Anglicans Should Do The Right Thing
A cradle Anglican from Canada writes on the church and its message for those looking for a place to worship and finding a spiritual home:
"Traditional churches like the Anglican Church can't afford not to
change with the times. Lots of people my age and younger aren't cradle
Anglicans or cradle Baptists, or what have you. Even if they are, they
join their unaffiliated peers and go church-shopping, comparing
different service and churches until they find one where they fill (sic)
fulfilled and comfortable. Does the Anglican Church really want to
start turning people away because it's hung up on tradition and rules?But that's really a practical concern. More pressing is the question
Cruikshank posed rhetorically: Do we want to treat people as human or
sub-human? "
These are the feelings of Gen-x and y folks trying to win their peers back to a church where they can find a place with God that isn't going to bash them over the head with dogma, sola scriptura or the gospel of selfishness.
Read it all HERE
-----
Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.
Speaking as someone who fits right on the border of Gen X and Gen Y, I don't think the problem is tradition. Rather it's *which* tradition and how does that tradition get deployed...
Posted by Derek Olsen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 10, 2007 11:42 PM
Hi Derek: I agree with you to a certain extent, but with regard to the "which" tradition, I think my peers tend to avoid even considering Christianity because of preconceived notions of what church is. Those strongholds may be based on their childhood experiences, on televangelists, or because somewhere along the line, they got judged for being different. I spend more time among the unchurched, so I guess my perspective is that I know people who lump many negatives under the term "church," not the least of which being homophobia and judgmentalism.
Certainly, we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to appealing to the unchurched; tradition is an important part of being Anglican and I think a lot of the current conflict is over which traditions are worth keeping and which are not. What the author here is saying, I think, is the benchmark for gauging the importance of any particular tradition (as you say, *which* tradition) is whether the tradition is a barrier to inclusivity. But for many gen-xers I know, all church tradition is a barrier, and helping people get comfortable in their tentative faith-spaces and helping them acclimate to "tradition" is a very important ministry.
Posted by Helen Thompson (Gallycat)![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 11, 2007 8:09 AM
I'd agree with that, Helen. But, many of the people I know who don't attend anywhere are--like the author of the article--de-churched rather than unchurched.I think that's an important distinction. You're right about them not wanting to be part of a judgemental community. On the other hand, I also see them looking for a sense of the sacred that's got deep roots. Traditional spirituality and traditional liturgy are an asset, not a hindrance.
Posted by Derek Olsen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 11, 2007 12:52 PM
Considering recent statements from the Canadian House of Bishops, and expectations of General Synod, we may see some significant leadership from our Canadian siblings, of all generations.
Posted by mscottsail![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
May 11, 2007 12:54 PM