How has the Anglican Communion gone wrong?

[Contarini]

That’s and interesting thought. How have you seen this occur in the more conservative sides.

I won’t speak for Anna, but here are a few instances I could think of in my own right:

1. Divorce. “Conservative” Anglicans are happy to be hardline about homosexuality, but are typically fairly lax about divorce. This really bugs me. I would say the same, to some extent, about birth control. (Abortion not so much, since most conservative Anglicans seem to be prolife, though I do wonder why abortion has played such a relatively minor role in the recent controversies.) Some folks would add women’s ordination, though people who have followed my posts on this forum know that I don’t agree there, since I see good theological reasons for ordaining women (and on the whole it seems that more conservative Anglicans are willing to oppose WO than divorce or birth control). The sexual issues, though, do seem to hang together (and maybe WO does as well–I certainly don’t exclude that possibility, though so far I find a lot of the arguments unconvincing). Liberals and “real” conservatives (conservative Catholics, for instance) recognize this. But it seems like a lot of “conservative” Anglicans want to be tough on one particular sexual issue that affects relatively few people, while taking the easy stance on other issues that affect most folks.
2. Ecclesiology. Conservative Anglicans, particularly of the ACNA variety but also the Continuers to some extent, simply disregard traditional ideas about church polity, one bishop per city, etc., and embrace an American free-church model in which the Church is essentially a form of private enterprise for the purpose of evangelization (and/or for the celebration of the liturgy). When tasked with their departure from historic Catholic polity, they use the same kinds of arguments about changing times requiring us to sit loose to tradition that the liberals use with regard to sexual morality. The Diocese of Sydney’s initiative for lay presidency at the Eucharist would be part of this.

Edwin

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Don’t be! I was kidding, Anna.

Gurney,

Have you re-reverted or are you still Anglican? I am confused.

J4M

 

[GKC]

I won’t speak for Anna, but here are a few instances I could think of in my own right:

1. Divorce. “Conservative” Anglicans are happy to be hardline about homosexuality, but are typically fairly lax about divorce. This really bugs me. I would say the same, to some extent, about birth control. (Abortion not so much, since most conservative Anglicans seem to be prolife, though I do wonder why abortion has played such a relatively minor role in the recent controversies.) Some folks would add women’s ordination, though people who have followed my posts on this forum know that I don’t agree there, since I see good theological reasons for ordaining women (and on the whole it seems that more conservative Anglicans are willing to oppose WO than divorce or birth control). The sexual issues, though, do seem to hang together (and maybe WO does as well–I certainly don’t exclude that possibility, though so far I find a lot of the arguments unconvincing). Liberals and “real” conservatives (conservative Catholics, for instance) recognize this. But it seems like a lot of “conservative” Anglicans want to be tough on one particular sexual issue that affects relatively few people, while taking the easy stance on other issues that affect most folks.
2. Ecclesiology. Conservative Anglicans, particularly of the ACNA variety but also the Continuers to some extent, simply disregard traditional ideas about church polity, one bishop per city, etc., and embrace an American free-church model in which the Church is essentially a form of private enterprise for the purpose of evangelization (and/or for the celebration of the liturgy). When tasked with their departure from historic Catholic polity, they use the same kinds of arguments about changing times requiring us to sit loose to tradition that the liberals use with regard to sexual morality. The Diocese of Sydney’s initiative for lay presidency at the Eucharist would be part of this.

Edwin

“Typically” is true. But the divorce issue has split one major Continuing Anglican jurisidiction, to my knowledge, and caused issues within my parish.

All Anglicans ignore (and have, historically) the “one bishop” concept, assuming they live near a RC see. Part of the world of schism. Like unto the Orthodox.

GKC

 

[JohnnyReb]

I won’t speak for Anna, but here are a few instances I could think of in my own right:

1. Divorce. “Conservative” Anglicans are happy to be hardline about homosexuality, but are typically fairly lax about divorce. This really bugs me. I would say the same, to some extent, about birth control. (Abortion not so much, since most conservative Anglicans seem to be prolife, though I do wonder why abortion has played such a relatively minor role in the recent controversies.) Some folks would add women’s ordination, though people who have followed my posts on this forum know that I don’t agree there, since I see good theological reasons for ordaining women (and on the whole it seems that more conservative Anglicans are willing to oppose WO than divorce or birth control). The sexual issues, though, do seem to hang together (and maybe WO does as well–I certainly don’t exclude that possibility, though so far I find a lot of the arguments unconvincing). Liberals and “real” conservatives (conservative Catholics, for instance) recognize this. But it seems like a lot of “conservative” Anglicans want to be tough on one particular sexual issue that affects relatively few people, while taking the easy stance on other issues that affect most folks.
2. Ecclesiology. Conservative Anglicans, particularly of the ACNA variety but also the Continuers to some extent, simply disregard traditional ideas about church polity, one bishop per city, etc., and embrace an American free-church model in which the Church is essentially a form of private enterprise for the purpose of evangelization (and/or for the celebration of the liturgy). When tasked with their departure from historic Catholic polity, they use the same kinds of arguments about changing times requiring us to sit loose to tradition that the liberals use with regard to sexual morality. The Diocese of Sydney’s initiative for lay presidency at the Eucharist would be part of this.

Edwin

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I can’t speak for all conservative Anglicans, and I’m not even speaking for myself here, so bear with me. I think many are up in arms about WO and the Homosexuality issues because they impact sacraments-Holy Orders and Marriage. I’ve been back and forth on WO, and I will say that I don’t find purely “Biblical” arguments against it to be convincing. Christian tradition seems to argue against it. Still, from the people I have talked to, it seems the acceptance of homosexuality in TEC is what gave the continuing movement a shot in the arm. Sure, some where upset about WO, but WO alone isn’t going to create a lasting movement.

The issue of Birth Control doesn’t bother me. I have not found an argument that is solid enough to condemn the use of ALL (keyword) forms of birth control. Only those forms that say, induce and abortion post conception or whatever.

Divorce is certainly a problem, as Evangelical Christians are not better than non-believers when it comes to divorce. Their rates are just as high. In the RCC, we see annulments granted for almost any reason and that annulments have become Catholic style divorces in some cases. Again, sin and brokenness rears their ugly head and reveals that we as a race need a savior.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well we don’t want you to be confused, Madrid! I’ve re-verted, at least I’m attempting to do so. I’m struggling with PLENTY of things with Catholicism. I’m tryin’ buddy…

Gurney,

Have you re-reverted or are you still Anglican? I am confused.

J4M

 

[nhylan]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I can’t speak for all conservative Anglicans, and I’m not even speaking for myself here, so bear with me. I think many are up in arms about WO and the Homosexuality issues because they impact sacraments-Holy Orders and Marriage. I’ve been back and forth on WO, and I will say that I don’t find purely “Biblical” arguments against it to be convincing. Christian tradition seems to argue against it. Still, from the people I have talked to, it seems the acceptance of homosexuality in TEC is what gave the continuing movement a shot in the arm. Sure, some where upset about WO, but WO alone isn’t going to create a lasting movement.

The issue of Birth Control doesn’t bother me. I have not found an argument that is solid enough to condemn the use of ALL (keyword) forms of birth control. Only those forms that say, induce and abortion post conception or whatever.

Divorce is certainly a problem, as Evangelical Christians are not better than non-believers when it comes to divorce. Their rates are just as high. In the RCC, we see annulments granted for almost any reason and that annulments have become Catholic style divorces in some cases. Again, sin and brokenness rears their ugly head and reveals that we as a race need a savior.

Johnny,
You and I are at about the same place. Have you read N.T. Wrights defense of WO? Its pretty good, worth a google search at least. I recently got married and flat out told my wife that divorce isn’t an option, we work through our problems. I can understand how people feel they have to break a covenant like that but that’s not for us. I have many gay friends, they are great people, I just haven’t been able to sort out how I feel about openly gay clergy. I suppose its just like any other sin so perhaps that’s the way to look at it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know some people mistakingly view annulment as a type of “Catholic divorce” but it really isn’t. It’s a recognition that no real valid marriage was ever there to begin with. As to the annulments being excessive in the States, I honestly can’t say whether they are or not because I haven’t read any real hard data on the subject. It’d be interesting to know.

I do agree with Edwin (even though pigs will fly when he agrees me with me ) about ACNA types being vehemently anti-gay but very friendly toward divorce. I made the same comment about a year ago in here. While homosexuality was never condemned or criticized by Jesus directly (even though we know it’s abomination from Paul and the OT!) He does actually do so with divorce! Jesus is very, very hard on divorce. And yet “conservative” Anglicans are very easy-going with divorce. Bishop Schofield from my diocese here only requires a meeting with someone wanting to divorce or marry a divorcee. I’m sure he’s not hard on them.

This is one reason I’ve reverted to Catholicism. I think there comes a point when we realize that we’re tailor-making Church for ourselves. I’m guilty as heck of that and a hypocrite. I admit it. A lot of us say things like “I have no trouble with _____________ism” or “I am not ok with ________________” or “I see now reason to accept _____________” etc. There is too much of us in the equation. We become mini-popes with our own magisterium. I’m, as I said, very guilty of that. At some point we have to just yield to faith and put our faith somewhere. There is an emotional element to faith and a gut feeling to it though I doubt many of the learned professors of theology in this forum would like to admit it. Despite getting phd’s and going through years of seminary, in the end FAITH is the operative x-factor in our journey. Emotion plays a part, intellect a part, the Holy Spirit ultimately is there and we can only hope we are listening to Him.

Finding the right Church is tough and looking for the truth is tough. It has taken its toll on Anna Scott and I at times until we were pulling our hair out. Just when I feel I can yield to Catholicism and be obedient and a good son of the Church, my gut, my intellect, my heart tells me that natural family planning is not right and that birth control is not diabolically evil. I know that from experience and living it. And I’ve seen the affects of post-pardem depression and what it does to a woman. I’ve also seen couples in third world countries who have far, far too many kids trying to obey this lifestyle and are raising their children in abject squalor. I hear about indulgences and my intellectual senses reel! It doesn’t square with what I know of Christ in Scripture, in Tradition, etc. And when I read the contradictions in history of Catholicism like Pius V’s admonitions about the Mass and Vatican II, or read about infallibility and see Honorius, etc. my red flags go up. Then when I hear (our bishop in our Catholic diocese died recently) our pastor say that it’ll take about six months to get a new bishop because the Pope has to choose a successor, I think, “in the early Church the people elected bishops? Popes didn’t? Augustine was made bishop by his flock!” Red flags go up.

But when I hear of divorce with ACNA, women’s ordination, contradicting theologies, evangelicals vs. anglo-catholics teaching pure, unadulterated contradictions about ministry and sacraments, and how no two people seem to be even able to say what the Anglican Church teaches, my red flags go HIGH in the air!

So then one looks at Orthodoxy. When I read their views on the Atonement, I am NOT a happy camper! I read their views on Original Sin or their insistence on leavened bread and ripping Catholics for unleavened, their passionate anger at the filioque, their organizational structure, views on icons, etc. my red flags go up on them.

So it keeps getting back to me, me, me. I pray to Christ to give me the vision to see clearly the Truth. At this point, I’m just keeping my buns parked in a Catholic pew trusting in the Church even though I personally disagree with several key items. I am in just “trust” mode right now. But in my heart there is turmoil and churning going on. It’s not a fun place to be. I think faith and intangiables and the Holy Spirit are the key but I’m just not there yet.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I can’t speak for all conservative Anglicans, and I’m not even speaking for myself here, so bear with me. I think many are up in arms about WO and the Homosexuality issues because they impact sacraments-Holy Orders and Marriage. I’ve been back and forth on WO, and I will say that I don’t find purely “Biblical” arguments against it to be convincing. Christian tradition seems to argue against it. Still, from the people I have talked to, it seems the acceptance of homosexuality in TEC is what gave the continuing movement a shot in the arm. Sure, some where upset about WO, but WO alone isn’t going to create a lasting movement.

The issue of Birth Control doesn’t bother me. I have not found an argument that is solid enough to condemn the use of ALL (keyword) forms of birth control. Only those forms that say, induce and abortion post conception or whatever.

Divorce is certainly a problem, as Evangelical Christians are not better than non-believers when it comes to divorce. Their rates are just as high. In the RCC, we see annulments granted for almost any reason and that annulments have become Catholic style divorces in some cases. Again, sin and brokenness rears their ugly head and reveals that we as a race need a savior.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Johnny,
You and I are at about the same place. Have you read N.T. Wrights defense of WO? Its pretty good, worth a google search at least. I recently got married and flat out told my wife that divorce isn’t an option, we work through our problems. I can understand how people feel they have to break a covenant like that but that’s not for us. I have many gay friends, they are great people, I just haven’t been able to sort out how I feel about openly gay clergy. I suppose its just like any other sin so perhaps that’s the way to look at it.

I have not. Perhaps it will make for good spring break reading when I can take a break from reading for hours a day from nursing textbooks.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Homosexuality is just another sin, true enough. An adultering heterosexual is as sinful as an active homosexual. A divorce is as bad as the gay lifestyle. On and on…

But ultimately N.T. Wright is one man. He’s a theologian and he has some controversial and often-challenged opinions on a lot of things, especially about Paul and Paul’s theology. There in the end is no defense for women’s ordination. It is ahistorical, inconsistent with the theology of the priesthood, and a troubling development to be sure.

Johnny,
You and I are at about the same place. Have you read N.T. Wrights defense of WO? Its pretty good, worth a google search at least. I recently got married and flat out told my wife that divorce isn’t an option, we work through our problems. I can understand how people feel they have to break a covenant like that but that’s not for us. I have many gay friends, they are great people, I just haven’t been able to sort out how I feel about openly gay clergy. I suppose its just like any other sin so perhaps that’s the way to look at it.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Homosexuality is just another sin, true enough. An adultering heterosexual is as sinful as an active homosexual. A divorce is as bad as the gay lifestyle. On and on…

But ultimately N.T. Wright is one man. He’s a theologian and he has some controversial and often-challenged opinions on a lot of things, especially about Paul and Paul’s theology. There in the end is no defense for women’s ordination. It is** ahistorical,** inconsistent with the theology of the priesthood, and a troubling development to be sure.

That is the one thing that convinces me that WO could be in error. Its ahistorical. Without that, the case against it isn’t very strong.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I know some people mistakingly view annulment as a type of “Catholic divorce” but it really isn’t. It’s a recognition that no real valid marriage was ever there to begin with. As to the annulments being excessive in the States, I honestly can’t say whether they are or not because I haven’t read any real hard data on the subject. It’d be interesting to know.

I do agree with Edwin (even though pigs will fly when he agrees me with me ) about ACNA types being vehemently anti-gay but very friendly toward divorce. I made the same comment about a year ago in here. While homosexuality was never condemned or criticized by Jesus directly (even though we know it’s abomination from Paul and the OT!) He does actually do so with divorce! Jesus is very, very hard on divorce. And yet “conservative” Anglicans are very easy-going with divorce. Bishop Schofield from my diocese here only requires a meeting with someone wanting to divorce or marry a divorcee. I’m sure he’s not hard on them.

This is one reason I’ve reverted to Catholicism. I think there comes a point when we realize that we’re tailor-making Church for ourselves. I’m guilty as heck of that and a hypocrite. I admit it. A lot of us say things like “I have no trouble with _____________ism” or “I am not ok with ________________” or “I see now reason to accept _____________” etc. There is too much of us in the equation. We become mini-popes with our own magisterium. I’m, as I said, very guilty of that. At some point we have to just yield to faith and put our faith somewhere. There is an emotional element to faith and a gut feeling to it though I doubt many of the learned professors of theology in this forum would like to admit it. Despite getting phd’s and going through years of seminary, in the end FAITH is the operative x-factor in our journey. Emotion plays a part, intellect a part, the Holy Spirit ultimately is there and we can only hope we are listening to Him.

Finding the right Church is tough and looking for the truth is tough. It has taken its toll on Anna Scott and I at times until we were pulling our hair out. Just when I feel I can yield to Catholicism and be obedient and a good son of the Church, my gut, my intellect, my heart tells me that natural family planning is not right and that birth control is not diabolically evil. I know that from experience and living it. And I’ve seen the affects of post-pardem depression and what it does to a woman. I’ve also seen couples in third world countries who have far, far too many kids trying to obey this lifestyle and are raising their children in abject squalor. I hear about indulgences and my intellectual senses reel! It doesn’t square with what I know of Christ in Scripture, in Tradition, etc. And when I read the contradictions in history of Catholicism like Pius V’s admonitions about the Mass and Vatican II, or read about infallibility and see Honorius, etc. my red flags go up. Then when I hear (our bishop in our Catholic diocese died recently) our pastor say that it’ll take about six months to get a new bishop because the Pope has to choose a successor, I think, “in the early Church the people elected bishops? Popes didn’t? Augustine was made bishop by his flock!” Red flags go up.

But when I hear of divorce with ACNA, women’s ordination, contradicting theologies, evangelicals vs. anglo-catholics teaching pure, unadulterated contradictions about ministry and sacraments, and how no two people seem to be even able to say what the Anglican Church teaches, my red flags go HIGH in the air!

So then one looks at Orthodoxy. When I read their views on the Atonement, I am NOT a happy camper! I read their views on Original Sin or their insistence on leavened bread and ripping Catholics for unleavened, their passionate anger at the filioque, their organizational structure, views on icons, etc. my red flags go up on them.

So it keeps getting back to me, me, me. I pray to Christ to give me the vision to see clearly the Truth. At this point, I’m just keeping my buns parked in a Catholic pew trusting in the Church even though I personally disagree with several key items. I am in just “trust” mode right now. But in my heart there is turmoil and churning going on. It’s not a fun place to be. I think faith and intangiables and the Holy Spirit are the key but I’m just not there yet.

Gurney,

Once again, I admire and respect your honesty. The Christian journey can be a perilous one at times. It’s been so gut-wrenching, I’m surprised I have any guts left.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The case in favor of it is paper thin based on Scripture and Our Lord’s obvious decision NOT to ordain women as well. And the attempts to justify it in modernity are totally not compelling IMO either.

That is the one thing that convinces me that WO could be in error. Its ahistorical. Without that, the case against it isn’t very strong.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My wife has had two nursing tests in her classes so far 95% on both She’s passed ever skills test also and is keeping up with the insane amount of reading! She’s also taking care of three kids, cleaning, ironing, doing laundry, and being a mom. My wife is a saint and a consummate multi-tasker!

I have not. Perhaps it will make for good spring break reading when I can take a break from reading for hours a day from nursing textbooks.

 

[JohnnyReb]

My wife has had two nursing tests in her classes so far 95% on both She’s passed ever skills test also and is keeping up with the insane amount of reading! She’s also taking care of three kids, cleaning, ironing, doing laundry, and being a mom. My wife is a saint and a consummate multi-tasker!

When I hear of that I can’t help but be impressed. I didn’t do so well on our first exam, but no one did. No As. Only a couple Bs. Many many Cs. We have another exam tomorrow and another a week from now. I have done well on the skills tests. So many people failed their sterile technique/foley Catheter test yesterday. I did fine.

They are drilling this point home C=RN. Passing the boards in the most important thing. Of course our program has to have the reputation of being the hardest in the area, even more difficult than the university program downtown.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The case in favor of it is paper thin based on Scripture and Our Lord’s obvious decision NOT to ordain women as well. And the attempts to justify it in modernity are totally not compelling IMO either.

We have to ask ourselves if such a change from the historical norm is justified. I’m not 100percent sure that it is. But am I about anything? In traditions that do not hold to the priesthood, such as low church traditions, the case is much stronger. There seems nothing about a minister that necessitates that the minister be male. With a priest, its who he IS that matters.

 

[nhylan]

That is the one thing that convinces me that WO could be in error. Its ahistorical. Without that, the case against it isn’t very strong.

See, I don’t really feel like “ahistorical” is a good reason either. At a time women’s right to vote was ahistorical, their ability to own property was ahistorical, it was ahistorical to believe the earth was round. I know this doesn’t discount those who have genuine theological arguments against it but I don’t feel like saying its ahistorical is good enough on its own. Tradition is part of the Anglican Church just like the other great ancient parts of the church, the question becomes can we reexamine these traditions to ensure our faithfulness?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Ver true indeed. If I’m a Reformed Calvinist type, I think there is no sacerdotal ministry, no sacrifice, no priesthood so anyone could preach or get up and teach and bring the sacraments as the sacraments are just symbols, not tangiable and things like transubstantiation or any real presence is empty. There is no need for confession, so…

However, there are evangelicals (southern Baptists especially) who view women’s ordination through Pauline lenses and as a result forbid it. The LCMS and WELS Lutherans use more of a Pauline stance for their not allowing women ministers, not a priestly vantage point. So, evangelicals sometimes are opposed to WO as well.

We have to ask ourselves if such a change from the historical norm is justified. I’m not 100percent sure that it is. But am I about anything? In traditions that do not hold to the priesthood, such as low church traditions, the case is much stronger. There seems nothing about a minister that necessitates that the minister be male. With a priest, its who he IS that matters.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is exactly why you’re incorrect about women’s ordination—you view the priesthood as a “right.” This is wrong thinking regarding the sublime nature of the priesthood. It is not a right but a priviledge and a calling. Women are called to teach, to be mothers to flocks through catechesis and charity and devotions and bible studies and so many valuable realities. The priesthood is off limits. This isn’t voting, sufferage, or getting a job as a CEO, this is the priesthood and the priesthood is fatherly in persona christi. Ahistorical within a Christian framework and ahistorical in a secular setting is a false dichotomy you’re trying to make. Nobody is saying that we should continue to think the world is round or pull for slavery or keep women at home 24/7, but rather we are talking about a religious office of immense importance and tradition is intertwined in the priesthood in a way that runs deep. You’re trying to paint this as a civil rights issue or some kind of historical timeline in a secular manner. You’re applying liberation theology to the priesthood.

See, I don’t really feel like “ahistorical” is a good reason either. At a time women’s right to vote was ahistorical, their ability to own property was ahistorical, it was ahistorical to believe the earth was round. I know this doesn’t discount those who have genuine theological arguments against it but I don’t feel like saying its ahistorical is good enough on its own. Tradition is part of the Anglican Church just like the other great ancient parts of the church, the question becomes can we reexamine these traditions to ensure our faithfulness?

 

[nhylan]

This is exactly why you’re incorrect about women’s ordination—you view the priesthood as a “right.” This is wrong thinking regarding the sublime nature of the priesthood. It is not a right but a priviledge and a calling. Women are called to teach, to be mothers to flocks through catechesis and charity and devotions and bible studies and so many valuable realities. The priesthood is off limits. This isn’t voting, sufferage, or getting a job as a CEO, this is the priesthood and the priesthood is fatherly in persona christi. Ahistorical within a Christian framework and ahistorical in a secular setting is a false dichotomy you’re trying to make. Nobody is saying that we should continue to think the world is round or pull for slavery or keep women at home 24/7, but rather we are talking about a religious office of immense importance and tradition is intertwined in the priesthood in a way that runs deep. You’re trying to paint this as a civil rights issue or some kind of historical timeline in a secular manner. You’re applying liberation theology to the priesthood.

Sorry I think you missed my meaning. I’m not saying its a right, or a priviledge. I was arguing that saying that WO is ahistorical, is not a good argument. Something being ahistorical does not mean its wrong, immoral, or in any other way negative. I don’t happen to think its a right or a privelidge, I honestly believe that the theological arguments against WO aren’t very convincing.

 

[tomarin]

After having thought long and hard on it, I’m sorry to say that I have come to the opposite conclusion (and that’s as someone who wants emotionally to be on the traditional side). I haven’t seen a good reason for saying that women lack the ability to be priests. The only reasons given have been:

• it’s traditional
• Jesus and the apostles were men
• the Pope said so

two of which are non-sequiturs and one a fallacy (of appeal to authority), in my judgement. I still support keeping the priesthood male but I’m still looking for a solid reason.