Neverfail, this might interest you

High Culture, Religion, Philosophy and Esoterica.
User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by cassowary » Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:40 am

The Anglican Mission in America

Background:

After Conservative Anglicans lost to liberals in their own church, they sought help from other Anglican churches. They approached Moses Tay, former Bishop of Singapore and former arch-Bishop of SE Asia. Tay was disturbed to hear that the US Anglican church had ordained homosexual Bishops.

So the Anglican Mission in America was born.

Excerpt from link:
So, in January of the year 2000, Bishop Allison and I came back to Singapore with the Rev. Chuck Murphy of Pawleys Island, S.C. and the Rev. John Rodgers, dean of Trinity Seminary. On January 29, 2000, Chuck and John were consecrated bishops by Archbishop Moses Tay of Singapore, Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, and bishops Rucyahana, Pytches, Allison and Dickson. And the battle for orthodoxy expanded. These two new bishops, Murphy and Rodgers, provided the leadership of what came to be called the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA). Under their leadership, many faithful Episcopalians were encouraged to stand for their faith, even if they had to leave their diocese or parish.
Isn't that cool? Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers became bishops of the Anglican churches of Singapore and Rwanda. They were sent back to America as missionaries to preach the gospel to the heathens that have taken over the Anglican church in the US!

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:30 am

It's worth noting that it's the Episcopalian Church in the U.S. that's in communion with Canterbury, and the breakaway "Continuing Anglican" Church that's caused a schism, and one with rather hard feelings as the Episcopalian Church has denied breakaway Continuing Anglicans the use of what had been their church buildings, etc.

I've heard the Methodists in the U.S. are on track to have a schism over the same issues of social conservatism, although in light of the Episcopalian example they're trying to divorce amicably.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by cassowary » Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:46 pm

Thanks for the info, Steve. Anyway, I think the whole thing is funny.

neverfail
Posts: 2505
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by neverfail » Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:36 pm

Thanks for starting this discussion Cassowary.

I have rubbed shoulders with Anglicans since I was a small boy 5 years old. I have had happy friendships over the years including a couple of the closest friendships I have ever had short of marriage. So as you might imagine my impressions of Anglicans are mainly positive.

However, their Church is a perplexing one to me because polarised (rather than divided) theologically between their High Church (whose rites and ritual is little different to our Catholic ones) and the Low Church (evangelical, crypto-protestant). Their church has made tolerance a virtue because one has to put up with the other within the structure of the same denomination.

A Low Church friend of mine told me he never feels at home or at ease at a High Church mass (it's just not me!) and likewise a High Church friend of mine told me she feels the same way about High Church services. It is like that!

(As an aside Cassowary, I was surprised to discover that the founding father of your denomination, the Rev. John Wesley, was a Low Anglican vicar. What I find very odd is that the Anglican hierarchy still kept this man on as one of their own -
they did not defrock him for deviancy - but Wesley's working class converts were apparently denied inclusion in the Anglican communion. Do you know anything about this and why?)

To me those above mentioned "missionaries", Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers and those like them, sound like Low Church types. These are usually the protagonist types whilst the High Church people are more likely to be the passive defenders of tradition. Below the tranquil surface of Anglicanism the centuries old battle between high and low church devotees still rages on inconclusively.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by cassowary » Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:31 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:36 pm
Thanks for starting this discussion Cassowary.

I have rubbed shoulders with Anglicans since I was a small boy 5 years old. I have had happy friendships over the years including a couple of the closest friendships I have ever had short of marriage. So as you might imagine my impressions of Anglicans are mainly positive.

However, their Church is a perplexing one to me because polarised (rather than divided) theologically between their High Church (whose rites and ritual is little different to our Catholic ones) and the Low Church (evangelical, crypto-protestant). Their church has made tolerance a virtue because one has to put up with the other within the structure of the same denomination.
What is high church? Law church?
A Low Church friend of mine told me he never feels at home or at ease at a High Church mass (it's just not me!) and likewise a High Church friend of mine told me she feels the same way about High Church services. It is like that!

(As an aside Cassowary, I was surprised to discover that the founding father of your denomination, the Rev. John Wesley, was a Low Anglican vicar. What I find very odd is that the Anglican hierarchy still kept this man on as one of their own -
they did not defrock him for deviancy - but Wesley's working class converts were apparently denied inclusion in the Anglican communion. Do you know anything about this and why?)
No, I don't.
To me those above mentioned "missionaries", Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers and those like them, sound like Low Church types. These are usually the protagonist types whilst the High Church people are more likely to be the passive defenders of tradition. Below the tranquil surface of Anglicanism the centuries old battle between high and low church devotees still rages on inconclusively.
It seems to me that gay marriage is something untraditional. So if High Church people are the traditionalists, then it must be th low church people who took over the Anglican communion.

neverfail
Posts: 2505
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by neverfail » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:35 pm

cassowary wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:31 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 10:36 pm
Thanks for starting this discussion Cassowary.

I have rubbed shoulders with Anglicans since I was a small boy 5 years old. I have had happy friendships over the years including a couple of the closest friendships I have ever had short of marriage. So as you might imagine my impressions of Anglicans are mainly positive.

However, their Church is a perplexing one to me because polarised (rather than divided) theologically between their High Church (whose rites and ritual is little different to our Catholic ones) and the Low Church (evangelical, crypto-protestant). Their church has made tolerance a virtue because one has to put up with the other within the structure of the same denomination.
What is high church? Law church?
A Low Church friend of mine told me he never feels at home or at ease at a High Church mass (it's just not me!) and likewise a High Church friend of mine told me she feels the same way about High Church services. It is like that!

(As an aside Cassowary, I was surprised to discover that the founding father of your denomination, the Rev. John Wesley, was a Low Anglican vicar. What I find very odd is that the Anglican hierarchy still kept this man on as one of their own -
they did not defrock him for deviancy - but Wesley's working class converts were apparently denied inclusion in the Anglican communion. Do you know anything about this and why?)
No, I don't.
To me those above mentioned "missionaries", Chuck Murphy and John Rodgers and those like them, sound like Low Church types. These are usually the protagonist types whilst the High Church people are more likely to be the passive defenders of tradition. Below the tranquil surface of Anglicanism the centuries old battle between high and low church devotees still rages on inconclusively.
It seems to me that gay marriage is something untraditional. So if High Church people are the traditionalists, then it must be th low church people who took over the Anglican communion.
Hi cassowary.

Succinctly:

Low Church = evangelical (protestant) Anglicans
High Church = Anglo Catholics not in communion with Rome.

Sorry, I presumed you knew about the centuries old theological polarity within the Anglican communion.

The Church of England, better known as the Anglican Church these days, was/is unique among the churches to have emerged from the Reformation era in that it was not doctrinally/theologically based. It was founded by King Henry VIII for his own dynastic convenience - to get the divorce from his queen, Catherine of Aragon, that the Vatican had denied him.

The Church Henry founded could therefore best have been described as a regime of Catholic christianity minus the Pope. King Henry was not a protestant type. Successors of his were however. His son by Jane Seymour had secretly become a protestant convert so when he took over the throne he made an earnest endeavour to transform the sysmatic church he had inherited from his father into a protestant denomination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England

(quote) The transformation of the Church of England into a recognisably Protestant body also occurred under Edward, who took great interest in religious matters. Although his father, Henry VIII, had severed the link between the Church and Rome, Henry VIII had never permitted the renunciation of Catholic doctrine or ceremony. It was during Edward's reign that Protestantism was established for the first time in England with reforms that included the abolition of clerical celibacy and the Mass and the imposition of compulsory services in English. (unquote)

After the death of King Edward in 1553, his elder half-sister (Henry's daughter by Catherine of Aragon) Mary took over the throne and for the next 5 years tried to restore Catholicism as the state religion of England using inquisitorial methods inspired by her relatives in Spain (Catherine had been a Spanish princess). Just as her half-brother Edward had not been entirely successful in ridding the kingdom of Catholicism when he ruled (some Englishmen were very attached to it) so, despite her brutal methods, Mary was just as unsuccessful in ridding England of protestants - it merely drove protestantism underground for a time.

The next royal ruler, Queen Elizabeth, has nowhere else to go other than into protestantism as neither the Pope nor the Catholic rulers on the continent recognised her enthronement as legitimate. However, Queen Elizabeth had a policy of allowing Catholics still in communion with Rome to remain that way as long as they were loyal to her in worldly allegiance - a policy of toleration. Meantime, Elizabeth presided over a church that was part Catholic and part protestant in terms of doctrine and practice. It remains so to this very day.

The story does not end there by any means but I will spare you and all of my other readers the historic details. The Church of England is an institution that has been shaped by the dynastic history of England. Indeed, more broadly still it to me resembles the embodiment of the entire religious history of the English people.

Safe to say, Cassowary, that the modern issues like the ordination of gay and female bishops is merely a latter-day irritant that inflames relations within a denomination that lacks a clear doctrinal centre of gravity.

It must be very hard within the Anglican communion to accuse a member of heresy. With a heritage of tolerating more than one theological position within, where is their benchmark standard by which to judge what is heretical and what is not?

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by cassowary » Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:57 pm

Most fascinating, Neverfail.

You have deep knowledge in a variety of subjects. I never knew that a split still remains in the Anglian church. But the High Church Anglicans must surely take their cues from Rome. Since the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain gay Bishops, then how come the High Church Anglicans are doing so?

neverfail
Posts: 2505
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by neverfail » Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:17 am

cassowary wrote:
Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:57 pm
Most fascinating, Neverfail.

You have deep knowledge in a variety of subjects. I never knew that a split still remains in the Anglian church. But the High Church Anglicans must surely take their cues from Rome. Since the Roman Catholic Church does not ordain gay Bishops, then how come the High Church Anglicans are doing so?
No cassowary, they are fully independent from the Vatican and make their own decisions to suit themselves.
.....................................................................................

I suspect (this is only a hunch on my part: please don't ask me for proof) that the High Anglican Church (like the rest of the Anglican communion) is very much integrated into Anglo civilisation and subject to its various pressures. The issue of gay rights, a hot political issue throughout Western civilisation, has likely worked its way into the Anglican communion and made its mark there.

Likewise the ordination of women priests and bishops within the Anglican communion. A bi-product of the feminist push of the past half century? In the Catholic Church even men do not have any automatic right to become priests. You are not even supposed to apply to be trained as a Catholic priest unless you are convinced that you have a (God given) vocation to serve God in this special way. Your next hurdle to surmount is to convince the relevant Church authorities that you have one before they will allow you to begin seminary training. Despite all of the care they normally take to weed out aspirants with a bogus sense of vocation, dud trainee priests still slip through the net. Some are subsequently weeded out during their 7 years of seminary training (like one past friend of mine who suffered a nervous breakdown in his third year and had to quit.) Despite that attrition some bad ones still make it into the priesthood. There are times I get the impression within the Anglican Church that they sometimes confuse ambition with vocation. Not the same!

The Catholic Church, by contrast, stands out as the Worlds most multi-national, multi ethnic denomination. It has tens of millions of adherents even in the English language group of countries; but these are many times outnumbered by the sheer number of Catholics elsewhere on this planet (i.e. foreign Catholics). The outcome is that the Anglo-Saxon bishops are at best only a minor influence on the deliberations of the Vatican.

(Indeed, one of the favourite complaints of Catholics in countries like mine is that the government in the Vatican, the Papal curia, is far too dominated numerically by Latin bishops and is therefore not truly universal - i.e. catholic - in its composition.)

In any case, just to keep such an incredibly diverse body of believers, living under all kinds of circumstances, unified would I imagine by itself be an ongoing feat of management of the first order. There are constantly all sorts of pressures both within and without the Church that, if allowed to get out of control, could and would divide, even fragment the Church. The Catholic Church for this reason cannot afford to play around with the politics of popularity; succumbing to the fads and fashions of the day but in order to maintain credibility must focus on universal truths - take them or leave them. That also explains why the Catholic Church is so glacially slow to change. You have to think in terms of centuries; not years, decades or even lifetimes.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by cassowary » Thu Mar 08, 2018 5:18 am

In any case, just to keep such an incredibly diverse body of believers, living under all kinds of circumstances, unified would I imagine by itself be an ongoing feat of management of the first order. There are constantly all sorts of pressures both within and without the Church that, if allowed to get out of control, could and would divide, even fragment the Church.
Neverfail,

I think the Catholic Church is doing better than the Anglican church. Gay bishops? It is unheard of in my part of the world.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1563
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Neverfail, this might interest you

Post by SteveFoerster » Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:39 am

High church vs. low church is much more a difference of veneration of pomp and circumstance than a prediction of adherence to social conservatism. For example, my father was a very high church Episcopalian, but also socially liberal.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Post Reply