Everyone is on a pilgrimage towards God, one way or another, as far as I can see. My point is more that, in some cases, the choice to stay behind can be the schismatic one - it isn't a given that those wishing to move are the schismatics.
It can be, sure, but those who “stay behind” often claim to be cleaving to the faith as they received it, and to be eschewing unnecessary movement.
Gotta love the endless passive aggressive cant. But in this one, that is my reading of the situation.
And not from you, @Thomas Rowans - from those who have been digging their heels in for so long they are now thigh deep in something of their own creation.
Forgive me, but I'm still puzzled about apparently deeply held and cherished convictions that the Anglican Church is said to hold which claims that it is coterminous with the Kingdom of God.
I can't pretend to have had extensive dealings with every form of Anglican there is, but I've a reasonably broad grasp and it's not something I've encountered.
I've come across some Anglican clergy who are sniffy towards non-conformists. I've come across liberals who are arsey about evangelicals and evangelicals who are arsey about liberals. I've come across Anglo-Catholics who are arsey about everyone else and Anglo-Catholics who aren't and who are very eirenic.
I can't speak to the Epiphanous issues as I'm not directly affected, other than to have seen a parish church I used to attend practically torn apart by the issue. I'd pretty much drifted to the sidelines by then, not on that particular issue but for other reasons.
So I do understand the strength of feeling.
But I can't say I've ever seen any Anglican I've encountered ever make out that the Kingdom of God stops where the Anglican Communion ends.
That's the kind of view I'd associate with some beardy-wierdy fanatics or mewling and puking young binary converts within my own Tradition, I'm afraid.
Apologies for labouring the point.
I can see much within Anglicanism to celebrate and much to criticise. Both/And ... 😉
But I don't recognise the view that the Anglican Communion thinks it is coterminous with the Kingdom of God. Perhaps I've led a sheltered life.
I feel almost like an addict, in that the sacrament of the eucharist is fundamental to my understanding of how life works. Not taking communion feels like not breathing, almost - I'm just not quite sure how that works. Also, I feel like my faith needs a community in which to happen, and it needs to be a community which can receive me as I am. So there we are.
The Anglican Church I belong to would consider it a privilege to have you as one of its communicants. I like to think that this is the norm, and that those who make the most noise are in the minority.
I have described the phenomenon in as much detail as I can above. I'm kind of glad if you've never encountered it, but it exists in all those who identify with institutions. Those who instinctively tend towards the opposite have our own difficulties but the inability to tell the difference between the interests of a human institution and the ultimate good is a real thing.
I have described the phenomenon in as much detail as I can above. I'm kind of glad if you've never encountered it, but it exists in all those who identify with institutions.
I’ve encountered countless people who very much identify with institutions, and yet in whom that phenomenon does not exist. (Indeed, I think that description likely applies to me.)
I’m not in the least suggesting that your experience with such people is anything other than what you report it as being, but it’s not a universal thing.
Someone observed to me the other day that all Anglo-Catholics were Tories, simply because those he'd met were. He was surprised when I pointed out that I knew clergy and laity from that tradition who certainly weren't.
Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian here (theologically/sacramentally, not so much worried about the number of candles on the altar) and definitely politically liberal.
I feel almost like an addict, in that the sacrament of the eucharist is fundamental to my understanding of how life works. Not taking communion feels like not breathing, almost - I'm just not quite sure how that works. Also, I feel like my faith needs a community in which to happen, and it needs to be a community which can receive me as I am. So there we are.
OMG do I relate on the other side of the pond. Amen.
(Er, I assume on the other side of the pond. I'm in the US.)
We say this prayer for Christian unity every morning at Lambeth Palace - please join us.
Lord Jesus, who prayed that we might all be one,
we pray to you for the unity of Christians,
according to your will,
according to your means.
May your Spirit enable us
to experience the suffering caused by division,
to see our sin
and to hope beyond all hope.
Amen.
Everyone is on a pilgrimage towards God, one way or another, as far as I can see. My point is more that, in some cases, the choice to stay behind can be the schismatic one - it isn't a given that those wishing to move are the schismatics.
That's interesting. I was taught that in the first centuries of the church, while the majority accepted the new doctrinal definitions it was those who clung to their old definitions who became the Arians etc. Certainly in the RCC recent schism have come from the Conservatives who could/cannot accept Vat 2.
To me, a *church* is a body of believers (a miserable company of poor, perishing, sinners, as one 19thC Kentish evangelist put it!) which expresses its faith in social justice (as per Matthew 25 and lots of other bits of the Bible), and also carries out the two commands of Jesus - *Do this in remembrance of me*, and *go and baptise...*.
Quite how they do all this is mere detail...
Are you sure about this? It's difficult to disagree with the bits about body of believers, and the two commands to break bread and to baptise. Looking at the long story of the last 20 centuries, it is difficult not to conclude that the bit I've put in italics is interpolating an odd late twentieth century Northern European extra, imposing on Jesus a parameter as to who he admits to his body that he may or may not be less bothered about.
For the first 3+ centuries, the era of the martyrs, the body of believers was a small and downtrodden element in society who had next to no influence or capacity to anything whatsoever about social justice, whatever that means or however one interprets it. That is even if the phrase had been invented then. I'm not sure that many medieval peasants had much scope to fulfill that aspiration either. Many faithful Christians in many countries in the world now are in much the same situation.
Stepping back and looking at the pilgrimage over the centuries and our brothers and sisters, the pilgrims on it, how many major disagreements that have wound people up at the time, yet alone actual schisms can you find where the end result has progressed rather than damaged that pilgrimage. There are major losses, major detriments, to what both sides emerged with from the Reformation, yet alone the Great Schism of 1054. And who these days cares about church rates, the issues of the Great Disruption of 1843 or whether or not one should be allowed to marry one's late wife's sister?
I was taught that in the first centuries of the church, while the majority accepted the new doctrinal definitions it was those who clung to their old definitions who became the Arians etc.
As I understand it, it's a bit more complicated than that. I think prior to Arius there was an ambiguous absence of definition.
Arius put forward his attempt to get rid of the ambiguity; Athanasius and others rejected Arius' ideas and put forward their definitions to formalise the preexisting ambiguity; and then a conservative party - who objected to being called followers of Arius - rejected the Athanasian formulations.
So much of the 'Arian' party did indeed see themselves as conservative; but the Athanasian party weren't rejecting a previous status quo.
To me, a *church* is a body of believers (a miserable company of poor, perishing, sinners, as one 19thC Kentish evangelist put it!) which expresses its faith in social justice (as per Matthew 25 and lots of other bits of the Bible), and also carries out the two commands of Jesus - *Do this in remembrance of me*, and *go and baptise...*.
Quite how they do all this is mere detail...
Are you sure about this? It's difficult to disagree with the bits about body of believers, and the two commands to break bread and to baptise. Looking at the long story of the last 20 centuries, it is difficult not to conclude that the bit I've put in italics is interpolating an odd late twentieth century Northern European extra, imposing on Jesus a parameter as to who he admits to his body that he may or may not be less bothered about.
For the first 3+ centuries, the era of the martyrs, the body of believers was a small and downtrodden element in society who had next to no influence or capacity to anything whatsoever about social justice, whatever that means or however one interprets it.
I think you have to differentiate between their ability to affect society at large vs their ability to model such values within their own communities. Taking those 3+ centuries, by 362 Julian the Apostate was writing to priests to order them to:
"build in each city, frequent hostels in order that strangers may profit by our philanthropy; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money. For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see our people lack aid from us."
Going back to the mid 2nd century we have Tertullian via the Apologeticus:
"These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another"
Similarly Cyprian (via Pontianus ) from the following century:
"The people being assembled together, he first of all urges on them the benefits of mercy. Then he proceeds to add that there is nothing remarkable in cherishing merely our own people with the due attentions of love, but that one might become perfect who should do something more than heathen men or publicans, one who, overcoming evil with good, and practicing a merciful kindness like that of God, should love his enemies as well. . . . Thus the good was done to all men, not merely to the household of faith."
I'm sure someone with more access to Patristic history than I have at present could provide plenty of additional examples/quotes etc.
Many faithful Christians in many countries in the world now are in much the same situation.
Again, there are plenty of sociological studies showing that the mutual support networks offered by churches in poor and straitened communities are a major factor in their survival and growth and also an integral part of their theology.
To me, a *church* is a body of believers (a miserable company of poor, perishing, sinners, as one 19thC Kentish evangelist put it!) which expresses its faith in social justice (as per Matthew 25 and lots of other bits of the Bible), and also carries out the two commands of Jesus - *Do this in remembrance of me*, and *go and baptise...*.
Quite how they do all this is mere detail...
Are you sure about this? It's difficult to disagree with the bits about body of believers, and the two commands to break bread and to baptise. Looking at the long story of the last 20 centuries, it is difficult not to conclude that the bit I've put in italics is interpolating an odd late twentieth century Northern European extra, imposing on Jesus a parameter as to who he admits to his body that he may or may not be less bothered about.
Are you sure about this? I think the reference @Bishops Finger made to Matthew 25 (I was hungry and you gave me food . . . , etc.) makes it very hard to argue that there’s a “odd late twentieth century Northern European extra” at play here.
I’d say what the last 20 centuries have shown is an all-too-regular willingness to ignore what Jesus very clearly said about how his disciple are to live in the world.
Argue with the term “social justice” if you want to, or use a different term. But I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that what is meant by the term is not part of the woof and warp of the Law, the prophets and of Jesus’s teaching.
You are right @Nick Tamen. It's the abstract phrase 'social justice' that I'm questioning. It's often taken for granted that loving your neighbour, feeding the hungry, clothing the needy etc must throughout all time must mean engaging with a particular collection of programmes that happen to be around at the moment and in a particular approved way.
That is what I'm querying. It strikes me that a lot of the time, these sort of abstract phrases and worthy causes can make one feel good but get in the way of actually loving a specific neighbour who might smell or make demands. And even if a phrase might be a useful stimulus to goodness now, here, it might be less useful as a universal measure of what might be the true church in some other time or place.
I have described the phenomenon in as much detail as I can above. I'm kind of glad if you've never encountered it, but it exists in all those who identify with institutions. Those who instinctively tend towards the opposite have our own difficulties but the inability to tell the difference between the interests of a human institution and the ultimate good is a real thing.
Apologies for my pedantry but yes, I've read your explanation and understand what you are saying about the interests of human institutions and ultimate good.
But that's rather different to a claim that the Anglicans or any other mainstream Christian church are claiming that their institution is coterminous with the Kingdom of God. Still less that it is a 'cherished notion.'
If it was, then surely more of us who've been engaged to some extent or other with the CofE would be aware of it.
If you'd said that far too many institutions, religious or otherwise, can place an inordinate amount of stress on institutional stability and conformity to the detriment of the individual adherents, members or fellow-travellers then yes, I'd most certainly agree.
But that's not the same as claiming that whichever institution we have in mind is coterminous with the Kingdom of God.
I'm not trying to give the CofE or any other Christian body a free pass, I'm simply saying that I've never met any Anglican, whether conservative or charismatic evangelical, liberal, broad church, Anglo-Catholic or whatever else claim that their Church or particular segment of it is commensurate with the Kingdom of God.
That's not to say they don't give those who don't hold to their particular views a hard time.
But I'm at a loss to understand why you make this claim.
If you said that you feel marginalised or threatened or excluded as a member of a particular group then yes, I would understand that, even though it doesn't apply to me.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not seeking to play down your concerns but I can honestly say that whilst I've come across some pretty nasty attitudes and behaviours among Anglicans of all stripes - and elsewhere too, of course, I've not seen any of them claim that their 'brand' is coterminous with the Kingdom of God.
And even if a phrase might be a useful stimulus to goodness now, here, it might be less useful as a universal measure of what might be the true church in some other time or place.
It's hard to argue that something that is supposed to be the mark of individual believers wouldn't also therefore be collectively true of the church as a whole, even if expressed in different ways across space and time.
I think we are talking at cross-purposes here. Of course the early Christians wouldn't have thought of 'social action' in a contemporary Western sense but it's pretty clear from Patristic accounts that in theory at least, there was a counter-cultural element that went beyond simply refusing to burn incense to the Emperor.
The Christians didn't 'expose' unwanted babies, were largely pacifists initially and their care for orphans and widows drew attention from the pagans to some extent. They also eschewed gladiatorial spectacles, although it is fair to say that as Christianity grew in influence things apparently got worse in the arenas before they got better, as it were, as there were more capital offences.
It'd be wrong to depict the early Christians as woke-warriors of some kind, but equally misguided to claim there wasn't a social dimension to what they were about.
I don't know to what extent anybody is saying "social justice" but not getting down in the trenches in real life and offering rides, doing paperwork, picking up medication and groceries, writing letters to Congress, etc. etc. etc. I see that it is possible to talk and not do. But I hesitate to say that it's widespread, simply because I don't know people who do that.
On the other hand, I can't say there aren't people like that. There may be, though we usually call them hypocrites. But it's a pretty strong accusation to bring against someone, and I'd want to be very sure of my ground. It's probably not helpful to generalize about large groups of people unknown to the speaker.
And we do sort of need a phrase to sum up the things involved in "getting down in the trenches" without having to reel off a list every time. "Social justice" does as well as any other, in my opinion.
It's impossible to generalise of course and what various Christian traditions, individual congregations or individual believers regard as appropriate 'social action' or 'getting down in the trenches' is going to vary in scope according to a whole range of factors.
Some would consider 'culture-wars' type activity an expression of that. Others running food-banks (pantries) or homeless shelters. One hopes that however we cut it, there ought to be a common denominator of compassion and concern for the vulnerable and the marginalised. Again, that will vary.
What tends to stand out, of course, are actions, attitudes or schemes that either attract admiration or approbiation. Those who quietly get on with things avoid both.
I knew of an independent church pastor who thought it was 'wrong' for members of his congregation to support charities or causes that didn't have a specifically Christian ethos. He gave people who did so a hard time. He also tried to discourage people from taking on foster-care roles or 'good works' or activities of various kinds that weren't directly related to church life - for which read 'his' church.
I'm sure there are parallel and equivalent blind-spots in other settings right across the board, as well as examples of things done to the benefit of others and the extension of the Kingdom.
Ultimately, of course, the question is what are we doing, not what other people are or aren't.
A Quaker friend tells me that Friends are expected to take on a particular cause or concern which is 'their' thing - and there must be a Quaker name for that. Hers is prison-reform, something long associated with The Religious Society of Friends of course.
She visits and writes to prisoners, lobbies government agencies and reads widely around the subject to keep herself informed.
Her particular 'Meeting' can be pretty dysfunctional in various ways, they are all quite quirky eccentrics, but as a principle I think their approach has much to commend it on an individual level.
It's not all about us as individuals of course, but if we each took on a particular 'thing' then there'd be a ripple effect.
As has often been quoted, Archbishop William Temple famously said that the Church was the only institution that existed for the benefit of its non-members. Would that really was the case.
Anyhow, we are drifting off topic when the thread is about the actions and attitudes of a particular segment of the CofE, interesting though the tangent is.
And we do sort of need a phrase to sum up the things involved in "getting down in the trenches" without having to reel off a list every time. "Social justice" does as well as any other, in my opinion.
Would "corporal works of mercy" be too Catholic flavoured?
It probably would be, yes! But it's a good phrase.
I think (and yes, I know this is a tangent) that there's a difference between "works of mercy", which are primarily acts of kindness carried out by individuals; and "social justice" which suggests an attempt to change societal structures. I'm not sure that early Christians, faced with the might of Rome, would have felt able to even attempt that; others here may be able correct me.
Anyhow, we are drifting off topic when the thread is about the actions and attitudes of a particular segment of the CofE, interesting though the tangent is.
Quite. I'm a liberal Anglo-Catholic in a northern diocese of the Church of Ireland and this issue has salience for me and others in our tiny corner of Anglicanism.
Lord Jesus, who prayed that we might all be one,
we pray to you for the unity of Christians,
according to your will,
according to your means.
May your Spirit enable us
to experience the suffering caused by division,
to see our sin
and to hope beyond all hope.
Amen.
This is an ecumenical prayer for unity. As with most such prayers, it strikes me primarily as an organisational entreaty not to rock the boat or be different. And, to drive the point home, it locates this request in the context of sinfulness. It doesn't ask whether there is a just cause, a good reason for division - the juxtaposition paints the "suffering", presumably of "innocent" parties, the pain caused by division itself, as being the sin.
A lot rests on how the person reciting the prayer approaches that word "division", so I tried changing it to see if it illuminated possible understandings.
The "suffering caused by disagreement".
The "suffering caused by diversity", which I found disturbing.
But the "suffering caused by bigotry" at least gave me some hope.
<snip>
And we do sort of need a phrase to sum up the things involved in "getting down in the trenches" without having to reel off a list every time. "Social justice" does as well as any other, in my opinion.
Yes, I agree, and that's why I used the phrase in my earlier post.
Lord Jesus, who prayed that we might all be one,
we pray to you for the unity of Christians,
according to your will,
according to your means.
May your Spirit enable us
to experience the suffering caused by division,
to see our sin
and to hope beyond all hope.
Amen.
This is an ecumenical prayer for unity. As with most such prayers, it strikes me primarily as an organisational entreaty not to rock the boat or be different. And, to drive the point home, it locates this request in the context of sinfulness. It doesn't ask whether there is a just cause, a good reason for division - the juxtaposition paints the "suffering", presumably of "innocent" parties, the pain caused by division itself, as being the sin.
A lot rests on how the person reciting the prayer approaches that word "division", so I tried changing it to see if it illuminated possible understandings.
The "suffering caused by disagreement".
The "suffering caused by diversity", which I found disturbing.
But the "suffering caused by bigotry" at least gave me some hope.
Sure. I attend ecumenical conferences organised by a particular organisation. It involves communion services where we are unable to share at one another's tables. I've often wondered why we don't have non-eucharistic prayers and services instead, that being the case. Or better still, aim to resolve our differences and amend that state of affairs in the fullness of time.
It always strikes me when a particular Anglican officiant observes how we are divided 'because of our sin', that we really ought to be doing our level best to repent of that in some way.
It's a conundrum.
'We are sinful for allowing this to happen but we're going to carry on anyway...'
I'm as guilty as anyone else, of course.
Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.
Lord Jesus, who prayed that we might all be one,
we pray to you for the unity of Christians,
according to your will,
according to your means.
May your Spirit enable us
to experience the suffering caused by division,
to see our sin
and to hope beyond all hope.
Amen.
This is an ecumenical prayer for unity. As with most such prayers, it strikes me primarily as an organisational entreaty not to rock the boat or be different. And, to drive the point home, it locates this request in the context of sinfulness. It doesn't ask whether there is a just cause, a good reason for division - the juxtaposition paints the "suffering", presumably of "innocent" parties, the pain caused by division itself, as being the sin.
A lot rests on how the person reciting the prayer approaches that word "division", so I tried changing it to see if it illuminated possible understandings.
The "suffering caused by disagreement".
The "suffering caused by diversity", which I found disturbing.
But the "suffering caused by bigotry" at least gave me some hope.
Sure. I attend ecumenical conferences organised by a particular organisation. It involves communion services where we are unable to share at one another's tables. I've often wondered why we don't have non-eucharistic prayers and services instead, that being the case. Or better still, aim to resolve our differences and amend that state of affairs in the fullness of time.
It always strikes me when a particular Anglican officiant observes how we are divided 'because of our sin', that we really ought to be doing our level best to repent of that in some way.
It's a conundrum.
'We are sinful for allowing this to happen but we're going to carry on anyway...'
I'm as guilty as anyone else, of course.
Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.
The origin of the prayer is ecumenical, but it's a prayer for all Anglicans (and more) to be able to stand together and recite. In the context of the OP, that's both the bigot, and the bigot's target or victim. Each will have a different understanding of the cause of division, and each will have very different experiences of suffering. They may wonder why their role in division is being described as "sin".
The "unity" of this prayer is a political unity; the intent is to enable people with conflicting attitudes or identities to occupy the same space and utter the same words. In no way is it a unity that arises from "being one".
The idea that conflicting attitudes or identities precludes people being one is one of the planks of the conservative exclusionist arguments.
What makes us one are, firstly that we (aspire to) love one another, and secondly that we share the Eucharist. There are maybe certain attitudes that amount to making that impossible: a political autocrat who sows division and intolerance locks up his opponents cannot meaningfully share the eucharistic meal with his opponents or with minorities that he demonises until he repents.
Excluding someone because they effectively intend to exclude other people isn't imposing an additional condition.
But in this case the aspiration to be one is to be one.
The idea that conflicting attitudes or identities precludes people being one is one of the planks of the conservative exclusionist arguments.
What makes us one are, firstly that we (aspire to) love one another, and secondly that we share the Eucharist. There are maybe certain attitudes that amount to making that impossible: a political autocrat who sows division and intolerance locks up his opponents cannot meaningfully share the eucharistic meal with his opponents or with minorities that he demonises until he repents.
Excluding someone because they effectively intend to exclude other people isn't imposing an additional condition.
But in this case the aspiration to be one is to be one.
Are you really saying that unity can exist alongside bigotry? Doesn't the "aspiration to be one" depend on the acceptance of one another?
Excluding someone because they effectively intend to exclude other people isn't imposing an additional condition.
But in this case the aspiration to be one is to be one.
Are you really saying that unity can exist alongside bigotry? Doesn't the "aspiration to be one" depend on the acceptance of one another?
What makes them bigots is that they are effectively excluding other people, or that they are declaring that unity is false or impossible unless their additional conditions are met.
One person's 'bigot' could well be another person's 'dedicated upholder of the truth'
I don't know how many of us would consider ourselves to be bigots. It is always the others who for some reason or another see things differently from ourselves who are the bigots.
The implied both-sidesism is absurd. The CEEC align themselves with people who support the judicial murder of LGBT Ugandans. If their tolerance of difference can accommodate that but not those of us who would celebrate same-sex love then I feel fairly comfortable calling that bigotry. If you want to dispute that please do so directly, don't just retreat into noble-sounding abstractions.
It is kind of you to show me in your post that,of course,the bigots are the people that we disagree with. I would not disagree with you but whether I do or don't, it is still possible that the other side consider you to be the bigot. We are left then with two sides calling each other names. Each side may fervently believe that it is right and the other side pigheadedly and obstinately believe in something which is wrong.
It is kind of you to show me in your post that,of course,the bigots are the people that we disagree with. I would not disagree with you but whether I do or don't, it is still possible that the other side consider you to be the bigot. We are left then with two sides calling each other names. Each side may fervently believe that it is right and the other side pigheadedly and obstinately believe in something which is wrong.
No, we're left with real things with real consequences for real people. This isn't a disagreement about which is the best football team, this is about people's lives and who they fall in love with. Using nicer words and legitimising the harm homophobes in the church are doing is not going to make them less homophobic. It might, however, give a modicum of comfort to their victims that we at least acknowledge the problem. The problem isn't that we're not nice enough to the people who're ok with murdering LGBT folk, it's that there are people who're ok with murdering LGBT folk. Why bother posting in this thread if all you have to offer is tone policing?
A reminder that this thread is being run on Epiphanies guidelines. If you want to talk about attitudes to LGBTQ people in churches, please put those people's voices and experiences first.
I think there are different beliefs about sexual morality on which rational people of good will may disagree. I don’t think that being okay with murdering people is one of them, however.
What makes them bigots is that they are effectively excluding other people, or that they are declaring that unity is false or impossible unless their additional conditions are met.
Yes - thanks.
One of the disturbing aspects of the prayer for unity is the way that its creative ambiguity perpetuates both-sideism and does so by characterising our experiences as "sin" - everyone is encouraged to see "division" as own individual fault or, equally, as someone else's fault.
I'm neither for nor against the prayer, although I am uncomfortable about aspects of it.
But, to play Devils Advocate for a moment, need it necessarily imply 'both-sides-ism' or make the consequences of 'sin' into an individual or 'other people' thing rather than a sense of collective responsibility or systemic issues that we all need to address?
It's a tricky one, because as Shipmates know I can be prone to 'both/and' not 'either/or' formulates and tropes, so could easily be accused of 'both/sidesism'.
On the 'murder' issue, not that this in any way diminishes the import and impact of what @Arethosemyfeet has written, but what he was referring to was capital punishment - 'judicial murder' - for gay people rather than 'homicide' as it were.
Arethosemyfeet's point is that the GAFCON crowd are tacitly or otherwise, aligning themselves with elements in Sub-Saharan Africa who advocate capital punishment for LGBT+ people.
I've never (consciously) met conservative evangelical Anglicans who would advocate such a thing, but I'm sure many have seriously homophobic views that go beyond the 'different beliefs on which people of good will may disagree' as @ChastMastr describes it.
In the interests of clarity, I raise that point, and would of course deplore the judicial execution of people on any grounds and particularly that of sexual orientation as much as I would lynch-mob violence or hate-crimes.
Arethosemyfeet's point is that the GAFCON crowd are tacitly or otherwise, aligning themselves with elements in Sub-Saharan Africa who advocate capital punishment for LGBT+ people.
I've never (consciously) met conservative evangelical Anglicans who would advocate such a thing
I wonder what the odds are of surviving to die a natural death as a gay man in a Ugandan prison actually are - as in, whether there is much difference between those two sentences.
My point was that, whether or not CofE conservatives agree with the Church of Uganda, they don't consider their disagreements to be communion breaking, but do consider communion breaking to be a consequence of affirming same sex relationships. I think that tells you a great deal about the extent of their "tolerance".
I wonder what the odds are of surviving to die a natural death as a gay man in a Ugandan prison actually are - as in, whether there is much difference between those two sentences.
Well, even absent the extra-judicial angle the legislation is horrific enough, the language used by the Church of Uganda also horrific, and people clutching pearls up thread over accusations of bigotry is so much cant.
I'm neither for nor against the prayer, although I am uncomfortable about aspects of it.
But, to play Devils Advocate for a moment, need it necessarily imply 'both-sides-ism' or make the consequences of 'sin' into an individual or 'other people' thing rather than a sense of collective responsibility or systemic issues that we all need to address?
How is someone who is being effectively excluded supposed to respond to a call for collective responsibility? What does "collective responsibility" mean when one part of the collective wants to exclude other parts of the collective and set up their own system of responsibility?
It's a tricky one, because as Shipmates know I can be prone to 'both/and' not 'either/or' formulates and tropes, so could easily be accused of 'both/sidesism'.
This is the Archbishop of Canterbury's choice of prayer for unity. An important part of the job, for some years now, has been to keep the Anglican Communion together. It doesn't seem unreasonable to infer that the prayer is intended for all Anglicans - that all should be able to recite it, regardless of where they stand on same-sex marriage or any other divisive issue.
So I wonder about the nature of the unity he envisages that it will promote or encourage. And what the cost of achieving this unity might be. And thus whether this is a unity worth having.
Comments
Gotta love the endless passive aggressive cant. But in this one, that is my reading of the situation.
And not from you, @Thomas Rowans - from those who have been digging their heels in for so long they are now thigh deep in something of their own creation.
I can't pretend to have had extensive dealings with every form of Anglican there is, but I've a reasonably broad grasp and it's not something I've encountered.
I've come across some Anglican clergy who are sniffy towards non-conformists. I've come across liberals who are arsey about evangelicals and evangelicals who are arsey about liberals. I've come across Anglo-Catholics who are arsey about everyone else and Anglo-Catholics who aren't and who are very eirenic.
I can't speak to the Epiphanous issues as I'm not directly affected, other than to have seen a parish church I used to attend practically torn apart by the issue. I'd pretty much drifted to the sidelines by then, not on that particular issue but for other reasons.
So I do understand the strength of feeling.
But I can't say I've ever seen any Anglican I've encountered ever make out that the Kingdom of God stops where the Anglican Communion ends.
That's the kind of view I'd associate with some beardy-wierdy fanatics or mewling and puking young binary converts within my own Tradition, I'm afraid.
Apologies for labouring the point.
I can see much within Anglicanism to celebrate and much to criticise. Both/And ... 😉
But I don't recognise the view that the Anglican Communion thinks it is coterminous with the Kingdom of God. Perhaps I've led a sheltered life.
The Anglican Church I belong to would consider it a privilege to have you as one of its communicants. I like to think that this is the norm, and that those who make the most noise are in the minority.
I’m not in the least suggesting that your experience with such people is anything other than what you report it as being, but it’s not a universal thing.
Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian here (theologically/sacramentally, not so much worried about the number of candles on the altar) and definitely politically liberal.
OMG do I relate on the other side of the pond. Amen.
(Er, I assume on the other side of the pond. I'm in the US.)
And yes, even in this, I can see subtexts.
That's interesting. I was taught that in the first centuries of the church, while the majority accepted the new doctrinal definitions it was those who clung to their old definitions who became the Arians etc. Certainly in the RCC recent schism have come from the Conservatives who could/cannot accept Vat 2.
For the first 3+ centuries, the era of the martyrs, the body of believers was a small and downtrodden element in society who had next to no influence or capacity to anything whatsoever about social justice, whatever that means or however one interprets it. That is even if the phrase had been invented then. I'm not sure that many medieval peasants had much scope to fulfill that aspiration either. Many faithful Christians in many countries in the world now are in much the same situation.
Stepping back and looking at the pilgrimage over the centuries and our brothers and sisters, the pilgrims on it, how many major disagreements that have wound people up at the time, yet alone actual schisms can you find where the end result has progressed rather than damaged that pilgrimage. There are major losses, major detriments, to what both sides emerged with from the Reformation, yet alone the Great Schism of 1054. And who these days cares about church rates, the issues of the Great Disruption of 1843 or whether or not one should be allowed to marry one's late wife's sister?
Arius put forward his attempt to get rid of the ambiguity; Athanasius and others rejected Arius' ideas and put forward their definitions to formalise the preexisting ambiguity; and then a conservative party - who objected to being called followers of Arius - rejected the Athanasian formulations.
So much of the 'Arian' party did indeed see themselves as conservative; but the Athanasian party weren't rejecting a previous status quo.
I think you have to differentiate between their ability to affect society at large vs their ability to model such values within their own communities. Taking those 3+ centuries, by 362 Julian the Apostate was writing to priests to order them to:
"build in each city, frequent hostels in order that strangers may profit by our philanthropy; I do not mean for our own people only, but for others also who are in need of money. For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see our people lack aid from us."
Going back to the mid 2nd century we have Tertullian via the Apologeticus:
"These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another"
Similarly Cyprian (via Pontianus ) from the following century:
"The people being assembled together, he first of all urges on them the benefits of mercy. Then he proceeds to add that there is nothing remarkable in cherishing merely our own people with the due attentions of love, but that one might become perfect who should do something more than heathen men or publicans, one who, overcoming evil with good, and practicing a merciful kindness like that of God, should love his enemies as well. . . . Thus the good was done to all men, not merely to the household of faith."
I'm sure someone with more access to Patristic history than I have at present could provide plenty of additional examples/quotes etc.
Again, there are plenty of sociological studies showing that the mutual support networks offered by churches in poor and straitened communities are a major factor in their survival and growth and also an integral part of their theology.
I’d say what the last 20 centuries have shown is an all-too-regular willingness to ignore what Jesus very clearly said about how his disciple are to live in the world.
Argue with the term “social justice” if you want to, or use a different term. But I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that what is meant by the term is not part of the woof and warp of the Law, the prophets and of Jesus’s teaching.
That is what I'm querying. It strikes me that a lot of the time, these sort of abstract phrases and worthy causes can make one feel good but get in the way of actually loving a specific neighbour who might smell or make demands. And even if a phrase might be a useful stimulus to goodness now, here, it might be less useful as a universal measure of what might be the true church in some other time or place.
Apologies for my pedantry but yes, I've read your explanation and understand what you are saying about the interests of human institutions and ultimate good.
But that's rather different to a claim that the Anglicans or any other mainstream Christian church are claiming that their institution is coterminous with the Kingdom of God. Still less that it is a 'cherished notion.'
If it was, then surely more of us who've been engaged to some extent or other with the CofE would be aware of it.
If you'd said that far too many institutions, religious or otherwise, can place an inordinate amount of stress on institutional stability and conformity to the detriment of the individual adherents, members or fellow-travellers then yes, I'd most certainly agree.
But that's not the same as claiming that whichever institution we have in mind is coterminous with the Kingdom of God.
I'm not trying to give the CofE or any other Christian body a free pass, I'm simply saying that I've never met any Anglican, whether conservative or charismatic evangelical, liberal, broad church, Anglo-Catholic or whatever else claim that their Church or particular segment of it is commensurate with the Kingdom of God.
That's not to say they don't give those who don't hold to their particular views a hard time.
But I'm at a loss to understand why you make this claim.
If you said that you feel marginalised or threatened or excluded as a member of a particular group then yes, I would understand that, even though it doesn't apply to me.
Please don't misunderstand me, I am not seeking to play down your concerns but I can honestly say that whilst I've come across some pretty nasty attitudes and behaviours among Anglicans of all stripes - and elsewhere too, of course, I've not seen any of them claim that their 'brand' is coterminous with the Kingdom of God.
It's hard to argue that something that is supposed to be the mark of individual believers wouldn't also therefore be collectively true of the church as a whole, even if expressed in different ways across space and time.
The Christians didn't 'expose' unwanted babies, were largely pacifists initially and their care for orphans and widows drew attention from the pagans to some extent. They also eschewed gladiatorial spectacles, although it is fair to say that as Christianity grew in influence things apparently got worse in the arenas before they got better, as it were, as there were more capital offences.
It'd be wrong to depict the early Christians as woke-warriors of some kind, but equally misguided to claim there wasn't a social dimension to what they were about.
On the other hand, I can't say there aren't people like that. There may be, though we usually call them hypocrites. But it's a pretty strong accusation to bring against someone, and I'd want to be very sure of my ground. It's probably not helpful to generalize about large groups of people unknown to the speaker.
And we do sort of need a phrase to sum up the things involved in "getting down in the trenches" without having to reel off a list every time. "Social justice" does as well as any other, in my opinion.
Some would consider 'culture-wars' type activity an expression of that. Others running food-banks (pantries) or homeless shelters. One hopes that however we cut it, there ought to be a common denominator of compassion and concern for the vulnerable and the marginalised. Again, that will vary.
What tends to stand out, of course, are actions, attitudes or schemes that either attract admiration or approbiation. Those who quietly get on with things avoid both.
I knew of an independent church pastor who thought it was 'wrong' for members of his congregation to support charities or causes that didn't have a specifically Christian ethos. He gave people who did so a hard time. He also tried to discourage people from taking on foster-care roles or 'good works' or activities of various kinds that weren't directly related to church life - for which read 'his' church.
I'm sure there are parallel and equivalent blind-spots in other settings right across the board, as well as examples of things done to the benefit of others and the extension of the Kingdom.
Ultimately, of course, the question is what are we doing, not what other people are or aren't.
A Quaker friend tells me that Friends are expected to take on a particular cause or concern which is 'their' thing - and there must be a Quaker name for that. Hers is prison-reform, something long associated with The Religious Society of Friends of course.
She visits and writes to prisoners, lobbies government agencies and reads widely around the subject to keep herself informed.
Her particular 'Meeting' can be pretty dysfunctional in various ways, they are all quite quirky eccentrics, but as a principle I think their approach has much to commend it on an individual level.
It's not all about us as individuals of course, but if we each took on a particular 'thing' then there'd be a ripple effect.
As has often been quoted, Archbishop William Temple famously said that the Church was the only institution that existed for the benefit of its non-members. Would that really was the case.
Would "corporal works of mercy" be too Catholic flavoured?
I think (and yes, I know this is a tangent) that there's a difference between "works of mercy", which are primarily acts of kindness carried out by individuals; and "social justice" which suggests an attempt to change societal structures. I'm not sure that early Christians, faced with the might of Rome, would have felt able to even attempt that; others here may be able correct me.
Quite. I'm a liberal Anglo-Catholic in a northern diocese of the Church of Ireland and this issue has salience for me and others in our tiny corner of Anglicanism.
A lot rests on how the person reciting the prayer approaches that word "division", so I tried changing it to see if it illuminated possible understandings.
The "suffering caused by disagreement".
The "suffering caused by diversity", which I found disturbing.
But the "suffering caused by bigotry" at least gave me some hope.
Yes, I agree, and that's why I used the phrase in my earlier post.
Sure. I attend ecumenical conferences organised by a particular organisation. It involves communion services where we are unable to share at one another's tables. I've often wondered why we don't have non-eucharistic prayers and services instead, that being the case. Or better still, aim to resolve our differences and amend that state of affairs in the fullness of time.
It always strikes me when a particular Anglican officiant observes how we are divided 'because of our sin', that we really ought to be doing our level best to repent of that in some way.
It's a conundrum.
'We are sinful for allowing this to happen but we're going to carry on anyway...'
I'm as guilty as anyone else, of course.
Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy.
The "unity" of this prayer is a political unity; the intent is to enable people with conflicting attitudes or identities to occupy the same space and utter the same words. In no way is it a unity that arises from "being one".
What makes us one are, firstly that we (aspire to) love one another, and secondly that we share the Eucharist. There are maybe certain attitudes that amount to making that impossible: a political autocrat who sows division and intolerance locks up his opponents cannot meaningfully share the eucharistic meal with his opponents or with minorities that he demonises until he repents.
Excluding someone because they effectively intend to exclude other people isn't imposing an additional condition.
But in this case the aspiration to be one is to be one.
If "unity" is achieved by pandering to bigotry it is not unity at all but surrender to the evils of this world.
I don't know how many of us would consider ourselves to be bigots. It is always the others who for some reason or another see things differently from ourselves who are the bigots.
No, we're left with real things with real consequences for real people. This isn't a disagreement about which is the best football team, this is about people's lives and who they fall in love with. Using nicer words and legitimising the harm homophobes in the church are doing is not going to make them less homophobic. It might, however, give a modicum of comfort to their victims that we at least acknowledge the problem. The problem isn't that we're not nice enough to the people who're ok with murdering LGBT folk, it's that there are people who're ok with murdering LGBT folk. Why bother posting in this thread if all you have to offer is tone policing?
A reminder that this thread is being run on Epiphanies guidelines. If you want to talk about attitudes to LGBTQ people in churches, please put those people's voices and experiences first.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
One of the disturbing aspects of the prayer for unity is the way that its creative ambiguity perpetuates both-sideism and does so by characterising our experiences as "sin" - everyone is encouraged to see "division" as own individual fault or, equally, as someone else's fault.
But, to play Devils Advocate for a moment, need it necessarily imply 'both-sides-ism' or make the consequences of 'sin' into an individual or 'other people' thing rather than a sense of collective responsibility or systemic issues that we all need to address?
It's a tricky one, because as Shipmates know I can be prone to 'both/and' not 'either/or' formulates and tropes, so could easily be accused of 'both/sidesism'.
On the 'murder' issue, not that this in any way diminishes the import and impact of what @Arethosemyfeet has written, but what he was referring to was capital punishment - 'judicial murder' - for gay people rather than 'homicide' as it were.
Arethosemyfeet's point is that the GAFCON crowd are tacitly or otherwise, aligning themselves with elements in Sub-Saharan Africa who advocate capital punishment for LGBT+ people.
I've never (consciously) met conservative evangelical Anglicans who would advocate such a thing, but I'm sure many have seriously homophobic views that go beyond the 'different beliefs on which people of good will may disagree' as @ChastMastr describes it.
In the interests of clarity, I raise that point, and would of course deplore the judicial execution of people on any grounds and particularly that of sexual orientation as much as I would lynch-mob violence or hate-crimes.
Officially they supported life imprisonment instead: https://anglican.ink/2023/05/29/27921/
Well, even absent the extra-judicial angle the legislation is horrific enough, the language used by the Church of Uganda also horrific, and people clutching pearls up thread over accusations of bigotry is so much cant.
This is the Archbishop of Canterbury's choice of prayer for unity. An important part of the job, for some years now, has been to keep the Anglican Communion together. It doesn't seem unreasonable to infer that the prayer is intended for all Anglicans - that all should be able to recite it, regardless of where they stand on same-sex marriage or any other divisive issue.
So I wonder about the nature of the unity he envisages that it will promote or encourage. And what the cost of achieving this unity might be. And thus whether this is a unity worth having.
How do you think it should be worded?
I'm not sure I'd like to have the job of framing it.