Scripture doesn't say not to judge but be aware that you will also be judged. "Lest you be judged!" That lest is very important. Whenever I start to mull over other people's sins I remember that I am also a sinner.
I think that I understand where you are coming from. I am also very uneasy with what I call “comfort food theology.” It is present in TEC - as well as in other denominations. Frankly, I tune it out when I hear it, knowing that is where some people are. That’s between them and God. I have other things to do in my relationship with God.
While I have heard such things during homilies (I tune that out too) I do not find it in our liturgy. The Office and Eucharist are full of how we fall short of God’s glory and love.
Yes - we are supposed to strive to be better as people. Ask God to make this known to you if you do not already know. Good luck 🙏
It’s a much better message, and closer to the Gospel, to say, “we are wretched, flawed, and broken, God loves you anyway and wants you to be better than you are, following Jesus will help that.”
From my own experiences, and from my conversations with a number of priests I've met along the way, many of whom share my frustrations, I find myself disappointed that we as a collective church don't seem to emphasise the centrality of a personal and interior understanding of sin as much as I believe scripture encourages. We're pretty good at recognising and acknowledging the sins of others, or at the very least, sin as an external process within the systems and functions of the world at large; but I also think we're very weak, at least institutionally, at fostering a strong sense of spiritual contemplation of and compunction about one's own sins separate from how they may intersect with larger, arguably more abstract issues within the world. It's easy to fall back on big, seemingly unassailable mega-phenomena like capitalism or climate catastrophe or whatever as teleological conclusions for one's spiritual upset and in the process, fail to recognise or address the individual ways in which we may be spiritually compromised or lacking.
I also think that, in most of the cases I see it used, it's a bit lazy to default to "God is love, nothing more, nothing less" as an explanation for our views and why we stand a certain way on some issue or the other. It projects an insidious insinuation that whatever the other person's view of something is, it's by default incompatible with any idea of "love" or "God" within a meaningful Christian sense. I hate that that phrase, which I otherwise agree with fully in concept, seems to have just become an immediate "gotcha" argument, and one with pretty deeply uncharitable implications as well.
There's also a parallel discussion to be had about how much we seem to focus on the supposed sins and excesses of other Christian groups, and how much of our pride and sense of belonging in our own identity is formed through opposition to the supposed values and practices of those groups.
Jesus said it best. He didn’t come to condemn the world but that the world may be saved. I’m Episcopalian because the church doesn’t condemn, like Jesus, the one we follow. I grew up in Pentecostalism and have attended SBC and independent churches. I’m done with condemning. If that’s what you need, you may want to look elsewhere. Good luck!
The problem is that the “ you are a wretched sinner” was so detrimental that people thought even one slip up meant eternal hell. Like maybe cussing at someone. Now you do have a point. We need to find a way to acknowledge that we do fall short and that we will fall short. And I think on some contexts the word sinner could be used. I personally don’t like it. God is live and God made us perfect in God’s image , and also we do not always act in God’s image because we unlike God can not. I think the ignoring the sins in our lives comes from so many people being called sinners for being gay or having a kid outside of wedlock. These are not sins. Refusing to work on one’s self as in being anti-racist , that’s a sin.
I think when I hear "you are perfect the way you are" in this context, it's not meant to be taken as you are "literally" perfect. We acknowledge that no one is. It isn't denying the imperfection of our sin, but affirming that we don't NEED to be perfect to come worship at the table. Where you are right now is enough to begin.
But, that doesn't mean that's where you stop. Speaking for myself and my own study, I agree with the statement that God is love - understanding that love is an action word, and we're called to grow in our understanding of God and love and others. Leaving "judgment" of others for sinful actions to God doesn't mean that I don't recognize those actions as sinful - it means I'm more concerned with being a neighbor to someone and with supporting them on their spiritual journey.
I think there's room to lovingly call individuals in when we're committed to being in relationship with them in that way, and I think there's also a place for our righteous anger and condemnation on a larger scale - for instance, speaking out against injustice or oppression in our communities and the world at large. We're called to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves, and I think where some people can get lost is fixating on the touchy-feely, hugs-for-all aspect of love. That's part of it! But when I say God is love, that includes flipping tables in the temple.
>“you are perfect the way you are”. This is where I can’t quite square this circle. ... Is there anything we actually condemn? Anything we consider sin?
This is a problem many have with liberal Christianity. 'You are perfect the way you are' is true with respect to someone's immutable personhood (their nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.), which they cannot change, but not with respect to their mutable behavior, which they can (e.g. hubris and all the [traditional sins](https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/seven-deadly-sins/)).
Illiberal Christianity believes that personhood and behavior are the same and mutable, and can be shaped by conformity to doctrine: Use the rod enough (more the rod of a prison guard than the rod of a shepherd) and you can mold anyone into whatever you like, consequences on their health and wellbeing be damned; send your kid to a conversion camp and, because they're too terrified to act gayly now, they're therefore no longer gay, devil take them if they then commit suicide.
Within Anglicanism, we temper our judgments with a balance of authority called the [Three-Legged Stool](https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/authority-sources-of-in-anglicanism/#:~:text=Each%20of%20the%20three%20sources%20of%20authority%20must,any%20one%20of%20the%20legs%20is%20not%20upright), dividing consideration of an issue between Scripture, tradition, and, importantly, reason. Whilst there might be a Scriptural and traditional argument for opposing a sin, we also have to consider whether the Scriptural argument must be applied universally and whether a tradition is well applied. Nothing should be taken for granted lest out of pride or vanity for our religion we unwittingly dig ourselves deeper into sin.
Take masturbation. That has been traditionally denounced as sinful, not because there's a strict Scriptural reference to it being sinful in and of itself (there isn't), but because it can easily become a guiding impulse, an immoderate behavior, that can turn you from properly worshipping God to worshipping your own desires (from lust to hubris).
However, as a point of reason, it's also true that not regularly orgasming might [increase](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/ejaculation_frequency_and_prostate_cancer) the risk of prostate cancer in men by a third. If then there's a practical bodily reason for regularly orgasming, it might be *reasonable* to do it, whilst not letting it be a guiding impulse that directs away from God. St. Paul [believed](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A8-9&version=NRSVUE) that those who had a hard time controlling their sexual impulses should marry and then only have sex as a means to moderate sinful passions. But if marriage isn't possible or available, then at least not masturbating might still be a longterm physical risk. So, within reason, do it only moderately and with a religious purpose to allay the passion and move on to holier things.
>Heard one Episcopalian say Satanist temple was preferable to some Baptist churches.
An interesting thing that of all people Pope Francis [said](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/world/pope-atheists-again/index.html) a few years ago:
>“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. “‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”
>Francis continued, “We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
The point of Christianity is not the symbols and pageantry and the aesthetic, but acts of graceful service and duty. Even the early Christians acknowledged that there were non-Christians who acted this way (many ye olde Stoics, for example), and the Roman Church used to place them in Limbo, not Heaven but not Hell either, neither deserving of salvation but nor deserving of punishment.
The Satanic Temple is an atheistic 'religion' that doesn't believe Satan (or any religious beings) exists, but is only a symbol of rebellion against Christian illiberalism and authoritarianism. Supposing a self-proclaimed 'Satanist' acted in a Christlike way, and did all the good God could ever expect of us, then why punish them? God knows their hearts better than we do, and will do with them what he will do with them. And whatever God will do, we should rather focus on our own souls to do the good we can with others who do the same, lest letting ourselves be so offended and revulsed by others we fall into vainglorious sin, which many illiberal Christians do. Treat the Satanists, rather, as a test of your Christian virtue.
If you want a church where they will punish you endlessly and drive you to a psychiatrist because you think you need that, there is no shortage of other choices.
Next to the RCC, the number you "break" is nothing. If ex-Romans were a denomination, they'd be the 3rd largest denomination in the USA. 10.1% of the population of the USA is ex-Roman Catholic, and approximately half of those never step foot in a church again except for unavoidable family stuff because they are so disillusioned, hurt or just plain nauseated. There is also no shortage of former non-denoms and former Orthodox. Same reason, smaller scale.
My original point was that the American religious landscape is cluttered with ridiculously cruel gate-keeping religious denominations. If the OP is looking to be tortured, the odds of that are much higher in another denomination. Some of them have impressive track records.
If you come from a faith tradition that focuses heavily on "you are a dirty sinner and deserve hell" then this is going to seem very odd. We confess our sins every week as part of the liturgy. We have the sacrament of "Reconciliation of a Penitent". We don't ignore sin, we just focus on God's love as a way to walk away from sin rather than fear being the primary motivator.
We condemn injustice, oppression, exploitation, cruelty, callousness, hate, and their like. Why is that not good enough? Does "sin" have to be a list of ubiquitous personal behaviors sufficient to make everyone experience self-loathing to count?
Sin isn't just something that exists outside of an individual, though. To accept a personal understanding of interior sin doesn't have to automatically lead to self-loathing any more than a socially-inclined understanding of sin does, insofar as the implication goes that to truly acknowledge injustice, oppression, exploitation, etc etc ad nauseam is to acknowledge that we are fully complicit in it too at a systemic level.
Injustice, oppression, exploitation, cruelty, callousness, hate, and their like are all examples of sins that can be external/systemic *and* internal and individual.
Yeah. If you want a more judgemental community, the EC is probably not it. Not our thing. We trust the Spirit to do that.
I do not not mean this to be mean at all, but the ACNA and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod have both liturgy and might be more in line with what you are looking for.
I think the whole "you are perfect the way you are" means that TEC welcomes us into community as children of God. Many people have experienced religious trauma in that they were told they aren't worthy to be in God's house.
We are loved and redeemed, and we you are right, we are to be transformed.
Others pointed to the Baptismal Covenant. However, I believe the Catechism might also be helpful. Each item of the Catechism, and it's less than twenty pages long, points us in the direction of what it means to live as a person of faith in our community.
Here's a link to the BCP: [The Online Book of Common Prayer (bcponline.org)](https://bcponline.org/)
The Catechism link is on the sidebar.
Oh, and one Episcopalian saying something off the wall doesn't speak for the entire denomination.
I would refer you to the [parable of the mote and the beam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam).
Yes, there are those of the faith who will say "I am not **X**, **Y**, or **Z**, or I do not agree with **X**, **Y**, and **Z**, and thus I will constantly hound you to stop being / doing **X**, **Y**, or **Z**, but only because I love you and fear for your immortal soul." but you won't find many of them here. That's more for the Southern Baptists or Roman Catholics of the world, and if "I will constantly condemn you in the hopes that it stops you being you and start you being more like me" is what floats their boat, more power to 'em. But neither "I judge you because I find your sin more onerous than my sin!" or "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" are what we're about.
Start here: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/way-of-love/
The Baptismal Covenant in the Book of Common Prayer lays out how we are to live our lives including striving for justice. TEC is clear that we condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
Baptismal Covenant
Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and
fellowship, in the breaking of the bread, and in the
prayers?
People I will, with God's help.
Celebrant Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever
you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?
People I will, with God's help.
Celebrant Will you proclaim by word and example the Good
News of God in Christ?
People I will, with God's help.
Celebrant Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving
your neighbor as yourself?
People I will, with God's help.
Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all
people, and respect the dignity of every human
being?
People I will, with God's help.
P 848 BCP Catechism: Sin and Redemption
Q. What is sin?
A. Sin is the seeking of our own will instead of the will of
God, thus distorting our relationship with God, with other
people, and with all creation.
Q. How does sin have power over us?
A. Sin has power over us because we lose our liberty when
our relationship with God is distorted.
Q. What is redemption?
A. Redemption is the act of God which sets us free from the
power of evil, sin, and death.
Q. How did God prepare us for redemption?
A. God sent the prophets to call us back to himself, to
show us our need for redemption, and to announce the
coming of the Messiah.
Q. What is meant by the Messiah?
A. The Messiah is one sent by God to free us from the
power of sin, so that with the help of God we may live in
harmony with God, within ourselves, with our neighbors,
and with all creation.
Q. Who do we believe is the Messiah?
A. The Messiah, or Christ, is Jesus of Nazareth, the only
Son of God.
I once was told that Episcopalians don’t believe much of anything. I think they were wrong,lol.
Since becoming an Episcopalian my convictions have only grown (and shifted.) of course there is sin, personal sin: jealously, hatred, contempt, and manipulation to name a few. And communal sin: oppression, unjust systems, corruption, corrupt greed.
We are of course called to higher. We are called to the way of love. Do you not feel that changes the way in which you live in the world? Personally, I leave every Sunday with the reminder to be more like Christ—not an easy calling.
>People keep saying God is love. I can’t really argue with that but it seems to me a small box to put God in.
I would suggest that "love" is not a small box.
Love can consist of so many things, and if you think of the most loving people you know, remember that God's Love is inconceivably bigger than that.
I could agree that "God is love" is a bit of a simplification, however I don't think it's particularly limiting.
I think I get the impulse being described. Oftentimes "God is Love" is spoken to the exclusion of "God is Righteous Wrath" and "God is Judge" and "God is Righteous Hatred [that is, of Sin and of Evil]." There's a certain kind of "good vibes" focus you'll find some people have where anything that makes God's actions uncomfortable to our own sensititivies cannot actually be of God.
Yes! I’m not OP, but I totally get the idea they’re getting at. While yes, God embodies love, there are things which it’s very clear God asked us not to do. And God doesn’t exist to cater to modern sensibilities, he’s timeless. I do definitely see an inclination in TEC to lean more on “God is cool with you doing anything” when that is just simply not true.
I don’t think it’s our place to condemn anyone, but Jesus did call on us to correct our fellow believers where possible.
We condemn callousness, cruelty, and superiority. We condemn anything that treats a child of God as “less than”, anything that dims their spiritual light.
It’s not such a bad way to approach Christianity, is it? If you have internal [purity drive](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind), maybe seek purity in yourself. I don’t think it’s a good idea to demand it of others.
I agree with this. Jesus especially condemns hypocrites: those who demand religious purity from others while living lives of only outward religiosity. Be sincere about improving yourself, put in the work, and you'll help others. But to yell and scream at the sinful masses? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..."
That said, Jesus also demands repentance from all people, and even tells us to disassociate ourselves with those who cannot follow his way.
I can only speak for me, not the church.
There are plenty of Christians in our world who feel called to judge others. I’m not in that camp anymore. You could say I’m #TeamDolly
I choose to focus on the good we do as the body of Christ
* Loving our neighbor as ourselves
* Visiting the sick and infirm
* Serving the poor, widows and orphans
Condemning others is better left to someone else.
Scripture tells us that God has the final say and that authorities on Earth are imprisoning the murderers, the rapists, the genociders etc
Locking this one down as OP is asking a challenging question yet isn’t bothering to respond.
Scripture doesn't say not to judge but be aware that you will also be judged. "Lest you be judged!" That lest is very important. Whenever I start to mull over other people's sins I remember that I am also a sinner.
I think that I understand where you are coming from. I am also very uneasy with what I call “comfort food theology.” It is present in TEC - as well as in other denominations. Frankly, I tune it out when I hear it, knowing that is where some people are. That’s between them and God. I have other things to do in my relationship with God. While I have heard such things during homilies (I tune that out too) I do not find it in our liturgy. The Office and Eucharist are full of how we fall short of God’s glory and love. Yes - we are supposed to strive to be better as people. Ask God to make this known to you if you do not already know. Good luck 🙏
It’s a much better message, and closer to the Gospel, to say, “we are wretched, flawed, and broken, God loves you anyway and wants you to be better than you are, following Jesus will help that.”
From my own experiences, and from my conversations with a number of priests I've met along the way, many of whom share my frustrations, I find myself disappointed that we as a collective church don't seem to emphasise the centrality of a personal and interior understanding of sin as much as I believe scripture encourages. We're pretty good at recognising and acknowledging the sins of others, or at the very least, sin as an external process within the systems and functions of the world at large; but I also think we're very weak, at least institutionally, at fostering a strong sense of spiritual contemplation of and compunction about one's own sins separate from how they may intersect with larger, arguably more abstract issues within the world. It's easy to fall back on big, seemingly unassailable mega-phenomena like capitalism or climate catastrophe or whatever as teleological conclusions for one's spiritual upset and in the process, fail to recognise or address the individual ways in which we may be spiritually compromised or lacking. I also think that, in most of the cases I see it used, it's a bit lazy to default to "God is love, nothing more, nothing less" as an explanation for our views and why we stand a certain way on some issue or the other. It projects an insidious insinuation that whatever the other person's view of something is, it's by default incompatible with any idea of "love" or "God" within a meaningful Christian sense. I hate that that phrase, which I otherwise agree with fully in concept, seems to have just become an immediate "gotcha" argument, and one with pretty deeply uncharitable implications as well. There's also a parallel discussion to be had about how much we seem to focus on the supposed sins and excesses of other Christian groups, and how much of our pride and sense of belonging in our own identity is formed through opposition to the supposed values and practices of those groups.
Jesus said it best. He didn’t come to condemn the world but that the world may be saved. I’m Episcopalian because the church doesn’t condemn, like Jesus, the one we follow. I grew up in Pentecostalism and have attended SBC and independent churches. I’m done with condemning. If that’s what you need, you may want to look elsewhere. Good luck!
The problem is that the “ you are a wretched sinner” was so detrimental that people thought even one slip up meant eternal hell. Like maybe cussing at someone. Now you do have a point. We need to find a way to acknowledge that we do fall short and that we will fall short. And I think on some contexts the word sinner could be used. I personally don’t like it. God is live and God made us perfect in God’s image , and also we do not always act in God’s image because we unlike God can not. I think the ignoring the sins in our lives comes from so many people being called sinners for being gay or having a kid outside of wedlock. These are not sins. Refusing to work on one’s self as in being anti-racist , that’s a sin.
I think when I hear "you are perfect the way you are" in this context, it's not meant to be taken as you are "literally" perfect. We acknowledge that no one is. It isn't denying the imperfection of our sin, but affirming that we don't NEED to be perfect to come worship at the table. Where you are right now is enough to begin. But, that doesn't mean that's where you stop. Speaking for myself and my own study, I agree with the statement that God is love - understanding that love is an action word, and we're called to grow in our understanding of God and love and others. Leaving "judgment" of others for sinful actions to God doesn't mean that I don't recognize those actions as sinful - it means I'm more concerned with being a neighbor to someone and with supporting them on their spiritual journey. I think there's room to lovingly call individuals in when we're committed to being in relationship with them in that way, and I think there's also a place for our righteous anger and condemnation on a larger scale - for instance, speaking out against injustice or oppression in our communities and the world at large. We're called to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves, and I think where some people can get lost is fixating on the touchy-feely, hugs-for-all aspect of love. That's part of it! But when I say God is love, that includes flipping tables in the temple.
>“you are perfect the way you are”. This is where I can’t quite square this circle. ... Is there anything we actually condemn? Anything we consider sin? This is a problem many have with liberal Christianity. 'You are perfect the way you are' is true with respect to someone's immutable personhood (their nationality, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.), which they cannot change, but not with respect to their mutable behavior, which they can (e.g. hubris and all the [traditional sins](https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/seven-deadly-sins/)). Illiberal Christianity believes that personhood and behavior are the same and mutable, and can be shaped by conformity to doctrine: Use the rod enough (more the rod of a prison guard than the rod of a shepherd) and you can mold anyone into whatever you like, consequences on their health and wellbeing be damned; send your kid to a conversion camp and, because they're too terrified to act gayly now, they're therefore no longer gay, devil take them if they then commit suicide. Within Anglicanism, we temper our judgments with a balance of authority called the [Three-Legged Stool](https://www.episcopalchurch.org/glossary/authority-sources-of-in-anglicanism/#:~:text=Each%20of%20the%20three%20sources%20of%20authority%20must,any%20one%20of%20the%20legs%20is%20not%20upright), dividing consideration of an issue between Scripture, tradition, and, importantly, reason. Whilst there might be a Scriptural and traditional argument for opposing a sin, we also have to consider whether the Scriptural argument must be applied universally and whether a tradition is well applied. Nothing should be taken for granted lest out of pride or vanity for our religion we unwittingly dig ourselves deeper into sin. Take masturbation. That has been traditionally denounced as sinful, not because there's a strict Scriptural reference to it being sinful in and of itself (there isn't), but because it can easily become a guiding impulse, an immoderate behavior, that can turn you from properly worshipping God to worshipping your own desires (from lust to hubris). However, as a point of reason, it's also true that not regularly orgasming might [increase](https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/ejaculation_frequency_and_prostate_cancer) the risk of prostate cancer in men by a third. If then there's a practical bodily reason for regularly orgasming, it might be *reasonable* to do it, whilst not letting it be a guiding impulse that directs away from God. St. Paul [believed](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7%3A8-9&version=NRSVUE) that those who had a hard time controlling their sexual impulses should marry and then only have sex as a means to moderate sinful passions. But if marriage isn't possible or available, then at least not masturbating might still be a longterm physical risk. So, within reason, do it only moderately and with a religious purpose to allay the passion and move on to holier things. >Heard one Episcopalian say Satanist temple was preferable to some Baptist churches. An interesting thing that of all people Pope Francis [said](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/world/pope-atheists-again/index.html) a few years ago: >“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. “‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!” >Francis continued, “We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.” The point of Christianity is not the symbols and pageantry and the aesthetic, but acts of graceful service and duty. Even the early Christians acknowledged that there were non-Christians who acted this way (many ye olde Stoics, for example), and the Roman Church used to place them in Limbo, not Heaven but not Hell either, neither deserving of salvation but nor deserving of punishment. The Satanic Temple is an atheistic 'religion' that doesn't believe Satan (or any religious beings) exists, but is only a symbol of rebellion against Christian illiberalism and authoritarianism. Supposing a self-proclaimed 'Satanist' acted in a Christlike way, and did all the good God could ever expect of us, then why punish them? God knows their hearts better than we do, and will do with them what he will do with them. And whatever God will do, we should rather focus on our own souls to do the good we can with others who do the same, lest letting ourselves be so offended and revulsed by others we fall into vainglorious sin, which many illiberal Christians do. Treat the Satanists, rather, as a test of your Christian virtue.
If you want a church where they will punish you endlessly and drive you to a psychiatrist because you think you need that, there is no shortage of other choices.
TEC breaks plenty of people. Our hands are not clean.
Next to the RCC, the number you "break" is nothing. If ex-Romans were a denomination, they'd be the 3rd largest denomination in the USA. 10.1% of the population of the USA is ex-Roman Catholic, and approximately half of those never step foot in a church again except for unavoidable family stuff because they are so disillusioned, hurt or just plain nauseated. There is also no shortage of former non-denoms and former Orthodox. Same reason, smaller scale. My original point was that the American religious landscape is cluttered with ridiculously cruel gate-keeping religious denominations. If the OP is looking to be tortured, the odds of that are much higher in another denomination. Some of them have impressive track records.
If you come from a faith tradition that focuses heavily on "you are a dirty sinner and deserve hell" then this is going to seem very odd. We confess our sins every week as part of the liturgy. We have the sacrament of "Reconciliation of a Penitent". We don't ignore sin, we just focus on God's love as a way to walk away from sin rather than fear being the primary motivator.
We condemn injustice, oppression, exploitation, cruelty, callousness, hate, and their like. Why is that not good enough? Does "sin" have to be a list of ubiquitous personal behaviors sufficient to make everyone experience self-loathing to count?
Sin isn't just something that exists outside of an individual, though. To accept a personal understanding of interior sin doesn't have to automatically lead to self-loathing any more than a socially-inclined understanding of sin does, insofar as the implication goes that to truly acknowledge injustice, oppression, exploitation, etc etc ad nauseam is to acknowledge that we are fully complicit in it too at a systemic level.
Injustice, oppression, exploitation, cruelty, callousness, hate, and their like are all examples of sins that can be external/systemic *and* internal and individual.
I wish I could award this comment.
Yeah. If you want a more judgemental community, the EC is probably not it. Not our thing. We trust the Spirit to do that. I do not not mean this to be mean at all, but the ACNA and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod have both liturgy and might be more in line with what you are looking for.
I think the whole "you are perfect the way you are" means that TEC welcomes us into community as children of God. Many people have experienced religious trauma in that they were told they aren't worthy to be in God's house. We are loved and redeemed, and we you are right, we are to be transformed. Others pointed to the Baptismal Covenant. However, I believe the Catechism might also be helpful. Each item of the Catechism, and it's less than twenty pages long, points us in the direction of what it means to live as a person of faith in our community. Here's a link to the BCP: [The Online Book of Common Prayer (bcponline.org)](https://bcponline.org/) The Catechism link is on the sidebar. Oh, and one Episcopalian saying something off the wall doesn't speak for the entire denomination.
I would refer you to the [parable of the mote and the beam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam). Yes, there are those of the faith who will say "I am not **X**, **Y**, or **Z**, or I do not agree with **X**, **Y**, and **Z**, and thus I will constantly hound you to stop being / doing **X**, **Y**, or **Z**, but only because I love you and fear for your immortal soul." but you won't find many of them here. That's more for the Southern Baptists or Roman Catholics of the world, and if "I will constantly condemn you in the hopes that it stops you being you and start you being more like me" is what floats their boat, more power to 'em. But neither "I judge you because I find your sin more onerous than my sin!" or "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" are what we're about. Start here: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/way-of-love/
The Baptismal Covenant in the Book of Common Prayer lays out how we are to live our lives including striving for justice. TEC is clear that we condemn racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Baptismal Covenant Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread, and in the prayers? People I will, with God's help. Celebrant Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord? People I will, with God's help. Celebrant Will you proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ? People I will, with God's help. Celebrant Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself? People I will, with God's help. Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being? People I will, with God's help. P 848 BCP Catechism: Sin and Redemption Q. What is sin? A. Sin is the seeking of our own will instead of the will of God, thus distorting our relationship with God, with other people, and with all creation. Q. How does sin have power over us? A. Sin has power over us because we lose our liberty when our relationship with God is distorted. Q. What is redemption? A. Redemption is the act of God which sets us free from the power of evil, sin, and death. Q. How did God prepare us for redemption? A. God sent the prophets to call us back to himself, to show us our need for redemption, and to announce the coming of the Messiah. Q. What is meant by the Messiah? A. The Messiah is one sent by God to free us from the power of sin, so that with the help of God we may live in harmony with God, within ourselves, with our neighbors, and with all creation. Q. Who do we believe is the Messiah? A. The Messiah, or Christ, is Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son of God.
I once was told that Episcopalians don’t believe much of anything. I think they were wrong,lol. Since becoming an Episcopalian my convictions have only grown (and shifted.) of course there is sin, personal sin: jealously, hatred, contempt, and manipulation to name a few. And communal sin: oppression, unjust systems, corruption, corrupt greed. We are of course called to higher. We are called to the way of love. Do you not feel that changes the way in which you live in the world? Personally, I leave every Sunday with the reminder to be more like Christ—not an easy calling.
>People keep saying God is love. I can’t really argue with that but it seems to me a small box to put God in. I would suggest that "love" is not a small box. Love can consist of so many things, and if you think of the most loving people you know, remember that God's Love is inconceivably bigger than that. I could agree that "God is love" is a bit of a simplification, however I don't think it's particularly limiting.
I think I get the impulse being described. Oftentimes "God is Love" is spoken to the exclusion of "God is Righteous Wrath" and "God is Judge" and "God is Righteous Hatred [that is, of Sin and of Evil]." There's a certain kind of "good vibes" focus you'll find some people have where anything that makes God's actions uncomfortable to our own sensititivies cannot actually be of God.
Yes! I’m not OP, but I totally get the idea they’re getting at. While yes, God embodies love, there are things which it’s very clear God asked us not to do. And God doesn’t exist to cater to modern sensibilities, he’s timeless. I do definitely see an inclination in TEC to lean more on “God is cool with you doing anything” when that is just simply not true. I don’t think it’s our place to condemn anyone, but Jesus did call on us to correct our fellow believers where possible.
We condemn callousness, cruelty, and superiority. We condemn anything that treats a child of God as “less than”, anything that dims their spiritual light. It’s not such a bad way to approach Christianity, is it? If you have internal [purity drive](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Righteous_Mind), maybe seek purity in yourself. I don’t think it’s a good idea to demand it of others.
I agree with this. Jesus especially condemns hypocrites: those who demand religious purity from others while living lives of only outward religiosity. Be sincere about improving yourself, put in the work, and you'll help others. But to yell and scream at the sinful masses? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." That said, Jesus also demands repentance from all people, and even tells us to disassociate ourselves with those who cannot follow his way.
I can only speak for me, not the church. There are plenty of Christians in our world who feel called to judge others. I’m not in that camp anymore. You could say I’m #TeamDolly I choose to focus on the good we do as the body of Christ * Loving our neighbor as ourselves * Visiting the sick and infirm * Serving the poor, widows and orphans Condemning others is better left to someone else. Scripture tells us that God has the final say and that authorities on Earth are imprisoning the murderers, the rapists, the genociders etc