The example of the UCC is a good one for the anglican church to look at. You need to understand who your memebers are? You also need to understand the principles you want your organization to stand for.

Chasing incluive membership is like a business chasing revenue, or customers. It is good up to a point but if the costs of doing so outweigh the benefit of the revenue or the customers the compnay loses money and the organization ceases to be effective.

Trying to be everything to evryone becomes impossible, so the Anglican Church needs to really think what it wants its brand to mean. The process Steve describes is effectively a debate about who controls the Anglican brand. One side, the Liberal Side, wants it to mean only one thing. The point is that imprateur of Anglican is valuable, which is why the Liberal side seeks it and doesnt just leave. IT was the same reason why the SSM proponents wanted the word marriage rather just all the rights and responsibilities, they want the brand equity.

At some point it becomes worhtwhile for the conservative Anglicans, or even mainstream Anglicans, to say if you want something different go elsewhwere and good luck. The fear of a schism is high but a clear headed church head woudl see the true value is in the name and infrastructure, the Liberals wont leave because they dont want to build a new org they want to take over the existing one.....they are up there with all the best corporate raiders, the Ichans, the Boesky's and the Milkens.

Posted by: Stephen at August 19, 2006 10:03 AM

---

The Anglican Church is liberalizing itself into irrelevancy. Their membership is dwindling, at least in North America, and most of that membership can't be bothered to show up at services. I mean, what's the point? It's just become a politically correct social club, where one person gets to do most of the talking. Hardly a distinctive brand, or a meaningful experience.

Meanwhile, the United Church, which threw out any core beliefs at its inception, is opposing the sale of water because it's sacred...

Posted by: Walrus at August 19, 2006 10:46 AM

---

...i can hardly wait till the Anglican church allows temple prostitutes....

Posted by: tomax7 at August 19, 2006 10:50 AM

---

"The spiritual leader of world Anglicanism has asked six Episcopal bishops to meet in New York next month to try to resolve differences over homosexuality tearing at their church."

Sadly, and much as Steve describes the situation, there will be no resolution struck that will please both sides or that can hold this Church together. There can't be.

The liberal-leaning, pro-gay priests, bishops, lay people, and supporters of same-sex marriage are on a collision course not only with the more conservative members of the Episcopalian/Anglican Church (read conserving millennia-old beliefs and traditions which have stood the test of time) but with the Christian faith itself.

These “progressive� (sic) ideas, which the left see as cutting-edge, evolutionary, and compassionate are simply not in keeping, in any way, with the foundational and core beliefs of Christianity. These beliefs cannot be changed by vote or by an over-weaning sense, on the part of liberal Episcopalians/Anglicans that allowing for same-sex partnerships thus makes the Church more "open" and "tolerant." Open and tolerant to what? More sexual promiscuity, more instability in conjugal relationships, more confusion for our children (of particular concern to me as a mother)? We can open and tolerate ourselves into No-Church, which is what is happening.

The image of the Episcopal/Anglican Church I keep getting, is one of two mitred and robed bishops, pro-gay and "pro-gressive," standing on a hill overlooking a large city. They are congratulating themselves on their finery and on the pinnacle they have achieved.

What they don't, and can't, see, because their eyes are blinded to the truth of the colossal break up which is about to happen in their Church, is that the hill is being devoured by termites. It's about to collapse.

I'm giving the Episcopal/Anglican Churches roughly another ten years before their total collapse here in North America. (Africa is a different story. There, the Anglican Church is vibrant and growing. No fooling around with the doctrines of the Church when it comes to sexuality and marriage—or anything else.) When the last of the grey-hairs, who actually contribute quite generously to the outreach of the Church, are dead and buried, that will be that. The progressive, pro-gay folks are not flooding to either the Episcopal or Anglican Churches and neither are they supporting the outreach of the Church to those genuinely in need, as the Church once did. Most of them are rabid and extreme activists pushing only for their own agenda. Once they’ve achieved it and ruined the Episcopalian/Anglican expression of the Church, what will they do next?

It will be a rather hollow victory. The Episcopal/Anglican Church now totally accepts the gay lifestyle, gay bishops, priests, and laypeople, and performs same-sex marriages. The only problem is, there is no Church. It’s gone.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 19, 2006 11:54 AM

---

None of this surprises me at all. They've already taken our country away from us (or at least nullified our culture and its role in Canadian society), so it's not surprising to me that they are going to take our Church away from us as well. When I read about the decline of the Church in Canada I often find myself wondering why I continue to bother with this country at all?

My family is originally from North London (I'm third generation Canadian) and we're devout Anglicans to say the least (not High Anglicans mind you, just devout in the strongest sense of the word). My mum, her brothers, and I were all confirmed and raised in the church. My uncles and I were Altar boys, my mum was on the Altar guild, and I was also a lay reader for several years. Needless to say, you get the point.

I was involved with my diocese's Youth Synod for a couple of years before I graduated from high school, I even manged to get on to the Synod's planning committee at one point, no small feat I assure you! Being involved with Synod as my parish's youth delegate allowed me to travel across our diocese (the diocese of Niagara) and visit several different parishes and get their take on our faith.

It's funny looking back on it. Each parish was trying to be different, new, and unique in an effort to attract more people to the Church (young people mainly) but each parish wound up being the same as the last. I witnessed hollow sermons which managed to say a lot about nothing (with the minister attempting to be all things to everyone), services smothered in New Age spiritualism and other such nonsense, and silly gimmicks usually involving lame musical attempts to impress the youth of the Church. I can assure, up until that point, I had never been so bored!

The Synod itself was worse. On the planning committee I was shut out of the discussion. NDP activists and self-proclaimed 'neo-marxist' sutdents controlled the decision making process; gay marriage was on the agenda, anti-globalisation, political correctness, and all the usual issues from the rubbish heap of special interest politics dominated the Synod's discussion. As both an Anglican and a libertarian I was disgusted. I dropped out before my third year, and a few years later I stopped attending services at my family's parish entirely (mind you I moved to China for a couple of years).

Today, the Church itself is more concerned with attracting non-Anglicans that is more than willing to sacrifice the loyalty of true Anglicans whose families have been with the Church since the early days of the Reformation. My family's parish of St. David's was founded by Welsh immigrants in 1949 and our church bares all the hallmarks of the Celtic Church, but strongly Anglican to the core.

I will not lie to you, most members of our parish were English, Scots, and Welsh newly arrived in Canada or fourth and fifth generation families. Yet, despite this old and stuffy influence from these 'whites' and 'anglophones' from a 'foreign nation' we still managed to attract Greek, Italian, French, African, Hungarian, Polish, and German families to our parish who were new to the concept of Anglicanism, but who became devout members of the Anglican communion in their own right. The liberal/socialist/poltically correct influence was non-existant in our parish as our traditional beliefs and faith in true Christianity prevailed.

I'm not opposed to civil unions in the political sense, but contemporary politics have no place in the Church. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. Society changes but Christ's teachings do not, they remain universal. But we're called racist, homophobic, sexist and all the usual insults by these liberals for saying this. But who would take these people seriously? These are the same people who claim that Islam, the faith of the Taliban, of the House of Saud, of Hezbollah, is a religion of peace? Bollocks. These parishes in Canada and the States should be kicked out before they try and make their move to hijack the Church in North America. I would be more than willing to remain true to my English roots and I would dearly love to remain in league with our brothers and sisters over in Africa and down in South America than shack up with these blighters.

I give the church twenty years and Canada ten. But don't worry about me, I'll be in Australia long before the end comes!

Posted by: TheDiggler at August 19, 2006 04:58 PM

---

Diggler, my sincere condolences.

I'm in much the same position as you, except my ancestors, staunch Anglicans, came to Canada from Ireland in 1799. My paternal great-grandfather was an Anglican clergyman and I was well-versed in the faith while growing up, though I took a 14-year detour, when I went to church only at Christmas and Easter, and couldn't for the life of me figure out what relevance the Church had to reality during my sojourn in the wilderness. Fortunately, I came to my senses, and have been much more than a Church-goer for many years now, a firm believer would describe me.

Like you, I am deeply disturbed by the hi-jacking of the Anglican Church by all sorts of fringe-group activists, who usually get on church and Synod committees. Like you, I also don't oppose civil unions but would appreciate it if the gay-activist usurpers would stop at that, consider it a victory in Canada, and leave the Church to join one man and one woman, which is the millennia-old understanding of what marriage is all about.

As to your hope that "These parishes in Canada and the States [that support the Same Sex Marriage, anti-globalisation, politically correct, special-interest agendas of NDP activists, self-proclaimed 'neo-marxist' sutdents, not to mention namby-pamby (heretical) clergy and bishops] should be kicked out before they try and make their move to hijack the Church in North America," I don't think it's going to happen. The activists in the Anglican/Episcopal Churches in Canada and the U.S. control the agenda now. They're the ones who are "kicking people out," whether it's actual or whether it's their agenda that is causing parishioners to walk out on their own and either join other churches or just stop going to church altogether.

As usual, the nice and decent, mustn't-rock-the-boat Anglicans in the pew kept their astonished mouths shut (that's not really being "nice," is it?), and now this denomination is sliding down the slippery slope so fast, it's going to hit the water soon--and hard, which is going to have all the "nice" Anglicans asking, "What happened? How did this happen?" to which the answer is, "You didn't have your wicks trimmed and you were asleep."

For the past 35 years, we've needed to wake up, but a lot didn't and they're still snoozing. We were warned but methinks it's too late.

There are a lot of Anlglican/Episcopal leaders who have a lot to answer for.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 19, 2006 05:53 PM

---

Good post, Steve.

All is not lost. This is faith that knows miracles and the wisdom of what seems foolishness.

http://www.stjohnsshaughnessy.org/

Posted by: Peter Jay at August 19, 2006 06:25 PM

---

"This is faith that knows miracles and the wisdom of what seems foolishness, " writes Peter Jay.

Peter Jay, you're right, when it comes to the Christian Church/the Body of Christ: "And the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."

Nothing heretical that is happening now in the Anglican denomination can destroy the Body of Christ, His Church. But when it comes to a denomination that has forsaken God's truth, there is no doubt that it is under judgment.

God bless all of the faithful Anglican communities of which yours is one--a faithful remnant: Taste and see that the Lord is good. Happy are they who trust in Him.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 19, 2006 07:11 PM

---

...gay marriage was on the agenda, anti-globalisation, political correctness, and all the usual issues from the rubbish heap of special interest politics.

I'm not intimately familiar with the Anglican faith, but my understanding was that it had a tradition of involvement in social justice issues dating from its earliest incarnations. In fact, wasn't Jesus Himself something of a social justice advocate? Anti-globalisation is a bit of a misnomer. It doesn't reject the idea of globalisation per se; however, the movement as a whole rejects the exploitation of workers in developing nations for the disproportionate benefit of private corporations and investors in developed nations. Rather than dismantling the system, anti-globalisation above all is about restructuring the system to improve proportionality in the sharing of social and economic benefits (I don't deny the presence of fringe anarchists, but also don't believe they represent the majority). In that sense, globalisation issues are very much social justice issues worthy of support from the Anglican Church.

Posted by: A at August 19, 2006 07:41 PM

---

A said, "I don't deny the presence of fringe anarchists, but also don't believe they represent the majority."

You're right, A. The fringe anarchists definitely don't represent the majority of Anglicans, but they get themselves disproportionately represented on the "governing" bodies of the ACC, which means that they are able to hi-jack the concerns/beliefs of the majority of Anglicans, the same thing that often happens in political ridings and parties.

Because a great many Anglicans in Canada, like most Canadians, don't think "politically," they are frequently are unaware of what often amounts to the anti-Christian shenanigans that are going on at their deanery and synod meetings.

Over the years, the decisions that have been made at these meetings--whether or not the majority are in favour or are aware of them--have been moving the ACC increasingly away from its spiritual roots to embrace the "open," "tolerant," and "diverse" secular humanist agendas mentioned above.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 19, 2006 07:57 PM

---

Fortunately the continuation of the Christain faith is not dependant on the Anglican Church in North America. I have rarely attended an Anglican service, my tastes are more evangelical, but the last time I was in an Angilcan church was at a funeral. The family of the deceased filled much of the Church while the few church members left, all quite elderly, filled one pew in the back of the church. A year ago I went to an Anglican sponsored youth event and the Anglicans there were acting most peculiar. It seemed that while they wanted to believe in something beyond themselves they could not get over their secular humanist indoctrination and so turned the entire worship service into some kind of juvenile dance. I left when some "ordained" woman in clerical robes began her sermon.

Posted by: Joe at August 19, 2006 09:39 PM

---

Christopher Johnson has been covering the descent of the Episcopal Church at http://mcj.bloghorn.com/ since 2002. You might check his archives for further discussion.

Cheers
JMH

Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs at August 19, 2006 10:04 PM

---

'been around the block: When I said that fringe anarchists did not "represent the majority," I meant the "majority" to mean opponents of globalisation, not Anglicans. As an aside, you believe that they've managed to get themselves represented on the ACC governing bodies. How is this possible? I would imagine that appointments are made by vote. Wouldn't their representation indicate the will of the voting majority?

In any case, this sort of demand for doctrinal traditionalism is one of the main reasons why I left the church (Catholic). I always found the church to be more interested in telling other people how to live than in preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc (i.e., the central teachings of Christianity). That is, the focus is far too defensive, always aimed at others who are seen to be threatening the integrity of the church (for some, it's female priests; for many others, it's same-sex couples who want the right to civil marriage) rather than on the personal spiritual lives of its own members.

Posted by: A at August 19, 2006 11:42 PM

---

A, sorry for my misunderstanding as to whom you were referring.

To answer your question, "How is this possbile?" that activists can get elected to committees, etc. without the consent of the majority? It's possible for the same reasons that political parties often vote for candidates not because the majority wants them but because the winning candidate has managed to load the ballot box with his/her suppporters. Or, someone has been parachuted in. Given that not all party members are able to be at the vote, the canny candidate gets elected.

'Same thing in any organization, including the Church. Activists typically spend a lot of time and energy on their political agendas, which the majority of Sunday-only church goers aren't necessarily aware of. It's also been my observation that most church goers are delighted when someone else steps up to the plate: "Whew, they'll give me a pass; 'glad so-and-so is doing it," even if they're not at all sure just what it is that so-and-so is doing.

Though that may seem cynical, that's been my experience in the Church. But having said that--and each to his/her own--I've also observed that in a crisis, whether it's an ice storm in Quebec, an earthquake in Costa Rica, or a Tsunami in Indonesia, the Christian Church is always there: Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, United Church, Orthodox, Evangelical, Charismatic, Mennonite, and the list goes on and on: giving, giving, giving, time, treasure, and talent often for complete strangers and asking nothing in return.

I don't see this happening from "disorganized religion." And though non-religious charities do wonderful work, it is a fact that (Google Charitable Giving in Canada):

"Although our 'top donors' only give about $350 (on average) per year, the '2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating' shows that 48% of those who attend weekly religious services are in the 'top donor' category, while only 16% of non religious types are in that category.

"Also, in an article 'The Generosity Gap' from The Fraser Forum, an analysis of charitable giving, based on hard data from the 2001 tax returns, showed that Quebec, one of the most socialist and least religious provinces in Canada, was near the bottom of charitable givings: only 22.6% of Quebecers gave an average of $473. On the other hand, in Alberta, probably the most C(c)onservative and religious province in Canada, 25.1% gave an average of $1 294."

So, though you're entitled to your opinion that you've "always found the church to be more interested in telling other people how to live than in preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc" the facts don't seem to bear this out. Coming to the aid of stricken people and areas in the world, with concrete, hands-on help, doesn't come across as preaching to me.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 20, 2006 08:21 AM

---

I find it incredibly ironic that some of you seem to think that the Anglican Church is "conserving millennia-old beliefs and traditions which have stood the test of time" and that "These “progressive� (sic) ideas, which the left see as cutting-edge, evolutionary, and compassionate are simply not in keeping, in any way, with the foundational and core beliefs of Christianity", when the Anglican Church, itself, was formed through a schism that argued exactly the same thing.

Posted by: bob at August 20, 2006 10:09 AM

---

Hey BATB: I understand your point about how activists get on committees, but surely your reasons are a criticism of "Sunday-only church goers" more so than the candidates who run for office, who are only playing within the rules of the system. As I see it, having an activist "steal" a seat on a committee can only happen once. After that, if the majority don't like how the church is being run, they ought to come out and vote for someone else during the next election. I see two equally valid explanations for why "activists" are installed year after year: (a) as you say, because the majority is complacent and "apolitical"; or (b) they are generally happier with the direction of church policy than you suggest.

I concede your point on the well-established trend of greater charity-giving among those who attend religious services. However, I'd point out that donating to the basket that churches hand out at service is considered by the StatCan survey as a form of charity, so it's also the case that those who attend religious services often give directly to their own church, and are only as equally likely as those who don't attend services to give to health, social service, and international aid organizations (of course, many churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. dedicate special funds to emergency relief). I mention this not to take away from the generosity of religious givers, only to point out an important consideration when interpreting the survey results. It's unclear whether groups like World Vision or the Salvation Army are categorized under "religious" or "social service" (it may simply depend on each individual respondent's view).

The Fraser Forum's "generosity gap" refers to the gap between donations in the US and Canadian (US give far more on average), rather than difference among provinces. Also, according to the 2005 survey (see Table 1 in particular), Manitoba is tops, while Alberta is 5th and 4th, respectively, in % of population who donated and % of income donated, both of which are stronger measures of population level "generosity". Alberta still leads in average dollar amount, but this number can be skewed by a few massive donations from a handful of individuals. Quebec does indeed suck with respect to charity donations.

As for my opinion that the church "seems to be more interested in telling other people how to live than in preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc.," this was a criticism leveled more at the institution of religion than its specific human followers. My own experience with Catholicism is that I came aware perfect clear on what the Church was against (abortions, condoms, women in the clergy, same-sex marriage, etc.), but not at all clear on what it was for in practise. Indeed, I found that the virtues it supported in principle (non-judgment, compassion for the poor and marginalized, universal acceptance, etc.) were too often contradictory to its positions on the issues it was against in practise.

Posted by: A at August 20, 2006 10:45 AM

---

Perhaps the debate should be "Why don't gay ministers, and those practitioners who feel it is acceptable for their ministers to be gay, found their own church" rather than hijacking the one that has served the interests of it's flock until now? Is this not the same net effect? After all, we're talking about people leaving an institution that no longers believes in the same values that it's core constituency accepts. And it is consistent with not forcing one's views down the throats of others. Isn't this everybit fair in the context of a free and liberal life?

This is framed just like the immigration debate, where "traditional" church members, just like long time citizens of Canada, are not listened to in the mad rush to change society into the giant lab experiment that has resulted in this P.C. madness that is the Western society of the 21st millennium.

We cannot impose equity with inequity, and you cannot create sanity with madness. These are lessons that the Left never learns.

Perhaps, in the spirit of understanding where my views come from, I should declare that I am against organized religion of any sort. I have seen much more harm than good come of it (and I'm including my hypocritical Buddhist friends who lecture me on materialism before they jump into their BMW's and Jags). The way I choose to be anti-religion is to live my life by my conscience, and not by opinion polls. Having said that, I am AGAINST banning any "peaceful" religions, and I have no personal problem with people believing there is a ghost out there that is watching us.

As to the origins of the Anglican Church, I thought it started because Henry VIII just wanted a divorce? How is this the same as "cutting edge, evolutionary, and compassionate"? I guess it is so if it allows men to leave their marriages without having to chop off their wives' heads.

Posted by: mike s at August 20, 2006 10:51 AM

---

A: You say, "I see two equally valid explanations for why 'activists' are installed year after year: (a) as you say, because the majority is complacent and 'apolitical'; or (b) they are generally happier with the direction of church policy than you suggest."

I'm clear that if the majority is, as you posit, "generally happier with the direction of church policy than [I] suggest," that the Anglican Church of Canada would be growing and flourishing.

Sadly, it's not. Whole congregations are leaving the ACC and joining other Anglican bodies, and most of the congregations remaining have an average age of about 65 (casting no aspersions on the elderly; I'm approaching being a senior myself!). Attrition, itself, will probably see an end to any vibrancy in the ACC in a few years time.

The interesting thing is, these activists are not bringing in new people in any significant numbers who agree with their "open" and "tolerant" agendas. Nor are they contributing in any significant way to the coffers of the ACC which, let's face it, is one indicator of an organization in crisis.

As for your assertion that you weren't criticizing religion's "specific human followers" but rather "the institution," it would take a wiser person than I to distinguish between the two. My specific generosity and hands-on help to single moms, to the homeless, to victims of natural disasters (my family and I were living in a Caribbean country when a 7.4 on the Richter Scale earthquake hit) is only possible because of the strength, support, and encouragement I receive from my community of faith. It's very hard to separate the two.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses, A, and the opportunity to respond to them.

Thanks!

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 20, 2006 11:28 AM

---

Well, when all human ideas fail, there is always the Bible.

Posted by: Chris Smith at August 20, 2006 04:10 PM

---

YOu shuld re-join the Catholic church.

Posted by: at August 20, 2006 04:44 PM

---

preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc (i.e., the central teachings of Christianity)

Nope. The central teaching of Christianity has always been the Resurrection. "Messages of tolerance, nonjudgement, compassion, etc" are part of the message. So are various injunctions against certain behaviors. Divorce and adultery are condemned in the Gospels, in Jesus' own words. That may or may not count as "telling other people how to live", but at the least, it sets standards.

As for the history of the Anglican church, that's... well, it's complicated. Henry VIII rebelled against the pope, but that was only the beginning of a long process that made the Anglican church what it is today. Equally important were contributions of the reformers under Henry's son Edward, the abortive return to catholicism under Mary, Elizabeth's tendency toward protestant thought with catholic trappings, etc. etc. I don't think real stability came to the Anglican church until after 1700.

Anglicanism traditionally is thoroughly protestant in theology. And protestantism was always intended, essentially, as a return to the faith of the Apostles. As Steve has so ably explicated, todays conflict in the Anglican communion in the end will be less about gay marriage and more about the core theological ideas of the christian faith.

Posted by: at August 20, 2006 05:04 PM

---

preaching universal messages of tolerance, nonjudgment, compassion, etc (i.e., the central teachings of Christianity)

Nope. The central teaching of Christianity has always been the Resurrection. "Messages of tolerance, nonjudgement, compassion, etc" are part of the message. So are various injunctions against certain behaviors. Divorce and adultery are condemned in the Gospels, in Jesus' own words. That may or may not count as "telling other people how to live", but at the least, it sets standards.

As for the history of the Anglican church, that's... well, it's complicated. Henry VIII rebelled against the pope, but that was only the beginning of a long process that made the Anglican church what it is today. Equally important were contributions of the reformers under Henry's son Edward, the abortive return to catholicism under Mary, Elizabeth's tendency toward protestant thought with catholic trappings, etc. etc. I don't think real stability came to the Anglican church until after 1700.

Anglicanism traditionally is thoroughly protestant in theology. And protestantism was always intended, essentially, as a return to the faith of the Apostles. As Steve has so ably explicated, todays conflict in the Anglican communion in the end will be less about gay marriage and more about the core theological ideas of the christian faith.

Posted by: warko at August 20, 2006 05:04 PM

---

A

Where did you get the idea that universal acceptance and tolerance are the core of the Christian faith? Every age exalts some virtues and buries others - in this age "tolerance" or a cheap simulacrum thereof has been raised up as the highest virtue. It isn't. Tolerance is a modern cultural value which derives partially from Christian teachings, but is no0t quite the same.

Don't take my word for it. Read the writings of Christians in other centuries - any other century.

bob - yes, I've heard the theory that proclaims that modern attempts to change the church, which conservatives hate, are just the same thing all over again from the old attempts to change the church, which conservatives adore. It is a convenient narrative, but it doesn't square well with actual history. You also might benefit by reading the writings of Christians in other centuries.

Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at August 20, 2006 05:05 PM

---

Actually, all you need to know about why this is all happening is to look up Antonio Gramsci's works.

The Gramscians took over the left. Now they've infiltrated your institutions: your religions, your education, your media. I'm an atheist, but I find myself appalled at the way they're taking over the Anglican church.

Good luck at fighting back. Incidentally, I'm working in an Anglican school in Singapore, and the leadership is still pretty conservative. I've lost count of the number of times they've tried to 'convert' me!

Posted by: The Wobbly Guy at August 21, 2006 03:09 AM

---

Wobbly Guy: Anglicanism other than in Britain, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe ('pretty long list, actually) is doing pretty well, and holding its own spiritually.

Unfortunately, it's where "enlightenment" ideas and thinking have taken hold, leading to every "progressive" (sic), politically correct, secular humanist idea being loaded into the Anglican barque, that Anglicanism is sinking--and fast. Glug, glug, glug.

Kyrie Eleison.

There are other faithful churches that Anglicans can join...though I don't deny the hurt and difficulty in leaving one's life-long church and having to find another spiritual home. But many have done it.

Posted by: 'been around the block at August 21, 2006 09:30 AM

---

“. . . the Liberals wont leave because they dont want to build a new org they want to take over the existing one.....�

Stephen, I think it's less the case they don’t want to take over than that they have to take over. They could never fill a church with congregants who share their beliefs because most so-called "progressives" are far too "progressive" to believe in God; they don't go to church. As 'been around the blocks so nicely elucidates, it's the complacent, nonpolitical, non-confrontational types, sitting quietly in their pews, faithfully dropping their pledge envelopes into the plate every Sunday, that make it possible for the liberals to keep their jobs. When the rapidly aging faithful die off, the money will stop flowing, the host will die and the liberals will have to move off in search of another host. In other words, to put it in the harshest manner, they are parasites who, unlike the biological strain, are fully aware of what they are doing.

Posted by: Anthony at August 21, 2006 11:25 AM

---

Sorry, I garbled the first line of my post which should read: "Stephen, I think it's less the case the liberals don't want to build a new organization than that they can't, they have to take over an existing one."

The rest I think is reasonably clear.

Posted by: at August 21, 2006 11:53 AM

---