I promise that I'm not taking over...

Hello all,

I promise that I'm not taking over the blog, but I have Anglicanism on the brain, so I thought that I would share. I finished EOTCT (I liked the introduction of an acronym Rach) this morning, and I have to say that I'm still somewhat disappointed with it. I wanted us to read a book about Anglicanism that would be a clear introduction, but also interesting and relevant... and since this talked about evangelicals being drawn to Anglicanism, it seemed like just the thing. Perhaps because it is a meditation on a personal journey there's a lot in it that is specific to his experience that isn't exactly relevant to mine. I did like the later chapters a bit more, especially when he shared his experiences of a separated church, and that he values Anglicanism for being a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism. I think that's the level on which Anglicanism should be discussed; yes the liturgical worship is different in important ways from contemporary evangelical services -- but some of this is just aesthetic. I attended the evangelical non-denominational 'mega church' in downtown Boston last month... and from the service I could have been in a mainline Lutheran church. It was sort of 1/2 liturgical, we used hymn books, did call and response etc. The Anglican liturgy is vital and important... but I wish that Webber had focused less on it being 'mysterious'. And Rach, your point about the overuse of impenetrable is right on...

I hope that this isn't a too negative assesment of the book. Perhaps it was meant as a gentle introduction to Anglicanism, but I suppose I want something more substantial at this point. I thought I would share with you all the books I'm checking out of the library this afternoon (I'm not actually suggesting anyone read this with me, but I want to do some reading in preparation for being confirmed, and I thought I would share). I realize that at this moment I'm very much on a road towards denominational identity change, so that is where my thoughts and emotions are... and I don't want to co-op the blog for that purpose. But I love sharing these thoughts with you guys, so I'll just keep going.

Some books I'm considering:
-Anglicanism: A very short introduction by Mark Chapman
-Anglican approaches to scripture by Rowan A. Greer
-Paul in Fresh Perspective by NT Wright
-Anglicanism: The Answer to Modernity by Duncan Dormor

Just some titles and thoughts. I hope that I'm not going Episcopal-crazy.... but I figure, if you want to learn about something, you might as well read about it.

HELP!!!

To put my problem succinctly:

1. I'm seriously considering being confirmed in the Anglican church after Easter. I would do confirmation classes during Lent, and then the service is the Sunday after Easter.

2. Would like all of your thoughts.

3. I told Phoebe about this, and she expressed her concern that since the Episcopal church condones homosexuality that I would be associating myself with a denomination that openly supports a sin.

4. I told her I didn't think homosexuality was a sin. Discussion ensued. I just think about the WHOLE thing in a different framework than she does, and so she sees it as either accepting the Bible as being true, or deciding to ignore the Bible in order to accept homosexuality. I disagree with the way she is reading the Bible, and think that it is possible to read it a different way and still take it seriously.

5. So I am traveling down the liberal road with no good end in sight? Am I straying from the true church? These are my concerns.

AH!

keeping things interesting.

i have decided to get into blogging. so...in an effort to keep people's attention, i am posting this awesome picture. i know it isn't about the canterbury trail, but...isn't it funny? 

at long last...

so, as lori would say, "better to come late to the party than not at all," right?

i have now officially read the first chapter of EOTCT, which, as it turns out, is only 8 pages. why didn't someone tell me that two months ago? and while i appreciated hearing about webber's journey, i can't say that i resonate too much with it. for me, "rationalistic christianity" was life changing. i grew up in an evangelical church that lacked substance and relied on emotion and fear to motivate people to "salvation." when i reached westmont and started to take classes in philosophy and theology that explored questions of faith from a reason-based perspective, it changed my outlook on christianity. in fact- unlike webber- i loved every moment of apologetics. and in that apologetics class (thank god for wennberg), we even read chesterton's mystery-filled "orthodoxy." perhaps i have westmont professors (and god) to thank for helping me reach a vision of god that fulfilled both my intellectual and emotional yearnings. i am thankful that my church home in santa barbara also seems to balance the mystery of faith with the rationale of it. as the search continues for a church in sacramento, i am even more thankful for that. who knows- maybe i'll end up on the canterbury trail myself...

other things i learned in chapter 1: 

• it is not a good idea to use the word "impenetrable" more than once on a page. i don't care if you're talking about the jungle or the mystery of faith- find a different word. 
• did anyone else think that after webber wept and wept in his office, then his research assistant joined him in weeping, and then his class wept with him, the whole wheaton student body just might weep with him too during chapel?!? come on webber! that story needed a climax. (okay, okay, i guess having a renewed vision of God constitutes a climax.)
• it is unfortunate at this point in history that webber chose to describe god as a "maverick," but how could he have known?