Skip to comments.Revisionism – who is involved in and promoting it in the ECUSA?
Posted on 04/24/2005 2:48:25 PM PDT by sionnsar
It is common to hear those involved with The Network (= The Anglican Communion Network) in the Episcopal Church calling the promoters of the new sexual agenda by the name of revisionists - as they refer to themselves as orthodox. The presumption is that those who are innovating in sexual doctrine and practice, and claiming Gods blessing for this, are actually revising and changing the churchs received teaching concerning holy matrimony, fornication and the like.
So far so good .but, let us dare to ask, is it not also the case that many of those who accuse others of revisionism are actually and really revisionists themselves?
Let us look back over the second half of the twentieth century, and take a starting point at the end of Word War II. At this point in time the whole of ECUSA was using the one Prayer Book, that with the date of 1928, there were no women priests and the occurrence of marriage in church after a divorce was very rare, as were priests who were divorced or divorced and remarried.
Since the 1970s the Episcopal Church has officially set aside the received, historic and classic Prayer Book, put in its place a new kind of Prayer Book (1979), and used the title of the old one, The BCP, for the new one (even though it contains not Common but varied prayer). To have done this is dishonest and is a major revision; but most of The Network actually rejoices in this revision and uses this Prayer Book with few qualifications or hesitations, and speaks disparagingly of the classic BCP.
Also since the 1970s the Episcopal Church has officially rejected the male-only Threefold Ministry and has embraced women in all Three Orders; further (in rejecting the Anglican Doctrine of Reception) it has made acceptance of this innovation compulsory for office-bearers. To have done all this is major revision but most of The Network actually rejoices in this revision and promotes the ordination and use of women clergy, who are in its membership.
Also since the 1950s the Episcopal Church has steadily but surely changed its position with regard to divorce and remarriage. Now at least ¼ of its parish clergy and up to 1/3 of its laity are either divorced or divorced and remarried. To have adopted a lenient form of canon law and church procedure for the holy estate of matrimony is a major revision; but most of The Network has little or no criticism of this revision for many in its ranks owe the blessing on their second marriage to the new order in the ECUSA.
If we take the standard or norm of the Anglican Way as being found in the classic Formularies which were held universally in Anglican Churches in the 1950s, and if we compare the stance of members of The Network with that standard, then without a doubt not only the progressive liberals but also the conservatives in the ECUSA are revisionists!
But, maybe some revisions are good? Yes they are but not these, especially in the way they were stated, justified and carried out.
Was it good to embrace dishonesty and a lie in 1976/79 and call a book of varied services The Book of Common Prayer and remove as a formulary and service book the classic, historical Prayer Book of the Anglican Way? Surely not!
Was it good to set aside wholly and completely the received doctrine of the Ministerial Priesthood and further to force this innovatory position upon all when most of the rest of the Anglican Communion embraced and practiced reception and thus held that there were two integrities not one only , the innovatory one (as in the ECUSA)? Surely not!
Was it good to lose all marriage discipline so that second marriages are normal and only at a third are any serious questions asked? Surely not!
Then also, and this cannot be brushed aside, is there not a clear connection in logic and in practice between the innovations described above and the innovation of blessing same-sex couples? Grant new rights for heterosexual persons in divorce and remarriage and very soon similar rights are claimed by the homosexual person.
Behind and underneath most of the innovations since World War II are changed answers (based on new doctrines) to such questions as: Who is God? Who is Jesus? What is personal salvation? And, How may a person truly know and serve God? We cannot solve the problems without a genuine renewal in doctrine, theology and ethics.
If the innovators in sexual practice are called to repent before God, so are the rest of us, who are also revisionists. To think that only the supporters of the gay bishop of Connecticut are required to repent is to have a low view of God, Scripture, Grace and sin!
Divorce is not an abonimation. It is considered okay by Jesus under certain circumstances. Fornication on the other hand is never accepted.
Re: "It is considered okay by Jesus under certain circumstances."
Of course that begs the question: How many "orthodox" Anglicans fit those circumstances (there was only one) Christ permitted?
Alas too many fail on this score including the divorces in my own family. The article make a point.
I don't know. The further question is do they repent of their sin? As a divorced and remarried man who fits in the exception, I still was required to receive permission from the bishop to remarry.
I assume even today, divorce isn't seen by revisionits as something to celebrate while homosexuality is celebrated.
But the supporters of the gay bishop don't feel they have anything to repent for, nor does the gay bishop.
BUT anyone who does not support and accept the gay bishop needs to repent is the message we are hearing.
And besides, Conecticut does not have a gay bishop, just three scumbags who support the gay bishp of New Hampshire and want to punish any priest who does not support the gay bishop of New Hampshire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.