Fulcrum logo graphic
 | login
Fulcrum strapline graphic
   Feedback/Contact help icon printer icon
 home   news   articles   forum   links   my account 
thread index | create new thread | bloggers

364 forum messages posted by
Celinda

Messages (newest first): [Sort by Oldest first]
 Page 1/31 | First | Previous | Next | Last
How Do You Choose Your Text for Preaching? Lectionary? Topical?
1 [14650] Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 15 December 2009 - 08:50pm
As a member of a parish in the Diocese of Pittsburgh which has NOT left TEC, I count myself very lucky that our rector is not only evangelical, but that his whole formation has been that way, including his education at Trinity School for Ministry in Ambridge, PA. His texts are lectionary based, but he does a very good job of relating classical evangelical themes to those texts in his sermons. You very much get the idea that HE is not the center of the service, which I think can happen when it's mainly the word (as opposed to word and sacrament) which is stressed. You feel as though you've been to church, not school; you feel as though you've been where the worship of Christ amidst his body, the church, is all important-- from the beginning prayers, to the reading of the word and the preaching of the sermon, through the eucharist, and back into the world again after the ending prayers, having given thanks to God, and having been strengthened and blessed through the worship of the one who is the way, the truth, and the life.
TEC crosses the Rubicon
2 [14632] Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 15 December 2009 - 02:12am
Apologies for the confusing citations on my last post on the subject of this thread, which were excerpts from the letter written by Bishop Jefferts-Schori and Dr. Bonnie Anderson (chair of the House of Deputies) to Archbishop Williams this past July. I thought the copying and pasting would preserve the format of the letter as I found it on-line, but when it appeared on Fulcrum it was all run together--requires some imagination to figure out.
TEC crosses the Rubicon
3 [14629] Posted by: Celinda Monday 14 December 2009 - 04:05pm
The paragraph below, taken from the July letter written by Bp Jefferts-Schori and Dr. Bonnie Anderson to Abp Williams, answers the question in my preceding post. As Archbishop Williams responded, the decision making process is now in the hands of the Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction. Prayerful discernment has recently been requested by the Presiding Bishop in this matter. 16 July 2009 The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Rowan Williams Lambeth Palace London Dear Archbishop Williams, (deleted text) Some within our Church may understand Resolution D025 to give Standing Committees (made up of elected clergy and laity) and Bishops with jurisdiction more latitude in consenting to episcopal elections. Others, in light of Resolution B033, will not. In either case, we trust that the Bishops and Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church will continue to exercise prayerful discernment in making such decisions, mindful and appreciative of our relationships in the Anglican Communion. (deleted text) Please know that we continue to hold you in our prayers even as we invite yours for us. We remain, Faithfully, Your sisters in Christ, Bonnie Anderson, D.D. The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori President of The House of Deputies Presiding Bishop and Primate
TEC crosses the Rubicon
4 [14615] Posted by: Celinda Sunday 13 December 2009 - 08:21pm
The post I just wrote doesn't mean I'm not interested in the Derrida discussion, which is fascinating to me. Will respond to that another time.
TEC crosses the Rubicon
5 [14614] Posted by: Celinda Sunday 13 December 2009 - 08:18pm
Back to the original topic (TEC crossing of Rubicon): the editorial below was published in the _Living Church_ on Dec. 8. Doug LeBlanc, the author, is a moderate in TEC (in CofE perhaps he would be considered an "open Evangelical"). He is a member of the Evangelical Episcopal Fellowship, most recently called the "Barnabas Fellowship." As you can see, at least one "liberal" commenter mentioned in the article thinks that if a majority of bishops and Standing Committees do not withhold consent to the recent election in Los Angeles, it will effectively "deep six" adoption of a Covenant. Another issue, in direct contradiction to the statement quoted in the first paragraph about consents as a test, is the claim of Bishop Jon Bruno of Los Angeles that any bishops or Standing Committees who vote to withhold consent on the grounds of the issue taken up by DO 25 will be acting unconstitutionally. I know your polity there in the UK is quite different, but wondered if some had some comments about how "reason" could be used to work through this issue in TEC. THE ARTICLE IN _THE LIVING CHURCH_: Editorial: Think, and Act, Globally Posted on: December 9, 2009 Soon after the Episcopal Churchs General Convention adjourned in July, many bishops assured their people that two resolutions, one regarding ordained ministry and the other regarding blessings for same-sex couples, had changed nothing and were merely descriptive of the Episcopal Churchs daily reality. Bishops suggested that the test of Resolution D025 would not center on the election of another openly partnered gay or lesbian bishop, but on whether that person received sufficient consents to be made a bishop. By the words of these bishops, then, the test begins even now, before the first paperwork arrives in the hands of bishops and standing committees regarding the election of the Rev. Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool as a suffragan bishop for the Diocese of Los Angeles. The Archbishop of Canterbury has made no secret of what he hopes those bishops and standing committees will remember. The election has to be confirmed, or could be rejected, by diocesan bishops and diocesan standing committees. That decision will have very important implications, he wrote within a day of the election. The bishops of the Communion have collectively acknowledged that a period of gracious restraint in respect of actions which are contrary to the mind of the Communion is necessary if our bonds of mutual affection are to hold. Leaders of the Episcopal Church have heard, and disregarded, such warnings before. They were warned in 2003 that their consecration of an openly partnered gay man would tear at the very fabric of the Anglican Communion, and they did it anyway. Six years later, after pleading ignorance of how much one decision could affect the rest of the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church has arrived at a similar moment of decision. What has changed in the meantime is that a slow and deliberate process has brought about an embryonic covenant, in which the provinces of the Anglican Communion would commit themselves to due consultation and mutual accountability. The Archbishop of Canterbury, primates, Lambeth Conference, and Anglican Consultative Council have all supported this covenant as the best way for Communion-minded Anglicans to make clear their commitments to one anothers well-being. Some Anglicans have sought not merely a crib death for the covenant, but instead a late-term abortion of it. Demonstrating that Gene Robinsons election was not a fluke will send the message to the Anglican Communion that our commitment to the gospel, as we understand it, is more important than indulging the prejudices of the Nigerias and Ugandas of the Communion, blogger Lionel Deimel wrote on the same day as Canon Glasspools election. Consenting to the consecration of Mary Glasspool, as we must do, will create facts on the ground that will make acceptance of a covenant like the one presented to the Anglican Consultative Council last spring impossible to accept. Leaders of the Episcopal Church who give the matter two moments thought will realize that being in spiritual communion with Nigeria and Uganda, or with Jerusalem and Indonesia, has precious little to do with indulging anyones prejudices. Instead, it means having our own prejudices challenged. It means giving more than mental assent to the notion that we may be wrong about something. It means treating fellow Anglicans like brothers and sisters in Christ, rather than the objects of our pity or of our vain efforts at cultural engineering. It means behaving like the Anglican Christians we claim to be. The Archbishop of Canterbury said it well in July, in the reflection he called Communion, Covenant, and our Anglican Future: When a local church seeks to respond to a new question, to the challenge of possible change in its practice or discipline in the light of new facts, new pressures, or new contexts, as local churches have repeatedly sought to do, it needs some way of including in its discernment the judgment of the wider Church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognizable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe. As Episcopalians we pretend to have sought the judgment of the wider Church. We assume poses of moral indignation when our fellow Anglicans say we have not, in fact, sought their judgment, or given it serious consideration. Bishops and standing committees of the Episcopal Church have a clear choice before them. We say this with penitent hearts: Leaders who care about the future health of the Anglican Communion, and about their own place in that Communion, must withhold their consent to an election that will further tear apart an already torn fabric.
TEC crosses the Rubicon
6 [14552] Posted by: Celinda Friday 11 December 2009 - 04:05am
There is something that can be done, as Archbishop Williams has pointed out: bishops and standing committees can withhold consent, as a majority did in the case of northern Michigan, when the elected candidate had written extensively expressing theological positions which were not in accordance with traditional (orthodox) Anglican teaching.
Changing Sexual Orientation and Identity? The APA Report
7 [14385] Posted by: Celinda Friday 4 December 2009 - 01:35am
Just wanted to say I was glad to see Liddon back, if only as an observer. Jeremy mentioned Fulcrum as a place where things could be discussed in a way other blogs don't make possible, if I understood him correctly--I liked the way he referred to "LP" and I think it was he who in a previous post traced the ways the listening process has been referred to at various Lambeth meetings. Liddon is an especially good listener, with an objective interest in accuracy--which I think helps the LP. --About partners at the end of life: they are frequently mentioned by name in obituaries in the US. Not all families will do so, but some do.
Changing Sexual Orientation and Identity? The APA Report
8 [14236] Posted by: Celinda Tuesday 24 November 2009 - 06:08pm

Thanks to Ken for the very thoughtful commentary about extending the way we talk about this issue and to Jeremy for the comment that "our age has given it an identity and a shape that other ages did not." Tony and L Roberts--Jeremy uses the terms "LGBT people" and "LGBTQl coalition."  Do you also use those terms?  If so, then was it my phrase "people who identify themselves" as LGBTs which caused offense?  I certainly meant no offense. 
Changing Sexual Orientation and Identity? The APA Report
9 [14224] Posted by: Celinda Monday 23 November 2009 - 08:49pm
Thanks, Jeremy, I need to read and reread your post. L Roberts--I really do not know the right words to use. Please let me know what would be the right ones.
Changing Sexual Orientation and Identity? The APA Report
10 [14209] Posted by: Celinda Monday 23 November 2009 - 11:17am
Tony--we obviously have different ideas of what the "listening process" means. I thought it meant listening first to the experiences of our brothers and sisters who call themselves LGBTs, but also to the experience of others, to scripture, to psychiatrists, to sociologists, and to scripture. What does it mean to you?
The three streams revisited
11 [14202] Posted by: Celinda Sunday 22 November 2009 - 07:01pm
The first sentence of Article IX from the 39 Articles, "original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians vainly taught, but..." kept reverberating in my mind after I answered Phil's letter so I re-read that whole article, which supports what Phil said ("it is the fault and corruption of every man" comes after "but"). Below is a list of what other Christian faiths have to say about original sin. The one I was taught, and still believe--despite the Article quoted--was the one the Article apparently refutes, which is the beliefs recorded below of all the Christian denominations mentioned except ours and the Methodists: as the Lutherans say, "Sin came into the world by the fall of the first man." (I got the article below by Googling "not in the following of Adam"). There are many evangelicals in the denominations listed below, but only two of the denominations apparently have that "fault and corruption of every man" which Phil emphasizes as "deserving of the wrath of God simply by being born", not as a result of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Anglican/Episcopal - "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam ... but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man." 39 Articles Anglican Communion Assembly of God - "Man was created good and upright; for God said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness." However, man by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God." AG.org Baptist - "In the beginning man was innocent of sin ... By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and inherited a nature and an environment inclined toward sin." SBC Lutheran - "Sin came into the world by the fall of the first man ... By this Fall not only he himself, but also his natural offspring have lost the original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and thus all men are sinners already by birth..." LCMS Methodist - "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man." UMC Presbyterian - "Presbyterians believe the Bible when it says that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." ( (Romans 3:23)" PCUSA Roman Catholic - "... Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice." Catechism - 404
The three streams revisited
12 [14201] Posted by: Celinda Sunday 22 November 2009 - 06:18pm
Phil--I'm not a leader, just a follower, and I consider the Evangelical tradition the stream closest to what I believe. Your #1 I think all Evangelicals wholeheartedly believe in. However, there's too much emphasis on wrath in the rest of your list. It's not a tradition I've been part of, although I grant you can find scriptures to support it (and there are other scriptures which don't; I've read your analyses of them and why the wrath emphasis is key, according to how you use scripture, but I don't agree with the conclusions you draw). I've read some of Packer and mostly like him; I think it was he who said evangelicals should not leave the Anglican communion a few decades ago, that instead they should stay and witness--but now, I think, he thinks it's time to leave. Trinity Seminary in Pittsburgh was a fruit of the work of those who stayed and witnessed, and I'm grateful for that. Our diocese has greatly benefited from their graduates, and I took a January term course on the New Testament there, and the wrath of God, but it wasn't a central emphasis. I don't know whether the wrath of God is as essential to Packer's theology as you say. In any event, it's certainly not what any church school program I was part of emphasized, or anything that was strongly emphasized in adult education programs I've participated in, nor the main topic of any sermons I've heard (many by Episcopal preachers who are thought of as evangelical). I do think it's an essential emphasis of the Reformed Episcopal Church. I most definitely believe in the doctrine of original sin and our need of a Savior. I prefer Rite I to Rite II in the American Book of Common Prayer. I think the Anglican communion is big enough for those who make the emphases you do, and those who do not. But I would not leave it to join a church which emphasized the wrath of God to the extent that you do.
 Page 1/31 | First | Previous | Next | Last        |       Top
you are not logged in