2008-06-25 11:34 am (UTC)
I call myself an Anglican because I feel it is my culture and background even though I am an agnostic and don't identify as Christian.
Unfortunately the Church is a human institution masquerading as God and people seem to feel a difference in opinion (to be glib!) is something threatening heaven.
A lot of people feel this way.
There's a lot that's beautiful in Anglicanism- the Authorised Version of the Bible, The Book of Common Prayer, the 18th century hymns: we all have a stake in these things.
I do agree with everything you said. The African churches shouldn't be allowed to spoil what the English church has, which as you say is a wonderful ability to be all things to all people and somehow hold it all together and make it work. We don't want to be dictated to by the African fundamentalists, just as they don't want to be dictated to by us.
Like you, this really shouldn't bother me. I now identify as a Zen Quaker and was brought up Methodist. But I was Christened in an Anglican church and my brother is an ordained Anglican priest and I don't want the Anglican church to destroyed.
It looks like there'll be some sort of nightmarish compromise solution- with the evangelicals setting up an organisation not wholly divorced from the continuing Anglican communion headed by Canterbury. This too, I suppose, will be in the all-accomodating spirit of Anglicanism.
Once a catholic, always a catholic.
It seems no-one escapes. Not even atheistical scourges of clerical hypocrisy like my hero, Luis Bunuel.
Yet again, we homos are the End of the World as We Know It.
Yes. Stupid, isn't it?
And shaming for the Church.
Akinola sez: "We want one thing and one thing only - to restore communion and fellowship. It has failed." Yes, but communion and fellowship on *their* terms--agree with us, or you are not of our fellowship.
I wish I didn't care about the Anglican Church, but of course I do--it shaped my sensibilites and that will never go away. It is painful to think that this intolerant bastard is of the same heritage that gave us Tallis and Byrd, Donne and Herbert, Charles Williams and Dorothy Sayers.
not intending to be provocative, and
I hope also not being so, but
a good many of those people were
Tories weren't they? Perhaps it is
their creativity which allows them
to 'get away' with it?
Edited at 2008-06-25 02:03 pm (UTC)
2008-06-25 01:58 pm (UTC)
reply for Pope proposed to request to be excommunicated
Do it yourself ...
or,wait, you already have
haven't you? Are you
saying it didn't work out?
2008-06-25 03:14 pm (UTC)
Re: reply for Pope proposed to request to be excommunicated
Heh, heh, heh....
"Is it possible to wash off the waters of baptism?"
When I removed myself from the RC church at the age of 13, I did not believe it made me a Catholic just because a priest sprinkled some water on my head and said a few words. After all, I did not choose it for myself. At 13, I chose Protestant Christianity because of Martin Luther's tenet that it is faith that saves, not works. Years later I CHOSE to be baptized by a Protestant pastor. I believe that second baptism was an outward sign of my long-ago commitment.
Lesson: We may choose something for our babies, but at some time in their futures they will make their own choices, which are not necessarily our own.
Most people find it very hard to rid themselves of early religious conditioning. Even if they lose their faith or change it, they still hear the voice of their mother church whispering away in the background.
I'm certainly finding this to be true.
As you may remember, I have an intense reason to be interested in this Jerusalem situation--my daughter-in-law, a vocational deacon, is "staying with her bishop" and will therefore be leaving the Episcopal church, probably in October if that's when the official pull-out happens. Her bishop is in Jerusalem right now.
I wish very much--how useless, to wish others believed just like me!--that things were different. I love my daughter-in-law very much even as I strongly disagree with this stand they are making.
As for me, I am in agreement with you in that those who wish to leave because their beliefs differ should leave--this group is essentially going down A path that no longer reflects the views of the current Episcopal church (imho).
One thing I want to know is, who is going to own the buildings and other assets? Is the Church going to be bankrupted with law suits?
If people thought more about the nature of God- if they were a little more mystical in their outlook- I don't think these things would happen. A church that gets all het up about who sleeps with who is an unGodly church.