United States

[JWHITESI]

Thank you all for hosting this forum, and I would like to add some thoughts as an American. We need to unify under God as a denomination worldwide before the American church falls apart. I would like to know if efforts are being made to more closely join the flock before there appears a schism.

[AveMaria]

How do you propose such unification be achieved? And what, precisely, do you mean by unification?

[benedictine]

Forcing all people to come under the banner of one church? Yes, there are attempts, but they won't get anywhere. There are attempts to unify the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. They probably won't work either. But one of my big things is unifying the church. I try as much as I can to do that. But, that's not an easy thing. ANd, what are you refereing to by the American Church? ECUSA? Or the American Christian Community in General?

[Albion]

Thank you all for hosting this forum, and I would like to add some thoughts as an American. We need to unify under God as a denomination worldwide before the American church falls apart. I would like to know if efforts are being made to more closely join the flock before there appears a schism.
Hi, and a warm "welcome" to you!

I think you are talking about re-unifying Anglicans in America, since serious splits have already occurred, but once Humpty Dumpty has fallen and broken, the prospects for putting him together again are not good. The first thing in that direction, however, could be mutual kindness among Anglicans and a recognition of the others' Anglican identity. That has usually been the gateway for other divided families of faith when they were on the way to re-unification.

[ahab]

I assume this is about the ECUSA and the Anglican communion as it is the STR area. The NT tells us that Christians are united, 'all one in Christ Jesus' Christians are united in Spirit. So I wouldnt say one church or denomination is correct and another is wrong, we do things differently with different styles.
What we actually have is a departure from the gospel not in emnphasis and practice of what the scfriptures say but a departure to do something that the scriptures condemn.
Humpty Dumpty has indeed fallen and broken, The first thing in that direction, however, could be mutual kindness among Anglicans and a recognition of the others' Anglican identity, except that identity we have is in Christ Jesus and not our sexual identity or preferences. Therefore that is one of the first things. the second is to repent of the false promotion.

[Wigglesworth]

Thank you all for hosting this forum, and I would like to add some thoughts as an American. We need to unify under God as a denomination worldwide before the American church falls apart. I would like to know if efforts are being made to more closely join the flock before there appears a schism.

Welcome, JWHITESI!

:wave:

Every believer has an obligation to make such efforts toward unity in the Body of Christ. Even after schism, however, there remains one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. There remains one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. Though heaven and earth shall pass away, the Word of the Lord shall endure forever and ever.

[Colabomb]

Thank you all for hosting this forum, and I would like to add some thoughts as an American. We need to unify under God as a denomination worldwide before the American church falls apart. I would like to know if efforts are being made to more closely join the flock before there appears a schism.
The problem is we have a group telling its people that they are wrong for holding to 2000 years of Church Tradition and the plain teaching of Scripture. How is a group to hold together when those holding to Ancient Teachings considered Close-minded radicals?

[benedictine]

I don't know Colabomb, I don't know.

[•Amadeus•]

We need to pray about this.

:crossrc:

[UberLutheran]

The problem is we have a group telling its people that they are wrong for holding to 2000 years of Church Tradition and the plain teaching of Scripture. How is a group to hold together when those holding to Ancient Teachings considered Close-minded radicals?

Actually, I'd like to see how it would be even remotely possible to unify such disperate groups such as the Independent Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention with the ECUSA and the ELCA.

Remember: even in Lutheran-land, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod regards the ELCA as "heterodox" and "not fully Lutheran" and the Wisconsin Synod recognizes neither the LCMS or the ELCA -- and each of these groups -- the ELCA, the LCMS, and the WELS, are Lutherans!

Were I to join a Southern Baptist church, I would have to be re-baptized, since the Southern Baptists don't recognize Lutheran (or Anglican) baptisms -- and baptism is about as basic to all of Christianity as it gets!

[Albion]

The problem is we have a group telling its people that they are wrong for holding to 2000 years of Church Tradition and the plain teaching of Scripture. How is a group to hold together when those holding to Ancient Teachings considered Close-minded radicals?
That is not the problem. It may be one aspect of a problem, but it is not "the" problem.

Don't forget that we also have another group saying the same thing in the opposite direction. Obviously, no climate of mutual respect is going to be possible if the reaction to every appeal for it is met with "it's those guys doing it."

[Albion]

Actually, I'd like to see how it would be even remotely possible to unify such disperate groups such as the Independent Baptists and the Southern Baptist Convention with the ECUSA and the ELCA.

Remember: even in Lutheran-land, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod regards the ELCA as "heterodox" and "not fully Lutheran" and the Wisconsin Synod recognizes neither the LCMS or the ELCA -- and each of these groups -- the ELCA, the LCMS, and the WELS, are Lutherans!

Were I to join a Southern Baptist church, I would have to be re-baptized, since the Southern Baptists don't recognize Lutheran (or Anglican) baptisms -- and baptism is about as basic to all of Christianity as it gets!
I think you're right in saying that this is not something that will be solved in the final degree by us here, but we could take a step in that direction with more mutual respect among those who are here.

[Colabomb]

To answer some things....

I am not discussing Homosexuality, but the attitude of some in Ecusa.


That is not the problem. It may be one aspect of a problem, but it is not "the" problem.

Don't forget that we also have another group saying the same thing in the opposite direction. Obviously, no climate of mutual respect is going to be possible if the reaction to every appeal for it is met with "it's those guys doing it."


But that is the Problem. It is "those Guys". For 2000 years The Christian Church has held to a certain doctrine. Now, some other guys come in with something new, and all of a sudden, the Traditionalists are supposed to Compromise. I have no respect for what they bring forth. I have respect for these people as individuals, but they bring forth a corrupt doctrine, and it is suddenly the Traditionalists fault that there is dissention.

[Albion]

To answer some things....

I am not discussing Homosexuality, but the attitude of some in Ecusa.



But that is the Problem. It is "those Guys". For 2000 years The Christian Church has held to a certain doctrine. Now, some other guys come in with something new, and all of a sudden, the Traditionalists are supposed to Compromise. I have no respect for what they bring forth. I have respect for these people as individuals, but they bring forth a corrupt doctrine, and it is suddenly the Traditionalists fault that there is dissention.
You probably are right to have stuck closer to what I think the OP was about, strictly speaking, but I was not talking about homosexuality, Cola. I also wan't talking about ECUSA as "those guys" alone, but about the fact that there are many kinds of Anglicans here and yet there is some shortage of tolerance even though we hear a lot about how diverse the church is supposed to be. You and I agree on many points, but not on churchmanship. That's OK. Some others insist that one can be a traditionalist and a revisionist on some PC matters at the same time. Some talk as though Low Churchmen are not Anglicans. And so on.

I am not interested in arguing the point in details, but I would hope that everyone could lower the rhetoric a little bit and give more thought to mutual respect. That's not going to save ECUSA (for that cannot be done), but it could be good medicine for us as individuals.

[ahab]

Tolerance is about loving God first with all our being, and then our neighbour, its not about tolerating our neighbour’s opinion if it goes against God’s.

The tolerance requested by revisionist in the Anglican communion is countered by asking those revisionists if they will be tolerant of the majority and traditional opinion.

However the reality is a stark choice and difficult. The Lambeth Commission and Windsor report do require a moratorium so the tolerance is down to the revisionists, are they going to be tolerant or not?

[Albion]

Tolerance is about loving God first with all our being, and then our neighbour, its not about tolerating our neighbour’s opinion if it goes against God’s.

The tolerance requested by revisionist in the Anglican communion is countered by asking those revisionists if they will be tolerant of the majority and traditional opinion.

However the reality is a stark choice and difficult. The Lambeth Commission and Windsor report do require a moratorium so the tolerance is down to the revisionists, are they going to be tolerant or not?
I hear you, friends (Ahab and Cola), and I would not want to argue back against the points you are making. You are sticking closer to the OP, and I suppose that is what I should have done. I saw in it and in a reply here or there something that led me to reflect on how we here with our differences are so contentious at times. However, i apologize for getting off the subject.

[ahab]

Hi Albion,



My apologies also to you then my friend, I don’t think you were too off track.

Actually do we know precisely what track the OP is ?:)

[Albion]

Hi Albion,



My apologies also to you then my friend, I don’t think you were too off track.

Actually do we know precisely what track the OP is ?:)
Hi. You have no reason to apologize. I value your insights. I do believe, upon rereading it, that the OP had the preservation of ECUSA and the Ang Communion in mind even though it was written somewhat loosely. Colabomb was, therefore, within bounds in addressing the fact that the reason ECUSA is verging upon (another) split is because its current majority is promoting changes is the faith of 2000 years. He was concerned, I think, at the haughty manner in which the revisionists/modernists seem to him to treat those who merely believe what the church has always believed.

I saw a comparison to some, not all, Anglo-Catholics whose faith derives from a rejection of their own church's beliefs 100-150 years ago but talk as though Evangelical Anglicans are somehow the upstarts. I saw a parallel. In my world, it is the latter issue that pushes my buttons the more since I have written off ECUSA totally has having any future, but Cola had a different issue in his mind which...yes, was more in line with the OP, as I understand it.

[ahab]

Hi Albion,

Yes I think that much revisionism has come about in the past with slipts in the church. What we have is revisionists playing spoilt children, the majoirty can leave.
Yes the issue was Lambeth 1.10 but I want my way,:cry: yes the issue is still Lambeth 1.10 but I want my way. :cry: Yes we will comply as long as I get my way and dont have to comply.:cry:

[cenimo]

Isn't it so sad that Luther would not recognize his own church?
If he were to hear ELCA, LCMS, WELS, etrc. he woyld only ask, "What are you talking about?"

(Of course goes for many other churches today also).

[Cjwinnit]

Isn't it so sad that Luther would not recognize his own church?

I thought it was Christ's Church? ;)

[Polycarp1]

To answer some things....

I am not discussing Homosexuality, but the attitude of some in Ecusa.



But that is the Problem. It is "those Guys". For 2000 years The Christian Church has held to a certain doctrine.

However -- and be it noted that I am NOT discussing homosexuality here -- that doctrine was that all men have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, and that the Church was the home where those who recognized that fact were welcome, to come and live a new life in Christ.

Suddenly, a stance that extends welcome to one group has become anathema to those who call themselves "Traditionalists" -- out of their clinging to legalism regarding the doctrine of sin.

That is where the divide lies. Do not mistake the idea of welcoming all people and affirming their dignity and their right to a life full of joy and love, for "condoning homosexuality." It's an effort to show Christ's boundless love to people generally, and particularly to those who have been rejected by society.

Now, some other guys come in with something new, and all of a sudden, the Traditionalists are supposed to Compromise. I have no respect for what they bring forth. I have respect for these people as individuals, but they bring forth a corrupt doctrine, and it is suddenly the Traditionalists fault that there is dissention.

Yeah, I cannot stand it when those newfangled preachers say that following Jesus and loving as He loved is the way to God -- everybody knows that it consists in following every tittle of the Law! :doh:

And as far as ECUSA is concerned, consider that elected majorities took the controversial actions, and while I have immense respect and sympathy for those who see them as violating their own scruples, quite bluntly, it is their refusal to accept the decisions of the Church's governing bodies that is causing the dissention within ECUSA.

Perhaps, as the Bishops recently averred, we as a national church were too precipitate in acting, without consultation with the Anglican Communion -- but nonetheless the furore and conflict is being stirred up by the minority who are refusing to accept a majority vote.

Finally, I do find it as uncharitable on the part of the Traditionalists to refuse to see the idea of extending mercy and welcoming all believers as worthwhile, as the names used by the intemperate among the liberals to describe the Traditionalists. And I particularly loathe the idea that every other denominational church thinks it has the right to castigate ECUSA for its acts.

[julian the apostate]

nice to see you posting polycarp

[ahab]

I disagree.
Church was the home where those who recognized that fact were welcome, to come and live a new life in Christ.
Suddenly, a stance that extends welcome to one group has become anathema to those who call themselves "Traditionalists" -- out of their clinging to legalism regarding the doctrine of sin.

That is where the divide lies. Do not mistake the idea of welcoming all people and affirming their dignity and their right to a life full of joy and love, for "condoning homosexuality." It's an effort to show Christ's boundless love to people generally, and particularly to those who have been rejected by society. Except that the church is the body of believers, those who have become a new creation in Christ. All are welcome to come to Christ and there is no entry criteria, neither to be excluded because of being a sinner nor to be included because of being a sinner.

[Colabomb]

I disagree.
Except that the church is the body of believers, those who have become a new creation in Christ. All are welcome to come to Christ and there is no entry criteria, neither to be excluded because of being a sinner nor to be included because of being a sinner.
But, those who enter the covenant, are expected to repent.

Someone summed it up perfectly. God Loves me enough to take me where I am, but too much to leave me there.

[•Amadeus•]

But, those who enter the covenant, are expected to repent.

Someone summed it up perfectly. God Loves me enough to take me where I am, but too much to leave me there.

Excellent point. :)

[Albion]

However -- and be it noted that I am NOT discussing homosexuality here -- that doctrine was that all men have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God, and that the Church was the home where those who recognized that fact were welcome, to come and live a new life in Christ.


Finally, I do find it as uncharitable on the part of the Traditionalists to refuse to see the idea of extending mercy and welcoming all believers as worthwhile, as the names used by the intemperate among the liberals to describe the Traditionalists. And I particularly loathe the idea that every other denominational church thinks it has the right to castigate ECUSA for its acts.

It's a strange argument to my ear to be told 1) that the Church exists to bring people into a new life in Christ, 2) that charity should reign among Christians, and then 3) "the Traditionalists" are horrid legalists, etc. etc.--because, in part, they agree with 1) and 2)! How quickly the plea for kindness and understanding switched when "the Traditionalists" became the focus.


There is, in fact, virtually no personal uncharitableness on the part of "the Traditionalists" towards individuals over this. Indeed, their issue is no more or less than what you identified as yours--the role of the Church.