Anglican Church in a mess!

[Abira]

How’s it go? You can call a Scot or a Welshman British, but you dare not call them English?

yeah, I found that out firsthand once with a slip of the tongue… it’s all the terms: britain, UK, England, Ireland, EU, N Ireland, Scotland…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

GKC, why on earth remain an Anglican?

I can’t speak for GKC (who can and does speak eloquently for himself), but I’m an Anglo-Catholic and I have a problem with Papal supremacy. Not primacy. Supremacy. And I do see them as two different things. I honestly have yet to come across a convinving theological argument for the Pope’s claims to universal jurisdiction. I cannot in all honesty submit to Rome if I’m dubious about her authority.

Unlike GKC, I am in the ECUSA and (for the time being at least) in communion with Canterbury. And this may seem incredibly counter-intuitive, but I want to be part of a church at which both the “liberal” and the “conservative”, the protestant and the catholic can sit at the table. I want Peter Akinola at the table. I’m saddened that he doesn’t want me at the table, but the depth of his charity is not something I can do anything about. And for me, it is about charity. The table at which people agree to disagree is about charity. The Body of Christ must include the people I dislike, the people with whom I disagree, because I need to learn to love them more. And if they are separated from me for whatever reason, I am the lesser for it.

Unfortunately, both sides of this debate are unwilling to yield in love to each other. That’s what I find the most depressing about all of it.

I’m sure some may take issue with this and point out that the church is not supposed to be about people with different hermeneutical frames sitting at the same table in love–that such an understanding belies the importance of preserving a careful adherence to a belief concerning the truth of doctrine, without which consensus, sitting at the same table is impossible. Well. I would respectfully disagree with a point of view that held or implicitly assumed that the nature of charity was so frail as to not admit the possibility of holding in a creative tension the truth of doctrine and being in communion with those with which one disagrees. I think doctrine is an invitation to believe, not a command. It may be gently insistent, but that’s the voice of love which issues the invitation. And it is also the voice of love which whispers, “faith, hope, love. These three. But the greatest of these is love.”

To me, then, to see doctrine as a command is to see faith as a checklist of things to which we intellectually (or even theoretically) give our assent. This creates a culture of obligation, not of obedience, which comes from the word “to listen.” We listen and we respond. That’s obedience. Obligation does not care if we’ve heard, but merely requires the performance of the gesture of response.

Anyway, suffice to say that the broken and breaking state of my communion saddens me. But I see few alternatives. And I question in myself the desire to seek alternatives. Does not the Broken Body have an immense claim on my love and affection?

My two cents.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[GKC]

Grace & Peace!

I can’t speak for GKC (who can and does speak eloquently for himself), but I’m an Anglo-Catholic and I have a problem with Papal supremacy. Not primacy. Supremacy. And I do see them as two different things. I honestly have yet to come across a convinving theological argument for the Pope’s claims to universal jurisdiction. I cannot in all honesty submit to Rome if I’m dubious about her authority.

Unlike GKC, I am in the ECUSA and (for the time being at least) in communion with Canterbury. And this may seem incredibly counter-intuitive, but I want to be part of a church at which both the “liberal” and the “conservative”, the protestant and the catholic can sit at the table. I want Peter Akinola at the table. I’m saddened that he doesn’t want me at the table, but the depth of his charity is not something I can do anything about. And for me, it is about charity. The table at which people agree to disagree is about charity. The Body of Christ must include the people I dislike, the people with whom I disagree, because I need to learn to love them more. And if they are separated from me for whatever reason, I am the lesser for it.

Unfortunately, both sides of this debate are unwilling to yield in love to each other. That’s what I find the most depressing about all of it.

I’m sure some may take issue with this and point out that the church is not supposed to be about people with different hermeneutical frames sitting at the same table in love–that such an understanding belies the importance of preserving a careful adherence to a belief concerning the truth of doctrine, without which consensus, sitting at the same table is impossible. Well. I would respectfully disagree with a point of view that held or implicitly assumed that the nature of charity was so frail as to not admit the possibility of holding in a creative tension the truth of doctrine and being in communion with those with which one disagrees. I think doctrine is an invitation to believe, not a command. It may be gently insistent, but that’s the voice of love which issues the invitation. And it is also the voice of love which whispers, “faith, hope, love. These three. But the greatest of these is love.”

To me, then, to see doctrine as a command is to see faith as a checklist of things to which we intellectually (or even theoretically) give our assent. This creates a culture of obligation, not of obedience, which comes from the word “to listen.” We listen and we respond. That’s obedience. Obligation does not care if we’ve heard, but merely requires the performance of the gesture of response.

Anyway, suffice to say that the broken and breaking state of my communion saddens me. But I see few alternatives. And I question in myself the desire to seek alternatives. Does not the Broken Body have an immense claim on my love and affection?

My two cents.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Au contraire. In the first paragraph, you speak quite precisely for me.

As to the rest, no. I can accept the dichotomy of the Elizabethan compromise, but not that which seems to accept apostasy. Where is the acceptable compromise in the question of the validity of orders and hence of the Eucharist? You are not describing a church, you are describing a community. In this sense, they are not the same.

I sympathize with your problem. But the range of doctrine has to be under a general umbrella of orthodox and Catholic belief. I can’t suggest that Anglicanism incorporate Islam, in order to have more people with whom I disagree, along even more dimensions.

In sorrow,

GKC

 

[nonjuror]

It would be good to hear an opinion from an Anglican, Is it just the media talking rubbish or is it really in a crisis?

That there’s a crisis within the “Anglican Church,” is obvious to all. But the Anglican Church is no more than a manifestation of the Catholic Church as a whole. Its problems are really those of the Catholic Church throughout the western world as far as I can see.
It has been infiltrated by and become a victim of the zeitgeist.,liberalism.

Gradually there is taking place a re-alignment of opinion and this is showing itself in many ways, The weaker,or less robust Anglicans are fleeing to Rome (Anglo-Catholics such as TAC,) or Orthodoxy, whilst Traditional Anglicans are attempting to regroup under more traditional banners such as the Continuum.

The rot has gone on for many years, funnily enough Vatican 2 weakened the backbone of many Anglicans who abandoned the ancient disciplines and who ceased to see that the traditions of the Communion went back to ancient times. The result was in many cases the roots of the faith withered and made individuals susceptible to the virus.

 

[chris_molter]

I’m an Anglo-Catholic and I have a problem with Papal supremacy. Not primacy. Supremacy.

Just my 2p. I had the same problem as an Anglican. Then I started to realize that we consider +Canterbury to have “primacy” among equals, just as we think the Pope ought to. However, as we’ve seen over the last 30+ years, “primacy”, in effect, means nothing at all since it doesn’t confer any authority to resolve doctrinal disputes or impose discipline. The idea of coming to Rome and expecting the Papacy to remove its teeth, so to speak, is a less than optimal solution. Without *some *kind of universal supremacy, the Papacy becomes a mere figurehead, which is not what the Catholic Church understands the role of the Papacy to be (hence Papal Infallibility).

I don’t mean to be polemic at all, so I apologize if I’ve come across as such.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Maybe it’s just me but from the reports in the media they seem to be at breaking point. What do u think the future holds for them?

I think it will fall apart soon. I don’t know who these morons are who are running it, however it’s extremely blasphemous teachings will soon bring it down. What you have is two warring factions.

You have the old Anglicans, before all this change was made who have normal conservative views of their faith.

On the other hand you have extremely liberal people in the church who try to change things to meet their own personal agendas.

 

[chris_molter]

I think it will fall apart soon. I don’t know who these morons are who are running it, however it’s extremely blasphemous teachings will soon bring it down. What you have is two warring factions.

You’ve got a LOT more than two factions in Anglicanism that are warring. It’s just that the liberal protestants are making a big push so that’s getting all the press. Once the dust settles there, you’ll see a smaller war between the Anglo-Catholics (if there are any left at that point) and Crypto-Baptists with moderate Evangelicals trying to hold it all together. There have been a lot of tensions in Anglicanism for a long time, and the ties that held it together are coming undone.

I’m very curious to see what ecclesial form Anglicanism takes in the future.

 

[JMBNH]

In the UK, the Anglican Church’s numbers on a Sunday are now lower than Catholic Mass attendance that day for the first time ever.

The liberal wing (still the largest) is collapsing fast, as people either decide to take Christianity serious and go elsewhere or else pack in, either way they stop being lukewarm about Christianity.

The Anglo-Catholic wing is gradually becoming Catholic and thus falling in numbers.

The evangelical wing is growing fast, though mostly taking people from elsewhere in the church. However, many people my age brought up Anglican are leaving to become Pentecostal/Charismatic or Evangelical Free

 

[DDClark]

You’ve got a LOT more than two factions in Anglicanism that are warring. It’s just that the liberal protestants are making a big push so that’s getting all the press. Once the dust settles there, you’ll see a smaller war between the Anglo-Catholics (if there are any left at that point) and Crypto-Baptists with moderate Evangelicals trying to hold it all together. There have been a lot of tensions in Anglicanism for a long time, and the ties that held it together are coming undone.

I’m very curious to see what ecclesial form Anglicanism takes in the future.

What’s a “Crypto-Baptist”?

 

[chris_molter]

What’s a “Crypto-Baptist”?

Anglicans whose theological and ecclesiological tendencies lean strongly towards those held by Baptists (ie: anti-paedobaptism, very low-church worship style, more parish autonomy, weaker episcopacy, lay presidency, memorialism, etc)

 

[nonjuror]

Crypto Baptists.?

These Anglicans are Neo- Anglicans! People whose spiritual ancestors the Church was forced to admit in to membership
for political reasons. It was expected that with long hard winters
the older ones would die off, whilst the younger ones would be converted by sound doctrine. The alternative was to prosecute them as Rome did on the continent, bonfires, gallows and galleys!
We took the Way of the Cross and have suffered ever since. Within a few years these people and their allies,Calvinists, had taken over the Church and expelled the priests. There was a civil war when Rome also took part and thousands died and for some twenty years the Church was in exile.