|
0
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by Episcopalians have elected a new leader of their denomination - Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. Schori is the first woman to hold that position within the wider Anglican Communion. But Schori inherits a deeply divided church. Dissension remains over the 2003 ordination of homosexual Bishop Gene Robinson. Some believe that the election of Schori, a supporter of gay unions and gay bishops, may push that church to open division. A more conservative network of 10 dioceses and 900 parishes now waits for developments this summer to see if they will leave Episcopalian fold.
Add a Comment (7)
Email This
Message Author
Sadly, the Episcopal / Anglican church’s suicidal impulse has all but sounded the death knell for what had been promising ecumenical efforts between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.
RSS
Barreling Towards Schism by jmarkdavison :: NR6 :: on 20 June 2006
Traditionalists went to the conference expecting to debate the 2003 homosexuality issue and instead were blindsided by the election of a woman who was ordained in 1994 and who has publicly said she does not consider homosexuality to be a sin.
I am not an Episcopalian but I have been following this story with much interest for its larger effects on American politics and world religion. The US Episcopal church is waaaaaay out of step with its Anglican and African counterparts as well as the "conservative" parts of the American church.
Liberals in the church seem hell-bent on creating schisms within their church in order to advance the progressive flag and create The Church of Do Whatever Feels Good 'Cause God is Down With Everything.
As a Catholic it is hard for me to understand the structure of this church, but I know there great conflict within it. To me this illustrates the reason for a pope, so there is one final deciding authority (at least on Earth) when conflicts arise.
The inherent flaw in Protestantism is its tendency toward fracture. Newton's First Law applies to Luther's secession- since the Reformation the non-Catholic Christian religions have been Balkanized time and again because they have no one at the top.
Imagine the US if the South had won the Civil War: South Carolina would have gotten upset about something in 1870 and seceded. Then Virginia in 1875, then Georgia in 1880, etc. In the North with the precedent set, independent New Hampshire would have left the Union first, then Massachussets, and so on. Today we would have dozens of countries on the same continent. The US wouldn't have been there to win WWII or oppose the USSR (or destroy the ozone layer and unjustly imprison Mumia, if you're a liberal). France and England would be speaking German (or Russian).
Protestant churches cannot stay together because the precedent has been set for secession. Like divorce in America, it's too easy to walk away. The US Episcopal Church is the latest example of this disheartening tendency, because politics have become more important than unity.
RE: Barreling Towards Schism by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 21 June 2006
Actually, I'm surprised Protestant churches don't split more than they do. Or, if you look at it another way, I think they're already more split up than they seem. If you think about it, how do you define Methodists (all of them)? What is it that sets them apart from all other Protestants? I bet if you took a cross-section of the personal beliefs of Methodists around the world, it would be about the same as the Presbyterians. Also, I bet the difference between a Baptist church in Texas and a Baptist church in Korea is probably more than the difference between a "non-denominational" church in Boston and the Methodist church just down the street. Most protestants also seem able to switch denominations very easily when they move or have a run-in with a preacher or fellow church member. What reason do they have to stay in their Episcopalian church other than their friends and history within that congregation? When they move, get in a fight, or are censured for sinning and don't feel they have these anymore, they just go looking for a place that is right "for them."
This seems odd to me, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, because - like Catholics - we believe that God establishes His church on the earth. It's a top down thing, not a bottom up thing; just one God-approved church - the one with God at the head. Protestants, on the other hand, don't believe that such a church exists. Thus, to Protestants, a "church" is really just a place to go to get "fellowship." Looking at it that way, it really doesn't matter what the name of the church is, if it splinters or which side you take - as long as you find "fellowship" there.
RE: Barreling Towards Schism by jmarkdavison :: NR6 :: on 21 June 2006
Thus, to Protestants, a "church" is really just a place to go to get "fellowship."
This might be too harsh, although I have been to plenty of Protestant churches where socializing and feeling good about one's self seemed to be the top priority. I am Catholic but my wife is not so we are always on the lookout for a good Protestant church. For me it's extra credit.
The military is particularly bad for only offering "fellowship" because on smaller bases there's usually one "General Protestant Service" in which the various Protestant chaplains--from all non-Catholic denominations--share the preaching duties. As you might imagine these services are watered-down and shallow: very thin on dogma and substance, and heavy on singing and re-introducing yourself to the same forgetful people every week.
Any committed Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, or--better yet--Episcopalians out there that want to weigh in?
RE: Barreling Towards Schism by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 21 June 2006
The thing is, the Protestant services I've been to (admitedly not many) have also seemed "very thin on dogma and substance." After one of them, I commented on this observation to my friend with whom I attended - and she acknowledged it as something she thought was attractive about Protestant churches.
RE: Barreling Towards Schism by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 22 June 2006
Let me preface this by saying that my hypocrisy only goes so far. I have wandered far from the Church's teachings in recent years, but I still maintain the following opinion, based on observation during those same years.
My former spouse was a Presbyterian, and she was very excited about it. I was raised Catholic, and we compared and contrasted, and at the end of the day, I labeled the Presbyterian church as "church-lite." Here's a massive generalization: being thin on dogma, subtance and rules about how to live a righteous life appeals to your average decadent American. Who wants to give up abortion, condoms or the pill because the Pope said its wrong, when you could just walk to another church in which they will tell you that its just fine.
If I were more of a hypocrit, I would find a church that tells me that my relatively sinful way of life is just fine because God is your friend. After all, pre-marital sex and drinking too much are two of my favorite hobbies.
RE: Barreling Towards Schism by jmarkdavison :: NR6 :: on 22 June 2006
It's not pre-marital sex if you don't intend to get married...
I think you mean "extra-marital." (Or is that adultery?)
On a more serious note, have those Protestant churches really traded principle for popularity, much like the Republican Party has done over the past few years?
I'll do some research and post my findings.