change. His growth over the years was astoungingly inspirational to watch.
at any rate, she refused to consecrate a priest because the bishop of the diosys where this poor chap came from was still one of those jerks who refused to ordane women. she was willing, for the sake of politics, to interfere in an innocent man's following his calling, and THAT i had problems with.
so until the loud voices who hurt and burn more than shine calm down some and let moderation and progress happen at (what i might consider) an acceptable pace, neither rushed nor artificially restrained, i'm stepping away.
one of the problems is in trying to compare the episcopal church, with its age, its intellect, its emphasis on study and reason (all inherited from its Anglican beginnings thanks to Cramner), to the "success" of the evagelical community -- "why don't *we* have such numbers?"
the answer really was simple, but some refused to see it and were trying to take the church into the "got to attract everybody" direction by making it "easier" to be a christian (all this at the grass-roots level, not any nationally organized scheme by any means). this would involve dogmatic changes, an emphasis on rules not reason, false confidences (there's nothing in Christ's writings that says its *easy* to follow him), an emphasis on "God's plan for you" (a philosophy from Calvinism I whole-heartedly detest) rather than "preparing myself, siezing the opportunities presented, and listening for the call to serve"...my attempts to reason with them (as I learned from the church itself), just like trying to reason with an anti-evolutionist, became increasingly futile.
my calling was not to try to change their minds, so i chose not to. but at the same time i couldn't stay to listen to them anymore, either. yes, in effect, i "closed the dialog" for myself, but only because i knew others were in a better position to talk.
I retain my faith, and I retain my hope (as is my hope for the country) that the loud voices of extremism and rapid change vs. rabit reactionism will spend themselves and die down, and then maybe I'll return.
one of the reasons i went into self-imposed exile from the episcopal community was that it, like the country itself, was degrading into loud conservatism vs. loud liberalism in ways that had consequences for parishoners that I couldn't respect. One example on the liberal side of going to far was the female bishop of DC.
side note: she came from my original church, Good Shephard in VA, a moderate community in the right way -- slightly conservative reverand (true conservative, not reactionary -- if the church changed, he followed the church and its changes rather than trying to reverse it), slightly liberal assistant reverand, and the balance they established moved that church beautifully for almost 20 years before the reverand was consecrated Bishop in VA. David always, even with his slight conservative bent, emphasized keeping the dialog open when it came to controversial matters; he had his justified opinions, but never attempted to tell others their views were wrong in themselves without evidencial support from the bible and historical documents, nor would he be so glued to his own that he couldn't change. His growth over the years was astoungingly inspirational to watch.
at any rate, she refused to consecrate a priest because the bishop of the diosys where this poor chap came from was still one of those jerks who refused to ordane women. she was willing, for the sake of politics, to interfere in an innocent man's following his calling, and THAT i had problems with.
so until the loud voices who hurt and burn more than shine calm down some and let moderation and progress happen at (what i might consider) an acceptable pace, neither rushed nor artificially restrained, i'm stepping away.
one of the problems is in trying to compare the episcopal church, with its age, its intellect, its emphasis on study and reason (all inherited from its Anglican beginnings thanks to Cramner), to the "success" of the evagelical community -- "why don't *we* have such numbers?"
the answer really was simple, but some refused to see it and were trying to take the church into the "got to attract everybody" direction by making it "easier" to be a christian (all this at the grass-roots level, not any nationally organized scheme by any means). this would involve dogmatic changes, an emphasis on rules not reason, false confidences (there's nothing in Christ's writings that says its *easy* to follow him), an emphasis on "God's plan for you" (a philosophy from Calvinism I whole-heartedly detest) rather than "preparing myself, siezing the opportunities presented, and listening for the call to serve"...my attempts to reason with them (as I learned from the church itself), just like trying to reason with an anti-evolutionist, became increasingly futile.
my calling was not to try to change their minds, so i chose not to. but at the same time i couldn't stay to listen to them anymore, either. yes, in effect, i "closed the dialog" for myself, but only because i knew others were in a better position to talk.
I retain my faith, and I retain my hope (as is my hope for the country) that the loud voices of extremism and rapid change vs. rabit reactionism will spend themselves and die down, and then maybe I'll return.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-27 06:16 pm (UTC)Have you ever seen the film "The Body" with Antonio Banderas? Awesome point to be made in that film. It shows the difference between a man of religion and a man of God. Fascinating tale that takes you through a lot of external steps in order to show you the difference internally between these two things.