PCUSA Not Alone in its Fractures

Michael Crowl has interesting post at his Daily Writer blog called The New Puritans. It is an excerpt from a book called The New Puritans: The Rise of Fundamentalism in the Anglican Church. Here are a couple of quotes:

Would it have been wiser to create a national Church that did not include Sydney, if it was not prepared to accept the will of the majority? I suspect it would have had little effect on Sydney’s ongoing life and its relationship with the rest of the Church if it had remained separate. Certainly in recent years it has substantially gone its own way regardless of the rest of the Church, and been quick to threaten schism will result if national decisions are taken that it does not like.

....

An Australian Church without Sydney would, however have released enormous energy for growth and renewal in the other dioceses, freed from Sydney’s relentless negative influence. 

As the psychoanalyst says, "Does this feel familiar?"

Comments

[Quotidian Grace]

This explains something. My brother is a member of an Episcopal church in San Antonio that voted to leave the ECUSA a couple of weeks ago. He tells me they are asking the Archbishop of Canterbury to put them under the oversight of an Australian bishop--he must be the one in Sydney.

[Michael Kruse]

Interesting. I confess I am not fully up to speed on all the issues driving the divide for the Australian Episcopals. It appears to be over the divide of women in ministry. I just finished reading Kevin Giles book about the heresy of subordination within the trinity and the Austrialian church's embrace of it. The same thing is being taught in fundamentalist circles in the USA, most notably by Wayne Grudem and Southern Baptists. I expect to do a book review about it soon.

[kairos]

Yes, feels a bit familiar.

[kairos]

Yes, feels a bit familiar. (Queue errie music...)

[Dana Ames]

I'm a member of the Wrightsaid email group, which has quite a contingent of Aussies, some Anglican, who are often referring to "the Sydney Anglicans" with only scant explanation - I've had to read between the lines, and this fits into the "invisible text".

As an eight-year member of CBE, I look forward to your posts on Giles' book. Don't think Grudem would consider himself a fundamentalist, though.

I had to change churches six years ago because of 1)my changing theology and 2)resulting marginalization (that's the short version). In my smallish, somewhat polarized community, I settled into the Pres. church for various reasons. At the time, my husband, an earnest believer, worked most Sundays. When his schedule changed to regular hours, he attended with me for a while but was drawn to a start-up "purpose driven style" SBC affiliate, at first because of his "allergy" :) to liturgy - he thinks there's too much of it in a Presbyterian service. (!) But then we called a woman pastor. My husband and I love one another and are committed to one another, but we can't attend each other's church at this point.

Ironically, I left Roman Catholicism for a "more biblical" path and expression of Christianity... The charge of being "unbiblical" is a fairly effective way to silence people.

Dana

[Michael Kruse]

Wow Dana! You are on an interesting journey. I have people close to me, including a family member, with whom I disagree but gratefully my wife and I are on the same page. It must be a challenging experience for you.

I will have more to say on equality issues in about a month and on into the fall. I hope you will join in.

As to Grudem, I thought everyone to my theological right was fundamentalist. *grin*

[Michael Kruse]

"(Queue errie music...)"

Twilight Zone theme will work nicely. Working in the PCUSA hierarchy has earned me resident status there.

[kairos]

Indeed!