Let's Split the Global Anglican Church

[JesusforMadrid]

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…

Of course I agree with you and like your metaphor.

I appreciated the speech by Met. Jonah (may God grant him many, many years!) in Plano, especially in regard to the WO issue. As he explained, there are many roles for women in ministry, including deaconess. Outside pressure from the Orthodox and potentially the RCC could keep the ACNA in check on this issue, hopefully limiting the situation to a moratorium on further ordination of women.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

… Outside pressure from the Orthodox and potentially the RCC could keep the ACNA in check on this issue, hopefully limiting the situation to a moratorium on further ordination of women.

I doubt if you’ll see “pressure” as such. It may be perceived by some as pressure, but it will be the continued statement of the position of the Catholic Church concerning the unchangeable nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The pressure part may arise because seeking to come to an arrangement with the Catholic Church that requires her to change the nature of a Sacrament is a non-starter.

It bespeaks not only a difference on the particulars of one sacrament, but on the understanding of what a sacrament is.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[GKC]

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.

More, it has to make it evident that is is disappearing.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Of course I agree with you and like your metaphor.

I appreciated the speech by Met. Jonah (may God grant him many, many years!) in Plano, especially in regard to the WO issue. As he explained, there are many roles for women in ministry, including deaconess. Outside pressure from the Orthodox and potentially the RCC could keep the ACNA in check on this issue, hopefully limiting the situation to a moratorium on further ordination of women.

Well, Madrid, I think it would be wonderful if it turns out that way. The question will be: how much does the ACNA want to enter into communion with the OCA (Orthodox Church of America)??

Remember, Jonah also said that all vestiges of Calvinism must be abolished because it is heresy. He demanded the women’s ordination end, Calvinism be wiped away from Anglican theology, REMOVE THE FILIOQUE clause from the creed, repudiate the Roman Catholic Church (especially the papacy), embrace all seven of the first seven ecumenical councils, etc. I know a bishop who was at that event and he told me a bunch of the bishops were chuckling and rolling their eyes at this saying, “never gonna happen.”

Calvinism is a part of Anglican thought. You can see it in the 39 Articles with regard to justification, the Eucharist predestination/election, and other things. Calvinism is not going to be dropped out of Anglicanism. Remove the filioque clause? Doubtful. Repudiate Rome? Many of the high church parishes might have a problem with that although many wouldn’t. Drop women’s ordination? About 6 out of 28 ACNA members allow it and we live in a women’s rights progressive Obama era of Oprah Winfrey. Fighting women’s ordination is akin to being a biggot to many of these folks. Accepting the first seven councils…maybe, maybe not? But I can’t imagine the ACNA getting to a place where they can get that diverse lot to agree on all of these things and join forces with the Orthodox? I think the Jonah speech was a feel-good moment and that the eventual merger is unlikely. Call me a cynic I guess…

 

[emeraldcoast]

Given our irreconcilable differences, I seek an annulment.

I don’t even know how to respond to your post but to say that the statement above made me laugh.

God Bless!

 

[GKC]

I don’t even know how to respond to your post but to say that the statement above made me laugh.

God Bless!

Decree of nullity.

A submittal of a causa will be necessary.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

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?

Hi JesusforMadrid. I would suggest that the liberals and conservatives would very likely to amenable to such a split, but the moderates would not. (Granted I’m not Anglican, but that just seems like common sense.)

 

[Lilyflower]

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?

At first hand it may appear good for Catholics to split the Anglican Church as this leads to repeal of the Act of Settlement [which forbids a Catholic to occupy the English Throne].

But, it is my belief that there is enough pressure from atheists and agnostics to eliminate Christianity from everyday life, the role of the Anglican Church as part of the establishment is the last major vestage of Christian influence in State matters. Therefore, I think it is vital Catholics put aside aspirations of repealing the Act and concentrate on doing whatever we can to prevent split and disestablishment of Anglicanism in England.

A split may cure headaches for intransigent and mutually exclusive positions within Anglicanism but to Split the Anglican Church would ultimately hurt every Christian, not least Catholics,

Were the Anglican Church to become dis-established, you can depend on Atheism to rush in to fill the vaccuum vacated by Anglicanism, making our position within society more fragile through further discrimination against Christian faith and belief.

Blessings and peace

 

[GKC]

At first hand it may appear good for Catholics to split the Anglican Church as this leads to repeal of the Act of Settlement [which forbids a Catholic to occupy the English Throne].

But, it is my belief that there is enough pressure from atheists and agnostics to eliminate Christianity from everyday life, the role of the Anglican Church as part of the establishment is the last major vestage of Christian influence in State matters. Therefore, I think it is vital Catholics put aside aspirations of repealing the Act and concentrate on doing whatever we can to prevent split and disestablishment of Anglicanism in England.

A split may cure headaches for intransigent and mutually exclusive positions within Anglicanism but to Split the Anglican Church would ultimately hurt every Christian, not least Catholics,

Were the Anglican Church to become dis-established, you can depend on Atheism to rush in to fill the vaccuum vacated by Anglicanism, making our position within society more fragile through further discrimination against Christian faith and belief.

Blessings and peace

What is being discussed is some form of division of the Anglican Communion worldwide, not necessarily anything about the Church of England. It may well remain established, and the Act of Settlement in place, whatever happens to the Anglican Communion as a whole.

GKC

 

[Lilyflower]

What is being discussed is some form of division of the Anglican Communion worldwide, not necessarily anything about the Church of England. It may well remain established, and the Act of Settlement in place, whatever happens to the Anglican Communion as a whole.

GKC

I hear what you say but I think the two are inter-related. I think a split within Anglicanism would mean dis-establishment at the perilous cost to all Christendom within the United Kingdom, which would hurt us all!

Blessings and peace

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

At first hand it may appear good for Catholics to split the Anglican Church as this leads to repeal of the Act of Settlement [which forbids a Catholic to occupy the English Throne].

But, it is my belief that there is enough pressure from atheists and agnostics to eliminate Christianity from everyday life, the role of the Anglican Church as part of the establishment is the last major vestage of Christian influence in State matters. Therefore, I think it is vital Catholics put aside aspirations of repealing the Act and concentrate on doing whatever we can to prevent split and disestablishment of Anglicanism in England.

A split may cure headaches for intransigent and mutually exclusive positions within Anglicanism but to Split the Anglican Church would ultimately hurt every Christian, not least Catholics,

Were the Anglican Church to become dis-established, you can depend on Atheism to rush in to fill the vaccuum vacated by Anglicanism, making our position within society more fragile through further discrimination against Christian faith and belief.

Blessings and peace

It seems that the secular snake has already reared its head into the Church of England a long time ago? It has embraced the values of the feminist movement, turned a blind eye to abortion and the culture of death, and doesn’t seem to stand for much that is producing any positive spiritual progress for England already. So much of England is atheist or agnostic and not church-going already. Atheism is a scary thought but right now nobody is attending church parishes in CofE in England anyway? I’ve watched documentaries about the CofE online that show huge cathedrals that once housed a thousand people now having 20 people at morning mass. A woman my wife knows, who is here from England, says that in her rural town outside of London the great gigantic cathedral there, once grand and well-attended when she was a child, now hosts about 8-12 people all Sunday morning. I hear this all the time. It seems that the CofE is becoming quickly irrelevent anyway. And nobody looks to the ABC for guidance or serious spiritual strength anyway? Atheism or an impotent, weak and quasi-Christian church are pretty sad choices!

 

[GKC]

I hear what you say but I think the two are inter-related. I think a split within Anglicanism would mean dis-establishment at the perilous cost to all Christendom within the United Kingdom, which would hurt us all!

Blessings and peace

Not sure why you’d think so; the CoE isn’t the established Church because of the Anglican Communion, or because of how it is organized. No reason it should not be the established Church (which would take an act of Parliament to change) if the Communion outside England were to vanish completely.

GKC

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Well, Madrid, I think it would be wonderful if it turns out that way. The question will be: how much does the ACNA want to enter into communion with the OCA (Orthodox Church of America)??

I think the Jonah speech was a feel-good moment and that the eventual merger is unlikely. Call me a cynic I guess…

I think it is rather symbolic that Met. Jonah spoke in Plano. I think he was refreshingly clear about where he stands, which even those who disagree on some points appreciated. He received several standing ovations and quite a bit of applause.

My point however, was not to say that intercommunion or reunion with the Orthodox would be easy or a done deal, but rather that discussions with the Orthodox would put pressure on the ACNA to change its position on WO. The OCA and ACNA have committed to a period of dialogue with Anglicans at Natosha House, a centre of Anglo Catholicism in Wisconsin. What is the goal of such a discussion? From the North American Anglican point of view, even having one jurisdiction the Orthodox Church as a dialogue partner gives them instant, worldwide credibility. From the OCA perspective, and particularly from Met. Jonah’s perspective, the OCA is seen as taking the lead in bringing people back to orthodoxy and this clearly also helps in his efforts to create a North American Orthodox jurisdiction (rather than the current, overlapping jurisdictions).

Can a quintessentially Anglican compromise on WO be achieved? Perhaps. I could perhaps imagine a moratorium on WO. I know that the impression is that Evangelical Anglicans are softer on the WO issue than Anglo Catholics. However, I wonder how much the Anglican Evangelicals have been seeking consensus on this issue and have compromised in the past to hold the communion together. Certainly, if we look outside of the Anglican Church, evangelicals are for the most part against WO (see the largest Evangelical denomination, the SBC, for example). So I think declaring that women could serve as deaconesses, under a male priest, is a potential way out, though it won’t be easy.

As to the rest of your thread, I would love to be a fly on the wall at Natosha House, because it should be interesting.

On the filioque, I honestly do not think this is a big deal for most evangelicals. When the Orthodox tell their side of the history and paint Rome as having added an unhistorical clause, the Evangelicals will put the filioque in the same category as other “Roman additions” to the faith such as the IC. The Anglo-Catholics will have more difficulties with this, but this is where a fudge document will be needed that says basically, we all believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not “from the Father and the Son”. This may enable the Anglo-Catholics to sign on.

Evangelical Anglicans will not have enjoyed Met. Jonah’s statement that “Calvinism is a declared heresy”. I think that wording was unfortunate and that other Orthodox would not say that as such, even if they thought so. Of course, the Reformation is essential for Evangelical doctrine. However, is “Calvinism” essential? This is, after all, the Anglican Church and not the Scottish Presbyterian Church. I wonder if the Orthodox and Anglicans could embrace a statement on justification similar to that agreed by the German Lutherans and Catholics. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html The Orthodox would need to affirm unequivocally that we are justified by grace through faith, which they could. This would again be a bit of a fudge, but it is possible.

Otherwise, I don’t see such major issues of the ones you mention. With respect to Rome, are there any Anglicans that accept papal infallibility? If so, really they should go to Rome and seek to be an Anglican rite church within the RCC. I can imagine a general statement whereby both the Orthodox and Anglicans affirm a conciliar approach to decisionmaking. I also don’t think getting Anglicans to affirm tradition such as the 7 councils would be impossible given their three pilars of faith, reason and tradition.

What will be difficult will be agreeing on the Eucharist and here the UK Anglicans have had long-running conversations with Rome where they have affirmed the real presence and a “real change” in the host, but not transubstantiation. usccb.org/seia/arc_fiveaffirmations_1994.shtml. Dialogue with the Orthodox regarding this “mystery” should be easier. The Lutheran and Orthodox views of the Eucharist are very similar, as far as I can tell, although they use different ways to describe it (co-substantiation versus mysteries). ecumenism.net/archive/blog/2006/12/lutheran_orthodox_statement_on_eucharist.htm Certainly those Evangelicals Anglicans with an Anabaptist view of the Eucharist will need to make some changes.

One thing you left off your list could be a deal-breaker for Evangelical Anglicans and Orthodox: liturgy. Would the Orthodox accept the low church liturgy? Would the Orthodox accept readings that are not on the liturgical calendar?

Should be fun. Again, I don’t think reunion is close at hand or even possible. But both sides have interest in dialogue and that will put the brakes on WO.

 

[IowaJay]

It seems that the secular snake has already reared its head into the Church of England a long time ago? It has embraced the values of the feminist movement, turned a blind eye to abortion and the culture of death,

Actually, the C of E, unlike TEC, has remained pro-life:

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/abortion_1.shtml

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Hi JesusforMadrid. I would suggest that the liberals and conservatives would very likely to amenable to such a split, but the moderates would not. (Granted I’m not Anglican, but that just seems like common sense.)

Nothing happens quickly, cleanly or clearly in the Anglican Communion. Think of slowly melting fudge. That’s us.

Let me make some generally true observations based on my experience in the US and in Europe: Most of the clergy is polarised, while the lay people are probably more in the middle. The evangelical and anglo catholic churches are growing (particularly in the UK)and getting a new infusion of young people, who tend to join conservative Anglican churches because they themselves are theologically conservative or have been converted in evangelistic courses such as the Alpha Course to conservative churches.

Increasingly, moderates are conservatives in liberal churches. They eventually become moderates when they are feed a constant stream of liberal social gospel for many years without hearing calls for personal holiness. I know. Part of my family is just that in the ELCA (pretty much the same situaltion as the Episcopal Church). The liberal churches are not growing. So, the moderates, over time, will really either disappear by attrition or will become liberal.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I doubt if you’ll see “pressure” as such. It may be perceived by some as pressure, but it will be the continued statement of the position of the Catholic Church concerning the unchangeable nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The pressure part may arise because seeking to come to an arrangement with the Catholic Church that requires her to change the nature of a Sacrament is a non-starter.

It bespeaks not only a difference on the particulars of one sacrament, but on the understanding of what a sacrament is.

Blessings,

Gerry

Be careful about generalising about anything Anglican.

For a lot of Anglo-Catholics, no such change would be needed since they have the same sacramental theology. The problem for the RCC would be the Evangelical Anglicans and this is a huge problem because a lot of Evangelicals would rather become Jewish than RC.

I think in terms of theology, most Anglicans are a lot closer to Orthodoxy (no transubstantiation, no IC, no papal infallibility, no purgatory–even overlapping jurisdictions now!). Of course, some Anglo Catholics wouldn’t agree.

In terms of liturgy, the Anglican rite is a lot closer to the Latin than the Byzantine rite (Orthodox or Eastern Catholic). However, I am surprised how little support the former Anglican, now RC churches get in using the Anglican Use. I get the impression that the RCC hopes that after these married, former Anglican priests pass on, those parishes will become Latin Rite.

The Orthodox are moving quickly to rectify this by offering the Western Rite which enables Anglicans to basically keep the essentials of their liturgy (sans filioque) whilst becoming Orthodox. Already in the US, there are many more Western Rite Orthodox churches than Anglican Use Catholic ones.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I don’t even know how to respond to your post but to say that the statement above made me laugh.

God Bless!

If I, an Anglican, use “divorce” on this board, you can imagine the resonse.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Be careful about generalising about anything Anglican. …

Let me assure you that over a decade of worship among Anglicans, and four years of service as a Rector’s Warden in an Anglican parish during that period are sufficient to ensure that the care you speak of is in place.

Now, let me advise you to be careful about generalizations concerning the Orthodox Churches. It is meaningless to speak of the “Orthodox Church,” because one has to then ask, “Which one?” And as far as saying that the Orthodox view this or that other Christian group in such and such a way, then the same applies.

An Orthodox Patriarch (Jonah, I believe) spoke to the new Anglican Church in North America convention. Much is made of this as an indication of the “Orthodox” position. But this man does not speak for all Orthodox Churches, nor even for all Orthodox Churches in North America. No one does.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

QUOTE=JesusforMadrid;5478230]If I, an Anglican, use “divorce” on this board, you can imagine the resonse.

I don’t understand emeraldcoast’s statement or your reply Madrid?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Actually, the C of E, unlike TEC, has remained pro-life:

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/abortion_1.shtml

Thanks very much for pointing out my error, Iowa: cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/science/abortion/abortion.pdf

Scott