Anglicanism and the Emptiness of Emptiness

[rideforever]

I have been attending two Bible study groups for several years near me, one Catholic and one Anglican.

 

One thing I notice about the Anglicans is that they absolutely do not come to church to listen to Jesus or follow the teachings, or anything like that.  To be Anglican is to imagine yourself to be a higher order of Christian, a smart Christian.  Who knows all about neuroscience etc... and "understands" that all these silly well meaning people are really doing something to do with endorphins or psychotherapy ... all those great sciency things they have been learning from the TV every night on the BBC News.

 

And because they are so certain, and know for sure that Christianity is really a form of hormone manipulation and psychology, then they do participate in all that kneeling and "praying" and all that kind of stuff .... very "sincerely" ... that know for sure it's all meaningless, so they keep doing these old things to humour the silly fools.   Hopefully one day the silly fools will realise it's all like the TV says, all brain hormones and psychology. 

 

And so, the Anglicans don't feel completely insincere it what they are doing.   

They don't feel that they are total frauds, and doing exactly what Jesus taught them to do.

They do not feel that they "do not know the day, nor the hour".

 

So the first thing required to be "spiritual" is to be able to separate yourself from the TV that raised you.   If you can't do that, you can't begin.

[Jeff]

7 minutes ago, rideforever said:

I have been attending two Bible study groups for several years near me, one Catholic and one Anglican.

 

One thing I notice about the Anglicans is that they absolutely do not come to church to listen to Jesus or follow the teachings, or anything like that.  To be Anglican is to imagine yourself to be a higher order of Christian, a smart Christian.  Who knows all about neuroscience etc... and "understands" that all these silly well meaning people are really doing something to do with endorphins or psychotherapy ... all those great sciency things they have been learning from the TV every night on the BBC News.

 

And because they are so certain, and know for sure that Christianity is really a form of hormone manipulation and psychology, then they do participate in all that kneeling and "praying" and all that kind of stuff .... very "sincerely" ... that know for sure it's all meaningless, so they keep doing these old things to humour the silly fools.   Hopefully one day the silly fools will realise it's all like the TV says, all brain hormones and psychology. 

 

And so, the Anglicans don't feel completely insincere it what they are doing.   

They don't feel that they are total frauds, and doing exactly what Jesus taught them to do.

They do not feel that they "do not know the day, nor the hour".

 

So the first thing required to be "spiritual" is to be able to separate yourself from the TV that raised you.   If you can't do that, you can't begin.

 

Where is this Anglican Church located?  As I can tell you I was just recently at one in Rhode Island that even had the queen’s minister visit and it definitely was not at all around higher or neuroscience.  If anything, the Anglican/Especispal church in the North East US is very “fire and brimstone”. More focused on the sinner aspect than the redemption aspect.

 

Sounds like it may be a very interesting scientific bible study, but really has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.  

[rideforever]

This was in Brighton UK.

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

This was in Brighton UK.

 

Thanks.  So was your OP is saying that at your local church people are really just going through the motions and don't believe in anything they do as it is really just a deluded brain chemistry thing?

[rideforever]

3 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Thanks.  So was your OP is saying that at your local church people are really just going through the motions and don't believe in anything they do as it is really just a deluded brain chemistry thing?

 

The point is that they do not detect any insincerity within themselves because they are certain that the conventional story on the TV is the right one.   So then they are free to go to church and go through the motions "knowing" what the "real meaning" of such practices is.  i.e. that it is all meaningless, that spirituality is not real, Jesus and God don't exist, that it all amounts to psychotherapy and brain chemistry, which is "nice".   And because they are so certain about that, they don't feel any sense of guilt shame or insincerity.

 

And I think this is typical of many people in society that we might call insincere or corrupt.   They simply are so far away from the truth and so certain of themselves, they detect no the slightest cause for self-reflection.

 

Or put it another way, there seem to be many people in society who have no soul and no contact with truth and are life-sized automatons of a machine-like culture, and who beam with confidence and act forcefully in the world, but are in fact empty shells with nobody inside.   

 

All of which creates a painful and jarring world to live in, full of assault on truth, a world that some have called Maya / Samsara or Hell.

[Jeff]

9 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

The point is that they do not detect any insincerity within themselves because they are certain that the conventional story on the TV is the right one.   So then they are free to go to church and go through the motions "knowing" what the "real meaning" of such practices is.  i.e. that it is all meaningless, that spirituality is not real, Jesus and God don't exist, that it all amounts to psychotherapy and brain chemistry, which is "nice".   And because they are so certain about that, they don't feel any sense of guilt shame or insincerity.

 

And I think this is typical of many people in society that we might call insincere or corrupt.   They simply are so far away from the truth and so certain of themselves, they detect no the slightest cause for self-reflection.

 

Or put it another way, there seem to be many people in society who have no soul and no contact with truth and are life-sized automatons of a machine-like culture, and who beam with confidence and act forcefully in the world, but are in fact empty shells with nobody inside.   

 

All of which creates a painful and jarring world to live in, full of assault on truth, a world that some have called Maya / Samsara or Hell.

 

Ok. Thanks. While I would agree that there are many such people just going through the motions, I would also say there are many sincere Christians that leverage the gospels/teachings of Jesus as a very effective spiritual path.  Many highly evolved followers of Jesus.  

 

Sorry to hear that your local church experience is such as it is. Is your catholic experience the same, or just with the Anglican Church?

[rideforever]

17 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Sorry to hear that your local church experience is such as it is. Is your catholic experience the same, or just with the Anglican Church?

 

No, my experience of Catholicism is quite strange actually.   I found the Catholic churches to be packed and wholesome, with people of the less well off and less arrogant classes filling the pews, whole families, 3 generations and various traditional things like Christams trees decorated by the parish's children.   I don't usually sit through mass, but I have seen that frequently you can only stand at the two local Catholic churches, the Sacred Heart and St Peters.
So frankly I was totally shocked, I thought this had all died a death but it seems not.   

And although these people are relatively simple minded and unintellectual, it seems to me they take Communion and it goes in.
Whereas the Anglicans seem attract intellectual people and LGB crowd.

 

The second bible study is at the Sacred Heart.   

It is clear to me that almost nobody in either group can read the Bible because as soon as they open the book the MGM music starts up and they are transported to the land of myth fable and thunder, and the words on the page are blurred by the music in their heads.
But at least the Catholics approach it with the right kind of heart, some organic essence is in their practice, and somehow it goes in.
Whereas the Anglicans just lack that organic sincerity, and in fact the Anglican group has started to mix in teachings that they imagine are Buddhist (taught by a white guy in a book), it is very a la mode to bring Buddhism into whatever you are doing, even making lattes or walking the dog.

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

No, my experience of Catholicism is quite strange actually.   I found the Catholic churches to be packed and wholesome, with people of the less well off and less arrogant classes filling the pews, whole families, 3 generations and various traditional things like Christams trees decorated by the parish's children.   I don't usually sit through mass, but I have seen that frequently you can only stand at the two local Catholic churches, the Sacred Heart and St Peters.
So frankly I was totally shocked, I thought this had all died a death but it seems not.   

And although these people are relatively simple minded and unintellectual, it seems to me they take Communion and it goes in.
Whereas the Anglicans seem attract intellectual people and LGB crowd.

 

The second bible study is at the Sacred Heart.   

It is clear to me that almost nobody in either group can read the Bible because as soon as they open the book the MGM music starts up and they are transported to the land of myth fable and thunder, and the words on the page are blurred by the music in their heads.
But at least the Catholics approach it with the right kind of heart, some organic essence is in their practice, and somehow it goes in.
Whereas the Anglicans just lack that organic sincerity, and in fact the Anglican group has started to mix in teachings that they imagine are Buddhist (taught by a white guy in a book), it is very a la mode to bring Buddhism into whatever you are doing, even making lattes or walking the dog.

 

Most churches are highly dependent on direction based upon the local pastor/priest.  Sets the local tone and then the congregation tends to reflect or share the views.  

 

If you (or anyone) is interested in some really great catholic teachings, I highly recommend Bishop Robert Barron.  His podcasts are part of the core US catholic outreach and they are very good.  He is highly intelligent and can put it all in a coherent framework, without the classical fire and brimstone perspective. He is also very familiar with buddhist and hindu traditions and can easily differentiate. Have been trying to figure out a way to have dinner with him for years.  

[rideforever]

14 minutes ago, Jeff said:

years

 

Thanks I'll check him out.
I have been listening to a lot of Tumblar House on youtube with Charles Coulombe, publisher of Catholic books.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

To clarify, in the US, the Anglican Church, AKA, the Church of England, is called the Episcopalian Church, and you can find them all over the place in the US.  However, none of the things that rideforever has mentioned have anything to do with Anglican theology and what an Anglican or Episcopalian is supposed to believe, but then the Anglican Church did produce Alan Watts, and they never expelled him for all of the "Eastern" things he talked about, why should they get huffy about the reductionist scientism that is apparently making its way into the Church.

 

To the Anglican the ritual, even up to the Eucharist itself, is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace", if you perform it or otherwise participate in it, in theory that Grace will eventually manifest, and if not, well then you at least tried and after death that will be taken into account, as long as it was done sincerely.  That is what the "covenant" is all about, and you are not going to understand anything about this without understanding what Romans and Anglicans believe about the covenant, and how it works.  Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics, yes, they do consider themselves to be Catholic, have related, but sufficiently different ideas about the "covenant" and what it means, to have been arguing about it for centuries.

 

I don't believe any of this myself, but you have to understand what the leaders of these sects believe about the "covenant" to understand their attitudes to ritual and its performance and efficacy, and why they believe, rightly or wrongly, that it will be effective for ultimate salvation.

 

ZYD

[Jeff]

8 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

To clarify, in the US, the Anglican Church, AKA, the Church of England, is called the Episcopalian Church, and you can find them all over the place in the US.  However, none of the things that rideforever has mentioned have anything to do with Anglican theology and what an Anglican or Episcopalian is supposed to believe, but then the Anglican Church did produce Alan Watts, and they never expelled him for all of the "Eastern" things he talked about, why should they get huffy about the reductionist scientism that is apparently making its way into the Church.

 

To the Anglican the ritual, even up to the Eucharist itself, is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and Spiritual Grace", if you perform it or otherwise participate in it, in theory that Grace will eventually manifest, and if not, well then you at least tried and after death that will be taken into account, as long as it was done sincerely.  That is what the "covenant" is all about, and you are not going to understand anything about this without understanding what Romans and Anglicans believe about the covenant, and how it works.  Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics, yes, they do consider themselves to be Catholic, have related, but sufficiently different ideas about the "covenant" and what it means, to have been arguing about it for centuries.

 

I don't believe any of this myself, but you have to understand what the leaders of these sects believe about the "covenant" to understand their attitudes to ritual and its performance and efficacy, and why they believe, rightly or wrongly, that it will be effective for ultimate salvation.

 

ZYD

 

Very good point. The only major theological difference between the two is that the Anglican Church does not recognize the Pope, and that communication is consubstantiation and transubstantiation with communion.  Meaning that Anglicans/Episcopalians believe that in communion the bread and wine has all of the power of the body and blood, but does not actually get converted into body and blood with the sacrament. 

[rideforever]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

The only major theological difference between the two is that the Anglican Church does not recognize the Pope,

 

What about their LGB views ?

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, rideforever said:

 

What about their LGB views ?

 

Sure, and they can have female pastors and be divorced (which is why the Anglican Church was formed in the first place) where that is not something with Catholics.  Anglicans changed a bunch of detail stuff (like female pastors) in the late 1970s, but nothing in what I call theological differences.  Differences like that are more about the interpretation than the actual theological aspects.  As an example, the catholic church says that the Pope can still grant indulgences like in did in the Middle Ages, but there is no actual bible or gospel support of such, it is just something the Pope came up with and pushed out.

 

On the Pope thing, it has always been amazing to me because Jesus does specifically say in the gospels that you should call no man father (only the Father above), and then the first thing the Pope does is  call himself holy father, declare power and ignore Jesus's teaching/warning about what he just did.