This is the first in a series of posts that I hope will be a "Reader's Digest condensed version" of not only the history of the Episcopal Church but also of recent events that have lead to the chaotic state of today's Episcopal Church. So without any further ado, my first post about the history of the beginnings of the Episcopal Church.
The first English Settlement at Jamestown, VA in 1607 brought the faith of the Church of England to this continent. These early settlers were accompanied by a chaplain, the Rev. Robert Hunt, who celebrated Holy Communion a mere six weeks after landing at Jamestown. Despite many hardships and sufferings of these early settlers, the settlement was securely established by 1614. Over time as settlement along the eastern coast occurred, the faith of the Church of England was spread up and down the coast from Rhode Island to Georgia. In the colony of South Carolina, the earliest Church of England Parish is St. Philip's Church in Charleston, SC which was established in 1680. St. Philip's Church is the Mother Church of Anglicanism south of Virginia and the Mother Church of the Diocese of South Carolina.
After the Revolutionary War, the Church of England in the various colonies was in a state of confusion and disarray. This situation left members and clergy of the Church of England wondering what independence from England would mean for them. The various state legislatures had abolished the taxes which had supported the Church and left many clergy to survive on their own or from the giving of their parishioners. Hundreds Church of England clergy being loyalists to the King left the colonies for England or Nova Scotia. However, in South Carolina, fifteen out of the twenty clergy in the colony were patriots! The church needed to develop a plan for unity of the church in the various colonies and to provide an episcopate. These two goals took a decade, the 1780s, to achieve. First, I will discuss how the church in the colonies established an episcopate in this country and then how the various churches in the colonies/newly formed states became to be one entity called the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.
Even though the church in the colonies was supposed to be overseen by the Bishop of the Diocese of London, the reality was very different for the nearly two hundred years (from 1607 until the 1780s). The Bishop of London was typically a very distant figure during most of this time and as such the churches in the colonies had become accustomed to to existing largely on their own with very little oversight. Even with this much neglect, churchmen in the colonies had requested a bishop not once but three times starting in 1701 and continuing until the start of the Revolutionary War. After the war, in 1783, Samuel Seabury was elected the first Bishop by the church in Connecticut. Seabury went to England for consecration but the bishops there would not consecrate him because consecration in the Church of England required (and still requires) clergy and bishops to swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown. He waited a year for the English Parliament to change the laws requiring an oath of loyalty but it became clear that parliament would not do it, so he decided to travel to Scotland where he was consecrated by three bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church. There were bishops in Scotland who had refused to take an oath of loyalty to the king in 1688 who were called "non-juring" bishops. These bishops did not require a loyalty oath to the crown for those they consecrated as bishops. In 1784, Samuel Seabury was consecrated a bishop in Aberdeen, Scotland by three of these "non-juring" bishops- the Bishop and Coadjutor Bishop of Aberdeen and the Bishop of Ross and Moray. In 1785, he returned to this country as a bishop and presided at the first convention of the church in Connecticut in August of that year.
The second half of the story as to how the church became to be one entity starts in September 1785 when elected representatives (16 clergy and 24 laity) from Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York met as the first General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Because of the established nature of some of the state churches (South Carolina being an example), their representatives did not have the authority to agree to anything. However, they met again in 1786 and adopted a tentative Constitution which they proposed for final approval at the next triennial General Convention scheduled for 1789 in Philadelphia, PA. The three years between General Conventions had seen the development of a constitution for the nation. In fact, the constitution for the church was drafted by lawyers who also took part in drafting the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution for the newly formed Church was deliberately worded to maintain the independence and autonomy of each diocese organized within the colonies. To quote Mark McCall, "It was the explicit intention of TEC’s founders to create a
decentralized structure with primary authority reserved to the diocese". The Convention of 1789 not only adopted a Constitution and Canons for the church but also authorized a Book of Common Prayer (BCP) which was used for more than a century until the 1928 BCP was authorized. For a more comprehensive look at the formation of TEC's Constitution and Canons and the early history of the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Curmudgeon's blog is an excellent place to start. Hope you have enjoyed this rather brief look at the beginnings of the Episcopal Church.
References:
Addison, James Thayer. The Episcopal Church in the United States 1789-1931. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY. 1951.
Anglican Communion Institute- http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com
Anglican Curmudgeon- http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/
St. Philip's Church- http://www.stphilipschurchsc.org/
Monday, July 23, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
What if Screwtape were at General Convention?......
This is the title of a very funny and ironic article from the Center Aisle (Diocese of Virginia) written by a deputy to General Convention from the Diocese of Upper South Carolina, Mr. Belton Zeigler, and a writer for that publication, The Rev. John Ohmer. I will just give you a couple of paragraphs so you can decide for yourself whether you would like to read the entire article at Center Aisle. If you do, just click on the above link to the article.
Here they are:
The introduction to the article:
The sleep-deprived minds of Deputy Belton Zeigler, Upper South Carolina, and Center Aisle writer John Ohmer got to wondering about “The Screwtape Letters.” If there was an update for General Convention to C.S. Lewis’ famous exchange between two devils, in which the senior devil advises his nephew on how to win over a human soul, how might it read?
The beginning of the letter to Wormwood:
My Dear Wormwood:
So your patient is attending what they call their General Convention.
There is no need to despair. This General Convention of theirs is principally an unwieldy and expensive engine for producing bits of paper that the vermin call resolutions. You are correct in saying that irrelevancy is the great virtue of these documents and, in fact, no one outside of a small cadre of institutional insiders pays the slightest attention to the vast majority of what the poor darlings are laboring so diligently to produce.
The last paragraph:
Here they are:
The introduction to the article:
The sleep-deprived minds of Deputy Belton Zeigler, Upper South Carolina, and Center Aisle writer John Ohmer got to wondering about “The Screwtape Letters.” If there was an update for General Convention to C.S. Lewis’ famous exchange between two devils, in which the senior devil advises his nephew on how to win over a human soul, how might it read?
The beginning of the letter to Wormwood:
My Dear Wormwood:
So your patient is attending what they call their General Convention.
There is no need to despair. This General Convention of theirs is principally an unwieldy and expensive engine for producing bits of paper that the vermin call resolutions. You are correct in saying that irrelevancy is the great virtue of these documents and, in fact, no one outside of a small cadre of institutional insiders pays the slightest attention to the vast majority of what the poor darlings are laboring so diligently to produce.
The last paragraph:
Should calls for reform gain force, all is not lost. Encourage your patients to see every attempt to change Church structure as limits on the Church’s ministries, not on their personal power or agenda. Our patients lack the ability to see the irony in calling for radical changes to the society around them, while resisting so inflexibly the call to reform the one institution that they in fact control.
Your eager uncle,
Screwtape
I find it an incredibly funny and oh so true description of what happens at General Convention. I only wish the authors had waited until the end of General Convention to write the article. That would only be more funny and tragic considering some of the resolutions passed at General Convention. More on that in another post.
Your eager uncle,
Screwtape
I find it an incredibly funny and oh so true description of what happens at General Convention. I only wish the authors had waited until the end of General Convention to write the article. That would only be more funny and tragic considering some of the resolutions passed at General Convention. More on that in another post.
Brief background....
Brief Background:
Me: Lifelong (aka "cradle") Episcopalian currently living in South Carolina and worshipping in the Diocese of South Carolina. [For those who don't know, there are two Episcopal dioceses in this state. The Diocese of South Carolina which roughly covers the eastern half of the state from Columbia to the Coast and the Diocese of Upper South Carolina which covers the rest of the state (from Columbia westward)].
The Diocese of South Carolina:
Some brief facts about the diocese.
The diocese was established in 1785 and is one of the original nine dioceses that came together in 1789 to form the Protestant Episcopal Church USA (now known as the Episcopal Church USA). The diocese has its origins during the colonial period with several parishes in the diocese being 300+ years old. These parishes continue to be active in the ministry and work of the diocese. For more history of the diocese, please read the excellent article at Wikipedia .
Recent history from the diocese's website:
The Diocese of South Carolina has over 29,000 baptized members spread across the eastern and coastal portion of the state. Of the 181 priests canonically resident in our diocese, 107 are actively serving in parishes and missions.
In response to the current situation in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church, Bishop Lawrence, the 14th Bishop of the Diocese, in his message at the 2009 Diocesan Convention, urged us to focus on "Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age."
Me: Lifelong (aka "cradle") Episcopalian currently living in South Carolina and worshipping in the Diocese of South Carolina. [For those who don't know, there are two Episcopal dioceses in this state. The Diocese of South Carolina which roughly covers the eastern half of the state from Columbia to the Coast and the Diocese of Upper South Carolina which covers the rest of the state (from Columbia westward)].
The Diocese of South Carolina:
Some brief facts about the diocese.
The diocese was established in 1785 and is one of the original nine dioceses that came together in 1789 to form the Protestant Episcopal Church USA (now known as the Episcopal Church USA). The diocese has its origins during the colonial period with several parishes in the diocese being 300+ years old. These parishes continue to be active in the ministry and work of the diocese. For more history of the diocese, please read the excellent article at Wikipedia .
Recent history from the diocese's website:
The Diocese of South Carolina has over 29,000 baptized members spread across the eastern and coastal portion of the state. Of the 181 priests canonically resident in our diocese, 107 are actively serving in parishes and missions.
In response to the current situation in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church, Bishop Lawrence, the 14th Bishop of the Diocese, in his message at the 2009 Diocesan Convention, urged us to focus on "Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age."
Our continuing mission is, "To respond to the Great Commission by so presenting Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit that all may come to know Him as Savior and follow Him as Lord in the
fellowship of His Church".
This diocese is one of a handful of conservative dioceses still in the Episcopal Church. The other
conservative dioceses are Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, and Springfield. The ongoing controversies in the Episcopal Church have been simmering for decades and have ocassinally boiled over at General Convention (the every three year gathering of lay and clergy deputies and bishops) . It is impossible to give any sort of attention to these controversies on a personal blog and expect a full and impartial statement of facts but I will give links to those who have analyzed some of the worst and more recent
crisises in TECUSA as I find documents and blogs and link to them.
O K. This was not so brief but it is background. On to a funny/ironic post about the 77th General
Convention of the Episcopal Church that just happened (July 5-12th,2012). If you like C. S. Lewis' book, The Screwtape Letters, I think you will enjoy "Screwtape goes to General Convention".
fellowship of His Church".
This diocese is one of a handful of conservative dioceses still in the Episcopal Church. The other
conservative dioceses are Albany, Central Florida, Dallas, and Springfield. The ongoing controversies in the Episcopal Church have been simmering for decades and have ocassinally boiled over at General Convention (the every three year gathering of lay and clergy deputies and bishops) . It is impossible to give any sort of attention to these controversies on a personal blog and expect a full and impartial statement of facts but I will give links to those who have analyzed some of the worst and more recent
crisises in TECUSA as I find documents and blogs and link to them.
O K. This was not so brief but it is background. On to a funny/ironic post about the 77th General
Convention of the Episcopal Church that just happened (July 5-12th,2012). If you like C. S. Lewis' book, The Screwtape Letters, I think you will enjoy "Screwtape goes to General Convention".
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
I am back!
WOW! I can't believe it has been several months since I posted. Much has happened in my life especially concerning The Episcopal Church and my diocese, South Carolina. Stay tuned for an update soon!
Sunday, January 22, 2012
A most inspiring sermon from Mark's Gospel!
This morning, the Gospel reading was from Mark Chapter 1 verses 14-20. These words are probably the earliest recorded words of Jesus as the Gospel of Mark was the first Gospel to be written dating from the mid first century (50-60s) AD. These verses deal with Jesus calling the first of his disciples; Simon, Andrew, James, and John. The Rev. Luke Lucas preached on this Gospel reading and focused on Jesus' call not only to his disciples but also to each of us. Luke had three main points: 1) Jesus' call to us is unique, 2) Jesus' call to us is a process, and 3) Jesus' call to us and his supporting grace.
1) How is Jesus' call to his first disciples and also to us unique??? Yes, in a sense, everybody's call is unique but one point Luke made was that in the first century students sought out a rabbi to follow not the other way around. Thinking from an academic perspective, nothing much has changed in 20 centuries. Students still seek out the best colleges and/or graduate schools based on faculty, their reputation, etc. Luke's point was that Jesus called Andrew, Simon, James and John. Not the other way around. TRULY RADICAL !!! Remember this is not just any ole rabbi, this rabbi is also the Creator, King of the Universe! God's only begotten son!! I was incredibly humbled to realize that the Creator of the Universe sought out me !! AND YOU!
Another point Luke made was that many world religions are more about advice than anything else. As Luke said, there is nothing wrong with advice. There is place for it. However, Luke's point was that so many religions of the world from Buddhism to Islam simply are codified ways to get from where we are to somewhere else- Nirvana, Paradise, etc- thru a lot of advice. If you will just do these things, you will become a better person, you will live in paradise for eternity, etc. Jesus' call to the disciples does not promise nirvana, or living in paradise if you do certain things. What is Jesus' call? Repent and believe in the Gospel! Also to be fishers of people! What? fisher of people? What does that mean?
Luke went on to explain that the sentence "Follow me and I will make you fisher of people" is more accurately translated in the ESB as "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men. AH...... crucial difference. Becoming........ versus.... be. This lead to his next point which is Jesus' call to us is about a process.
2) Jesus' call to us is a process. Often in Evangelical Christianity, the emphasis is on the conversion experience. The favorite question often being- "Are you saved?" As if you are O K if you just experience being "saved". The use of "becoming" here really speaks to that Jesus' call is a process not just a one time event. A call that is a process takes a lot of faith and trust. Luke mentioned a story, The Princess and the Goblin written by George MacDonald. While I have not read the story, here is a very brief synopsis from Amazon.com.
"Princess Irene lives in a castle in a wild and lonely mountainous region. One day she discovers a steep and winding stairway leading to a bewildering labyrinth of unused passages with closed doors - and a further stairway. What lies at the top? Irene's mysterious and beautiful great great grandmother, who lives in a secret room at the top of the castle stairs. Filled with images of dungeons and goblins, mysterious fires, burning roses, and a thread so fine as to be invisible and yet--like prayer--strong enough to lead the Princess back home to her grandmother's arms. Can the ring the princess is given protect her against the lurking menace of the goblins from under the mountain?"
Luke mentions that the ring Irene is given by her great great grandmother has a very fine thread (as if made of glass) attached to it. She is told to "follow the thread" by her great great grandmother. When Irene hears some goblins getting closer and closer to the castle and becomes afraid that they will capture her, she starts to follow the thread thinking it will lead her outside and to safety. It does lead her outside but it keeps going, and going, and going until she ends up at a large pile of boulders. She decides to keep following the string and finds she is digging deeper and deeper into the rocks. As her hands are bloodied by the sharp boulders, she keeps digging until she finds a miner boy named Curdie. How patient are we that we will "keep following the thread"despite being "bloodied" by life's events/problems? Are we willing to "follow the thread" and trust where it may lead us in life? This idea reminds me of the response to the questions in the BCP's service of Holy Baptism where we renew our own baptismal covenant: I will, with God's help. Which leads me to the third point: Jesus' call to us is supported by His grace.
3) Jesus' call to us and His supporting grace. I must admit by this point in the sermon, my mind was spinning with the new ideas that Luke had introduced that I am not sure I "got" the 3rd point. So for this 3rd point, I will depend on what Dietrich Bonhoeffer says about Grace and christian discipleship in his book, The Cost of Discipleship. [italics mine].
Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: “ye were bought at a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God. Now one point, I do remember Luke making is that Christianity is different in that God comes to us in our form as a human. In many other religions, the goal is for followers to come nearer to the divine however that may be achieved. This Incarnation of God in human form is truly RADICAL in that it is the opposite of what most other religions exhort their followers to do.
1) How is Jesus' call to his first disciples and also to us unique??? Yes, in a sense, everybody's call is unique but one point Luke made was that in the first century students sought out a rabbi to follow not the other way around. Thinking from an academic perspective, nothing much has changed in 20 centuries. Students still seek out the best colleges and/or graduate schools based on faculty, their reputation, etc. Luke's point was that Jesus called Andrew, Simon, James and John. Not the other way around. TRULY RADICAL !!! Remember this is not just any ole rabbi, this rabbi is also the Creator, King of the Universe! God's only begotten son!! I was incredibly humbled to realize that the Creator of the Universe sought out me !! AND YOU!
Another point Luke made was that many world religions are more about advice than anything else. As Luke said, there is nothing wrong with advice. There is place for it. However, Luke's point was that so many religions of the world from Buddhism to Islam simply are codified ways to get from where we are to somewhere else- Nirvana, Paradise, etc- thru a lot of advice. If you will just do these things, you will become a better person, you will live in paradise for eternity, etc. Jesus' call to the disciples does not promise nirvana, or living in paradise if you do certain things. What is Jesus' call? Repent and believe in the Gospel! Also to be fishers of people! What? fisher of people? What does that mean?
Luke went on to explain that the sentence "Follow me and I will make you fisher of people" is more accurately translated in the ESB as "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men. AH...... crucial difference. Becoming........ versus.... be. This lead to his next point which is Jesus' call to us is about a process.
2) Jesus' call to us is a process. Often in Evangelical Christianity, the emphasis is on the conversion experience. The favorite question often being- "Are you saved?" As if you are O K if you just experience being "saved". The use of "becoming" here really speaks to that Jesus' call is a process not just a one time event. A call that is a process takes a lot of faith and trust. Luke mentioned a story, The Princess and the Goblin written by George MacDonald. While I have not read the story, here is a very brief synopsis from Amazon.com.
"Princess Irene lives in a castle in a wild and lonely mountainous region. One day she discovers a steep and winding stairway leading to a bewildering labyrinth of unused passages with closed doors - and a further stairway. What lies at the top? Irene's mysterious and beautiful great great grandmother, who lives in a secret room at the top of the castle stairs. Filled with images of dungeons and goblins, mysterious fires, burning roses, and a thread so fine as to be invisible and yet--like prayer--strong enough to lead the Princess back home to her grandmother's arms. Can the ring the princess is given protect her against the lurking menace of the goblins from under the mountain?"
Luke mentions that the ring Irene is given by her great great grandmother has a very fine thread (as if made of glass) attached to it. She is told to "follow the thread" by her great great grandmother. When Irene hears some goblins getting closer and closer to the castle and becomes afraid that they will capture her, she starts to follow the thread thinking it will lead her outside and to safety. It does lead her outside but it keeps going, and going, and going until she ends up at a large pile of boulders. She decides to keep following the string and finds she is digging deeper and deeper into the rocks. As her hands are bloodied by the sharp boulders, she keeps digging until she finds a miner boy named Curdie. How patient are we that we will "keep following the thread"despite being "bloodied" by life's events/problems? Are we willing to "follow the thread" and trust where it may lead us in life? This idea reminds me of the response to the questions in the BCP's service of Holy Baptism where we renew our own baptismal covenant: I will, with God's help. Which leads me to the third point: Jesus' call to us is supported by His grace.
3) Jesus' call to us and His supporting grace. I must admit by this point in the sermon, my mind was spinning with the new ideas that Luke had introduced that I am not sure I "got" the 3rd point. So for this 3rd point, I will depend on what Dietrich Bonhoeffer says about Grace and christian discipleship in his book, The Cost of Discipleship. [italics mine].
Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: “ye were bought at a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God. Now one point, I do remember Luke making is that Christianity is different in that God comes to us in our form as a human. In many other religions, the goal is for followers to come nearer to the divine however that may be achieved. This Incarnation of God in human form is truly RADICAL in that it is the opposite of what most other religions exhort their followers to do.
Costly grace is the sanctuary of God; it has to be protected from the world, and not thrown to the dogs. It is therefore the living word, the Word of God, which he speaks as it pleases him. Costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus. It comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
WOW! I did not intend for this post to become so long but The Rev. Luke Lucas' sermon was so incredibly inspiring that I had to share some of my thoughts. I hope my words will help you understand even a little bit better Jesus' call to us.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Further thoughts on "Surprised by Christ".......
Now that I have finished reading the book and have had time to think about it in light of what I learned this weekend at the Mere Anglicanism conference (topic for another post), I have some further thoughts about this book. What follows are my thoughts/my review of this book. I have put this on Amazon's website.
This book was recommended to me by a Greek Orthodox priest. I had enjoyed reading most but not all of it. I enjoyed the autobiographical part which includes his spiritual journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity. The story of how Rev. Bernstein comes to faith in Christ is indeed fascinating. But the last half of the book is much more difficult going. Bernstein makes a crucial mistake in thinking that Christianity is divided into Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox. This misses one of the largest (3rd largest) groups of Christians- Anglicans. What a shame!
I found it rather difficult to continue reading after this glaring mistake on page 163 in chapter 11. He discusses how Communion among Christians has been *closed* among Christians. This means only baptized Christians can take part in Holy Communion. Yes, I agree that is extremely important. HOWEVER, Rev. Bernstein makes a HUGE mistake with this sentence: "For example, until the beginning of the twentieth century, Anglicans and Episcopalians practiced closed Communion." Ummmm........ that would make one think that Anglicans no longer practice closed communion. I have news for Rev. Bernstein most if not every Anglican group STILL practices closed Communion in the 21st century. Even in TECUSA, Canon Law does NOT allow/forbids open communion. In fact, Rev. Bernstein seems to think that the standard was that only baptized Christians could partake in Communion. Wrong again. Among Anglicans, a person not only had to baptized but also to be confirmed BEFORE partaking of Holy Communion. In some ways, a stricter standard than what Bernstein think is universally acceptable for Christians. Now I can understand his confusion as the Orthodox baptize and confirm at the same time but that is not universal. The Anglican position has changed somewhat in that now ALL baptized Christians are allowed to take communion regardless of denomination. That change is fairly recent (since 1979 in the USA). So when Bernstein was writing this book, the Anglican practice was that baptized Christians could participate in communion which was recent change from the baptized and confirmed position previously held.
I have to admit after this error, I found it difficult to take seriously what Bernstein said about non Orthodox Christianity. While he may understand Jewish and Orthodox Christian theological positions, his knowledge of other Christian denominations is sadly lacking. Unfortunately, this means his "information" about other christian denominations is often misleading and then uses this mis-"information" to put forth the Orthodox position as the correct position. Alas, this meant I was not particularly receptive to his "arguments" about the Orthodox Church being the One, True Church as his arguments for the Orthodox position were based on misleading/inaccurate info about other Christian denominations. While I enjoyed reading about his spiritual path, I am afraid his glaring lack of knowledge of other Christian denominations means the last half of the book is a waste of time to anyone who has any understanding of other Christian denominations. Hence my rating of two stars.
So if you want an understanding of why and how A. James Bernstein came to faith in Christ, this book is an interesting read. However, just be aware that the last half of the book has misinformation about other Christian denominations.If this is supposed to be a comparison of various Christian theologies, this book is a dismal and total failure. If this is considered a "primer" on Orthodox theology, well..........that is enough reason not to become Orthodox.
This book was recommended to me by a Greek Orthodox priest. I had enjoyed reading most but not all of it. I enjoyed the autobiographical part which includes his spiritual journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity. The story of how Rev. Bernstein comes to faith in Christ is indeed fascinating. But the last half of the book is much more difficult going. Bernstein makes a crucial mistake in thinking that Christianity is divided into Evangelical Protestants, Roman Catholics and Orthodox. This misses one of the largest (3rd largest) groups of Christians- Anglicans. What a shame!
I found it rather difficult to continue reading after this glaring mistake on page 163 in chapter 11. He discusses how Communion among Christians has been *closed* among Christians. This means only baptized Christians can take part in Holy Communion. Yes, I agree that is extremely important. HOWEVER, Rev. Bernstein makes a HUGE mistake with this sentence: "For example, until the beginning of the twentieth century, Anglicans and Episcopalians practiced closed Communion." Ummmm........ that would make one think that Anglicans no longer practice closed communion. I have news for Rev. Bernstein most if not every Anglican group STILL practices closed Communion in the 21st century. Even in TECUSA, Canon Law does NOT allow/forbids open communion. In fact, Rev. Bernstein seems to think that the standard was that only baptized Christians could partake in Communion. Wrong again. Among Anglicans, a person not only had to baptized but also to be confirmed BEFORE partaking of Holy Communion. In some ways, a stricter standard than what Bernstein think is universally acceptable for Christians. Now I can understand his confusion as the Orthodox baptize and confirm at the same time but that is not universal. The Anglican position has changed somewhat in that now ALL baptized Christians are allowed to take communion regardless of denomination. That change is fairly recent (since 1979 in the USA). So when Bernstein was writing this book, the Anglican practice was that baptized Christians could participate in communion which was recent change from the baptized and confirmed position previously held.
I have to admit after this error, I found it difficult to take seriously what Bernstein said about non Orthodox Christianity. While he may understand Jewish and Orthodox Christian theological positions, his knowledge of other Christian denominations is sadly lacking. Unfortunately, this means his "information" about other christian denominations is often misleading and then uses this mis-"information" to put forth the Orthodox position as the correct position. Alas, this meant I was not particularly receptive to his "arguments" about the Orthodox Church being the One, True Church as his arguments for the Orthodox position were based on misleading/inaccurate info about other Christian denominations. While I enjoyed reading about his spiritual path, I am afraid his glaring lack of knowledge of other Christian denominations means the last half of the book is a waste of time to anyone who has any understanding of other Christian denominations. Hence my rating of two stars.
So if you want an understanding of why and how A. James Bernstein came to faith in Christ, this book is an interesting read. However, just be aware that the last half of the book has misinformation about other Christian denominations.If this is supposed to be a comparison of various Christian theologies, this book is a dismal and total failure. If this is considered a "primer" on Orthodox theology, well..........that is enough reason not to become Orthodox.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Books I am reading in 2012....
I am in the middle of reading two excellent books.
The first book is Our Father ABRAHAM: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin R. Wilson, faculty member of Gordon College. The book is about the history of the early Church as well as the relationship between Church and Synagogue into the late 20th century (1989) when this book was written.
This is an excellent, thought provoking book.
The second is Surprised by Christ: My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity by The Rev. A. James Bernstein. This book is part spiritual autobiography and part primer on basic Orthodox Christian theology. While I enjoyed the spiritual autobiography part, the primer on basic Orthodox theology was not as enjoyable as it was bit took heavy on how the Orthodox Church is the "ONE True Church"- according to A. James Bernstein...... anyway. Overall though, I enjoyed the book even if it is a bit too "preachy" for me.
Two excellent books that I hope you will consider adding to your list of books to read in 2012!
Happy reading in 2012 !
The first book is Our Father ABRAHAM: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin R. Wilson, faculty member of Gordon College. The book is about the history of the early Church as well as the relationship between Church and Synagogue into the late 20th century (1989) when this book was written.
This is an excellent, thought provoking book.
The second is Surprised by Christ: My Journey from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity by The Rev. A. James Bernstein. This book is part spiritual autobiography and part primer on basic Orthodox Christian theology. While I enjoyed the spiritual autobiography part, the primer on basic Orthodox theology was not as enjoyable as it was bit took heavy on how the Orthodox Church is the "ONE True Church"- according to A. James Bernstein...... anyway. Overall though, I enjoyed the book even if it is a bit too "preachy" for me.
Two excellent books that I hope you will consider adding to your list of books to read in 2012!
Happy reading in 2012 !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)