The No Kool Aid Zone

I hear what you’re saying, Byron, but I think the whole thing is indicative of a complete shake-up due to members of the Episcopalian church questioning what they’ve always believed without question. This is the kind of thing that happens when a few people in a group begin to ask questions that maybe they’ve never asked before. It may look ridiculous to many outsiders, but it’s necessary to maintain a healthy organization.

Of course, we all know where my bias lies, so I’m sure my comments come as no surprise. But I think groups like the Southern Baptist Convention, that never question anything, are headed for disaster because so much is building up. Eventually, those types of groups that don’t allow internal shake-ups will implode on themselves.

Mel ~ Apr 9, 2006 at 10:12 pm

Gotta love those narrow-minded overseas Anglicans! Especially the Africans! My gut tells me that before too long, the African prelates will be controlling the leadership of the worldwide Anglican fellowship. The real battle will be epistemological and authoratative. Is the Bible still true or isn’t it?

“However, the majority of overseas Anglican leaders are conservatives who believe the Bible bars homosexual relationships. They are demanding that the Episcopal Church adhere to that interpretation or leave the Communion.”

Vigiius ~ Apr 10, 2006 at 8:31 am

C’mon, Mel, you DISAGREE? There’s a shocker?

Seriously, let me take issue with one thing you say. You’re certainly right in that the shakeup is going on because things are being questioned that were not before, but do understand the massive difference between the Episcopalians and the Southern Baptists (and interestingly enough, from what I understand of your theology, you are CLOSER to the Southern Baptists on this point—which does leave you in a bit of a no-woman’s land, at least as I understand your position). The Episcopalians long ago jettisoned their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, and thus it’s not just that they’re asking questions that have never been asked before (which only makes sense in that context), but further, they have no real firm place to stand any longer—not just on this issue (and really, my point isn’t per se about homosexual ministers, but about ecclesiastical fog), but on most any issue that comes down the pike.

The Southern Baptists—and I used to be one—for whatever pro and con you might say about them, are firm on the inerrancy of the Word. Now…that MAY well become an increasingly unpopular position, I grant, but I don’t know that an internal implosion is on the horizon so much as the potential for outward “persecution”. What think ye?

Byron ~ Apr 10, 2006 at 9:55 am

Let’s hear it for Bald Episcopalians!

My exposure to the SBC seems very contrary to what Mel has suggested. I’ve observed that a rising number of young SBC leaders have a strong desire to see everything they do fall in line with their firm convictions on the innerrancy of Scripture.

sean ~ Apr 11, 2006 at 3:20 pm

I second that emotion, Sean.

Byron ~ Apr 11, 2006 at 3:41 pm

Just a few comments here:

Vigiius makes the interesting point about the power of the African prelates. Of course, the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, is Ugandan, and would be the man in charge if Rowan Williams stepped down as Archbishop of Canterbury. (Interesting that neither of the two Archbishops in the Church of England is actually English. I suppose it brings home the fact that the Anglican church is worldwide).

Secondly, is there any logic in ECUSA remaining in the Anglican communion anyway? The point here is that the senior post is blocked to most (all?) bishops in ECUSA- the Archbishop of Canterbury becomes a member of the House of Lords and the Privy Council upon appointment, and it would be impossible for an American citizen to belong to either. So, when you wake up having had a nightmare in which Gene Robinson becomes Archbishop of Canterbury- relax, it can’t happen.

Graham ~ Apr 12, 2006 at 12:42 pm