But I’d challenge whether or not the CofE does get priests to promise to teach the creeds. If you do promise to teach it (as in teach it as a matter of faith, rather than a historical document that you disagree with) then it does seem that Anglican clergy have a moral duty to sort that out …
As to that I don’t know. I’m inclined to think that an Anglican priest actually serving at the moment has a clearer idea than I do about what he swore to teach when he took the position. 
is the link for the discussion on the Creed of Athanasius Jason refers to above (it’s a very good discussion Pog)
Agree (none of this has been about the accuracy of your/Jason comments at all - only Peter’s) - though I’m not sure there’s any real consistency in the CofE regarding almost any doctrinal position, let alone the true extent, interpretation, use and validity of the Athansian Creed. I really wish it was clear, but it isn’t - either on the CofE website or in books about them or amongst their theologians or history.
I have a vested interest as I am considering joining the CofE as no other denomination (that I know of, or which is represented anywhere near me) seems close to being able to accept my theological views (I’ve already been called a heretic in my current church). OH well 
thanks for link, sobornost
Pog,
Is it necessary to actually join? Can’t you just attend and participate? My husband and I elected not to officially join the last church we attended (even though we were active) because the ‘covenants’ we would have had to sign were in many places just plain silly, and we knew we weren’t going to abide by them. The pastor protested that no one was expected to abide by those covenants (or the silly bits, anyway). But neither of us were prepared to sign a document promising (for example) not to shop on Sunday and then stop on the way home from church to buy gasoline, or not to watch movies and then pop in a disk of some old or new favorite on a cold evening. If they don’t expect people to abide by the silly bits, then take them out if they want people to join. It’s ridiculous to expect (in effect) that their prospective members be willing to falsely promise to do or refrain from doing this or that when everyone fully expects these rules to be ignored by 99% of new members.
Of course not joining would be a problem if the CoE has a closed communion . . . none of the churches I’ve ever attended have restricted who could take communion. But I don’t for a moment believe you have to be ordained by people before you can have communion with your believing friends, or baptize a new believer, etc. Scripture doesn’t teach that.
I hope you can get it sorted, Pog. Community is important.
Blessings, Cindy
Sort of. The problem is that my wife and I wish to be quite active in the church (my wife sets up Sunday schools) and In previous churches I’ve been part of leadership, deaconate, bible teacher, lay preacher, and all kinds of other stuff … And I intend to become involved in ‘ministry’ in some way. Trouble is, as I’ve gradually become more qualified for the role, I’ve also become increasingly removed from the theology of most (seemingly all) churches … The CofE was really a last ditch attempt at finding somewhere where I could train for ordination, as they seem broad enough to welcome even oddities such as myself
If I wanted to just attend and worship, then I’d be content to go almost anywhere (for myself - I’d still be looking for somewhere my young son could enjoy, a very great difficulty in England where about 40% of churches have no kids work whatsoever, and those that do are mostly pants). Not that I’d go very often, church is often a very depressing experience here.
I’ve had little luck with churches for almost all my time as a Christian, so I might just have to get used to the idea of being forever a ‘fringe’ attendee.
[tag]revdrew61[/tag] knows a lot more about C of E’s stance on UR. I was recently talking to him about it:
I’ve also started reading an article by James Gould who discusses this further.
Hmm, okay . . . how about this? (In case it’s interesting to you at all.) lk10.com/ I wouldn’t even consider a regular church at this point, but not out of malice or anything. It just isn’t for everyone.
Thanks for the info and comments, Alex and Cindy.
The history of UR in Anglicanism is certainly interesting ( and complex), and it’s pretty clear that the Athanasian creed is largely ignored by a lot of modern clergy (witness the number of annis and universalists in CofE). The link you gave, Alex, is dripping with info - it’ll take a while to go through all that
But my problem is that it is unclear whether you’re ‘supposed’ to be ECT if you sign up to be an Anglican priest. The CofE Declaration of Assent seems to imply that you must believe and accept the Athanasian Creed - even if ordinands promptly ignore it afterwards. If that is the case then I’m not prepared to say I believe something I don’t, even if its accepted that no one really means what they’re saying.
That’s an interesting link Cindy. I’ve certainly considered house church before, but it really didn’t go anywhere. I’ll take a look at that site - very interesting . Thanks for the info.
I’ve e-mailed the CofE direct about this issue, if I get a reply ill let you know. Not that I expect one, but …
I found it interesting when Peter was talking about the end of the Athanasius Creed. I don’t think that it is biblical to say that unless you hold to every single facet of that creed (including ect) you cannot be saved. the only qualification that Jesus made was that we believe in Him.
I’ll be interested in how the CofE responds to that email enquiry. There has always been a struggle for influence and power between those who want to keep the CofE broad and open to different perspectives and those who want to narrowly define who is in and who is out. Currently I would say the broad open lot are winning the struggle and there seems to be more mutual generosity across the church’s traditional divides than I have seen before. I really think it is a move of the Holy Spirit. Pog, I’d encourage you to pursue your vocation by speaking to your parish priest and through him/her arranging to see the Vocations Adviser or DDO.
It was an interesting discussion. I look forward to the movie release in DVD. I thought Kevin did a good job explaining why he presented the material as he did. And I thought Peter’s negative reaction to the Hell House presentation was off. I mean, preachers describe Hell and seek to influence people to follow Jesus to avoid Hell, so a group doing a graphic drama communicating their beliefs in Hell only seems reasonable.
Yeah, one of the things that I really like about being in the CofE is the variety of opinions allowed and the encouragement of questioning.
I think because he reluctantly holds to eternal conscious torment, he wouldn’t bring it up all the time. The idea of a hell house seems almost like turning the whole concept into a pantomime/fairground ride, which, he may see as irreverence to the reality of eternal conscious torment.I am closer to Glenn’s view, but I think that you don’t need to and shouldn’t frighten people into converting. For one thing, it is God that converts and I am unsure how effective the fear of hell is for bringing people to God. However, I know that God reached me through my fear of hell, and while it became a real issue in my faith later on, I think that God can work with any part of you that trusts Him, even if it comes from a place of fear or self preservation.
Thanks for the comments revdrew, given that I seem to have inadvetanly run the thread off-topic I’m gonna start a new thread on whether Anglican priests can (in good conscience) be universalists. I too look forward to recieving a reply from the CofE, but I doubt whether they will.
I too am a little confused as to the substantive difference between scaring people into the Kingdom via the visual means of a hell-house, and the auditory and verbal means of a hellfire sermon. If one is wrong, surely the other is also? Or does Peter think that hell should only be discussed in careful, hushed tones?
I’m also a bit confused as to how people can say they are repulsed and scared by the topic of hell, yet also claim that God’s will is always perfect, holy and good. Surely they should rejoice in the just judgements of God (as did many earlier theologians). I can understand the psychological and cultural reluctance to glory in hell, or to talk strongly of hellfire, but it doesn’t seem to work theologically.
I think the difference is that if eternal conscious torment is to be preached, then the horrors of it need to be reflected in the minister’s reactions (I think there was a quote about never speaking of hell without tears in your eyes). A hell house seems like the wrong medium to convey hell in any way that would be taken seriously.
I look forward to joining in on the new thread
Your input will be welcome, revdrew It’s a tricky and complex topic …
It seems to me that if Hell were true then communicating the reality of that would be important, whether that be communicated in a play, Hell House, movie, documentary, or graphically preaching on it - if it were true - whatever the then emotional expression of the minister. And IF Jesus’ warnings concerning Hinnom Valley really did convey ECT, then one can see Jesus doing just that. “Eternal flames” and “worms that die not”, outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth are very graphic terminology that should effectively scare anyone. (Of course, I think these did not imply ECT, but spoke of the terrible devastation of sin in this life and potential shame, regret, and remorse in the life to come.) But if Hell were true, I could see Jesus participating in a “Hell House” to effectively communicate the message of fear that the doctrine of Hell is meant to illicit.
So to me, affirming belief in ECT and yet thinking of communicating that “truth” via such graphic means as a Hell House or play seems contradictory. But of course, Hell is not “Good News” and no one likes to be the bearer of “Bad News”. It’s no wonder that relatively few Christians speak of it except in passing.
Hmm, if hell is God’s will, and we love God and desire for His will to be done, then why would we speak of hell with tears in our eyes? It doesn’t follow for me. And I don’t believe hell is possible unless it IS God’s will as He is clearly, from scripture, omnipotent. Nothing He desires to do can be denied Him. No one has successfully required anything of Him, and certainly nothing against His will. He is not obligated to stop working in the unbeliever’s heart simply because we say that physical death is the cut-off line. HE never said that. Why should we expect Him to follow OUR lead?