One of the problems people have in this age of non-denominational churches is the danger of getting sucked in by a sect. In fact, if you read the following excerpt, walking into a mainstream denominational church may not protect you from this danger.
From The Heidelblog,
From The Heidelblog,
Finally, we should not simply assume that all those groups that call themselves “church” are such. As early as 1561 the Dutch Reformed Churches recognized this problem with respect to the Anabaptists, whom all the confessing Protestants rejected as part of the Reformation altogether. The churches confessed, “for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of ‘the church'” even though they are not actually churches. This is how we deal today with many of the groups that arose in the 19th century as part of the so-called “Second Great Awakening” and the other groups such as the Millerites (who gave us the Jehovah’s Witnesses), the Christian Scientists, the (traditional) Seventh-Day Adventists, and virtually all of the Pentecostal groups that arose out of the Cane Ridge “revivals” (early 19th century) and the Topeka and Azusa Street “revivals” (early 20th century). In 16th-century terms, in the language of the Belgic Confession, these are mostly “sects” and not churches at all since they lack “the marks of the true church,” namely, the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the use of church discipline.I truly believe that the Episcopal organization fails the tests of pure preaching of the gospel (example: The Worst Sermon Ever?) and the use of church discipline (example: the Righter Trial). I could give more examples of both failures of course, but you get the point.
Posts
That quote is one of the most inaccurate statements I have read. Pentecostals DID not arise from the Great Awakenings, but from Azusa Street in the 1900's; Millerites did not become Jehovah's Witnesses. They are the precursors of the Seventh Day Adventists. For example.
ReplyDeleteSome people say that Jehovah's Witnesses are an offshoot sect from the "Second Adventist" religious movement which originated with William Miller.
ReplyDeleteInaccuracies aside, I cannot view TEC as part of "the Church" any more, even though I know some faithful Christians still within it.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time, also, with the generic independent evangelical groups all around me here. Most of them do accept the Christology of the Nicene Creed, which is good, but the sacraments are missing and church discipline is in the local congregation only, if at all.
It would be interesting to hear their defense of their "churchworthiness".
DeleteKatherine,
ReplyDeleteIt seems like there is no longer a single thread uniting folks in TEC. It has become carte blanche and A la carte organization. Perhaps this is because they are ashamed of what they have historically believed. The centripetal role of the prayerbook has become a millstone to the progressive and innovative leadership.
Dale,
ReplyDeleteWhile those defending the Episcopal sect would not agree with me, the sacred three often touted as their uniting thread, scripture, tradition, and reason have been abandoned. Scripture is twisted into new meaning by Episcobabble and revisionism, tradition means whatever the most recent General Convention has posted as a resolution, and reason has surrendered to the will of the zeitgeist which has proven itself to be quite unreasonable.
Pewster,
ReplyDeleteThe leadership does not believe what historically has given them an identity. TEC really needs a new name that will better reflect who they have become. They need a new mission and vision statement. I think this is also true of Canterbury Anglicanism.
Their current names, mission and vision statements deceive members and newcomers into thinking that they are part of a traditional church.
ReplyDeleteI was confirmed in ECUSA as an adult when the 1928 PB was still in use. I thought Episcopalians actually believed what was in their public liturgy. How wrong I was about many of them!
ReplyDeleteAll people calling themselves "Anglicans" in the USA today should pick up a copy of the '28 and consider whether they can still affirm the faith and practice contained therein.
Fewer and fewer of them would take the time to read and understand it.
Delete