Looking for a Liberal Church

[marsha]

I've always been fairly socially liberal and only fairly recently made my way back into the Christian Church. I was a Latter-day Saint for about seven years and had to leave that church when I studied up on Joseph Smith more (I don't believe he was a prophet). From there, I have gone into a very conservative Evangelical Church. I have to say (although, I love the people and the Pastor) it is just not a good fit for me.

I spent some time attending the Catholic Church when I was in my teens and I always loved the beautiful services...but, I think the Catholic Church is becoming much to stringently conservative, as well. I have not been very happy with the pressure that has recently been put on the congregation to vote certain ways.

Soooo, I have an online friend who is Episcopalian (liberal) and very, very happy in her church. I decided I might want to give this church a try...but I really don't know that much about it, yet...which is why I am here.

[marsha]

Is the church service similar to Catholic Mass? Or totally different?

Who is allowed to take communion?

[angli_fan]

Hello again!

If you're looking for a liberal church. I think it's safe to say you're in the right place. ;D Although episcopal churches run the gamut from extremely conservative to extremely liberal, the majority tilt (to a greater or lesser degree) to the left.

Unfortunately, the liberal congregations don't usually label themselves as "liberal", but look for congregations that describe themselves as "open" or "welcoming"; that's a good sign.

Of course, "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms. I seem pretty conservative when standing in a group of Episcopalians, but in a group of Southern Baptists or Mormons, I'd seem like a liberal. That's my perception anyway!

As far as the service is concerned, I have almost no personal experience w/Catholic liturgy, so I may not be the best one to answer that. I have heard it said, however, (at least in anglo-catholic parishes) episcopal services are MORE catholic than the Catholics. Sort of like pre-Vatican II services, only in English. For whatever that's worth. Of course there are many Episcopal Churches that are not anglo-catholic "high" churches, and have services w/much less "adornment".

If you want to get an idea of what the service would be like, here is a link to digital copies of our Book of Common Prayer, in various formats(available at no charge):

justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/formatted_1979.htm

The standard Sunday morning service starts on page 355, and is called "The Holy Eucharist: Rite Two".

Pax;

angli_fan

Sorry for the multiple edits of this post-I keep finding parts of your post that I haven't answered yet. Most episcopal churches do not "fence the table". The Communion table belongs to God, not to us, and any baptized Christian is welcome. In practice, this means you will not be asked to show your "membership card"-if you go to the altar rail, you will be served. There may be individual exceptions to this rule, but they would be unusual.

[marsha]

Thank you angli_fan for the response. It's much appreciated.

My local Episcopal Church (St. Andrews) does seem to fall within the "liberal" label. This is their welcoming statement:

We are a praying parish where all are welcome. We are Christians of every type, old and young, married and single, gay and straight, different nationalities and cultures, native-born and foreign-born, conservative and liberal, sinners and saints. We are bound together by God’s love for us and our love for God and one another.

It sounds like communion is very similar to the Catholic Church, where people approach the rail (rather than having it passed around). I take it that is because a Priest or Bishop must administer this sacrament?

Anyway, I do appreciate your answers to my questions.

I just purchased a book called "Welcome to Sunday" by Christopher Webber that is supposed to explain the Episcopal service in detail. I also plan on attending St. Andrews sometime soon. (I am down with the flu right now, so couldn't get out today).

Thanks again. I'm sure I'll have more questions in the future.

[srigdon]

I take it that is because a Priest or Bishop must administer this sacrament?

True, a priest must bless the bread and wine, but coming to the table has more to do with the holy meal as one being taken together. It's a symbolic expression of the unity of the Body of Christ.

There's nothing preventing a priest from delivering the elements to somebody in the pews (eg, if they are unable to come forward) or to someone unable to come to the church at all.

[angli_fan]

Oct 20, 2008 12:35:46 GMT -5 srigdon said:

There's nothing preventing a priest from delivering the elements to somebody in the pews (eg, if they are unable to come forward) or to someone unable to come to the church at all.

Or for that matter, a non-ordained person can carry the sacrament(once blessed by the priest) to a person unable to attend the service. I have performed this ministry (known as "eucharistic visitation") many times.

Pax;

angli_fan

[marsha]

Thank you, both. Very interesting. I have a lot to learn.

[Sojourner]

I'd bet the farm, after reading the welcoming statement from St. Andrew's, that it's a liberal parish.

The structure of the service of Holy Communion in the Prayer Book, especially Rite II, is remarkably similar to the Novus Ordo generally used in Catholic parishes today. You will find as much diversity in the celebration of the mass within the Episcopal Church as one finds within the RCC. However, if you are familiar with the Roman liturgy you will immediately be able to follow the Episcopal liturgy.

I was amused by Anglifan and srigdon's response to you about delivering the sacrament to someone in the pews, because, after one has been an Episcopalian for some time, we have a tendency to forget "pew communion" as practiced in many conservative Evangelical churches. I like to say that we do not (generally) deliver the sacrament "family style," i.e. people sitting in the pews with the deacons handing the plate with the crackers and the little shot glasses of Welch's grape juice to the person on the end which are then passed around like plates of fried chicken and potatoes. While this analogy is a little over the top, the mode of reception speaks to the Prayer Book difference between a sacrament and a memorial, between a belief in the Real Presence of Jesus at the meal and a symbol.

In addition to a repentant heart and the intent to lead a new life, most Episcopal churches invite all who have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to receive the sacrament. However, there are some parishes who extend the invitation in the name of God, and allow those persons who wish to unite themselves in the reception of the sacrament, regardless of their baptismal status, to do so. You may wish to check with the parish as to their position on this matter.

For what it's worth, theology aside, liturgical style and practice aside, the true test of your relationship with the parish will be how you feel after you have attended the service.

Good Luck.

[marsha]

Thanks for the comments, Sojourner.

This made me chuckle:

I was amused by Anglifan and srigdon's response to you about delivering the sacrament to someone in the pews, because, after one has been an Episcopalian for some time, we have a tendency to forget "pew communion" as practiced in many conservative Evangelical churches. I like to say that we do not (generally) deliver the sacrament "family style," i.e. people sitting in the pews with the deacons handing the plate with the crackers and the little shot glasses of Welch's grape juice to the person on the end which are then passed around like plates of fried chicken and potatoes. While this analogy is a little over the top, the mode of reception speaks to the Prayer Book difference between a sacrament and a memorial, between a belief in the Real Presence of Jesus at the meal and a symbol.

Yes, that's what I was actually asking about...the differences between the two styles and the why of it.

What you describe is also a very big difference between the two different sects.

How do Anglicans justify their beliefs in regard to the Eucharist being the actual body and blood of Christ? Is it because they take literally the words said by Jesus (this is my body, which broken for you, etc)?

[srigdon]

Marsha,

I think most Anglicans would say that they speak of the bread and wine as the Body and Blood of Christ because Jesus called it that. However, Anglicans have, since the Reformation, rejected the Catholic 'transubstantiation' doctrine, that there is any change in the substance of the elements. Most of the time Episcopalians speak of a 'real presence' of Christ in the elements, but have no position of just how Christ is present.

The current Episcopal catechism takes no theological position on this question that I can see. The Episcopal Church has in some way been trying to minimize the number of 'magical' types of things that people are required to believe. The more orthodox people in the church tend not to like this, but I prefer it that way.

The words Body and Blood are always capitalized in our prayer book; I suspect this is not an accident.

[marsha]

Thank you much for the input, srigdon.

I found this catechism for the Episcopal Church. Would you all mind looking through it a bit and let me know if it's accurate?

I think it must be an official catechism, because I found the same thing in several different places, when I did a google search.

www.trinitytimes.com/body/Catechism.htm

[marsha]

Anyone here from California? What are your feelings about Prop 8?

[christian]

I think it's unfortunate that the California Supreme Court decided to thwart the will of the people when they struck down the original law. It's too bad the people weren't allowed just democratically enact a law. Now this constitutional process is necessary because the California Supremos want to legislate from the bench. I'm anxious to see how they try to continue to thwart the will of the people when this is passed. The way the Supreme Court is acting is a real travesty. The sooner it is passed the better.

[srigdon]

Marsha,

Yes, that's the official catechism.

Another useful document is our list of 39 "Articles of Religion." See here:

mb-soft.com/believe/txh/episconf.htm

These date to 1801 and are closely based on the Church of England's articles of religion, which are older. These don't get discussed much in the church; there is discussion occasionally about just what their effect is or should be. (I.e., should we expect everybody to believe all of them?)

To be received as a 'member' of the church, really all that one must do publicly is go through the rite of confirmation in front of a bishop. This requires that you: (1) renounce evil, (2) renew commitment to Christ, (3)recite the Apostles' (not Nicene) Creed, (4) 'continue in the apostles teaching, in the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers,' (5) 'persevere in resisting evil, and whenever you sin, repent and return to the Lord,' (6)'proclaim by example the Good News of God in Christ,' (7)'seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself,' and in a requirement that has gotten sort of controversial, (8)'strive for justive and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being.'

That's it - if you can do these things, you are a confirmed member of the church. Notice how you don't have to believe in the special authority of the Episcopal Church, believe in inerrancy of scripture, etc. Only deacons, priests and bishops have to publicly submit to the authority of the church and state belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Interesting, huh?

[srigdon]

Yeah, I live in San Diego. I guess I'm going to vote no on 8.

However, I agree with christian in that I don't like the fact that the court imposed this on the state as a 'right.' The courts were meant to decide meaning of law, not decide policy. Sure, courts decide what 'rights' are, but if you go far enough, *everything* can be couched in terms of 'rights': once you assert a 'right' to education, health care, housing, good roads, reasonable income, a job, affordable child care, the question becomes who provides those things and at what price. Notice that our founders didn't even put a 'right' to food and water in writing. If we keep this up, pretty soon we're going to have a monarchy by the courts. So I don't see civil marriage as a right; it's an institution set up and regulated by the state. I think this is the sort of thing we should have public discussions and legislative debates about.

But that said, I am in favor of gay people having some sort of civil recognition of their relationships. What word we use to describe that is another issue.

Another reason I'm planning on voting no is that I'm totally opposed to the ballot initiative process. This stuff is what legislatures are for. Make them vote on it. I'm tired of them avoiding responsibility by dumping spending items into ballot propositions that should be part of the regular budget. So I'm planning on voting no an all propositions.