Let's Split the Global Anglican Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter JesusforMadrid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JesusforMadrid

Guest
Hey Liberal TEC members and supporters,

As an evangelical Anglican (with serious high church sympathies), I find myself, tragically, much more aligned with those orthodox Catholics on this board than with the liberals in my own church. Sad, but true. In practice, we are not in communion with one another, whatever the sign on the front of our church says.

Given our irreconcilable differences, I seek an annulment.

What would you think about a proposal from the AC that basically recognises de jure a split in the AC between a conservative Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical group (lets call it the New Anglican Church) and a progressive group (let’s call it the New Episcopal Church)? The split would begin in the United States. However, both churches would then be free to pursue alliances with Anglicans abroad. Canadian, New Zealand and Scottish Anglicans might join en masse the New Episcopal Church. Much of the Southern Cone would no doubt join the New Anglican Church. I suspect that the UK would split 50/50.

Wouldn’t that be the best for both groups? The liberals would no longer be held back from blessing every kind of sexual practice and relationship they felt led to bless. They could preach progressive theology as the see fit. They could enter intercommunion agreements with other liberal mainline denominations such as the ELCA, UCC and the PCUSA, or even the Unitarian Universalists.

The conservatives would still have some nettling issues such as the ordination of women and some reformed theology issues such as the real presence, but would be much greater aligned in mission. The New Anglican Church would be an attractive refuge for many non-denominational evangelicals who are looking for an apostolic church with a catholic hierarchy, but who don’t want to go to Rome or Constantinople for whatever reason. The RCC and the Orthodox Church could then enter into serious dialogue with the New Anglican Church about issues that separate us as we all seek reunification.

I think both the liberals and conservatives would have fewer headaches and much lower blood pressure. Any thoughts?
 
JesusforMadrid said:
Hey Liberal TEC members and supporters,

As an evangelical Anglican (with serious high church sympathies), I find myself, tragically, much more aligned with those orthodox Catholics on this board than with the liberals in my own church. Sad, but true. In practice, we are not in communion with one another, whatever the sign on the front of our church says.

Given our irreconcilable differences, I seek an annulment.

What would you think about a proposal from the AC that basically recognises de jure a split in the AC between a conservative Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical group (lets call it the New Anglican Church) and a progressive group (let’s call it the New Episcopal Church)? The split would begin in the United States. However, both churches would then be free to pursue alliances with Anglicans abroad. Canadian, New Zealand and Scottish Anglicans might join en masse the New Episcopal Church. Much of the Southern Cone would no doubt join the New Anglican Church. I suspect that the UK would split 50/50.

Wouldn’t that be the best for both groups? The liberals would no longer be held back from blessing every kind of sexual practice and relationship they felt led to bless. They could preach progressive theology as the see fit. They could enter intercommunion agreements with other liberal mainline denominations such as the ELCA, UCC and the PCUSA, or even the Unitarian Universalists.

The conservatives would still have some nettling issues such as the ordination of women and some reformed theology issues such as the real presence, but would be much greater aligned in mission. The New Anglican Church would be an attractive refuge for many non-denominational evangelicals who are looking for an apostolic church with a catholic hierarchy, but who don’t want to go to Rome or Constantinople for whatever reason. The RCC and the Orthodox Church could then enter into serious dialogue with the New Anglican Church about issues that separate us as we all seek reunification.

I think both the liberals and conservatives would have fewer headaches and much lower blood pressure. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
That is, more or less what’s going on, and the ABC needn’t really approve of it, for it to progress along those lines. What it might mean for the Anglican Communion would, as has been discussed, remain to be seen; they would have to make a corporate decision to divide. Might be interesting to see where Cantaur went .

One overlooked detail: church buildings and property. Esp. in light of the change to the canons made at GC, defining what breaking communion now means to the TEC. Break communion, they will come for the deed, with lawyers.

GKC
 
GKC said:
That is, more or less what’s going on, and the ABC needn’t really approve of it, for it to progress along those lines. What it might mean for the Anglican Communion would, as has been discussed, remain to be seen; they would have to make a corporate decision to divide. Might be interesting to see where Cantaur

went .

One can only speculate which side the ABC would choose. Would I get to vote? I think the New Episcopalian Church could use his leadership. As a liberal anglo-catholic, he would face a difficult decision.

I have a litany of UK and US bishops, or even African, that I could propose for the New Anglican Church in his absence.
One overlooked detail: church buildings and property. Esp. in light of the change to the canons made at GC, defining what breaking communion now means to the TEC. Break communion, they will come for the deed, with lawyers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
JesusforMadrid;5469019:
Speculating on what rules might be changed, and how, is part of the game. My speculation is that TEC would take each and every parish attempting to realign, out of “communion” with TEC (which is the new canonical definition, not communion with the Church, but with TEC), into court.

On the other side, words have already been spoken, primarily from the orthodox Anglican Provinces, about what need is there for communion with Canterbury, and that a independent grouping, around someone like +Akinola, is perhaps better, given the fundamental disconnect between the trends in the Communion.

GKC
Click to expand...
It may be politic to name a slightly less divisive figure than Akinola, such as Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi, the Archbishop of the African Anglican Province of Kenya. However, if TEC goes nuclear on all the parish properties as you describe, I suspect being politic won’t be high on the agenda of most orthodox American Anglicans.
Click to expand...
 
A “split” would have been a better outcome than what is happening. What is happening is a shattering.

It appears to be wishful thinking to assume a neat cleavage into two parts for Anglicanism. Recently, a confederation calling itself the Anglican Church in North America was formed, but the differences in the formers were, and remain, significant. Some have women as priest, while others deny the validity of their ministry. Some follow the 2 sacrament model of the 39 articles, while others claim 2+5=7 sacraments (2 “gospel” and 5 others). And the Reformed Episcopal Church was one of the partners, and that group hasn’t cared about the “Anglican Communion” for many decades, and has been critical of some doctrines other Anglicans have accepted. RIght now, they are pushed together by a common enemy - TEC. Would they be, and can they stay, together without that push?

The really sad thing is not that Anglicans are “realigning.” In the situation, many are ceasing to go to church altogether. Those falling prey to indifference are the worst victims of this sad situation.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
A “split” would have been a better outcome than what is happening. What is happening is a shattering.

It appears to be wishful thinking to assume a neat cleavage into two parts for Anglicanism. Recently, a confederation calling itself the Anglican Church in North America was formed, but the differences in the formers were, and remain, significant. Some have women as priest, while others deny the validity of their ministry. Some follow the 2 sacrament model of the 39 articles, while others claim 2+5=7 sacraments (2 “gospel” and 5 others). And the Reformed Episcopal Church was one of the partners, and that group hasn’t cared about the “Anglican Communion” for many decades, and has been critical of some doctrines other Anglicans have accepted. RIght now, they are pushed together by a common enemy - TEC. Would they be, and can they stay, together without that push?

The really sad thing is not that Anglicans are “realigning.” In the situation, many are ceasing to go to church altogether. Those falling prey to indifference are the worst victims of this sad situation.

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
As we have discussed, here and there, the ACNA is basically a re-forming of the old Elizabethan Compromise, as in the Episcopal Church, circa 1960, with females in vestments added in. It blends, once again, the more reformed and the more Anglo-Catholic elements, but in a form of institutionalized impaired communion, over WO. While only roughly 1/4 of the ACNA allows for WO, I suspect it will, in the long run, be a killer.

For me, it is a spectator sport. A sad one.

GKC
 
JesusforMadrid said:
GKC;5469094:
It may be politic to name a slightly less divisive figure than Akinola, such as Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi, the Archbishop of the African Anglican Province of Kenya. However, if TEC goes nuclear on all the parish properties as you describe, I suspect being politic won’t be high on the agenda of most orthodox American Anglicans.
Click to expand...
Anglicans are often politic, to the exclusion of all other possible virtues.

GKC
Click to expand...
 
GKC said:
As we have discussed, here and there, the ACNA is basically a re-forming of the old Elizabethan Compromise, as in the Episcopal Church, circa 1960, with females in vestments added in. It blends, once again, the more reformed and the more Anglo-Catholic elements, but in a form of institutionalized impaired communion, over WO. While only roughly 1/4 of the ACNA allows for WO, I suspect it will, in the long run, be a killer.

For me, it is a spectator sport. A sad one.

GKC
Click to expand...
I agree on the difficulty of WO and eliminating this would make sense. Assuming such could occur, I think that the next step would have to be a common understanding of the eucharist, which would need to be an acceptance of the Real Presence. I don’t think this would be a deal breaker for a lot of evangelicals, so long as it didn’t smack of transsubstantiation (look at the number of evangelicals who joined the troubled CEC who claim “real presence”). Leaving the transformation of the host a “mystery” would probably be possible, although the dialogue would be prolonged and convoluted. Still, Anglicans are good at fudging on these issues, so that the same thing means different things to different people.
 
JesusforMadrid said:
I agree on the difficulty of WO and eliminating this would make sense. Assuming such could occur, I think that the next step would have to be a common understanding of the eucharist, which would need to be an acceptance of the Real Presence. I don’t think this would be a deal breaker for a lot of evangelicals, so long as it didn’t smack of transsubstantiation (look at the number of evangelicals who joined the troubled CEC who claim “real presence”). Leaving the transformation of the host a “mystery” would probably be possible, although the dialogue would be prolonged and convoluted. Still, Anglicans are good at fudging on these issues, so that the same thing means different things to different people.
Click to expand...
Anglicans invented fudge.

GKC
 
I like this idea. It’s one reason I’m becoming interested in the Anglican Mission in North America and a particular Anglican church in my region that split from TEC (losing their building, but keeping their spirit).

Am very attracted to the traditional liturgy, ties to the Fathers of the faith, and a well-defined denominational organization. Add to that – wonder of wonders – strong, Scriptural Christian beliefs, and it’s a pretty attractive possibility for this Protestant who has grown tired of so many local variations in practice and belief.

I guess I’m not ready to jump into the Roman Catholic world, but am thinking about a hop into Anglicanism. From there, who knows?
 
gepnav said:
I guess I’m not ready to jump into the Roman Catholic world, but am thinking about a hop into Anglicanism. From there, who knows?
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the Orthodox. Met. Jonah of the OCA spoke to the ACNA recently.
 
gepnav said:
I like this idea. It’s one reason I’m becoming interested in the Anglican Mission in North America and a particular Anglican church in my region that split from TEC (losing their building, but keeping their spirit).

Am very attracted to the traditional liturgy, ties to the Fathers of the faith, and a well-defined denominational organization. Add to that – wonder of wonders – strong, Scriptural Christian beliefs, and it’s a pretty attractive possibility for this Protestant who has grown tired of so many local variations in practice and belief.

I guess I’m not ready to jump into the Roman Catholic world, but am thinking about a hop into Anglicanism. From there, who knows?
Click to expand...
Look carefully before you leap.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus
 
The problem, and I think GKC touched on it, is that even if there is a split, you’d not only have property issues but women’s ordination is a huge wedge issue. I’ve harped on this a zillion times in here because it is the biggest problem in Anglicanism. The gay marriage stuff is blatantly sinful and obviously evil to any orthodox Anglican but women’s ordination is not so transparent to the conservative wings of Anglicanism. It’s almost like the illegal immigration issue within the Republican Party. In the GOP you have many people, myself included, that are firmly wanting secure, regulated, tight borders along the northern Canadian border and the southern Mexican border. There are many of those Tom Tancredo Republicans out there. And yet also in the GOP there are those fat-cats that like illegal immigration because it gives the wealthy cheap labor (that is often under the table cash with no taxes to worry about) and big business benefits from their patronage.

So one group wants illegal immigrants, one doesn’t, in the same party. And yet they all mostly agree on abortion, low taxes, less gov’t (although they’ve sold out on that in recent years), freedom of religion, etc. That immigration issue seemed a small one until the amnesty debate came up then we saw the real internal struggle going on.

In Anglicanism the evangelicals tend to not care about women’s ordination. That’s not true of all evang. but many of them have that “all are one in Christ” view of women’s ord. High Church Anglicans in many ways are against it because they are more Catholic in their views of the presbyterate.

Right now, like GKC said, they’re just agreeing to disagree on WO and sweeping it under the rug. After everyone settles in and this province has some mileage under its belt, this issue will start being discussed more, differences will be more obvious, and we’ll have a new, albeit more conservate, Episcopal Church. The reason this issue will come up definitely is because they’re allowing women priests but not female BISHOPS. This makes little sense on a common sense level. It’s like telling women, you can be a teacher but never a principal because it bothers some principals and parents in some of the schools in the district? Eventually these women priests will want to assert their “rights” and want to be bishops. After you allow them into one capacity, it only makes sense that they deserve the other, and this will spark a debate. This ACNA reminds me of taking a wound (the Episcopal Church) and putting duct tape over it. They had the opportunity to eliminate this issue once and for all but didn’t want to step on Duncan’s toes. I say they should’ve formed ACNA without him rather than do another Elizabethan Compromise 2.0 but they needed the numbers and Duncan’s leadership, so they seem to have believed. And Duncan has always been good buddies with Ackerman, Schofield, and Iker. This WO thing is a timebomb ticking…😦
 
gepnav said:
I like this idea. It’s one reason I’m becoming interested in the Anglican Mission in North America and a particular Anglican church in my region that split from TEC (losing their building, but keeping their spirit).

Am very attracted to the traditional liturgy, ties to the Fathers of the faith, and a well-defined denominational organization. Add to that – wonder of wonders – strong, Scriptural Christian beliefs, and it’s a pretty attractive possibility for this Protestant who has grown tired of so many local variations in practice and belief.

I guess I’m not ready to jump into the Roman Catholic world, but am thinking about a hop into Anglicanism. From there, who knows?
Click to expand...
Any reason you’re not looking into Catholicism, gepnav? Just curious…
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
The problem, and I think GKC touched on it, is that even if there is a split, you’d not only have property issues but women’s ordination is a huge wedge issue. I’ve harped on this a zillion times in here because it is the biggest problem in Anglicanism. The gay marriage stuff is blatantly sinful and obviously evil to any orthodox Anglican but women’s ordination is not so transparent to the conservative wings of Anglicanism. It’s almost like the illegal immigration issue within the Republican Party. In the GOP you have many people, myself included, that are firmly wanting secure, regulated, tight borders along the northern Canadian border and the southern Mexican border. There are many of those Tom Tancredo Republicans out there. And yet also in the GOP there are those fat-cats that like illegal immigration because it gives the wealthy cheap labor (that is often under the table cash with no taxes to worry about) and big business benefits from their patronage.

So one group wants illegal immigrants, one doesn’t, in the same party. And yet they all mostly agree on abortion, low taxes, less gov’t (although they’ve sold out on that in recent years), freedom of religion, etc. That immigration issue seemed a small one until the amnesty debate came up then we saw the real internal struggle going on.

In Anglicanism the evangelicals tend to not care about women’s ordination. That’s not true of all evang. but many of them have that “all are one in Christ” view of women’s ord. High Church Anglicans in many ways are against it because they are more Catholic in their views of the presbyterate.

Right now, like GKC said, they’re just agreeing to disagree on WO and sweeping it under the rug. After everyone settles in and this province has some mileage under its belt, this issue will start being discussed more, differences will be more obvious, and we’ll have a new, albeit more conservate, Episcopal Church. The reason this issue will come up definitely is because they’re allowing women priests but not female BISHOPS. This makes little sense on a common sense level. It’s like telling women, you can be a teacher but never a principal because it bothers some principals and parents in some of the schools in the district? Eventually these women priests will want to assert their “rights” and want to be bishops. After you allow them into one capacity, it only makes sense that they deserve the other, and this will spark a debate. This ACNA reminds me of taking a wound (the Episcopal Church) and putting duct tape over it. They had the opportunity to eliminate this issue once and for all but didn’t want to step on Duncan’s toes. I say they should’ve formed ACNA without him rather than do another Elizabethan Compromise 2.0 but they needed the numbers and Duncan’s leadership, so they seem to have believed. And Duncan has always been good buddies with Ackerman, Schofield, and Iker. This WO thing is a timebomb ticking…😦
Click to expand...
I agree.

GKC
 
Women’s ordination is a non-issue. Those women who really want to be ordained, can always go TEC. Those women who don’t accept WO, can stay in ACNA, or cross the Tiber or swim the Danube.
 
Siddhartha said:
Women’s ordination is a non-issue. Those women who really want to be ordained, can always go TEC. Those women who don’t accept WO, can stay in ACNA, or cross the Tiber or swim the Danube.
Click to expand...
But the issue is the nature of Holy Orders, and the implications for the sacraments. Not satisfying personal preferences.

GKC
 
GKC said:
But the issue is the nature of Holy Orders, and the implications for the sacraments. Not satisfying personal preferences.

GKC
Click to expand...
True, but before ACNA can define the nature of Holy Orders, it has to make it clear that women’s ordination is unlikely to spread within ACNA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top