Anglican Church in North America Divides up Continent for Evangelism and 1,000 Church Plants

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I think he means religious orders: Dominicans, Franciscans, etc.

Edwin

Gotcha I am not really up on the differences between the different Religious Orders but I will just substitute “orders” with “rites” in his post and I will get the idea of what he is getting at.

God bless

 

[GKC]

I was right.

GKC

 

[crazzeto]

A noble thing to attempt, and I certainly hope they can help keep more churches from spiraling into complete heresy…

 

[Jon_Hus]

Do you mean rites (Latin rite etc)? The only orders I am aware of are Holy Orders.

God bless

You are correct. By orders, I mean Augustian, Dominician, so forth. Thanks for reading

PS, I posted this before I read Edwin’s post.

 

[Jon_Hus]

You are correct. By orders, I mean Augustian, Dominician, so forth. Thanks for reading

 

[Jon_Hus]

Edwin,

Without rehashing everything point by point, as a member of the church in question, you are looking at (and don’t take this as an insult) very minor issues and making them into huge doctrinal beliefs. This is like the agruments between American Baptists in the USA and General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. To you they would be identical, to me they are miles apart.

I’m not sure what you mean by all of this. Are you talking about the various Anglican provinces/national churches or about English-speaking Protestant groups of Anglican origin?

The Anglican Communion is made up of a number of autonomous churches/provinces, most of which were formed through missionary activity from England and/or colonization.

No–the Episcopal Church is not part of the Church of England. It’s part of the Anglican Communion, though there are moves now to reduce us to a kind of observer status. The Church of England is the mother Church of the Anglican Communion, but they are not simply the same thing.

That’s not really what episcopal means. Episcopal means ruled by bishops. Whether you give one bishop authority over other bishops, and how much authority you give that bishop, and what you base it on, has nothing to do with whether you are episcopal or not.

Actually you could make a case that it isn’t, because the Pope usurps some of the authority of local bishops. Of course RCs would disagree, and generally RCs today would not put things quite the way you did. Cardinals aren’t a level of authority between the Pope and bishops–they are the honorary clergy of Rome–in practice all bishops themselves–who elect the Pope and help the Pope in his duties as the leader of the Universal Church. And most RC theologians today would emphasize that the Pope is a bishop among bishops–he is just the bishop with whom all bishops need to be in communion. That is in some tension with Vatican I ecclesiology in my opinion, but that’s another issue!

Yes–although in practice we often act like congregationalists, and the line between congregationalism and episcopalianism isn’t as clear as you might think. After all, as Richard Baxter pointed out in the 17th century, bishops in the early Church were basically local pastors.

Again, your terminology is confusing. Are you talking about the provinces that make up the Anglican Communion? Or are you talking about the recent divisions within historic Anglicanism–currently North American Anglicanism exists in three basic communions.

There are huge theological differences among Anglicans–perhaps greater than within any other Christian body. You have Anglicans who are indistinguishable theologically from Catholics or Orthodox; Anglicans who are practically Baptists; and Anglicans who are close to atheism. It is very hard to find a form of Christian theology (or for that matter a heresy) that isn’t maintained by some Anglican somewhere. However, these differences don’t necessarily match up with the different jurisdictions/provinces. Some areas are more evangelical historically, others more Anglo-Catholic. But sometimes the disagreements are within a single diocese or even a single parish.

The three basic communions into which North American Anglicanism is currently divided do have significant theological differences, but you can find people at various points on the traditional Catholic-Protestant spectrum in all three. By and large, the Continuers are dominated by Anglo-Catholicism, the ACNA by evangelicalism, and TEC by liberalism–but there are plenty of counter-examples in each case. The clearest differences concern gender roles and sexual morality. TEC has more or less rid itself of the opponents of women’s ordination and is moving more and more decisively toward recognizing same-sex relationships as fully legitimate, although plenty of dissent remains; ACNA clearly rejects homosexual behavior and is divided on women’s ordination; and the Continuers decisively reject both.

Edwin

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe it’s the post-Typhoid fever affecting my mind! LOL…Honestly Edwin I’m not at all trying “caricature” you. I actually think you’re one of the brightest and most intellectually-honest guys in here. I think you’d be a formidable opponent (even though I don’t see you as one here at all) in a debate. You’re a bright guy who wants to do the right thing. Perhaps we’re not as far apart as we think, as you stated. I actually really enjoyed your reply to my loooong posts here. Again, not trying to caricature you. I honestly don’t understand why ANYONE is still an Episcopalian, no offense. I just don’t understand it. I suppose I didn’t understand your rationale for it and perhaps I had you painted a liberal. Some of your past posts seem apologetics for TEC and at times a more liberal social agenda. You seemed in past posts to be more open to a liberal mindset I suppose. Maybe that was a mis-perceived analysis on my part.

You have stated before that there are a few issues that keep you from being Catholic and that you agree more with Orthodoxy but you choose to be in the middle as an Episcopalian. That just didn’t make sense to me I suppose.

Also, regarding Donatism, trust me I’m familiar with that heresy and I’m not proposing we adopt it. I know that the clergy in Augustine’s time and afterward grappled with Donatism and the worthiness of ministers affecting the sacramental validity. I for one agree with Augustine (and you) that Gene Robinson quite probably has a valid Eucharist. However, the lesbian bishop in Southern California has an invalid one simply because she’s a woman. But that’s another talk show, as my mom would say…

But ask yourself this, would Augustine and Ambrose and Cyprian and the popes, etc. have condoned an OPENLY-GAY practicing-sodomy homosexual as a bishop? Imagine they would’ve agreed that he had a valid sacrament BUT if bishop X would’ve come out publically and said, “I practice sodomy with my gay lover. I enjoy it, I will continue to do it AND I view us as married like a man and a woman. Any questions?” Would the other bishops have allowed him to stay in power and have ignored it? That’s my point. It’s not about validity, it’s about a moral example for one’s flock. It’s about setting the standard. That Episcopal openly-gay sickening morality is as disgusting to me as these pedophiles in the Catholic Church who continue to get protected, hidden, moved-around, etc. by the Church. I would be just as appauled by the Gene Robinson stuff as I would an adulterous heterosexual bishop in TEC or ACNA. Gotta run. Thanks for your thoughtful replies, Edwin. If you felt I was trying to make you a caricature, apologies. It wasn’t my intention. God bless you…

We must avoid Donatism–and in the absence of a claim of infallibility I think anti-Donatism has to apply to doctrine to some extent as well. That’s the only sense in which I defend TEC. Not because I think it’s right, but because I think the temptation to start a new church that will do things right is one of the greatest and subtlest temptations to which Christians (especially American Christians) are subject. And I thin that succumbing to that temptation is every bit as bad as anything that TEC as a whole has done. (I won’t say that it’s as bad as, say, the heresies of Spong.)

Indeed. But what it tells me is that he’s doing his job more or less right!

Nothing of the kind. I like hillbillies well enough. It’s peppy entrepreneurs I can’t stand

It’s not a prejudice. My dislike of American religion is founded in thirty years of experience with various aspects of it (maybe more if you consider that my mother’s folks were basically American missionaries in Britain, so I experienced a kind of American religion during the first six years of my life as well). My judgment about ACNA is, again, based in experience, though here I admit that it’s a much smaller body of experience.

I don’t know if the REC does altogether. I suppose that I’m largely thinking about AMiA–most of my encounters with ACNA have been with AMiA.

Gurney,

I wish, wish, wish you would stop caricaturing me. We are really not as far apart as you think. I don’t think conservatives are loathsome at all, and I certainly don’t want them gone. That’s precisely the attitude on the part of liberals that has led to this horrific mess.

It may be that we can’t all coexist. All I’m saying is that folks who can’t put up with TEC any longer ought to become Catholic or Orthodox instead of starting something new. And even that I’m only saying as an ideal. I recognize all kinds of practical reasons why people would find that difficult. I’ve certainly not managed to do it so far. But at the very least don’t be triumphalistic about your schism.

A final note on my use of the word schism: I define schism as Augustine did, setting up “altar against altar.” If you establish a new Eucharistic community in a place where one already exists, you are committing schism. The “evangelism” initiative referred to in the OP is unquestionably schismatic by this definition.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Without rehashing everything point by point, as a member of the church in question, you are looking at (and don’t take this as an insult) very minor issues and making them into huge doctrinal beliefs. This is like the agruments between American Baptists in the USA and General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. To you they would be identical, to me they are miles apart.

Jon,

First of all, I don’t think that GARB and the American Baptists are identical at all. I agree that they are far apart. Baptists agree probably on more things that Anglicans do, but there are huge differences among Baptists as well.

I don’t think you grasp the extent of the disagreements among Anglicans, partly because truly low-church Anglicans are rare in America. But in England and Australia you find Anglicans who believe the Lord’s Supper is just a memorial, who hold to a conservative Calvinist theology of salvation, who don’t believe in formal liturgy, etc. I think there may even be some who question infant baptism. With the possible exception of infant baptism, I think it’s hard to find a disagreement among Trinitarian Christians that is not also a disagreement among Anglicans.

I’m not talking about how many candles one puts on the altar. I’m talking Calvinism vs. Armianism, sola fide vs. a Catholic (or in some cases, a genuinely Pelagian) theology of salvation, sola scriptura vs. infallible Sacred Tradition, symbolic communion vs. Real Presence, speaking in tongues vs. cessationism, etc.

I used to think there was less diversity than there was–I have sometimes claimed, for instance, that all Anglicans believe in some form of the Real Presence. That’s more or less true in America, but apparently not in England or Australia.

Edwin

 

[Jon_Hus]

Edwin,

I would have to agree with you in total if it were not for the fact that I have a long time friend who is cradle Episcopal in western PA who is in beliefs more baptist than another long time friend who is a pastor in a ABCUSA.

There is as I’m sure you know a difference between the written theology and practice even among individuals within the same local assembly. I have a friend who is a deacon in a Wesylan Church that is more Calvinistic than myself. But according to the doctrine of faith of the Wesylan church he is arminian.

Jon,

First of all, I don’t think that GARB and the American Baptists are identical at all. I agree that they are far apart. Baptists agree probably on more things that Anglicans do, but there are huge differences among Baptists as well.

I don’t think you grasp the extent of the disagreements among Anglicans, partly because truly low-church Anglicans are rare in America. But in England and Australia you find Anglicans who believe the Lord’s Supper is just a memorial, who hold to a conservative Calvinist theology of salvation, who don’t believe in formal liturgy, etc. I think there may even be some who question infant baptism. With the possible exception of infant baptism, I think it’s hard to find a disagreement among Trinitarian Christians that is not also a disagreement among Anglicans.

I’m not talking about how many candles one puts on the altar. I’m talking Calvinism vs. Armianism, sola fide vs. a Catholic (or in some cases, a genuinely Pelagian) theology of salvation, sola scriptura vs. infallible Sacred Tradition, symbolic communion vs. Real Presence, speaking in tongues vs. cessationism, etc.

I used to think there was less diversity than there was–I have sometimes claimed, for instance, that all Anglicans believe in some form of the Real Presence. That’s more or less true in America, but apparently not in England or Australia.

Edwin

 

[Jon_Hus]

Edwin, seriously, I’m on your side mostly but I see it from a different prespective…from a doctrinal viewpoint. You see it from a faith/practice viewpoint.

 

[rr1213]

There are folks at my college telling students that the ACNA will be in communion with Canterbury by 2012, which I think is ridiculously unrealistic.

Agreed. The Anglican Communion recognizing the ACNA is not a “done deal” by any means and, in any event, the Anglican Communion works way too deliberatively (or “slowly” depending on your perspective) for this to happen by 2012.

At least in my neck of the woods (or rather cornfields), we are the ones trying to remain faithful to some sort of historic continuity of faith and practice…

That’s good. Of course, it would be even better if you all just joined the ordinariate when it comes your way…

The fact that this stuff is American evangelical stuff rather than liberal stuff may make them the good guys to many.

Very likely. It is something different than the dominant liberal revisionist wing of TEC.

 

[rr1213]

In the United States, a large part of the COE is called The Episcopal Church. A good question to ask is how did the COE in the US come to be know as the Episcopal Church?

Simple answer. There are three kinds of church government, 1. Episcopal, 2. Presbyterian, 3. Congregational. The COE, like the RCC is episcopal in government, that is it is run from the top down. The RCC (with the Pope at the top, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests) is in fact the ultimate example of Episcopal Church government. Presbyterians get their name from the kind of government they have, that is a local presbtery or regional oversight. Congregational is local run. So the Anglicans in the US were described and named by the type of church government they have.

Probably true…although I also suspect that the name “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America” which, I believe is still the official name of TEC notwithstanding recent playing around with nomenclature, was adopted at least in part because of anti-English feelings after the American Revolution (hence the problem with using the name “Anglican”).

 

[Soldier_X]

Those Anglicans…can’t live with 'em, can’t have a (non-LDS) hot forum topic without 'em!

 

[Jon_Hus]

Probably true…although I also suspect that the name “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America” which, I believe is still the official name of TEC notwithstanding recent playing around with nomenclature, was adopted at least in part because of anti-English feelings after the American Revolution (hence the problem with using the name “Anglican”).

I suspect you are very correct. We see today folks who do not want to identify with any other church except the one of their family heritage and it tears them apart the fact that that church of their youth is literally imploding right before their eyes.

Getting back to what I way saying about the 3 kinds of church government, consider the popular African/American denomination commonly referred to as the AME Church: The African Methodist Episcopal Church. This is a group started by those of African heritage, Methodist in theology (Arminian) and Episcopal in government. The name says it all.

 

[GKC]

Probably true…although I also suspect that the name “The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America” which, I believe is still the official name of TEC notwithstanding recent playing around with nomenclature, was adopted at least in part because of anti-English feelings after the American Revolution (hence the problem with using the name “Anglican”).

Correct.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

I would have to agree with you in total if it were not for the fact that I have a long time friend who is cradle Episcopal in western PA who is in beliefs more baptist than another long time friend who is a pastor in a ABCUSA.

Jon, that’s a reason to *agree *with me, not to disagree!

There is as I’m sure you know a difference between the written theology and practice even among individuals within the same local assembly. I have a friend who is a deacon in a Wesylan Church that is more Calvinistic than myself. But according to the doctrine of faith of the Wesylan church he is arminian.

Yes, but the problem in Anglicanism is that our statements of faith are not very detailed, and the most specific statement of faith we have (the 39 Articles) is of dubious authority, at least in the U.S. If one were to interpret the Articles in a historically reasonable manner and apply them strictly, Anglicanism would be definitely in the Reformed theological camp, though on the moderate, high-church side of that tradition.

But in fact that obviously isn’t the case. This isn’t like the odd Wesleyan pastor being a Calvinist in clear opposition to the doctrinal teaching of his church. This is a case where there clearly isn’t a doctrinal consensus beyond the Nicene Creed, and perhaps we could add acceptance of infant baptism (at least the validity thereof).

For me the dividing line between doctrinal diversity and simple dissent is whether the “dissenter” admits dissenting status. In other words, I suspect that your Wesleyan friend would grant that he is going against the teaching of his denomination. Perhaps your “Baptist” Anglican friend would as well. But groups as different as the low-church Calvinists of the Diocese of Sydney, the extreme Anglo-Catholics whose only disagreement with Rome is papal infallibility, and the extreme liberals who deny that there are any binding doctrinal statements at all and see the Nicene Creed itself as simply poetic would *all *claim to be in continuity with historic Anglicanism. And while one could argue that all of them are quite clearly wrong and historic Anglicanism is somewhere in the middle, it would be hard to have a reasonable consensus beyond that point.

Probably a better example in Wesleyanism would be something like open theism, or disagreements about inerrancy.

Edwin

 

[Jon_Hus]

Again Edwin, I think we agree more than not only we see it from differrent angles. It is easy for me to say that I don’t think God is impressed with fancy liturgy, harder for me to admit that he probably isn’t impressed with a lack of liturgy either. From the Bible though we find out that God want’s to know our hearts and our faith in His son. Ritual, no matter how complex or simple it is isn’t that impressive to He who created all things by simply speaking the word.

 

[Contarini]

Again Edwin, I think we agree more than not only we see it from differrent angles. It is easy for me to say that I don’t think God is impressed with fancy liturgy, harder for me to admit that he probably isn’t impressed with a lack of liturgy either. From the Bible though we find out that God want’s to know our hearts and our faith in His son. Ritual, no matter how complex or simple it is isn’t that impressive to He who created all things by simply speaking the word.

Jon,

And the point I’m trying to make is that there’s a lot more to inter-Anglican differences than liturgy. Indeed, within the Episcopal Church we have a relatively uniform liturgy (the situation in England is very different), but huge theological differences and very little basic doctrinal consensus.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Jon,

And the point I’m trying to make is that there’s a lot more to inter-Anglican differences than liturgy. Indeed, within the Episcopal Church we have a relatively uniform liturgy (the situation in England is very different), but huge theological differences and very little basic doctrinal consensus.

Edwin

Edwin speaks truly.

GKC

posterus traditus Anglicanus, Anglicanus-Catholicus.

 

[Bluegoat]

Maybe it’s the post-Typhoid fever affecting my mind! LOL…Honestly Edwin I’m not at all trying “caricature” you. I actually think you’re one of the brightest and most intellectually-honest guys in here. I think you’d be a formidable opponent (even though I don’t see you as one here at all) in a debate. You’re a bright guy who wants to do the right thing. Perhaps we’re not as far apart as we think, as you stated. I actually really enjoyed your reply to my loooong posts here. Again, not trying to caricature you. I honestly don’t understand why ANYONE is still an Episcopalian, no offense. I just don’t understand it. I suppose I didn’t understand your rationale for it and perhaps I had you painted a liberal. Some of your past posts seem apologetics for TEC and at times a more liberal social agenda. You seemed in past posts to be more open to a liberal mindset I suppose. Maybe that was a mis-perceived analysis on my part.

You have stated before that there are a few issues that keep you from being Catholic and that you agree more with Orthodoxy but you choose to be in the middle as an Episcopalian. That just didn’t make sense to me I suppose.

Reading this got me to thinking about my answers to the same question. I think my thinking is perhaps in this direction - the Church is not, or not primarily, a body constituted by it’s worldwide organization. It is in some real way constituted at the local level - each individual church, it seems to me, is The Church. My local parish church is a doctrinally and liturgically sound group, that I would say practices Christianity and Anglicanism faithfully, despite being part of a liberal diocese in the ACC. I am unhappy with the ACC and with my diocese, but why would I leave such a parish?

I have concerns about this situation - it is not good for a parish to have no real episcopal oversight, for example. But unless I come to the conclusion that the Anglican Church would be better off dying a quick death, or that it was never a Church in a real sense, I can’t see moving.

That being said, I’m more seriously looking at Orthodoxy because I get so frustrated with the ACC. But whether that will amount to anything substantial I don’t know.