Changing Denominations - what's at stake?

[jb]

Hi everyone. I'm a Roman Catholic. My name is Johnboy and I go by jb. I have been lurking on this forum for a while and studying the Episcopal Church in earnest through different documents (such as concerning ongoing ecumenical dialogue) and books (such as the series put out thru Morehouse Publishing with authors like Christopher Webber) and also The Book of Common Prayer.

One book that really captured my imagination was Nancy Rhoden's Revolutionary Anglicanism: The Colonial Church of England Clergy during the American Revolution but it goes for $250 used and $375 new! Now, don't you know that's just the type of thing that'll contribute to hoity-toity stereotypes? Of course, I'm just kidding - about the stereotypes, not the book price.

I have a tendency to get both wordy and long-winded in forums but am doing better nowadays. I do not want to risk offending charity in these ways, so, should I lapse, just ask me to restate what I have inartfully said with more clarity and succinctness.

Moving to the more substantive issue, let me formally open by stating my sincere appreciation of the Episcopal tradition, my heartfelt love of my Episcopal sisters and brothers and my deep resonance with the dogma, doctrines and disciplines as lived out in the Episcopal Church of the USA. Let me also thank you for the hospitality you offer by virtue of this Episcopal Voices forum. From what I have seen, so far, it appears civil, collegial and inviting. Thanks for that, too.

Rather than launch into a monologue regarding my own stance regarding this thread topic, Changing Denominations - what's at stake?, let me note that I have read several other posts here that raise and attempt to answer the question of why more Romans don't travel the road to Canterbury to become Anglican. I can understand, too, how the statements I made above can leave more than a few questions begging: why not convert? what about intellectual dishonesty? and moral cowardice? or ecclesial schizophrenia? are you at least being schismatic? and so on and so forth. Having read those posts, having grappled with those questions within, let me invite your own comments and questions in the spirit of opening a dialogue that will advance my own self-understanding and our own appreciation of one another and our traditions. What's in your heart? What's on your mind?

Shalom and deep peace,
jb

[Sojourner]

JB,

WHERE charity and love are, God is there.
Christ's love has gathered us into one.
Let us rejoice and be pleased in Him.
Let us fear, and let us love the living God.
And may we love each other with a sincere heart.

Not a very heavy ecclesiology here, at all. Nevertheless, it pretty much articulates my view of the Church. And, that is because I find no evidence in any existing structure that meets all of the requirements of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Perhaps that has a lot to do with having been formed in the bosom of a mid-century, liberal Protestant tradition in which the hymn "Blest be the tie that binds" best described our low view of church.

When I was ten years old I saw the Easter Eucharist from the National Cathedral on television, and from that time on, I knew that there was something in the worship of the Episcopal Church that spoke to me. Although my Methodist mother was convinced that the Episcopal Church was going to "lead me to Rome with a candle," I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church my freshman year in college. Even this change of denomination was a bit difficult for my family. The easiest part was that I was no longer living at home, so the familial pressures that might have existed were basically irrelevant for me. And, ultimately, the denominational switch was not all that exotic because, fundamentally, the theological differences between where I had been and where I ended up were insignificant.

I cite this experience only to say that I 45 years ago I changed denominations, and know that it was the right thing for me. But, I didn't really have a lot of factors holding me back. I do know that had I gone to Rome, it would have been significantly different and that, culturally, I would have had significantly more trepidation. Had I needed to make the transition to Rome in order to harmonize some intellectual or emotional dissonance, I would have done so, but I know it would have been very difficult.

I consider myself an Episcopalian. But, more importantly, I have theological views that are much more important to me than any denominational loyalty. As a result, I would have no problem becoming involved in a congregation of a different denomination if that congregation was more agreeable to my theology and my liturgical/sacramental leanings. My view that theological agreement (tolerance?) within a congregation is more important than denominational affiliation allows me to be somewhat fluid in my choice of membership. That's one of the reasons I can't get too excited about the current state of TEC.

[srigdon]

I started a thread on this question in June of 2006 (maybe you've seen it):

episcopalvoices.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=archive&thread=682&page=1

Some things seem apparent to me:

(1) Conservatives seem to be a lot more willing to leave denominations than liberals.

(2) Community at church is more important to most people than fidelity to the Gospel as they see it.

(3) Nowadays the vast majority of Roman Catholics have probably never heard of us.

Conflict, no matter how righteous, is big trouble for any church.

The Episcopal Church is a hard place to survive in if you're under 40 and you want some community in your church life. I'm not particularly social and even *I* have found this hard to take at times. If an unmarried person hopes to find a spouse with whom to share a church life, I'm afraid that in most parts of the US, the Episcopal Church is a dead end. I can't tell you how depressing it is to attend a parish with a bunch of old folks and have them pounce on you afterwards as though you're the only young person they've seen at church in months.

I think Sojourner hit it in that earlier thread with this comment to me:

Sidney, most people have deeply personal commitments to people and places. Many people feel that they will resist leaving a place and a group to which they have given enormous amounts of time and money. The motives for staying are not theological, they are not belief driven. They are visceral, they are passionate, they are not always high minded. Most often, they are simply human, a strange mixture of good and bad.

[Sojourner]

You make an interesting point about surviving in TEC if you are under 40. I'm not familiar with the current demographics, but I assume that, especially in smaller towns and cities, there is a significant greying of TEC. I read recently that a large majority of TEC parishes had weekly attendance of under 100. TEC has never been particularly good at <gasp> Evangelism. After the Colonial settlement, TEC expansion in the 19th century was never equal to that of the Baptists and Methodists. The growth of those two denominations during the 19th century when, arguably, TEC was every bit as "orthodox" as the Baptists and Methodists

[Sojourner]

You make an interesting point about surviving in TEC if you are under 40. I'm not familiar with the current demographics, but I assume that, especially in smaller towns and cities, there is a significant greying of TEC. I read recently that a large majority of TEC parishes had weekly attendance of under 100. TEC has never been particularly good at <gasp> Evangelism. After the Colonial settlement, TEC expansion in the 19th century was never equal to that of the Baptists and Methodists. The growth of those two denominations during the 19th century when, arguably, TEC was every bit as "orthodox" as the Baptists and Methodists suggests that something other than apostacy held back the growth of TEC. Some sociological studies of TEC suggest that economic and social demographics played a part in who attended TEC. The image of TEC as a bulwark of WASPS was certainly valid in the 1950's. The "Republican Party at Prayer" had a certain element of truth to it. The first exodus of members occurred in the 60's and 70's over the participation of our clergy and congregants in the Civil Rights movement -- not because of theology or gays.

TEC has never been particularly aggressive in "bringing in the sheaves." This failure to seek out potential members (a failing from Jamestown on) has always been with us in the American experience. There was a surge in membership (as occurred in other "mainline" churches) in the 1950's. Never before, or since, has the number ever been that high. Much of that had to do with the aftermath of WWII and the surge in young families seeking roots. Most churches experienced growth in this period. Unfortunately, in my view, this surge had more to do with non-spiritual or non-theological reasons than with any life changing encounter with God. I note, with amusement, the efforts my Methodist mother put into her church growth activities. In about 1950 the church with which they were affiliated had an average Sunday morning attendance of about 80. With the arrival of a new, young minister, things took off. I remember my mother and some of her friends sitting around the mimeograph making a booklet outlining the activities the new Sunday School class they were starting was going to undertake. As part of the booklet they attached miniature chains, symbolizing the name of the class: Add-A-Link (to the chain, of course!) By 1959 the church had 350 attending 2 services on Sunday and had the resources to build a new facility.

That growth, however, stabilized by the 80's and has slightly decreased over the years.

One final note: I'm convinced that having holy barristas man the coffee bar between services while family members can spend time in the gym and sign up for a trip to Disney land can provide a wholesome environment. I'm equally convinced that such activities conducted by the local Y can provide the same environment. I'm not really sure that there is much spiritual growth that goes along with this approach. My bet is that the mega-church approach will run its course as did the mainline Protestant surge of the 20th century.

[Canadian Phil]

First, welcome to Episcopal Voices! There seems to have been a surge of newcomers to the board over the last couple of weeks which is a good thing. I'm glad you're finding our discussions helpful.

I'm not entirely sure what you are looking for in this thread, but I'll add to the conversation a bit.

First, I should note that changing denominations these days is less of a big deal that it was, say, fifty years ago. Part of this is the impact of the ecumenical movement which has narrowed (but not eliminated by any stretch of the imagination) over the last half-century. This is particularly true when one (as I have) moved between the various Protestant denominations. More often than not, what brings other Protestants into Anglicanism is an appreciation for liturgy and/or sacraments. A shift from Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is trickier, but even that kind of shift is easier than it would have been half a century ago.

Second, as for reasons for converting, I suspect that there are as many reasons for converting as there are people who convert. For myself, I was a very nominal Christian (baptized in the United Church of Canada) until grad school when a friend of mine took me to an Anglican church. It was a rather liberal Anglican church, but it was welcomng and I was attracted to that. I also prefered the liturgy, even though it was a pretty Broad church parish. Over time, I began to encounter the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church of Canada and I learned more and more about my faith. So, I've more or less settled as a moderate conservative, with an evangelical understanding, but worshipping in a very Anglo-Catholic parish. Now, could that be more Anglican?

A last point. I think Sojourner is right to point out that no church can be identified with the one, true, catholic Church. That is, in many ways, the tragedy of Christianity both in the past and now. We, who have been called to be brothers and sisters, are simply unable to manage it. Our disunity and our failure to be the one church is an ongoing scandal, but it should remind us of the necessity of humility in how we see other Christians.

I hope this makes sense.

Peace,
Phil

[jb]

Apr 17, 2008 10:41:13 GMT -5 Sojourner said:

When I was ten years old I saw the Easter Eucharist from the National Cathedral on television, and from that time on, I knew that there was something in the worship of the Episcopal Church that spoke to me.

Sojourner, I see worship as incredibly important, as an essential, as central. I can very much relate to what you have shared.

Apr 17, 2008 10:41:13 GMT -5 Sojourner said:

Had I needed to make the transition to Rome in order to harmonize some intellectual or emotional dissonance, I would have done so, but I know it would have been very difficult.

I am glad to see that you and others have addressed both intellectual and emotional issues, both theological and visceral issues. This resonates with my own integral view of our humanity. In my view, we seek to avoid an overemphasis on the speculative, which is rationalistic, but also on the affective, which is pietistic.

Apr 17, 2008 10:41:13 GMT -5 Sojourner said:

I consider myself an Episcopalian. But, more importantly, I have theological views that are much more important to me than any denominational loyalty. As a result, I would have no problem becoming involved in a congregation of a different denomination if that congregation was more agreeable to my theology and my liturgical/sacramental leanings.

In my dialogue with progressive members of various Christian denominations, I have found that there is a great deal of emotional resonance and theological agreement across denominations. Progressive members of any given denomination seem to relate better to progressive members of other denominations than they do, even, to the more traditionalist members within their own denomination. Traditionalists, on the other hand, tend to be more insular, seems to me, although they seem ready enough to form coalitions with other conservative-types, for example, if they share a political agenda.

I like to view the progressive-traditionalist continuum (or the liberal-conservative continuum) as representing different charisms, which is to say, giftedness. Some of us, by temperament, are suited to be pioneers; others are given more to being settlers. This is not to deny that, improperly considered, this continuum does not too often devolve into hurtful polarizations.

[jb]

Apr 17, 2008 13:41:37 GMT -5 srigdon said:

I started a thread on this question in June of 2006 (maybe you've seen it):

episcopalvoices.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=archive&thread=682&page=1

Sidney, I do recall seeing it, among others. Would you like for me to answer some of the issues raised on that thread by responding on that June 2006 thread? Or will this one work just as well?

Apr 17, 2008 13:41:37 GMT -5 srigdon said:

Some things seem apparent to me:

(1) Conservatives seem to be a lot more willing to leave denominations than liberals.

Now that you mention it, it does seem to me that most of my friends who left the RCChurch ended up in churches who are more fundamentalistic and tend toward political conservatism. At the same time, those within my church who are more traditionalistic are fundamentalistic in their own way and also tend toward political conservatism. What they seem to have in common is being fundamentalistic and politically conservative; where they differ, in my view, is in their embrace, on one hand, of sola scriptura, otoh, on solum magisterium. I'm not sure I have spoken to the phenomenon you mentioned though, but I am interested in having you expand on your thoughts in that regard.

Apr 17, 2008 13:41:37 GMT -5 srigdon said:

(2) Community at church is more important to most people than fidelity to the Gospel as they see it.

One time, I heard this put that to RC's belonging is more important than being right. I'm not exactly sure what that means. It is difficult to discuss others' internal dispositions and motivations without, however inadvertently and implicitly, getting ad hominem in our sociological/psychological analyses (not that I am not willing to go there, with some circumspection.)

As it is, one of the main themes of the Good News is our aspiration to community; our unitive strivings are central to our faith and entail Gospel fidelity, in and of themselves. Of course, this is not to suggest that other Gospel values can be ignored or deemphasized. Unfortunately, due to our human finitude and sinfulness, values often end up competing and need rebalancing and reprioritization. This is where the via media comes in as a genuine charism. Also, the catholic both/and approach.

Apr 17, 2008 13:41:37 GMT -5 srigdon said:

(3) Nowadays the vast majority of Roman Catholics have probably never heard of us.

I consider myself rather well informed, in general, but can tell you that I have been woefully ignorant of the Anglican tradition, in particular, until fairly recently.

I once asked a friend who was Episcopalian how it differed from Roman Catholicism. He said it was Catholic, just moreso.

I asked another friend, who was an RC convert to the Episcopal Church, whose husband was in the seminary, in fact. She said it was like being Roman Catholic but without the guilt.

My first exposure to the Episcopal Church was through a wedding attendance. I thought: Whoa! This ain't like my other Protestant worship experiences over the years (I had two uncles who were Southern Baptist preachers and one who was Full Gospel).

Apr 17, 2008 13:41:37 GMT -5 srigdon said:

I think Sojourner hit it in that earlier thread with this comment to me:

Sidney, most people have deeply personal commitments to people and places. Many people feel that they will resist leaving a place and a group to which they have given enormous amounts of time and money. The motives for staying are not theological, they are not belief driven. They are visceral, they are passionate, they are not always high minded. Most often, they are simply human, a strange mixture of good and bad.

That sounds like an apt description for many.

[jb]

Apr 17, 2008 16:55:10 GMT -5 Sojourner said:

TEC has never been particularly aggressive in "bringing in the sheaves." This failure to seek out potential members (a failing from Jamestown on) has always been with us in the American experience.

Well, aggressive proselytizing also has its downsides. I take the counsel of St. Francis in that we should look for the opportunity to evangelize on every occasion and, if necessary, use our tongues. Also, I tend to deemphasize numbers anyway.

Apr 17, 2008 16:55:10 GMT -5 Sojourner said:

There was a surge in membership (as occurred in other "mainline" churches) in the 1950's. Never before, or since, has the number ever been that high. Much of that had to do with the aftermath of WWII and the surge in young families seeking roots. Most churches experienced growth in this period. Unfortunately, in my view, this surge had more to do with non-spiritual or non-theological reasons than with any life changing encounter with God.

This is a good point. I think what we encounter vis a vis surges and declines sometimes defies easy explanations. To be sure, there can be non-spiritual or non-theological reasons at play in people's faith-lives. Most often, though, I like to think that what we are observing are people in various stages of faith-development (and affective and moral development). Some are early on their journeys, others further along the way (and this is not always correlated with age).

Apr 17, 2008 16:55:10 GMT -5 Sojourner said:

One final note: I'm convinced that having holy barristas man the coffee bar between services while family members can spend time in the gym and sign up for a trip to Disney land can provide a wholesome environment. I'm equally convinced that such activities conducted by the local Y can provide the same environment. I'm not really sure that there is much spiritual growth that goes along with this approach. My bet is that the mega-church approach will run its course as did the mainline Protestant surge of the 20th century.

Good point. When we talk about wholesome environments and go about realizing our Gospel-missions, our lives shouldn't be compartmentalized, secular vs sacred. All that we are and do can be holy. At the same time, to the extent that the Gospel contributes something distinctly new and different, over and above, what we value regarding life's many other endeavors, there is a strong case to be made for sticking to our knitting, for emphasizing our unique giftedness, for bringing to humanity's table what can not be otherwise realized or enjoyed through other auspices.

[jb]

Apr 17, 2008 20:32:33 GMT -5 Canadian Phil said:

More often than not, what brings other Protestants into Anglicanism is an appreciation for liturgy and/or sacraments. A shift from Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy is trickier, but even that kind of shift is easier than it would have been half a century ago.

Phil, one reason, I'd reckon, that the shift into Anglicanism is trickier for other Catholics than it is for other Protestants (recognizing and honoring the via media here), is that, in my view, what we share as Catholics is more essential, more central to our faith, and where we differ as Catholics is more accidental, less central.

This is all to suggest that, in some ways, the reason the shift is trickier is not because the chasm is wider but, instead, because the gap is narrower, hence, making the move less compelling. This may, on the surface, seem a tad counterintuitive. I will explain. I see I have over 57,000 characters remaining. I'll try not to use them all.

I mentioned in a previous post how I view progressive and traditionalist approaches as charisms, as pioneers and settlers. I recognized, too, how this continuum often devolves into hurtful polarizations. Some of what is going on in this polarization dynamism comes from some traditionalists who have a tendency to treat some accidentals as essentials, comes from some progressives who have a tendency to treat some essentials as accidentals. Essentials, of course, are indispensable, core elements. Accidentals are mostly changeable, peripheral elements.

If, as humans, we value truth, beauty, goodness and unity, and, if as believers, we seek to articulate truth in creed or dogma, celebrate beauty in cult or ritual, preserve goodness in code or law, and foster unity in community or fellowship, then, our errant tendencies will often result in perversions of these 4 C's of Religion.

If our perverse tendency is to mistake accidentals for essentials, then our dogma will tend to deteriorate into a rigid dogmatism, our cult into an empty ritualism, our code into a Pharisaical legalism and our community into a xenophobic exclusivism.

If, otoh, our perverse tendency is to mistake essentials for accidentals, then our dogma will decay into a facile syncretism, our cult into an insidious indifferentism, our code into a wimpy relativism, and our community into a false irenicism.

That's the jargonistic shorthand. Xenophobia is a fear of others who are different. Exclusivism mostly suggests excluding others from salvation. Syncretism is a blending of religions in an eclectic, cafeteria-style approach. Indifferentism can be interpreted literally as it doesn't matter. Irenic means peaceful and irenicism involves playing like everything is honky-dory.

Now, coming full circle back to dogma, ritual, law and fellowship, or creed, cult, code and community, and speaking to an issue in my prior post - sticking to our knitting, for emphasizing our unique giftedness, for bringing to humanity's table what can not be otherwise realized or enjoyed through other auspices ---

We all might recall Kant's famous interrogatories: What can we know? What must we do? What can we hope for? This brings to mind, for me, the distinction we draw between natural revelation (what we can now of God through nature and life in general) and special revelation (what we know through the Good News, through Scripture). Also, it speaks to the distinction we draw between, on one hand, science and philosophy, and, otoh, our religious faith.

Science and philosophy and natural revelation gift us with some knowledge. And we believe that such things are transparent to human reason, which is to say that we do not need the benefit of special revelation in order to gain such knowledge (although we might claim that we can travel the road to such knowledge more swiftly and with less hindrance if we enjoy the benefit of special revelation). This includes such knowledge, too, as pertains to human ethics and morality, for we believe that God's law is planted on all hearts and that all persons of goodwill can attain salvation. It includes some knowledge about God as Father and/or Creator. It addresses Kant's questions: What can we know? and What must we do?

Faith and special revelation gift us with a type of knowledge that we cannot otherwise gain without their benefit. It includes knowledge about God as Abba, Daddy and/or Lover. It alone robustly addresses such questions as What can we hope for? and To whom shall we go?

So, when we talk about sticking to our knitting, for emphasizing our unique giftedness, for bringing to humanity's table what can not be otherwise realized or enjoyed through other auspices, this is it, in a nutshell. We are not talking about what we can know or must do, about empirical science, rational philosophy, pragmatic and prudential reasoning, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics or morality. What I am suggesting is anyone can do that. Rather, we are talking about authentic worship, about what Scripture reveals about Creed & Sacrament and incarnational reality, about those parts of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral called Scripture & Tradition & Religious Experience, about those parts of the Anglican Three-Legged Stool called Scripture & Tradition, about Roman Catholicism's Fides (Scripture & Tradition). Not to say that Reason or Ratio or the Magisterium are not important, only that they are not what distinguish our giftedness, are not what we, alone, can bring to humanity's table.

As we look at Dogma, Moral Doctrine and Church Disciplines, then, the essentials of Dogma --- our Creeds, our Scripture, our Sacraments, our Worship, it's the Orthopathos of our worship and sacrament and proclamation of scripture and creed, it's True or Right Worship and relationship and it's the Orthodoxy or True Glory (doxology) or True or Right Creed, in other words, true beliefs and relationship to Daddy and/or Lover, that special revelation brings to humanity's table and that we, as believers and lovers, enjoy and offer with a special competence to a world desperately in need of faith, hope and love.

Our spiritual sojourn as individuals and as a people of God (we invoke because we have been convoked) is not foremost about Orthopraxis or Right Behavior or Being Good, for starting there, humankind has found over and over, is a dead-end. We must strive morally and we cannot travel life's road without right behavior, to be sure, but we are invited in the Gospel to go beyond same. Good thing. I haven't personally experienced any special competence in this regard, anyhow.

The dynamic that seems to be at work in the New Testament, over and beyond the Old, is that, as we pursue orthopathos and orthodoxy, orthopraxis then ensues. The overemphasis on orthopraxis results in a system of merits and demerits, a no-win situation. Any goodness we enjoy, above and beyond any intrinsic goodness we enjoy as we move from image to likeness of God, comes about as a by-product of a fitting and proper Eucharistic orientation to God (all played out thru worship) and not as a sought-after end-product (of a self-improvement regimen). We do not escape our finitude and sinfulness but find our refuge in a forgiving Savior and Redeemer. In our pursuit of sanctity, we seek AMDG (the Jesuit motto, ad majorem Dei gloriam), to give God the greatest possible glory thru our cooperation with grace, Who brings good from evil as all things thus work together. Out of deference to AMDG, while to err remains human, we try not to raise such to an artform, however, as some seem wont to do. Orthocommunio, then, ensues.

As we broadly conceive the Church as the People of God, and as we emphasize the immutable and essential in Scripture and Creed and Sacrament and Worship, as Catholics -- Anglican, Orthodox and Roman -- we enjoy great unity.

It is only if we too narrowly conceive church, overidentifying it, for example, as Roman Catholics, with the Magisterial Hierarchy, emphasizing Moral Doctrine (which is otherwise transparent to human reason, anyway) and/or Ecclesial Disciplines (like celibacy, ordination, gender roles), then, we might mistake such discord as some type of essential disunity, as core and not peripheral.

So, in some sense, as I come among you, I am enjoying and not, rather, looking for home.

At the same time, to the extent that giving God the greatest possible glory might entail seeking out the most nearly perfect articulation of truth in dogma, most nearly perfect celebration of beauty in ritual, most nearly perfect preservation of goodness in code and most nearly perfect realization of unity in community, then, as I survey the Episcopal Church in the USA, there are so many aspects of its orthopathos, orthodoxy, orthopraxis and orthocommunio that I honestly consider to be more nearly perfect (than much of what I see in my own tradition) that invite me to say, as was said somewhere in the Old Testament, we would go with you for we have seen that God is with you, as the Emmaus disciples put it in the New Testament, did not our hearts burn within as we traveled down the road with Him and He opened us to an understanding of the Scriptures.

Still, for all the reasons I have explicated here, theologically, and all the visceral and communal pathos we have all considered here, very humanly, I have serious doubts about how much greener the grass would be in one denomination vs the next, aware as I am of all of the disunity and internecine squabbling we all "enjoy," and I can find compelling reasons to remain where I am, if for no other reason than, to be a voice of prophetic protest and an agent of change.

I have raised three children in the RC faith and a 13yo remains a work-in-progress. There is no Episcopal parish that is easily accessible to me and I'd want to "shop" for a like-minded group and rector, anyway. In the meanwhile, the papal Swiss Guard has not come to interdict me in my open dissent from the magisterial hierarchy. You see, I view our Teaching Office as a Three-Legged Stool, of the sensus fidelium (the laity, religious and clergy), of the theologians (academic and research-oriented), and of the magisterial hierarchy (episcopacy and papacy). For those matters where there is no ostensible unity, I infer freedom. I see us all as priest/esses, prophet/esses and kings/queens. I'm not always sure, when schism seems afoot, who's the real schismatic? when someone ex/communicates someone else, who has really been cut off from the authentic community?

Well, I told you I was wordy, but I tried to be mindful and provide definitions and explications. And I told you I was long-winded, but this has been burning within me for quite awhile and I know I needed to say it more than any of you needed to hear it, so thanks for the hospitality, fellowship and a listening heart --- and some great minds, too.

Shalom and deep, deep peace,
jb

[Canadian Phil]

Wow, jb, I don't know what I was expecting as an answer, but that was as comprehensive as I can think of. I take your point on the catholic aspect of Anglicanism. I had added it as something of an afterthought and should have had it more clear.

I think, on the whole, I agree with you, although I have to say that my focus isn't necessarily the best today as I'm not feeling well. I'll have a second look tomorrow when, God willing, I'm feeling better.

Peace,
Phil

[Sojourner]

As I read your post, jb, I kept thinking that Phil would post "I think, on the whole, I agree with you," or somesuch, because, jb, I have to post the same thing. Phil and I have some very strong disagreements. A lot of those disagreements center around orthodoxy and "creedalness," around defining those things that fit into your categories of essentials and accidentals. That having been said, it comes as no surprise (after contending together for many years) that Phil and I -- coming as we do from significantly different positions (rooted in my mind with how we view and interpret the development of the faith in the 4th century) would both find a lot with which we can both agree.

I think you are on to something about Romans not swimming the Thames because the distance (and destination, perhaps) is not so far from where they currently live. Why exchange one set of problems for another when so little outcome change is affected. Anecdotally, it seems that the bulk of the disaffected Catholics whom I know not only leave the Roman Church, but they leave organized religion all together. (As a sidebar, I'd be interested in seeing some type of study of the number of Roman conversions to TEC after TEC liberalized it's discipline on the remarriage of divorced individuals. It seems to me that in the 50's and 60's there were a number of Romans who came to TEC because of the divorce thing. I don't think that is as much of an issue now as it was then with a lot of Romans. But, I don't know.)

Most of my progressive Catholic friends stay in the Roman Church, generally unconcerned about the magesterium and seek, with you, to be a prophetic witness to the Church while living in an Incarnational and Eucharistic community.

I appreciate your observation that "Progressive members of any given denomination seem to relate better to progressive members of other denominations than they do, even, to the more traditionalist members within their own denomination." At least that has been my experience. That's the reason I generally have no parrticular position, one way or the other, regarding whether or not this person, priest or parish chooses to leave TEC. I generally believe that those decisions are made out of an honest angst that how those who leave believe that they are in such cognitive and spiritual dissonance with the church that they must leave. And, since the question of property ownership properly belongs to Caesar, such decisions need to be made by Caesar. I know that there are millions of progressive Christians in a myriad of denominations, and I know that I can worship with many of them -- regardless of the denominational differences --ubi caritas.

[Canadian Phil]

I would add to Sojourner's and jb's observations about progressives that the same is true with traditionalists. That is, traditionalists across denominations find more in common with each other than their progressives in their own denominations.

What I think this is indicating is that the major division in Christianity are no longer denominational, but rather on the progressive-traditionalist axis. This isn't surprising as progressive and traditionalist readings start with basically different starting assumptions. The result is that our take on the Bible and the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves and the Church are rather different.

That said, the real mystery in this thread is why Sojourner and I can agree with jb at the same time. ;D The fact that Sojourner is strongly in the progressive camp and I am in the traditionalist camp should suggest that we can't agree on anything. But both here and elsewhere in the archives, we do. So, is that a sign of hope or delusion?

Peace,
Phil

[jb]

Thanks Phil and Sojourner for your depthful engagement. Y'all may be interested in a post of mine at National Catholic Reporter regarding the September 2007 report of the International Anglican - Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission: Growing Together in Unity and Mission: Building on 40 years of Anglican - Roman Catholic Dialogue.

One can read it here: ncrcafe.org/node/1362

I suspect, Phil and Sojourner, that I will most differ from traditionalist stances in my approach to how we are to best answer the question: What must we do?

IOW, I tend to find myself in disagreement with traditionalist stances on theological anthropology and traditionalist approaches to ethics and morality. Hence, I differ with traditionalists, for example, on various doctrines, disciplines and polity as they intersect with sex and gender issues. With so much collegiality and conviviality on this thread, I won't stray off-topic! I'll watch for other threads to engage the more controversial aspects of our outlooks.

Thanks again. Your feedback is valuable to my discernment process.

I am interested in knowing what the protocol would be for when I might worship in an Episcopal church, for how I might find an Inquirers Class in a parish that best matches my progressive leanings, for whether or not I could be officially received but still not be expected to worship exclusively in the Episcopal Church (notwithstanding what the stance of my own hierarchy might be --- and how would they know or care as long as I remained discreet). I think of the Willie Nelson song: Why do I have to choose? See everybody lose? Walk around and sing the blues? Well, Darling, I refuse? (Has anyone ever been an ecclesial two-timing worshipper?)

Here in Louisiana, where our civil "counties" are parishes, and where our civil law is Napoleonic Code, it has been said that our Catholics approach church law the same way our citizens approach civil law --- we receive it in the form of a Suggestion and not at all legalistically.

[Sojourner]

A quick note to Phil: I will only speak for myself. I'm not sure that we have that much upon which we agree. However, we seem to have developed a method of civil discourse which allows us to talk to, rather than past, each other. I always feel that although you speak honestly, straightforwardly and with a prophetic voice that expresses what you believe to be scripturally based moral judgment, you are never so bold as to assume a right to BE a judge. I always feel that, even when you may believe that I am either theologically or morally wrong, you choose to allow that judgement to be made by God and God alone. It is one thing to say "I believe that scripture and tradition teach that such and such is wrong," and another to say "because you believe this, or do that, you are an evil person hell-bound for eternal torment." (While that may be true, I think you understand, Phil, that it is not your place to make that judgement). That simple ability to allow God to be the judge of another person goes a long way in assuring some level of communicaiton.

JB, unfortunately you have stated that there are no Episcopal Churches near you. Otherwise, I would have suggested the usual forms of research: visiting websites and visiting Churches. I'm at a loss as to how to help you in this part of your search.

You do understand that as a baptized and confirmed Roman Catholic, even the most traditional Anglo-Catholic parish accepts your status as a full member of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and eligible, ipso facto, to receive communion in a parish. The reality is that the vast majority of Episcopal Churches in the United States will admit you to the sacramental life of the Church by virtue of your trinitarian baptism. Frankly, formal reception bestows on you no particular benefit (other than formal membership, listing on the parish rolls, a right to vote at the annual meeting, and another number to calculate an increase in the parish's diocesan assessment). I'm not convinced that, at this point in your faith journey, formal reception has any real value to you or an Episcopal parish. I can tell you that if you have talents and treasure you wish to share with an Episcopal parish, absent any "membership" ties, you may do so with no problems.

If my analysis is correct, from TEC point of view you should have no problems, either ethically or legalistically, by attending and being active in an Episcopal parish. The ethical and legal problems seem to come from the RC side of the ledger and I leave you to work out for yourself an answer to that particular conundrum.

In general, I love TEC. But, I am not necessarily in love with all individual parishes. There is a diversity in TEC that goes beyond the hot button issues of gays and biblical interpretations. There are still parishes that present Eucharist as, basically, a translation of the Tridentine mass (one can still see birettas). There are others that are so low you'd think they'd be named Vine Street Episcopal with Brother So And So as pastor. The style and individuality of each parish needs to be considered.