How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[Publisher]

In those parishes where the legal title is held in the name of the parish, and has been, in some cases, since before there was a formal Episcopal Church in this country, how do you suppose TEC can claim ownership (and there is a way, be it ever so devious)?

The point of the crisis is not directly related to the response of the current Episcopalians to Anglicanorum Coetibus. The crisis predates that by 25 years and more, and is more obviously seen in the departure of four dioceses, in toto, from TEC, within the past few years, and, further back, with the exodus of those forming the Anglican Continuum. The point driving the issue is both doctrinal and ecclesiological. The Episcopal Church has been radically restructured, in a number of ways (not speaking here of doctrine, but ecclesiology), primarily in the invention of a hierarchical role for the office of presiding bishop, and on the shoving into the memory hole of the fact that, since its inception, TEC has been organized at the diocese level; that is, within his diocese, an Ordinary has supreme authority. These points have been undermined by a top-down power grab, running back to around 1970. It was not a democratic process, nor an open one.

And this ignores the doctrinal issues, not likely to weigh heavily upon you.

Part of your problem in understanding this is a probable lack of exposure to the history (not that I mean that such exposure would make you more sympathetic to the struggle). But looking at your bosses’ parish, and thinking you are understanding either the national church status, or the Communion as a whole, is like concentrating on one blue dot and thinking you can comprehend and describe a Seurat painting.

GKC

There is no doubt I do not fully understand the full picture…especially coming from a very non-liturgical tradition…I don’t understand fully why it is felt so strongly that rituals and ritual gestures must only be worded and enacted in any one way…to me TEC is growing in the Light by allowing these things…so I don’t fully understand the “crisis”.

I was “convinced” in a “liberal/independent Friends Meeting” 37 years ago…I am comfortable with such change that brings us closer together…those of marginalized society are necessary to embrace…the same Light resides in them as well as you and me.

Change is never easy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think if you go beyond Quaker literature and praxis, which is a very modern development, and go and read the Early Church you will see that liturgy, wording, gestures, piety, and the mode of worship is terribly important. The didache and the Fathers speak of the importance of liturgy, wording, and especially the Eucharist, all things that Friends lack. Have you read the early fathers and ancient Christian history, the councils, etc.? I don’t ask that sarcastically or rudely but in a serious tone.

There is no doubt I do not fully understand the full picture…especially coming from a very non-liturgical tradition…I don’t understand fully why it is felt so strongly that rituals and ritual gestures must only be worded and enacted in any one way…to me TEC is growing in the Light by allowing these things…so I don’t fully understand the “crisis”.

I was “convinced” in a “liberal/independent Friends Meeting” 37 years ago…I am comfortable with such change that brings us closer together…those of marginalized society are necessary to embrace…the same Light resides in them as well as you and me.

Change is never easy.

 

[Publisher]

I think if you go beyond Quaker literature and praxis, which is a very modern development, and go and read the Early Church you will see that liturgy, wording, gestures, piety, and the mode of worship is terribly important. The didache and the Fathers speak of the importance of liturgy, wording, and especially the Eucharist, all things that Friends lack. Have you read the early fathers and ancient Christian history, the councils, etc.? I don’t ask that sarcastically or rudely but in a serious tone.

Thank you friend, I appreciate the comment…I have looked at the early church…I do understand that such things as liturgy, ritual wear, ritual gestures…were all important to people of that day…those who formulated Christian belief in those first centuries used such thing to teach the populace the gospel…very few could read…any news was read to them during their meetings for worship…those meetings that represented Pauline theology grew…those groups that had things in common with the Pauline stream of Christianity merged under a ritual leadership…the priesthood system became prominent in the Church very early. It was not a universal development however…some meetings chose different worship leaders each Lord’s Day…sometimes even women…they were branded “heretic” by the “orthodox.” Granted, I understand that you may refer to this as “revisionist”…don’t know for sure…I do not find “Catholic faith promoting histories” compelling…the “revisionist” histories make much more sense…at least to me.

 

[GKC]

There is no doubt I do not fully understand the full picture…especially coming from a very non-liturgical tradition…I don’t understand fully why it is felt so strongly that rituals and ritual gestures must only be worded and enacted in any one way…to me TEC is growing in the Light by allowing these things…so I don’t fully understand the “crisis”.

I was “convinced” in a “liberal/independent Friends Meeting” 37 years ago…I am comfortable with such change that brings us closer together…those of marginalized society are necessary to embrace…the same Light resides in them as well as you and me.

Change is never easy.

And even if easy, is not always necessary. Or in the nature of truth. Or desirable.

Change is a many-faceted thing. A warming fire, a raging conflagration of destruction. A gentle zephyr, Cyclone Yasi.

You need some perspective as to what is changing, why, and what the result might be.

GKC

 

[Publisher]

And even if easy, is not always necessary. Or in the nature of truth. Or desirable.

Change is a many-faceted thing. A warming fire, a raging conflagration of destruction. A gentle zephyr, Cyclone Yasi.

You need some perspective as to what is changing, why, and what the result might be.

GKC

I agree I need some “perspective”…but I think I know what is changing…and I welcome it’s coming…I affirm the “perfectibility of humanity”…It is a Quaker belief that humanity can “rise up through flaming sword into the paradise of God and be as Adam was before the fall.”…I see a great future for mankind…I see these changes as steps in the right direction…human rights to life, liberty etc must trump religious idealism…if God is ever truly known…it is in the interactions we share with one another.

I welcome the change…I just don’t see the “crisis” as a “set back”…those of a more conservative stance may disagree.

 

[GKC]

I agree I need some “perspective”…but I think I know what is changing…and I welcome it’s coming…I affirm the “perfectibility of humanity”…It is a Quaker belief that humanity can “rise up through flaming sword into the paradise of God and be as Adam was before the fall.”…I see a great future for mankind…I see these changes as steps in the right direction…human rights to life, liberty etc must trump religious idealism…if God is ever truly known…it is in the interactions we share with one another.

I welcome the change…I just don’t see the “crisis” as a “set back”…those of a more conservative stance may disagree.

I, and historic Christianity generally, deny the perfectibility of humanity, within history…Voegelins’ gnostic immanentization of the Christian eschaton. It is difficult for me to see your view as in any sense Christian.

That is not necessarily a derogatory judgment, but it does mean I see you speaking from outside the fold, above.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Again, Publisher,

You lost me there for a sec. We see that the first Christians did have a priesthood. If you read some of the Fathers, especially Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, et. al. those guys lived during the apostolic age and were actually, in some cases, students of the Apostles themselves! And we hear men like Ignatius of Antioch talking about the centrality of the Episkopos, bishop, being the shepherd and only shepherd of the Church. We see men such as Ignatius talking about the Real Presence of the Eucharist. We also see them talking about liturgy, heresy, Christology, Mary, and so many other Catholic/Orthodox issues. So it’s not like the Church took 200 years to “turn” into a priesthood or transform/evolve into Episcopal polity. It happened in the first century for the most part. One elder was chosen out of many to lead each ecclesiastical assembly.

As for women being marginalized from your point of view, I don’t see it that way. Women were not allowed to be clergy ever except as deaconesses for reasons of modesty with regard to full immersion baptism, etc., delicate situations indeed! Women were allowed to be clergy only in heretical groups like the Gnostics, etc. I think there was some toleration with montanists if memory serves.

I would say revisionist is a possible term, anachronistic would be the best. Inconsistent another possibility for Quaker beliefs. The liturgy wasn’t developed because people were illiterate. God never intended Truth to just flow from Bible studies. God set in place a priesthood, a visible Church that is real, tangible, on earth, not just an invisible brotherhood alone where everyone is left to interpret and fill in the blanks. Peter’s commission as the Rock is the centrality of episcopal polity and not just good order but safeguards for dogma, theology, soteriological, christological, and moral teachings to remain orthodox. The very idea that Quakers reject the idea of orthodoxy is ahistorical really and thus, yes, inaccurate. To break that far from history is dangerous IMO. I’d be interested to know why you’d prefer some 17th and 18th century outlooks on Christ and His Church over the Fathers who lived during the apostolic age and to the great bishops and saints who have preserved the Faith for 2,000 years? Again, I don’t say that with a snide or combative tone (the internet is tough to gauge sometimes attitudewise! ) but just out of curiosity and discourse.

God bless, Publisher! Keep on publishin!

Thank you friend, I appreciate the comment…I have looked at the early church…I do understand that such things as liturgy, ritual wear, ritual gestures…were all important to people of that day…those who formulated Christian belief in those first centuries used such thing to teach the populace the gospel…very few could read…any news was read to them during their meetings for worship…those meetings that represented Pauline theology grew…those groups that had things in common with the Pauline stream of Christianity merged under a ritual leadership…the priesthood system became prominent in the Church very early. It was not a universal development however…some meetings chose different worship leaders each Lord’s Day…sometimes even women…they were branded “heretic” by the “orthodox.” Granted, I understand that you may refer to this as “revisionist”…don’t know for sure…I do not find “Catholic faith promoting histories” compelling…the “revisionist” histories make much more sense…at least to me.

 

[Publisher]

Friend Gurney,

I understand…you see the early Christian developments somewhat “fixed”…to me they are just expressions of those first century Christians…I am not bound by their “expressions”…I believe we have a living faith…one that is constantly trying to “interpret” itself to meet humanities collective needs…sometimes the way the Truth is expressed needs new ideas and ways of expression…I understand that you give much credence to the early Christians methodology…I do not…my “Quaker expression” of Truth meets my deepest needs as I Journey toward the Light.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Any Anglican who says there is no crises is being disengenuous. There is a huge crises. Right now there is a meeting of Primates (national Bishops) in the Anglican Communion that many primates have refused to attend. The Episcopal Church has been threatened with non-voting, observer status within the communion. Many parishes and even diocese are breaking off in the West, especially NA, or looking for outside episcoplal oversight.

These things are a big deal.

What are the problems. There may be a few things.

One I think is that the things that are meant to hold the communion together ultimately have rather blunt teeth. The Communion has always allowed a lot of variation in some areas of belief. The tendency is to be very forgiving or flexible in this. When worldview that are ultimately not compatible came up, they were not immediately recognized, probably because of this training to allow as much diversity as possible rather than search for orthodoxy. (This is a perhaps ultimately part of Anglicanisms Western heritage - what is the least think that is acceptable, rather than what is the fullness of the faith.)

There has always been a tension, as gurney pointed out, between more Protestant ideas and Catholic ones in Anglicanism. But in the past, even the Catholicswere able to see the Protestant Anglicans as having validity, because the low church Anglicans still were very attached to a strict Biblical Christianity. That stopped them from really going outside what the catholics could consider as acceptable, (and vice versa really). But once things like women`s ordination, or lay presidency arrived, then that failed. More catholic Anglicans cannot support that.

And so it comes down in the end in a real way to the view of scripture. An understanding of scripture as simple an inspired, but not an authoritative document. Really a loss of confidence - due largely to Higher Criticism - in it`s ability to teach truth - allowed factions within Anglicanism to go outside of what was acceptable to the other factions.

This was followed by changes in the form of the liturgy, following the Catholic model. In fact, the embracing of the attempt to bring the liturgy back to its primitive forms was probably an attempt to find the sure foundation that had been lost in Scripture. But it probably made the problem worse, because the new liturgies were not up to the same standard doctrinally or didactically, and not all Anglicans accepted the new forms, and the new forms allowed substantial variation - so different Anglicans could be using substantially different forms of the liturgy. (Before, even where they were stylistically diverse, the text of the liturgy was very similar, and it was the primary lens for Anglican thought on dogma and doctrine. It is no longer able to serve that function.)

Very well put. It is not related to Anglicanisms founding. Its not related to Anglican doctrine. It began only slightly with women’s ordination, but came crashing down with the acceptance of homosexuality within the communion. I am suspicious of the claim that WO is directly responsible, only because many Protestant communions ordain women and do not have the same problems, such as the Pentecostals and Methodists.

Really, its the embrace of the homosexual agenda, and allowing pro-choice forces to take hold, that has lead to the crisis. The problem is, these things are only symptoms and manifestations of the liberal mindset that was already there. More Orthdox Anglicanism is a beautiful tradition within Christianity. No one else allows for so much diversity (not the liberal kind) and influences to impace their thought without prejudice.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Friend Publisher (I like the sound of it, so I’m using it! ), I would just ask, does Jesus come to the Earth, become Incarnate, give us the Gospel (that is very hard to follow!) and die for our sins on the Cross all to meet our needs? Is Christianity about meeting our needs or meeting the needs of God? God wants our obedience, worship, devotion, and morality in line with His divine will. I cannot find anything in the NT or otherwise that says Christ wants to meet out needs or have us change with the times to make conveniences for us?

Friend Gurney,

I understand…you see the early Christian developments somewhat “fixed”…to me they are just expressions of those first century Christians…I am not bound by their “expressions”…I believe we have a living faith…one that is constantly trying to “interpret” itself to meet humanities collective needs…sometimes the way the Truth is expressed needs new ideas and ways of expression…I understand that you give much credence to the early Christians methodology…I do not…my “Quaker expression” of Truth meets my deepest needs as I Journey toward the Light.

 

[GKC]

Very well put. It is not related to Anglicanisms founding. Its not related to Anglican doctrine. It began only slightly with women’s ordination, but came crashing down with the acceptance of homosexuality within the communion. I am suspicious of the claim that WO is directly responsible, only because many Protestant communions ordain women and do not have the same problems, such as the Pentecostals and Methodists.

Really, its the embrace of the homosexual agenda, and allowing pro-choice forces to take hold, that has lead to the crisis. The problem is, these things are only symptoms and manifestations of the liberal mindset that was already there. More Orthdox Anglicanism is a beautiful tradition within Christianity. No one else allows for so much diversity (not the liberal kind) and influences to impace their thought without prejudice.

Those who first drove WO as a right, in Anglicanism, also drove the other issues.

It began as far back as the work on the 1979 Book.

GKC

 

[JohnnyReb]

I would honestly be surprised if the Episcopal church had lost a serious number of butts in the seats if you will the next time someone gets to counting. In the northeast in particular many many parishes have been growing. In my diocese 60% of parish’s are experiencing growth of more than 10% a year. This is largely because of the abuse problem in the Roman Catholic Church. Bishop Tom was at our parish recently and described the influx as “droves of people.”

I have to disagree with most of the posters who say there is a major crisis. I think there is a crisis but it is one of a small but loud minority. There is a macro crisis but I believe this will simply fade over time rather than come to a head and some sort of cataclysmic schism. You might see a future communion which is two sides of the same coin with ++Cantaur at the center binding it all together. In many ways this has increased the importance of the role of the ABC i think. Of course I could be wrong but only time will tell.

No doubt, one thing I can say is that the Episcopal church in Virginia is very healthy still with huge parishes running smoothly. Then again, TEC is a huge part of our cultural heritage. But this also has helped the Continuing movement here too, plenty of dissatisfied parishoners to be a part of continuing churches. We have a number of former Catholics in my parish who came as part of the priest scandle. (its not that it happened, but the churches handling of it that seems to be the issue with most of them). My parish began as an Episcopal mission in the area, but the TEC leadership in the area thought we talked about Jesus a little too much for their comfort. In otherwords, our parish was too conservative and all but asked to leave TEC. They did not want to originally leave, but they couldn’t stop their outreach either. So they affilated with the AMIA.

It seems TEC parishes in my area are trying to go middle of the road to ease the crisis. They hold onto some elements of liberalism so that they don’t fall into independent Baptist style fundamentalism, but they see that going way out into left field will harm them too. Who knows what will happen.

 

[Publisher]

Friend Publisher (I like the sound of it, so I’m using it! ), I would just ask, does Jesus come to the Earth, become Incarnate, give us the Gospel (that is very hard to follow!) and die for our sins on the Cross all to meet our needs? Is Christianity about meeting our needs or meeting the needs of God? God wants our obedience, worship, devotion, and morality in line with His divine will. I cannot find anything in the NT or otherwise that says Christ wants to meet out needs or have us change with the times to make conveniences for us?

Friend I have nothing against what you have said…Yes…God does meet our needs in Christ…I do not live in the 1st or 2nd century CE…I live in the 21st…we now understand human sexuality much better today than we did 2000 years ago…we are becoming more in line with the way God would have us to live by these new and deeper understandings into His creation…we serve a Living God…not a God of the past…but a God of the Divine Present.

As a Friend, scripture is a “secondary source”…not the Source of Truth Himself…we collectively are “searching for Truth”…seeking to express the Truth in our own way…we one day will Speak Together…I am optimistic for our future.

I do not agree with conducting my life by your understanding and Light…I must follow the Light where He leads…as must you…my belief encompasses you on this Journey…different…unique to yourself…but I must follow the Light as I am guided.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Those who first drove WO as a right, in Anglicanism, also drove the other issues.

It began as far back as the work on the 1979 Book.

GKC

No doubt, I see the connection within the Anglican communion. What I am addressing relates to the issue of WO itself on a higher level. This is because outside of Anglicanism, these problems do not exist even with women being ordained. It has alot to do with the ethos of those who are pushing for WO. In Pentecostalism, its was the immediate return of Christ, that Christ would pour out his spirit upon all flesh (male and female). In other words, the need to preach the Gospel was so great that ordaination to the ministry transcended gender.

 

[gmcbroom]

Hello Friend Publisher.
I have a question it’ll be quick so I don’t accidentally derail the thread. As you probably know the Catholic,Orthodox, Anglican and others put a certain amount of weight to the traditions and scriptures we use so ritual is somewhat important a key one is the eucharist or communion. Now all faiths have some traditions to help keep the core values and tenets going. Is the Friend movement primarily based on Jesus’s two greatest commandments (paraphrased badly sorry) to Love God first and to Love one another as you love yourself instead of say the eucharist? In a way if thats the case your group could be seen as the ones Jesus was talking about when he said to leave them alone as those that drive out demons in his name won’t speak ill of me. I’m just curious.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

 

[Bluegoat]

No doubt, I see the connection within the Anglican communion. What I am addressing relates to the issue of WO itself on a higher level. This is because outside of Anglicanism, these problems do not exist even with women being ordained. It has alot to do with the ethos of those who are pushing for WO. In Pentecostalism, its was the immediate return of Christ, that Christ would pour out his spirit upon all flesh (male and female). In other words, the need to preach the Gospel was so great that ordaination to the ministry transcended gender.

In groups that have ministers rather than priests, the implications of women as ministers is different. That may be part of it.

But ultimately, the woman thing is a symptom, not a cause. It also goes back before the 70’s - the fist ordination of a woman was in the 40’s - around the same time they began allowing the use of artificial contraception, interestingly.

Personally, I do not care who my priest is attracted to - men or women. The issue is who one can marry and whether the unmarried must be celibate.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You don’t care if your priest has gay attractions, Meghan? Shoot, I care! LOL

In groups that have ministers rather than priests, the implications of women as ministers is different. That may be part of it.

But ultimately, the woman thing is a symptom, not a cause. It also goes back before the 70’s - the fist ordination of a woman was in the 40’s - around the same time they began allowing the use of artificial contraception, interestingly.

Personally, I do not care who my priest is attracted to - men or women. The issue is who one can marry and whether the unmarried must be celibate.

 

[nhylan]

No doubt, one thing I can say is that the Episcopal church in Virginia is very healthy still with huge parishes running smoothly. Then again, TEC is a huge part of our cultural heritage. But this also has helped the Continuing movement here too, plenty of dissatisfied parishoners to be a part of continuing churches. We have a number of former Catholics in my parish who came as part of the priest scandle. (its not that it happened, but the churches handling of it that seems to be the issue with most of them). My parish began as an Episcopal mission in the area, but the TEC leadership in the area thought we talked about Jesus a little too much for their comfort. In otherwords, our parish was too conservative and all but asked to leave TEC. They did not want to originally leave, but they couldn’t stop their outreach either. So they affilated with the AMIA.

It seems TEC parishes in my area are trying to go middle of the road to ease the crisis. They hold onto some elements of liberalism so that they don’t fall into independent Baptist style fundamentalism, but they see that going way out into left field will harm them too. Who knows what will happen.

I agree, I think most parish’s would be described as moderate nowadays which I (personally) like. While I will say I am in favor of Women’s Ordination and I haven’t quite sorted out how I feel about gay non-celibate clergy, that and gay marriage go hand in hand. I will say that the Church’s leadership really did a poor job of introducing this stuff. You have to ease people into change, regardless of how theologically sound you, and I, think it is. They botched a lot of that in the early 21st century. I think things are calming down now.

We have always had a large contingent of Episcopal Church’s up this way so I think the situation is probably similar to what you describe in Virginia.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What evidence do you have that the “new sexuality” of cohabitation, gay sex, in vitro solo parenting, “transgender” cross-dressing, and swinging/couple-swapping is “more in line with the way God bould have us live?” I read the OT and NT and sure don’t see that. So when Jesus forbade divorce except in adultery/porneia situations, is the Quaker implication that Jesus was just ill-informed or not culturally-developed yet? I’m lost with that line of thinking.

Also, this “I follow my light, you follow yours” seems, and gosh I hate to employ an overused phrase at the risk of it becoming cliche, to be the ultimate zenith of moral relativism?

Who gave the Friends the authority to create their own “lights” and the ability to just forsake the first millenium and a half of Christian history and create an individualist approach? How is it logical? I’m just curious?

Friend I have nothing against what you have said…Yes…God does meet our needs in Christ…I do not live in the 1st or 2nd century CE…I live in the 21st…we now understand human sexuality much better today than we did 2000 years ago…we are becoming more in line with the way God would have us to live by these new and deeper understandings into His creation…we serve a Living God…not a God of the past…but a God of the Divine Present.

As a Friend, scripture is a “secondary source”…not the Source of Truth Himself…we collectively are “searching for Truth”…seeking to express the Truth in our own way…we one day will Speak Together…I am optimistic for our future.

I do not agree with conducting my life by your understanding and Light…I must follow the Light where He leads…as must you…my belief encompasses you on this Journey…different…unique to yourself…but I must follow the Light as I am guided.

 

[DavidKays]

What exactly caused the current crisis in the Anglican church and the growing toleration of same-sex relationships and their being seen as compatible with Scripture.

The Anglican Church was formed when Henry VIII decided to remove Papal Authority from the Church of England. To make this story short, what happened to this Church was a loss of Authority and Disclipline within herself. Every Diocese in the Anglican Communion realistically can act on its own. There is no Authority from the top so in essence every diocese is its own boss. The Angican Communion is largely a loose confederation of dioceses throughout the world. That been said you can say now that since there is no authority above like for instance the Pope in Rome for the Catholics or the Ecumenical Patriarch of the East for the Orthodox, this leaves any disclipline in the Anglican Church pretty well naught. Any Diocese can do anything it wants without any interference or warnings from another diocese. There is no organize Authority within the Anglican Communion. This creates problems when for instance 1 diocese goes ahead to ordain women or goes ahead to bless same-sex unions. The Anglican Communion has now been split up over issues such as this. While there is no formal shcishms on paper there is of course enormous amounts of people leaving the Church of England, many going back to the Church of Rome or to join the Orthodox Church. Some have created a seperate Anglican Communion in line to the traditional Anglicanism they have been brought up by. In this 3rd group of people we see alot of these AngloCatholic Communions entering the Church of Rome not only as individuals but as whole Parishes as well. Even among the Orthodox there was plenty of Anglican Churches joining the Anthiochian Rite and this Orthodox Church decided to create a seperate Western Rite within herself to accomadate all these Anglicans and their respective Parishes. They even changed some of the wording of the Book of Common Prayer so that these new " Orthodox " can still practice their devotions in line with the Orthodox Church they are now in Communion with. It is somewhat similar to Benedict’s XVI gestures to Anglicans who wish to retain their Anglican practice while they become full members of the Church of Rome. Anglicans while professing Apostolic orders have lost that when they started this inventative notion to ordain women. Whatever Apostolic orders they have retained since the Reformation days went down the drain once they began to ordain women. Now they can be classified as a full fledge Protestant Church. The reality of no disclipline and no authority in any Church will always bring that Church down. For how can God work with any Church that has no authority and disclipline within herself? He cannot. This is what you are seeing when a Church like the Anglicans are behaving like when they have no one to disclipline them.