Episcopal Voices FAQ

[angli_fan]

I am very pleased to announce the beta release of the Episcopal Voices FAQ, v.1.0!

Sojourner has produced what I think will turn out to be a valuable document to our visitors.

However, the document is unfinished. Now we need YOUR HELP!

There are principally three areas in which we need your input:

1) Are there questions that we have not yet asked?

2) Are there answers that need to be added to or changed?

3) How would *you personally* answer THE [unanswered] QUESTION?

A couple of things to keep in mind as you post;

It is not sufficient simply to criticize what has already been done; we need your ideas on how to make it better.

This document needs to reflect the richness and diversity that is the ECUSA, not just a single point of view. I think Sojourner has made a good start on this, and we want to continue in this vein. So before you post, take a moment and consider how an Episcopalian with a viewpoint opposite yours would respond to your post, and save them the trouble by posting their side too, as best you can.

OK; have at it! ;D

angli_fan

cynlover.topcities.com/angli_fan/faq.html

[raphael]

how do i personally respond to "What are you guys thinking about with this consecration of a gay bishop and blessing same sex marriages?"

um, er, "us guys"? oh well, i'll try anyway

regarding the "gay bishop", my understanding is that the people of new hampshire elected a human being whom they knew and loved to be their bishop -- it happens that this human being is a gay man, but my guess is that he was elected because of who he is and has been as a priest in their midst for so many years now, and has little, if anything, to do with his sexual preferences

on the national level, my guess is that most who voted to confirm, recognizing that one day their own election of a bishop would need to be confirmed, were speaking to the election of the people of new hampshire, who have every right to elect their choice for bishop, just as do the people of ft. worth to elect their bishop, and that very few, if any, of the delegates present were casting a vote for alternative lifestyles

as for the second part of the question, my understanding is that the episcopal church did not approve any liturgy for the blessing of same gender relationships (sigh), but also acted to protect from discipline those diocese and churches where such experimentation is taking place

all the rest is just noise, noise, noise

r

[Canadian Phil]

Thanks to Sojourner for putting the work on the FAQs, but I do have a couple quibbles.

First, I'm not sure that it is 100% accurate to characterize evangelicals as arguing that good work and sacraments had no salvational efficacy. It is, instead, another way to come at the problem. It suggests that good works and the sacraments, TEXT are efficacious. Instead, good works and sacraments are only possible by grace through faith. There are still evangelicals who would argue the former position, but most evangelical Anglicans I know would emphasize the latter position. Similary, it is stretch to say that Anglican evangelicism only believes in a symbolic concept of the eucharist. Many do, but many also accept a Real Prescence which is rather Lutheran in its feel. Calvinists aren't the only evangelicals out there.

I'm generally agreed on the ordination not conferring supernatural gifts, although I would add that the 'priestood of all believers' is what the operating principle here so that the belief is that clergy are only a specialised ministry within that wider view. Perhaps that latter bit could be included?

The reference to sola scriptura is pretty right on, although I would also note that I would characteize it more as prima scriptura (that is likely my own brand of evangelicalism, though. Feel free to dismiss that).

As for the reference to the problem, I'm not absolutely sure what it is there for, but, if we include it, I would note the election of Bishop Robinson, but also add that there is considerable controversy among conservatives. My own views are sufficiently well known that, in lieu of setting them out again, I propose the essay question that Sojourner suggested on the old board: Compare and contrast Sojourner's and Canadian Phil's views on homsexuality and the church ;D .

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

Phil:

I struggled with THE question. My first impulse was simply to disregard it. But, as the purpose was to address Frequently Asked Questions, I felt ignoring what, currently, is high on the radar of people discussing ECUSA, would be cowardly. I think there may be articles, etc, posted at various sites on the net which could be linked to provide readers with a sample of opinions. So, in addition to personal comment, I would like to see some suggested links which, collectively, would provide a balanced reading of current Anglican thoughts on the subject.

[Carl]

Sojourner:

One article that you might be interested in regarding THE question (which, oddly, is NOT Life, the Universe and Everything) might be www.godmademegay.com.

As for Sola Scriptura, in their oath of ordination all bishops must affirm the traditional Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura - that "Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation." Which to me, is a pretty strong indication that it is doctrinal. The definition of Sola Scriptura held by some evangelicals - that Scripture contains pretty much all things to be used as a guide for Christians, period - is not. But neither is that the original definition of the term.