This is your page. Use it to respond to Theophilus columns, express your opinions, ask questions anyone else can respond to, share insights garnered on your spiritual journey. The page will generally be updated with new submissions once daily, as needed, with the latest new threads inserted atop earlier ones, but additions to existing threads added to the bottom of those threads.
Click on green button to go to any thread.
A new letter after six years, and another 'journey to Orthodoxy...Oriental Orthodoxy'
A new letter after six years, and another 'journey to Orthodoxy...Oriental Orthodoxy'
August 30 2005
Hello Theophilus, being a recent convert from evangelicalism to Coptic Orthodoxy and a new resident of the Silicon Valley, I was happy to find your forum. I'm encouraged to read of your conversion experience and perspectives on various issues relating to the Church.
Perhaps I should say a word about my own journey to Orthodoxy. I became a Baptist at 17, a pretty zealous one! And later went on to join the staff of Campus Crusade. But I always had a mystical "bent" and an interest in church history. Studying medieval history in my college classes, I started noticing some discrepancies between the vision of the church I had been taught in church, and the way things really went down. I started to become an advocate for anchoring faith in the ancient church, even long before I considered conversion for myself.
With Campus Crusade, I eventually went overseas and lived in some of the most prominent areas associated with historical Orthodoxy! (though working with Muslims) So I began to read about the Orthodox Church out of a desire to understand my neighbors. I also heard about Fr. Peter Gilquist's book and was curious to know how former bigshots in my organization could make such a radical leap to Orthodoxy. At first I was put off by the book, however, as well as rather political/nationalist behaviors in the Orthodox churches in my area.
Meanwhile my own church experience went from bliss to banal. In one city, the best church option was an Anglican congregation. It was my first taste of liturgical worship, an idea of the sacraments and of worshipping in an historical communion. I then had to move, and in my new city could only find Protestant missionary churches. These were much like the Baptist or charismatic churches back home. I became so depressed over what seemed to me the empty, superfiicially happy and blandly ecumenical nature of these churches. By the time I returned to the US and left Campus Crusade (on good terms), I had almost decided to bag "church" (though not Christ) altogether. I had begun flirting with what is called postmodern or Emergent Christianity, which also is largely made up of people disillusioned with evangelicalism.
In my heart of hearts, though, I knew that wasn't the right way. I decided to go back to the Anglicans, that is, to try to find an Episcopalian church; but before settling on that, to give Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy a chance, too. The rest, I guess, is history, or at least a history that seems common to converts. Reading the works of Timothy Ware and Frederica Matthewes-Green, and also reading the early church fathers. I saw more and more clearly that the Orthodox Church embodied the fullness of the faith as it was meant to be lived and taught.
My two main advisors in this process were also converts, one a deacon in the Antiochian jurisdiction, another a San Jose man in a Coptic congregation. We "met" through an Emergent message board and it was largely their witness to Orthodoxy there that got me really questioning. As you may have guessed, the reason I recently relocated to the Silicon Valley is that my mentor in Orthodoxy became my boyfriend. :) We hope to be married next year.
Our relationship is the primary reason I chose to enter in to the Coptic Church specifically, and it's about that that I wanted to say a word or two. I haven't seen any posts from an Oriental Orthodox perspective. One of your posters wrote, "In the history of the Byzantine Church, there have always been other comunions that HAVE CHOSEN to be a separate family, and therefor break that special union, which finds itself realized in the Eucharistic sacrifice. These groups include the Copts, the Syrian Orthodox, Nestorians and a host of others." I appreciate her respectful and humble tone in addressing the Chalcedonian schism.
Having been nourished by both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches, their continuing separate communions is distressing to me. All the more because I see in both the Orthodox faith alive and well, flourishing and pure. Technically speaking, the Coptic church does not accept the fourth through seventh councils, not because they were not Orthodox, but because they were not really ecumenical. In practice, however, the Oriental churches do hold to the councils' findings. For all intents and purposes, our churches are the same, divided only by the sort of cultural customs that add to the richness of different jurisdictions, and by a tragedy of history. Most EO now recognize this, as expressed by Bishop Ware, who seems optimistic that the two can re-establish communion soon.
As I read the history of this split, I see in it an over-vigilance to preserve the Orthodox faith that unfortunately could not be reconciled. In the face of the Nestorian heresy, the Oriental churches did not wish an explanation of Christ's nature that seemed to imply a split between his humanity and divinity; the Byzantines chose the opposite out of concern over Monophysitism. Perhaps this was the largest blow struck by the heretics, that they were able to divide the Orthodox. Rome cast the tie-breaking vote, Leo I providing what he believed was a quick solution to the problem- his Tome, which he believed had doctrinal soundness by virtue of his status as Bishop of Rome. I think it was Rome's over-eagerness to assert itself that forced the split. If a more organic conciliar process had been allowed to take place, it might never have happened.
No doubt pride played a role. The polemical language surrounding this split is incredible to look back upon. I sense similar notes of partisan pride when I discuss Orthodoxy with Protestants. How our sins can ripple out to affect others in ways we can't imagine!
Thanks for allowing me what has become a rather lengthy commentary. I pray earnestly that I will see communion between these two great and Orthodox churches re-established in my lifetime. I would be happy to hear others' perspectives.
Blessings, Gina
Protestants, Papists, and the Seven Ecumenical Councils
August 1 1999
Dear Theophilos (if you don't mind the Greek spelling),
I'm responding to the contention in one of your posted columns that all Latins and Protestants, as well as the Orthodox, subscribe to the teachings of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils. (I say "first seven" because some Orthodox hold the council that vindicated St. Photios, among others, to be "ecumenical.") This is untrue: many Protestants reject the holdings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which vindicated the Iconodules and resulted in restoration of the holy icons throughout the Eastern Empire. In addition, the holding that the Mother of God is to be called by that name, _pace_ Nestorios, is rejected by many, many Protestants, who gag at the very idea of revering His Mother in any way whatsoever. "Mary," they say with a grimace, is an "issue." This is owing, of course, to their rejection of the incorrect teachings of the Papacy concerning her (such as the nineteenth-century doctrine of the "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary," which reduced her from the purest of humans to the status of a kind of demigoddess); characteristically, Protestants respond to Latin errors with the opposite errors. Many Protestants (Socinians, Adoptionists, and others) join the Armenians, Copts, and Ethiopians in rejecting the teaching of the Fourth Ecumenical Council concerning Christ's two natures. Additionally, some join Origen (anathematized by the Fifth Ecumenical Council) in holding to the preexistence of matter, etc. Jehovah's Witnesses, of course, are Arians.
As to the Latins, well, they reject the holdings of the Second through Seventh Councils that nothing is to be added to the Niceo-Constantinopolitan ("Nicene") Creed. It was precisely an interlineation to that Creed that led to the formal break between Rome and every other Christian community mentioned in the New Testament, in the 11th century. They also distort the teaching of Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council, often quoting its first half (that the bishop of Rome had primacy among all of the world's bishops...) while ignoring the second (... because Rome was the ancient capital of the Empire). Too, they reiterate this point despite the fact that centuries of heresy leave their bishops with no apostolic succession whatsoever!
I could go on, but you get the point. No one holds to the Seven Ecumenical Councils except the Orthodox.
In Christ,
Constantine
Theophilus replies: You interpret Protestant theology one way; the Protestants interpret it another. I agree with you that it's hard to see how Protestantism opposes iconoclasm, but mainstream Protestants all (now, they haven't always) have icons (Christmas cards, even with Mary with a halo, stained glass windows, and so on), they just don't venerate them adequately in my view. However, I don't think it's a good idea for me to tell anyone else what they believe. The Reformed and evangelical churches claim to reject only Rome's latter apostasy, especially indulgences (salvation for sale) and to preserve all that was universally held by the church prior to the great schism. Likewise, the Romans believe that they keep the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, that the three-word addition to it is no big deal. That's their interpretation, not ours as Orthodox, but I don't believe I omitted the fact that our intepretations of some details have differed all along. Obviously, if there were no differences we'd be one big happy church, wouldn't we? And, incidentally, I'm pretty sure your view that Roman claims to apostolic succession are invalid is a minority view even among Orthodox.
A Calvinist's journey to Orthodoxy
July 8 1998
Greetings in Christ. I enjoyed your articles on Calvinism and (your) journey to orthodoxy. I too am on such a journey; I attended a few newcomers' classes, read the books by Scahaeffer, Ware, Schememmen, etc., but got "spooked" by the Credenda Agenda issue criticing Orthodoxy ("Is Orthodoxy Orthodox?"). Like you, I pulled away and decided to do some more reading. Being married and having a family has made the move slower.
The Arminian aspects of Orthodoxy are tolerable / understandable; it does seem, however, that Calvin/Augustine have gotten bad press. I like the balanced approach of Spurgeon, who held to the doctrines of grace, yet preached man's responsibility. He was a man who could laud the Wesleys (in spite of their "Arminian" doctrine) and acknowledge them to be Christians (where some hyper-Calvisists would denounce them as heretics!). God is Sovereign and man is responsible/accountable.
One appealing aspect of Calvinism is that it does encourage reverence for our Holy Lord and humbles man before his Creator. When we received the proper wages for our actions—sin—death—that's justice—the fruit of "free will"—sheep gone astray everyone to his own way. When God gave His Son—the Just for the unjust—so that justice could be satisified and mercy abound forgiveness of sins, everlasting life—that's grace—the Shepherd seeking the lost and carrying them home safely. I've studied both sides—and flip-flopped; both are true, biblical, backed by the church fathers, etc. Perhaps, the church needs to complete the balance and stress God's Sovereighty more; we tend to flatter ourselves and our "free wills" to the point of thinking that when we stomp our feet the earth shakes!
The more history that I read, the more I am convinced that the Orthodox church is the place to be! Anyway, enough of my ramblings. I really appreciate this forum. The peace of the Lord be with you!
Woody Haynesmmmmm
An Orthodox defense of Calvinism
June 6 1998
I finished reading your article, An Orthodox Defense of Calvinism. Having been in Orthodox Presbyterian circles, they would probably say that your view is more of a "weak foreknowledge" view. God looked into the future and saw who was going to choose Him and so He chose them.
Cyril Lucar (1572 - 1638), Patriarch of Constantinople, was favorable toward Protestantism and, particularly, Calvinism. But his Calvinist confession of faith and attempts at reform were repudiated by the Orthodox Church in general. In 1672, Protestantism was condemned by the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem. (Robert G. Clouse, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, page 607)
Somewhere I read that the actual disagreement between the Wesleys (Arminians) and the Calvinists was whether predestination was "particular" (on an individual basis) or general in regards to the church as a whole.
I agree that the eternal security of the Baptists and similar evangelical groups is quite different from the Calvinist concept of perseverance of the saints, the "P" in TULIP. It is actually closer to the Arminian view in that it is a person's perseverance in the good fight of faith that gives grounds for assurance. Those who persevere to the end shall be partakers of Christ (Hebrews 3:14). The main difference would be in the explanation of apostasy. The Calvinist would say that the person was never really a believer or one of the elect in the first place. The Arminian would say the person was, but fell away of their own choice.
As I have read some of Wesley's theology, I have been amazed at the broad areas of agreement with the Westminster Larger Catechism. He even referred to the Catechism when making theological points. He also recognized that man cannot save himself without God's intervention first.
Keep up the good work!
Howard Hampsonmmmmm
Lent before and after
Your comments about Lent remind me of my feelings about Lent as a Protestant-Lutheran. We had midweek Lenten services as well as Maundy Thursday and Good Friday services, but that was nothing compared to the daily services my Orthodox parish offers. During Lent, I used to try to fast on my own by "giving something up," but frequently failed at my efforts, and ended up feeling as if I had "failed" Lent that year. As an Orthodox Christian, I fast as one among the whole Church. When I don't keep the fast completely, it is not a failure for Lent, it is a confirmation that I am young in the faith and in my abilities. It's a bit like being in training for a race. I don't keep the fast completely, or pray enough, or control my passions well, but I'm entering the third grade track meet and not the Olympics. Maybe, someday, I'll do better, and will gain even more from keeping the ascetic virtues better.
Another memory from before was my yearly attempt to read all the Passion Gospels between Thursday and Friday of Holy Week in order to feel I hadn't missed anything, since the lessons assigned to those days were certainly not all-inclusive. Now, the complete Gospel accounts are read during the services of Holy Week. The whole Church experiences and works through Lent together, then we certainly celebrate with great joy the Resurrection of Christ!
Jennifermmmmm
Origin of Theophilus
Who was Theophilus in Luke 1:1 1:2?
Why was the writer of Luke writing to him? Also in Acts?
And of course for our purposes it's just a pen-name intended to make it possible for the author of this column to write freely without stirring up too much controversy in the circulation zone of the newspapers he was editing.
| Questions placement of pastors' letter opposing spousal benefits for 'domestic partners' ( April Theophilus column.) |
Theo:
Enjoy reading your commentary and insight on monthly basis. I was however disappointed to find the letter from valley pastors to the editor concerning the "domestic partners" vote in the city and soon county seat of government, so "unprominently" placed on the "Religion and Ethics" page at the back of the paper.
Now I realize that "Pioneer High School grad," etc. etc and Jenni Jones, Julie Perrucci, etc. etc. and David Thompson all are noteworthy and belong on page 1, but doesn't local erosion of our long-standing system of the "biological family" warrant something better than page 32?
If you understand what the 30+ pastors of our local churches are saying...this is "big time news" for the next generation of our kids! How could you miss the point? I just don't understand.
Saddened,
—Len Carniatommmmm
The editor replies: I would have preferred giving the story much greater play also. However, the letter was received at the last minute with no advance notice from any of the principals involved, and no time for follow-up before print time, leaving me no choice but to place it in the space set aside each month for the Theophilus column.
—Jon Kennedymmmmm
| Thoughts about 'Baptist bride' theory (Topic of March 1996 Theophilus column.) |
Here are some of my thoughts on the Baptist Bride theory:
The early apostolic churches were not independent. One needs to look no further than Acts to see evidence of a binding resolution handed down by a council (regarding the circumcision of gentile converts).
I find it interesting that the Baptist Brides consider the Council of Nicea to be heretical, since many key doctrines that Baptists accept (such as the Trinity) were affirmed once and for all in said council. Also curious is the fact that they accept the Canon of Scripture (NT) chosen by the Orthodox Catholic church which they repudiate. They say they did not come out of Rome, yet the evidence that exists suggests otherwise, whereas there is no evidence to prove that they existed underground until the Reformation.
As far as alarms going off in the event of unification, I guess it depends on how this occurs. If it were liberal-Protestant in nature I would expect it to be a New-Age type of church (not good). If it were Evangelical/Fundamentalist it wouldn't last very long (no doubt the faithful would disagree on key issues). If it were Orthodox/Catholic it would be fine (my bias shows through, no doubt).
As far as being underground makes it difficult to document a church, I would disagree. There are endless epistles and other writings from the first centuries, written by the apostolic fathers, even as they sat in jail. Where are the writings (sermons, commentaries, etc.) of the underground Baptist church? It reminds me of the Mormons [being] unable to produce a schred of solid archeological evidence to back up the claims of the Book of Mormon regarding the presence of Israelites in North America.
Frank Kuruczmmmmm
Finds 'Baptist bride theory' among Plymouth Brethren
Dear "Theophilus":
I was interested to read your articles which I discovered while surfing the 'Net.
Although not yet ordained, I am currently serving as co-pastor (with my wife) of a Reformed Church in America congregation in Michigan.
I read with great interest your articles on Orthodoxy, but I want to comment specifically on the "Baptist Bride" theory. This strikes me as almost identical to the views of many of the Plymouth Brethren with whom I was associated for many years in Australia. Such views are espoused in The Pilgrim Church by E. Hamer Broadbent; the British edition was published by Pickering & Inglis, but there may well be an American edition as well. I do not know what denomination Broadbent belonged to, but the substance of his argument was that the true church was the persecuted minority groups, not the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox or Lutheran Church or any other recognized ecclesiastical body. All such bodies, the Plymouth Brethren believed, are part of "Christendom," which is for the most part apostate, "worldly," and part of the great Babylon the harlot. Of course they recognized that these churches include true believers, but these believers ought to "come out from among them and be separate."
Note that these views are far from universal among Plymouth Brethren, although they were common among those I knew in Australia. The Plymouth Brethren have produced some fine Biblical and theological scholars, including the late F. F. Bruce, Professor of Biblical Studies at Manchester University in Britain and author of a vast number of commentaries and other books on the Bible.
Incidentally, since you have written about Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, it is worth noting that the Anglican Church is the one to which many Plymouth Brethren go when they finally make the break.
Alan Beagleymmmmm
Theophilus replies:
I thought that maybe my replies were discouraging input several months ago, but suspending them hasn't brought more activity on the forum, so I'll return to replying when I have something to say.
I was hoping the article on the 'Baptist bride' would bring more evangelicals to the discussion forum, but except for Alan's reply, it doesn't seem to have worked. We'll keep trying.
I didn't know the Plymouth Brethren had bought into this theory, though I guess there is some overlap between the Plymouth Brethren and the Mennonite Brethren on the continent (though they're widely separated on the spectrum of Protestant theology otherwise; one of their heroes was a British general, I recall, whereas the Mennonites eschew anything having to do with war). I too went through a period of admiring the Plymouth Brethren and still am grateful for many of their contributions. The Bible church movement in the United States has been much influenced by PB's, as has Dallas Theological Seminary, I understand. I still hold great esteem for the late Ray Stedman of Peninsula Bible Church in Palo Alto, Calif., who was influenced by the PB's.
I understand also that the most widespread acceptance the Baptist bride theory ever had was among Landmark Baptists in the American South, mid-19th Century. They were a major component of the Southern Baptist Convention at its founding, though I guess there is still a fragment who call themselves Landmark Baptists who also still subscribe to the theory.
Incidentally, Alan, my ordination was in the Bible Presbyterian Church, which I left about four years after officially entering it. Before converting to Orthodoxy, my last actual church membership was in the Reformed Church of America congregation here in San Jose, the Church of the Chimes, where I was an elder and occasional pulpit supply.
| Not all independent Baptists hold to 'bride' theory |
June 6, 1998
With respect to your Baptist Bride article, not all independent Baptists hold to this position (I for one). I in fact did my doctoral thesis on this position, sometimes referred to as "Landmarkism"—your article mixes quite a bit of fact with error with respect to actual church history and the nonconformist, Bible-believing groups that eventually resulted in independent Baptist (and Baptistic) local assemblies.
Although such a position should be clearly rejected as nonscriptural (as well as foolish and arrogant), please be careful not to paint all Baptists with the same brush and to gloss over the actual facts of church history as you have.
Jeff Williams
Theophilus replies: Having been an independent Baptist myself for several years, it was never my intention to convey the idea that all independent Baptists hold this theory. Though I had heard of it before receiving the letter, I had never known anyone who taught or believed the theory. The column, except for my introduction, is a letter as received from a former member of a church where the theory is still taught and it conveys his impressions without intending to speak for anyone else.
| Thoughts about lawyer's letter |
I have been thinking about the letter from the lawyer who left the Protestant fundamentalist camp to join the Orthodox Church. What grabbed my attention is the pain which he and his extended family have experienced. He used the words disllusioned, wondered how a church could fall apart, etc., where was God in all this? I don't have a question nor do I question the move— I just wonder about the painfulness of life, of what it does in our spiritual lives, and community.
I believe that the Campus Crusade leaders who gave early impetus to this movement were also part of a "split" from Dr Bill Bright, over authority, and probably, disappointment with how things were turning out. Again, that doesn't negate their actions and hopefully they are happy in their not-so-new situation. I guess I found myself nodding in agreement with the lawyer's cries, and thought I would respond. Thank you.
Timmmmmm
| New thread 2-12-96 |
What is apostasy?
Frank Kurucz writes:
Hello!
Things have been a little quiet here lately, so I'll ask a provoking question: What is "Apostasy"? Some time ago I was having a friendly discussion with an aquaintance that is a member of the Mormon church. He claims that after all the Apostles had died the church "fell into apostasy". I confronted him on that claim. After some discussion it became evident that we were using two different definitions for the word apostate.
From what I have read an apostate is someone who renounces the faith entirely and reverts to his or her former status (perhaps pagan). His definition was someone who left the Mormon (LDS) church, but not necessarily rejected Christ, which to me would be the definition of a heretic, but not an apostate.
When I pressed him as to where he obtained his definition, he admitted that it was from the book of Mormon. To add an interesting twist, I have heard of some fundamentalists that make the same claim of early church apostacy (which makes me wonder if this is where Mormons really got this concept from).
Frankmmmmm
READER REPLIES? As this is the first letter this forum has received in almost six weeks (after a good, quick start in December) I'm going to "butt out" in favor of encouraging other readers to reply, hoping that will increase mail to the forum. I will reply when a question is directed specifically to me, as for example regarding a Theophilus column.
Theophilusmmmmm
| New thread 1-2-96 | | Latest update: 1-6-96 |
Can Catholic Church approve marriage of couple past childbearing age?
Hypothetical but possible situation: a 55-year-old childless widow past menopause and a sterile 60-year-old childless widower request a Catholic marriage. If everything else is approved of by the Catholic Church, can the Church approve of and sanctify the marriage of two such people given that they will not have children? If so, how does the Catholic definition of marriage accommodate these people? Thank you for any light you may shed on this issue.
THEOPHILUS REPLIES: I've never been a Roman Catholic, but the 1995 Catechism of the Catholic Church says this about marriages between infertile partners (paragraph 1654): "Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice." I believe that although this doesn't directly deal with age, it would apply to any post-childbearing Catholics wishing to marry. Any further light any knowledgeable reader(s) can shed will be appreciated. Though Catholic marriages must be based on "openness to fertility" (paragraph 1652), I have not heard of any prohibition of marriage in which infertility pre-existed through natural causes.
| New thread 12-29-95 | | Latest update: 1-4-96 |
What about the religious role of British royalty?
Lola Lee writes:
I am an Orthodox Christian who has quite some interest in the royalty (I must admit I'm a closet monarchist, as an American
). I'm a big fan of Diana, Princess of Wales, and have always felt that Prince Charles treated her very shabbily in not taking his marriage vow to forsake other women and become one in body and spirit with his wife seriously enough. (Just because he is a member of the royalty class does not give him an excuse to have affairs— if so, my understanding of the royal class was that they were held to a higher standard than the rest of us.) Now I hear that Queen Elizabeth, who's recognized as the head of the Church of England, has urged them publicly to get a divorce. While the Church of England is changing, quite alarmingly so (with people like [Episcopal Bishop] Spong and "female" priests), surprisingly the hierarchy decided to have their say and put up as a condition that Prince Charles must forever break off his relationship with Camilla Parker-Bowles if he has any hope of being able to remarry and stay on his throne as King of England, if he ever survives Queen Elizabeth. And he's known to have some interest in other religious groups, including those that aren't Christian by any definition.
I guess what I'm leading up to are two question:
Will the status of the English ruler as the Head of Church of England cease to exist?
If Prince Charles, after he becomes King of England, continues to profess ideas that might be considered contrary to Christianity, can he be pointed out as a heretic, especially due to the status outlined above?
Will English rulers in the future be able to be an Orthodox Christian, high-or low-Anglican, or even a Buddhist, if the "Head of the Church" status is done away with?
Sorry for being so long-winded, but these are interesting questions that beg to be answered, especially when so many people from the Anglican church are looking closer at Orthodox Christianity, and the remaining membership continues to decline more and more in the Church of England.
THEO'S COMMENT: Maybe I'm too Irish to care enough about most of these issues, to have many opinions on them. I recognize that many people do care about them, however, and that they are in some senses vital to England. It's hard to imagine the monarchy without the Church of England, and in what sense would it be the "Church of England" if it were no longer tied to the monarch?
My only other comment is that it has always seemed to me that the English monarchy, like our own "royal family" here in the states—the Kennedys of Massachusetts—considered itself above the moral law and even the social mores. I agree that if there's going to be a monarchy, it has to be held to a higher standard than the poor blackguards on the street. In my purview, the only Monarchy that did so to a noticeable extent, in modern history, was the Russian nobility, many members of which became monastics and some of whom became martyrs for their Christian faith. Just a little grist for the mill....
Episcopalians are not Anglicans —'Judy'
Dear Theophilus,
As a former Episcopalian I'd like to point out that —although I cannot clarify it authoritatively, and may get some bits and pieces wrong (unabashed bait for those who know to speak up)—Episcopalian and Anglican are not synonymous. Episcopalians are found in the US, (Canada, I guess) and, I think, Scotland. Episcopalians are, therefore, not the same as the Church of England (in fact, that is why they are Episcopalians and not specifically Anglicans; because they don't have the King and Queen of England at the head.) (And my grammar notwithstanding...)
Now that I have thoroughly obligated myself to the net-error of being wrong (in some way, I'm sure) I will wait patiently for clarification... but, at least we may clear up this issue!
Judymmmmm
THEO'S REPLY: It's my understanding that the Anglican church in what were then the colonies changed its name to the Protestant Episcopal Church at the time of the American Revolution to lessen conflicts of loyalty. The same church was the official state church of Virginia until well after the states gained their independence. The Episcopal Church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion and respects the Archbishop of Canterbury as first in honor among bishops, similar to the way most Orthodox honor the Patriarch of Constantinople. But I could be wrong....
Send your opinions, comments, questions, insights to Theophilus Forum.
Go to the Theophilus Religion and Ethics
Home Page
© 1998, 2005 JRK