Church of England to split

[JSojourner]

All the cool people split from the Anglican Church in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, anyway.

Well, to be serious, the Anglican Communion is on life support right now, and its not looking good for it.  I don't think anyone should be surprised that this is the fate of a "church" that is literally founded on the notion that it is okay to sell out your principles whenever it becomes convenient.  The funny thing is, I can say this with reasonable assurance that I won't offend any of our British friends, since fewer than 1% of all people in Britain currently identify with the Anglican Communion.

As an Anglican (an Episcopalian), I have to agree with you strongly -- in part.  And disagree just as strongly.  Let me explain.

First, there are very few absolutes -- even in Christianity.  We may think there are, but so many of them are man-made and based entirely on human interpretation of the Bible.  Human interpretation is always subject to flaw, error and mishandling.  This is why we have some Roman Catholics who view the Blessed Virgin as co-redemptrix with Christ.  And why we have some non-Catholics who regard her as "just another Bible character".  Neither seems to me to be sound ground.  Your view of the Blessed Mother, Soulty, seems most logical and sane.

But my point is, Christians major on minors and minor on majors.  In the Episcopal Church, we are coming apart at the seams over matters that the Bible says relatively little about -- and even what is written can be adequately and honestly interpreted by both liberal and conservative scholars to defend their respective positions.  It's no different than Protestants splitting over whether the gift of tongues is for the present or just for the early church...or whether or not there is a "rapture".  Churches split over these things that matter -- but don't matter that much.

What the Episcopal Church SHOULD split over is the Nicene Creed.  Though not Scripture, it summarizes exactly what one must believe in order to be a Christian.  That's not to say one cannot have periods of doubt.  But to say the creed weekly, or even daily, and flatly reject the idea that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God"...that he died for our sins...and that he is literally, bodily risen from the dead is absolute heresy. 

I welcome the presence of any Christian in the Episcopal church -- gay or straight, conservative or liberal, left or right.  What they believe about the sacrament matters, but not nearly as much as what they believe about Jesus.  What they believe about the creation of the world matters, but nowhere near as much as what they believe about redemption and resurrection.

That my church is splitting over sexuality is about the dumbest thing I can imagine to split over.  The conservatives say  the gays are a threat to families, to children and to Scripture.  The liberals say the conservatives are hate-filled bigots.  Both sides are being stupid.

When I help give the sacrament to communicants (in our diocese, licensed lay people can assist the priest), there are no liberals or conservatives, gays or straights, mature or immature Christians at the altar.  Only sinners in need of a Savior.  What does the old chorus say?  "Where saints and sinners are friends?"

The Anglican Communion could survive forever without ever settling or agreeing on issues of sexuality.  So what if some parish in South Carolina leaves the Episcopal Church to come under the authority of some uber conservative African Bishop?  If they really need to do that -- if their faith in Jesus is so threatened at the thought of a gay priest or a female priest -- then God bless them in their journey. 

What worries me is that the Anglican Communion cannot survive the presence of a few theologians, bishops and priests who flatly deny and are openly hostile to what is taught in the Nicene Creed.  There are not many absolutes in Christianity.  But there are a few -- Jesus is God in the flesh.  He died for our sins, a perfect sacrifice.  He has risen from the dead, literally and bodily.  Those few absolutes should be utterly non-negotiable.  Not necessarily for the seeker in the pews.  But certainly for any Deacon, Priest or Bishop.

And to the extent that we fail to stand on that ground, yes -- I agree.  The Anglican Communion is in grave danger.  But I am sure that if the church does collapse 'round itself, the spin from its critics within and without will be --  "look what those damn queers did".

[J. J.]

Right on, JSojourner!

[12th Doctor]

All the cool people split from the Anglican Church in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, anyway.

Well, to be serious, the Anglican Communion is on life support right now, and its not looking good for it.  I don't think anyone should be surprised that this is the fate of a "church" that is literally founded on the notion that it is okay to sell out your principles whenever it becomes convenient.  The funny thing is, I can say this with reasonable assurance that I won't offend any of our British friends, since fewer than 1% of all people in Britain currently identify with the Anglican Communion.

As an Anglican (an Episcopalian), I have to agree with you strongly -- in part.  And disagree just as strongly.  Let me explain.

First, there are very few absolutes -- even in Christianity.  We may think there are, but so many of them are man-made and based entirely on human interpretation of the Bible.  Human interpretation is always subject to flaw, error and mishandling.  This is why we have some Roman Catholics who view the Blessed Virgin as co-redemptrix with Christ.  And why we have some non-Catholics who regard her as "just another Bible character".  Neither seems to me to be sound ground.  Your view of the Blessed Mother, Soulty, seems most logical and sane.

But my point is, Christians major on minors and minor on majors.  In the Episcopal Church, we are coming apart at the seams over matters that the Bible says relatively little about -- and even what is written can be adequately and honestly interpreted by both liberal and conservative scholars to defend their respective positions.  It's no different than Protestants splitting over whether the gift of tongues is for the present or just for the early church...or whether or not there is a "rapture".  Churches split over these things that matter -- but don't matter that much.

What the Episcopal Church SHOULD split over is the Nicene Creed.  Though not Scripture, it summarizes exactly what one must believe in order to be a Christian.  That's not to say one cannot have periods of doubt.  But to say the creed weekly, or even daily, and flatly reject the idea that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God"...that he died for our sins...and that he is literally, bodily risen from the dead is absolute heresy. 

I welcome the presence of any Christian in the Episcopal church -- gay or straight, conservative or liberal, left or right.  What they believe about the sacrament matters, but not nearly as much as what they believe about Jesus.  What they believe about the creation of the world matters, but nowhere near as much as what they believe about redemption and resurrection.

That my church is splitting over sexuality is about the dumbest thing I can imagine to split over.  The conservatives say  the gays are a threat to families, to children and to Scripture.  The liberals say the conservatives are hate-filled bigots.  Both sides are being stupid.

When I help give the sacrament to communicants (in our diocese, licensed lay people can assist the priest), there are no liberals or conservatives, gays or straights, mature or immature Christians at the altar.  Only sinners in need of a Savior.  What does the old chorus say?  "Where saints and sinners are friends?"

The Anglican Communion could survive forever without ever settling or agreeing on issues of sexuality.  So what if some parish in South Carolina leaves the Episcopal Church to come under the authority of some uber conservative African Bishop?  If they really need to do that -- if their faith in Jesus is so threatened at the thought of a gay priest or a female priest -- then God bless them in their journey. 

What worries me is that the Anglican Communion cannot survive the presence of a few theologians, bishops and priests who flatly deny and are openly hostile to what is taught in the Nicene Creed.  There are not many absolutes in Christianity.  But there are a few -- Jesus is God in the flesh.  He died for our sins, a perfect sacrifice.  He has risen from the dead, literally and bodily.  Those few absolutes should be utterly non-negotiable.  Not necessarily for the seeker in the pews.  But certainly for any Deacon, Priest or Bishop.

And to the extent that we fail to stand on that ground, yes -- I agree.  The Anglican Communion is in grave danger.  But I am sure that if the church does collapse 'round itself, the spin from its critics within and without will be --  "look what those damn queers did".

That's very well said, and couldn't be truer.  Perhaps I should clarify.  The problem with the AC from the beginning has been one of finding an identity.  If you had told someone two years into the reign of Henry VIII that England would go Protestant and split from Rome, it would have seemed unthinkable.  And since that split occurred, the AC has warred (on occasion literally) over what the split means.  The fact is, the AC has had considerable difficulty defining itself, theologically, since its initial split from Rome had little to do with theology to begin with, other than the assertion of the rights of a monarch.  They have obviously steered away from that notion, since, but that has resulted in a robbing of authority, along with the absence of a fundamental theology. 

With most other sects, you at least get one or the other.

The people of the AC don't feel restrained by true guild lines, or common cause, and thus most are allowed to simply innovate, or opine at will.  This then leads to a slew of other problems in the church, in the congregations, and in the individual church goer.  The marvel, therefore, is not the utter collapse of the AC, but the rather than it lasted as long as it has.

[JSojourner]

It's interesting to note that the Church of England has produced some of the most brilliant theologians of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.  I would say that Dr. J.I. Packer and Bishop N.T. Wright are two leading theological lights in all Christendom.  Packer is more of a Protestant and Wright, more of an Anglo-Catholic -- but both are theological giants. 

But that in no way takes away from your basically spot-on assessment, Soulty.  In fact, it's because the AC is all over the map theologically that people like Packer and Wright have been forced to author such impressive tomes debunking nonsense like The Jesus Seminar and the tortured ramblings of John Dominic Crossan and Jack Spong.  (Crossan is not Anglican, per se.  He is an ex-Roman Catholic whose current affiliation is unknown to me.)

I also think the Church of England's hymnody is pretty close to being unparalleled, both musically and theologically.  But of course, Isaac Watts is long dead and the Wesleys eventually became Methodists.  ;-)

[J. J.]

I disagree with Soulty a bit, on that Eucharistic doctrine is broader.

[JSojourner]

I disagree with Soulty a bit, on that Eucharistic doctrine is broader.

True.  In fact, in that sense, the Roman Catholic Church and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod have more in common that the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion.  The LCMS refuses Holy Communion to any non-Lutheran or even to Lutherans who do not believe in either transubstantiation or consubstantiation.

In the Anglican/Episcopal Church, the sacrament is given to any baptized Christian.  I find that most Anglicans believe in either transubstantiation or consubstantiation.  But not all.  My wife, for example, has an extremely Protestant, almost Baptist view of the sacrament.  I can't talk her out of it.  And I really don't try.  She's a much better Christian than I am!

I like, however, that she is welcome to come to the table with me.  I could never refuse communion to any person who has trusted Christ as their Savior. At the same time, I recognize that my Roman Catholic and LCMS brothers and sisters (and Orthodox folks, too) do not refuse communion out of a sense of superiority or exclusivity.  They do so out of sincere concern for the souls of the communicants.  I respect that.

[Torie]

Hey I took communion by invitation in an Episcopal Church (at a funeral), and the priest said nothing about the Baptized Christian condition precedent thing, so this un-Baptized Pagan went right up. The folks sitting near me asked why, and I replied, because I can! And there you have it.   Yet another reason why I am headed to the pit.

[ilikeverin]

Yet another reason why Methodism>all.  We let everyone take communion if they want, even heathens and nonbelievers!

[12th Doctor]

Yet another reason why Methodism>all.  We let everyone take communion if they want, even heathens and nonbelievers!

Great waffers and Merlot... make sure there is enough for everyone.

[ilikeverin]

Yet another reason why Methodism>all.  We let everyone take communion if they want, even heathens and nonbelievers!

Great waffers and Merlot... make sure there is enough for everyone.

We don't use wafers, because we're not Catholic, nor do we have alcohol, because officially speaking the Methodist Church is temperate

[12th Doctor]

Yet another reason why Methodism>all.  We let everyone take communion if they want, even heathens and nonbelievers!

Great waffers and Merlot... make sure there is enough for everyone.

We don't use wafers, because we're not Catholic, nor do we have alcohol, because officially speaking the Methodist Church is temperate

My point was that Methodists allow communion to everyone because their beliefs about what happens at communion aren't the same as those of Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans or Anglicans.

[Flying Dog]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

[12th Doctor]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

I honestly haven't the slightest clue.  It's defiantly a kinda unleavened wafer, but beyond that, I don't know.  I like Byzantine Communion.  They have a real "square" of bread, if you will, which they cover in the wine and give you both the body and blood on this spoon like instrument, and only in the mouth.  I have seen a few Catholic Churches where they use a kinda pita, like yours.  I honestly don't think it matters that much.

[Keystone Phil]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

I honestly haven't the slightest clue.  It's defiantly a kinda unleavened wafer, but beyond that, I don't know.  I like Byzantine Communion.  They have a real "square" of bread, if you will, which they cover in the wine and give you both the body and blood on this spoon like instrument, and only in the mouth.  I have seen a few Catholic Churches where they use a kinda pita, like yours.  I honestly don't think it matters that much.

I love the taste of the wafers. I have to say, I've always wanted to pop open a bucket of them (I used to see them in the sacristy closet all the time) and eat them like chips but that seems so wrong. 

[Flying Dog]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

I have seen a few Catholic Churches where they use a kinda pita, like yours.  I honestly don't think it matters that much.

Yeah, Church's are given pretty big autonomy on the type of bread. I guess the reason we use Syrian Flat-Bread is because that's the kind Jesus most likely used during the Last Supper I guess. So it's got some symbolic value from that, I guess. I agree, it doesn't really matter, though.

[12th Doctor]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

I honestly haven't the slightest clue.  It's defiantly a kinda unleavened wafer, but beyond that, I don't know.  I like Byzantine Communion.  They have a real "square" of bread, if you will, which they cover in the wine and give you both the body and blood on this spoon like instrument, and only in the mouth.  I have seen a few Catholic Churches where they use a kinda pita, like yours.  I honestly don't think it matters that much.

I love the taste of the wafers. I have to say, I've always wanted to pop open a bucket of them (I used to see them in the sacristy closet all the time) and eat them like chips but that seems so wrong. 

I remember back in high school when we had a class specifically on more advanced matters of the faith and we discussed the deeper theology of the Eucharist.  One of the kids in the class said something close to what you just did, after finding out that the wafers prior to consecration had literally no value, other than as bread.  He then said, "cool, so I can just buy a tub of them and get some cheeze whiz?"   The teacher, Fr. Swoger, responded, "yes, but that might be just a little sacrilegious."

[Keystone Phil]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

I honestly haven't the slightest clue.  It's defiantly a kinda unleavened wafer, but beyond that, I don't know.  I like Byzantine Communion.  They have a real "square" of bread, if you will, which they cover in the wine and give you both the body and blood on this spoon like instrument, and only in the mouth.  I have seen a few Catholic Churches where they use a kinda pita, like yours.  I honestly don't think it matters that much.

I love the taste of the wafers. I have to say, I've always wanted to pop open a bucket of them (I used to see them in the sacristy closet all the time) and eat them like chips but that seems so wrong. 

I remember back in high school when we had a class specifically on more advanced matters of the faith and we discussed the deeper theology of the Eucharist.  One of the kids in the class said something close to what you just did, after finding out that the wafers prior to consecration had literally no value, other than as bread.  He then said, "cool, so I can just buy a tub of them and get some cheeze whiz?"   The teacher, Fr. Swoger, responded, "yes, but that might be just a little sacrilegious."

See, that's exactly what I thought. I obviously wouldn't eat them after consecration so it should be fine. At the same time, it would seem a little odd.

[Flying Dog]

Soulty, a question. What kind of bread do you use for communion?

We use Syrian flat-bread at my church.

I honestly haven't the slightest clue.  It's defiantly a kinda unleavened wafer, but beyond that, I don't know.  I like Byzantine Communion.  They have a real "square" of bread, if you will, which they cover in the wine and give you both the body and blood on this spoon like instrument, and only in the mouth.  I have seen a few Catholic Churches where they use a kinda pita, like yours.  I honestly don't think it matters that much.

I love the taste of the wafers. I have to say, I've always wanted to pop open a bucket of them (I used to see them in the sacristy closet all the time) and eat them like chips but that seems so wrong. 

I remember back in high school when we had a class specifically on more advanced matters of the faith and we discussed the deeper theology of the Eucharist.  One of the kids in the class said something close to what you just did, after finding out that the wafers prior to consecration had literally no value, other than as bread.  He then said, "cool, so I can just buy a tub of them and get some cheeze whiz?"   The teacher, Fr. Swoger, responded, "yes, but that might be just a little sacrilegious."

See, that's exactly what I thought. I obviously wouldn't eat them after consecration so it should be fine. At the same time, it would seem a little odd.

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

[Keystone Phil]

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

Eh, it's definitely more of an after dinner light snack.

[12th Doctor]

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

Eh, it's definitely more of an after dinner light snack.

Never mind.  I just blew you all out of the water in terms of sacrilegious thinking.  I just came back from mass and went to Starbucks, while I was leaving, I thought "Now it's time to wash Christ down with some good coffee."

[Flying Dog]

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

Eh, it's definitely more of an after dinner light snack.

Never mind.  I just blew you all out of the water in terms of sacrilegious thinking.  I just came back from mass and went to Starbucks, while I was leaving, I thought "Now it's time to wash Christ down with some good coffee."

Haha....I lol'd.

In a related note, I'm always continually surprised by how little emphasis other denominations place on Communion. Maybe that's just because the Catholic mass is built around receiving Communion.

[Keystone Phil]

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

Eh, it's definitely more of an after dinner light snack.

Never mind.  I just blew you all out of the water in terms of sacrilegious thinking.  I just came back from mass and went to Starbucks, while I was leaving, I thought "Now it's time to wash Christ down with some good coffee."

Haha....I lol'd.

In a related note, I'm always continually surprised by how little emphasis other denominations place on Communion. Maybe that's just because the Catholic mass is built around receiving Communion.

For the longest time, I didn't even know if Protestants received communion, that's how little emphasis is placed on it.

Anyway, I hate to say this but Christ leaves a bad after taste in my mouth. Yeah, I just said that. By the time I get out of mass, I have this stale after taste. I usually wash it down as soon as I get home.

[Flying Dog]

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

Eh, it's definitely more of an after dinner light snack.

Never mind.  I just blew you all out of the water in terms of sacrilegious thinking.  I just came back from mass and went to Starbucks, while I was leaving, I thought "Now it's time to wash Christ down with some good coffee."

Haha....I lol'd.

In a related note, I'm always continually surprised by how little emphasis other denominations place on Communion. Maybe that's just because the Catholic mass is built around receiving Communion.

Anyway, I hate to say this but Christ leaves a bad after taste in my mouth. Yeah, I just said that. By the time I get out of mass, I have this stale after taste. I usually wash it down as soon as I get home.

*Tisk tisk tisk...*

[12th Doctor]

I can see it now.

Phil, what are you having for dinner?

Oh, I think I'm just going to snack on some unleveled wafers.

Eh, it's definitely more of an after dinner light snack.

Never mind.  I just blew you all out of the water in terms of sacrilegious thinking.  I just came back from mass and went to Starbucks, while I was leaving, I thought "Now it's time to wash Christ down with some good coffee."

Haha....I lol'd.

In a related note, I'm always continually surprised by how little emphasis other denominations place on Communion. Maybe that's just because the Catholic mass is built around receiving Communion.

For the longest time, I didn't even know if Protestants received communion, that's how little emphasis is placed on it.

Anyway, I hate to say this but Christ leaves a bad after taste in my mouth. Yeah, I just said that. By the time I get out of mass, I have this stale after taste. I usually wash it down as soon as I get home.

Yeah, it really depends on the denomination.  The Lutherans and Anglicans receive it every service, and have similar beliefs as us, in regards to it, but even then, they place very little real emphasis on it.  The other denoms are varied, but they usually have communion less regularly, believe it is only symbolic, and serve the wine in little Dixie cups on a tray.

[JSojourner]

Hey I took communion by invitation in an Episcopal Church (at a funeral), and the priest said nothing about the Baptized Christian condition precedent thing, so this un-Baptized Pagan went right up. The folks sitting near me asked why, and I replied, because I can! And there you have it.   Yet another reason why I am headed to the pit.

The canons say "All baptised Christians are welcome to receive the bread and wine, or just the bread as is their need or custom.  Those who do not wish to receive the sacrament or who cannot, may cross their arms and receive a blessing from the celebrant".

However, not all parishes police or observe that.  And, I suspect even in the Roman Catholic Church (Soulty could confirm or correct this), there is no way of knowing the spiritual status of every person who goes forward.  I am sure a lot of communion is given to those technically ineligible.  I do know that in most Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregations, they will ask for proof that you are a member if they don't know you.  And they will deny the sacrament, even to baptised Christians.

That said Torie, I believe ultimately, the matter is between you and God.  And if I were in charge of sending people to the pit, you would not be among them.  I think I would probably send you to Cleveland instead....  <grin>