Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mark@cambridge.apple.com (Mark Preece) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Why I am not a Methodist (was: Re: A pastoral letter to the members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Message-ID: Date: 30 Jun 91 18:38:10 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: ... Lines: 72 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I've edited the original post fairly drastically, since my issue (discussed near the end) is somewhat tangential to the discussion. I think that Jeff Carroll wrote the stuff preceded by ">" and Thomas Blake wrote the stuff preceded by ">>". [hmmm... the "drastic" editing still left several pages. Jeff Carroll left the Methodist Church because it seemed more about political action than Christianity. He became an Episcopalean. Thomas Blake had commented that when he was touring with a production of Godspell, some churches removed "the host" from the box upfront, and wondered why this had to be done before a play was put on. Jeff explained > Many churches which would like to host such a theatrical >production as the one you participated in have no other suitable >facility than the chancel of their church. Where veneration of the >Sacrament is practiced, this necessitates its removal from the premises >so that people don't genuflect to what is in essence a stage. --clh] My purpose here is not so much to disagree with any of this as to emphasize that the Episcopal church (of which I have been a lifelong member) is a very "broad" one. People often get the impression that, since all Episcopal churches use the same Book of Common Prayer, they are very similar. Not true. I have been in Episcopal parishes in which the officiant was referred to as a "priest", was called "Father ", and chanted every word of the "Mass" (including the readings from the Bible). He heard individual confessions on Saturday afternoons. Incense billowed. The genuflection issue mentioned above would have been "quite a serious matter" in this church. I have also been in parishes where the "service" was said by a "minister" or "pastor" in street clothes, who was called by her first name, and in which the congregation gathered in a circle around a plain altar. No genuflecting, no kneeling. Some of the famous "balloon eucharists" from the 60s and 70s were Episcopal. "Veneration of the Sacrament" is unlikely here. Biblical scholarship is similarly all over the map, from literalist to liberal. The seminaries range from conservative to quite radical. And politics: George Bush is Episcopalian, and the Presiding Bishop was one of the most vocal critics of the Gulf war. There are very (downright embarassingly) rich congregations with fine stonework and tended gardens, and very poor ones where the buildings are basically crumbling. Many people are surprised when I say that one of the things I like about the Episcopal church is that it is relatively non-dogmatic - after all, they say, the prayer book contains hundreds of pages of dogma. Actually, the prayer book defines the community more than its beliefs (in much the same way that most Christians can say that they "believe in the Bible" but disagree entirely on just what they mean by this): as long as you can say the words with the rest of the community, nobody (in the National church organization, at least) is too concerned what you mean by them. Again, however, individual parishes may impose their own restrictions ("closed" or "open" communion, for example, varies by parish, although I suspect the majority are open). I suspect this generally tolerant attitude arises from its roots in a national church (the Church of England): liberals and conservatives are equally born into the C. of E. (it was the default), so the church "belongs" equally to both. The only recent hint of schism in the Episcopal church came not over issues of doctrine but over the massive updating of the prayer book in the 70s. [... more stuff deleted ...] [I think the following is from Blake --clh] >>What much of it comes down to in my view, is not the denomination, but >>the people involved. This is why I get frustrated when someone makes a >>sweeping generalization about a denomination based upon their experiences >>with a very small minority of that denomination. I'm with you. Mark.