The Future of Anglicanism

[nsper7]

As a person about to swim the Thames in a couple months, I find what is occurring within the Anglican Communion disconcerting. As an American who would be a member of the US Episcopal Church (the US province of the Anglican Communion), I see certain elements within going theologically crazy (i.e. Spong; the ordination of an openly gay bishop who divorced his wife; some people denying basic Scriptural and Traditional ideas * in favor of some quasi-unitarianist universalist oddity). The Church of England, the main province of the Anglican Communion, seems to be failing (look at how few Britons regularly attend church) and the Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be a tad too theologically liberal in some areas (and it may only get worse with a new Archbishop).

Although many Episcopal churches (individual churches and members) are realigning with African Sees (i.e. Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, etc.), this seems only a stopgap measure and creates problems (can’t really have a bishop from one of these provinces appointed in America, so it creates administrative issues, as well as questions about its legality within Anglican Canon Law).

Unless we get a Pius X-type in the Chair of St. Augustine, it seems like the European branch of Anglicanism is going to collapse potentially. And if the US Episcopal Church keeps going the way it is, a major schism is going to occur. If Anglicanism realigns towards Africa, there is still the issue that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the primus inter pares among Anglican primates. Although there are so-called Anglican groups who have cut themselves off from Canterbury, but it then seems like you have lost Anglicanism. After all, what is Anglicanism without the Archbishop of Canterbury enthroned on the Chair of St. Augustine (who can trace Apostolic Sucession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury sent to the British Isles and made an Archbishop by Pope Gregory the Great) and the Church of England? Although there are other Archbishops (like in Kenya), if we lose Canterbury, then we’d just dividing like the other Protestants. We’d become a tad more Catholic version of Lutheranism or something.

As I have mentioned in other threads, I truly love Anglicanism: its liturgy, history, traditions, foundational theology, etc. Does anyone see a bright future for the Anglican Communion? And, as a soon-to-be Thames swimmer, what can I do about it, especially if I am interested in ordained ministry (Holy Orders)?*

 

[Tietjen]

Does anyone see a bright future for the Anglican Communion? And, as a soon-to-be Thames swimmer, what can I do about it, especially if I am interested in ordained ministry (Holy Orders)?

Well, have you considered swimming the Tiber instead? 2000 years and still going strong just as Christ declared in Matthew. God bless you.

 

[GKC]

As a person about to swim the Thames in a couple months, I find what is occurring within the Anglican Communion disconcerting. As an American who would be a member of the US Episcopal Church (the US province of the Anglican Communion), I see certain elements within going theologically crazy (i.e. Spong; the ordination of an openly gay bishop who divorced his wife; some people denying basic Scriptural and Traditional ideas * in favor of some quasi-unitarianist universalist oddity). The Church of England, the main province of the Anglican Communion, seems to be failing (look at how few Britons regularly attend church) and the Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be a tad too theologically liberal in some areas (and it may only get worse with a new Archbishop).

Although many Episcopal churches (individual churches and members) are realigning with African Sees (i.e. Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, etc.), this seems only a stopgap measure and creates problems (can’t really have a bishop from one of these provinces appointed in America, so it creates administrative issues, as well as questions about its legality within Anglican Canon Law).

Unless we get a Pius X-type in the Chair of St. Augustine, it seems like the European branch of Anglicanism is going to collapse potentially. And if the US Episcopal Church keeps going the way it is, a major schism is going to occur. If Anglicanism realigns towards Africa, there is still the issue that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the primus inter pares* among Anglican primates. Although there are so-called Anglican groups who have cut themselves off from Canterbury, but it then seems like you have lost Anglicanism. After all, what is Anglicanism without the Archbishop of Canterbury enthroned on the Chair of St. Augustine (who can trace Apostolic Sucession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury sent to the British Isles and made an Archbishop by Pope Gregory the Great) and the Church of England? Although there are other Archbishops (like in Kenya), if we lose Canterbury, then we’d just dividing like the other Protestants. We’d become a tad more Catholic version of Lutheranism or something.

As I have mentioned in other threads, I truly love Anglicanism: its liturgy, history, traditions, foundational theology, etc. Does anyone see a bright future for the Anglican Communion? And, as a soon-to-be Thames swimmer, what can I do about it, especially if I am interested in ordained ministry (Holy Orders)?

No, we have not lost Anglicanism.

But Canterbury has.

If there were anything to be done about it, we would not have left. I can sympathzize with your plight, however. No sooner had I become convinced of Anglicanism’s claims, back over 30 years ago, than the Communion began to run off the tracks. The train wreck is nigh complete, now, with regard to official Anglicanism as a manifestation of Catholicism.

But I would predict that some form of Canterbury-based Anglicanism, in some form more or less congenial to your beliefs and assumptions, will survive. It is not impossible (though highly unlikely) that a new province will be established by the Communion, replacing TEC as the official manifestation of Anglicanism in America. But the concept of traditional Anglicanism, its traditions, theology and history, truly is history, now. And, though the poster above means well, you know that what you are looking for isn’t on the other side of the Tiber. I wish you thought otherwise.

Good luck.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[angelusm]

St. Augustine, unlike Anglicans, obeyed the pope and lived centuries before Anglicanism occurred so it’s better to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is enthroned on “the Chair of Henry VIII” or “the Chair of Elizabeth I”. St. Augustine has absolutely nothing to do with Anglicans.
The future of Anglican Communion is obvious - more divisions and more weird ideas (that’s reality of all post reformation communities) like the last one about introducing islamic Shia law in the UK. It’s unstoppable.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Does anyone see a bright future for the Anglican Communion?

Only if they realise their forefathers mistakes and return to the Catholic Church.

 

[chris_molter]

I don’t think Anglicanism is going to vanish anytime soon. It will not have the same form that it has had over the past couple hundred years.

I won’t comment on the powers that be within the Episcopal Church (USA) and their theological allies since I don’t want to be impolite.

The conservative Anglicans will remain in communion with one another for the most part and the various parts of the continuum will seek union with each other or Rome depending on their particular theological bent. Overall, I think “Bible believing” Anglicans will wind up much more evangelical and low-church than has been the norm (at least in the US). Perhaps further intercommunion will occur with the conservative factions within the Lutheran and Methodist denoms. It’s a very fluid time for Anglicanism and mainline protestantism in general.

It’s exciting in a way. And also quite frightening. I pray Rome will do all it can to make an easy path for those Anglo-Catholics who desire full communion with the Catholic Church and find a permanent place to preserve those things that are beautiful and good within the Anglican tradition.

 

[nonjuror]

St. Augustine, unlike Anglicans, obeyed the pope and lived centuries before Anglicanism occurred so it’s better to say that the Archbishop of Canterbury is enthroned on “the Chair of Henry VIII” or “the Chair of Elizabeth I”. St. Augustine has absolutely nothing to do with Anglicans.
The future of Anglican Communion is obvious - more divisions and more weird ideas (that’s reality of all post reformation communities) like the last one about introducing islamic Shia law in the UK. It’s unstoppable.

S.Augustine obeyed the pope!

Who can argue? The trouble is that Augustine was a late comer to the country! Catholicism had existed in this country since just after the death of the Emperor Tiberius who died in 37AD.

When Augustine arrived in Britain, Christianity had been here some 500yrs at least. He travelled, at one time across country to meet the British Bishops and endevoured an alliance of some kind, but Augustine was ill mannered and offended the experienced British Bishops. After all he was a newcomer not just to the area but to the catholic orders.

The Church in England did not start with Henry 8th, or with his daughter Elizabeth the 1st. At the Ecumenical ,(Roman ) Councils of the Middle Ages the English Churches were given precedence because of their antiquity. Elizabeth suggested and believed that Anglican orders originated with S. Joseph of Arimathea.

Further , regarding the idea of Sharia Law. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not suggest any introduction of that system! He suggested that parts of it that do not conflict with English Law might usefully be allowed to ease the internal conflicts of an immigrant society living in a strange environment. After all this sort of thing is allowed to the Roman Church and to the protestants as long as there is no conflict. By the way as an Anglican Catholic I am no follower of either the Archbishop or the C.of E.

 

[Contarini]

St. Augustine, unlike Anglicans, obeyed the pope and lived centuries before Anglicanism occurred

You’re making a circular argument by defining “Anglicanism” in terms of its lack of union with Rome. That is not how many of us Anglicans define it. Don’t we get to define our own church? We (Catholic-minded Anglicans–admittedly not all Anglicans) see the break in communion between Canterbury and Rome as an incident of ecclesiastical politics, not as something that defines who we are as Christians.

That’s completely silly. Neither of these persons was every Archbishop of Canterbury. The fact that Emperor Justinian browbeat Pope Vigilius and made him sign on to 2 Constantinople doesn’t make every subsequent Pope the successor of Justinian rather than Peter.

St. Augustine has absolutely nothing to do with Anglicans.
The future of Anglican Communion is obvious - more divisions and more weird ideas (that’s reality of all post reformation communities) like the last one about introducing islamic Shia law in the UK. It’s unstoppable.

Well, large parts of the Anglican Communion show every sign of being willing to go their own way, so your view is too Euro-centric.

However, I have to ask if you’ve actually read the Archbishop’s speech on Islamic law in Britain. If you haven’t, then your opinion is worth precisely nothing. The newspapers don’t get ++Williams right any more often than they do Pope Benedict.

The actual speech was a very thoughtful consideration of the problems with the post-Enlightenment assumption that no authority exists between the state and the individual. The specific examples he cited were actually more relevant to Catholicism–doctors who refuse to perform abortions, or charitable organizations that won’t place children with gay couples, etc. His point was that the law needs to take account of religious, communal identity and perhaps allow people to choose to be governed by their traditional religious norms rather than by those of secular society–but only in ways that do not abridge the human rights guaranteed by the state.

Do yourself a favor and read the actual speech before you judge. Otherwise you are guilty of grave injustice.

Edwin

[/QUOTE]

 

[nsper7]

Responding to my own OP and the statements of others, it seems that the Anglican Communion faces two conflicts:

1. Between theological liberalism and conservatism. The issues of homosexuality and its acceptance by the Church, the ordination of women, the nature and role of Scripture, God, Salvation, etc. seem to be the major battlegrounds. On the one side, there are some who are more Baptist than Baptists or more Traditional than the SSPX or SSPV. On the other are those who are almost unitarian universalist or Christo-New Ageists or something, if not just cultural (they enjoy the ritual, but don’t give a hoot about theology and faith). For me, except on the issue of ordination of women (which I am in favor of and I do not believe it contradicts Scripture once properly examined), I am very conservative theologically (in fact, my defense of the ordination of women is based on Scripture, not neo-feminist thought or something).
2. Between Anglo-Catholic [High Church] and more Evangelical/Charismatic/Reformed [Low Church]. This seems to be an argument among the more theologically conservative (the more liberal think it all a fanciful waste of time to worry about this perhaps) and this is a bit more subjective issue. For me, I’d say I fall under the heading of the ‘Broad Church’, which means I see the value of both Catholicism and the Reformation. Theologically, I tend towards the XXXIX Articles and the Anglican Catechism, but I strongly support a traditional liturgy and the importance of the five lesser Sacraments (it should be noted I do not believe Reconciliation of a Penitent [Confession] is necessary for forgiveness of sins, but I think, as the Apostle James put it, confessing sins to other people can bring healing. God forgives sins, but He can work through many people, including the ordained priest; I admit I confess sins to other people besides the priest and I have only done Sacramental Confession once).

 

[Maxply]

I’m not at all sanguine about the Episcopalian future. From the recent statements of Canterbury re: Islamic law in England, and his past comments, I wonder if Bishop Rowan might have gone to seed some time ago!

Not saying this to be controversial or argumentative. I just think the denomination isn’t supporting its core values, so there’s a rush out in several directions. Some will join other Protestant denominations, some, perhaps, become Catholic.

 

[SIA]

As a person about to swim the Thames in a couple months, I find what is occurring within the Anglican Communion disconcerting. As an American who would be a member of the US Episcopal Church (the US province of the Anglican Communion), I see certain elements within going theologically crazy (i.e. Spong; the ordination of an openly gay bishop who divorced his wife; some people denying basic Scriptural and Traditional ideas * in favor of some quasi-unitarianist universalist oddity). The Church of England, the main province of the Anglican Communion, seems to be failing (look at how few Britons regularly attend church) and the Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be a tad too theologically liberal in some areas (and it may only get worse with a new Archbishop).

Although many Episcopal churches (individual churches and members) are realigning with African Sees (i.e. Kenya, Rwanda, Nigeria, etc.), this seems only a stopgap measure and creates problems (can’t really have a bishop from one of these provinces appointed in America, so it creates administrative issues, as well as questions about its legality within Anglican Canon Law).

Unless we get a Pius X-type in the Chair of St. Augustine, it seems like the European branch of Anglicanism is going to collapse potentially. And if the US Episcopal Church keeps going the way it is, a major schism is going to occur. If Anglicanism realigns towards Africa, there is still the issue that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the primus inter pares* among Anglican primates. Although there are so-called Anglican groups who have cut themselves off from Canterbury, but it then seems like you have lost Anglicanism. After all, what is Anglicanism without the Archbishop of Canterbury enthroned on the Chair of St. Augustine (who can trace Apostolic Sucession back to St. Augustine of Canterbury sent to the British Isles and made an Archbishop by Pope Gregory the Great) and the Church of England? Although there are other Archbishops (like in Kenya), if we lose Canterbury, then we’d just dividing like the other Protestants. We’d become a tad more Catholic version of Lutheranism or something.

As I have mentioned in other threads, I truly love Anglicanism: its liturgy, history, traditions, foundational theology, etc. Does anyone see a bright future for the Anglican Communion? And, as a soon-to-be Thames swimmer, what can I do about it, especially if I am interested in ordained ministry (Holy Orders)?

I am currently in a parish who just recently split away from TEC and was accepted into the Church of Uganda. I was able to meet with our current overseeing bishop who is from Virginia. There are becoming so many parishes in the US that are breaking from TEC to seek other primacial oversight that there is serious talk of there becoming a bishop here in the states to oversee what would become a new province of the Anglican Communion that would encompass those who broke from TEC and joined with Uganda or Kenya and such. I’m optimistic with good reason to be. I too sincerely love Anglicanism with its deep robust liturgies, ancient early church traditions and sheer beauty. I wouldn’t dream of being anywhere else.

 

[Contarini]

I’m not at all sanguine about the Episcopalian future. From the recent statements of Canterbury re: Islamic law in England, and his past comments, I wonder if Bishop Rowan might have gone to seed some time ago!

Did you actually read the speech? If you didn’t, you’re perilously close to bearing false witness. You ought to know that the papers can’t be trusted to report any church leader accurately. Williams actually used examples from Catholic issues to make his point that governments should respect people’s collective identities and not simply treat them as individuals.

Edwin

 

[nsper7]

I am currently in a parish who just recently split away from TEC and was accepted into the Church of Uganda. I was able to meet with our current overseeing bishop who is from Virginia. There are becoming so many parishes in the US that are breaking from TEC to seek other primacial oversight that there is serious talk of there becoming a bishop here in the states to oversee what would become a new province of the Anglican Communion that would encompass those who broke from TEC and joined with Uganda or Kenya and such. I’m optimistic with good reason to be. I too sincerely love Anglicanism with its deep robust liturgies, ancient early church traditions and sheer beauty. I wouldn’t dream of being anywhere else.

The first Anglican Church I ever worshipped at was affiliated with the Anglican Church of Kenya. Although I understand why many groups are choosing to schism from the Episcopal Church and I may find myself returning to a schismed church myself, I see several major issues:

1. Looking at Scripture, it never seemed the idea (whether in Old or New Testament) that if something wrong is going on, those doing right should flee. Granted, this isn’t quite going out and simply starting a new denomination, but some churches have schismed away from the Anglican Communion itself and/or people have simply left Anglicanism (I know one guy who is planning on becoming Roman Catholic). The Apostle Paul never advised the Corinthians who were ‘getting it right’ to come join the Jerusalem Church or something. Certainly, leaving the Anglican Communion and starting up a so-called Continunuing Anglican Movement (or whatever eles wants to call it) seems to be heading Anglicanism down the path of denominationalism (one of the things that attracted me to the Anglican Communion, after I had gotten beyond just the liturgy and stuff, is that there is a great measure of unity).
2. These measures seem stopgap at best. Under current Canon Law, I don’t think it is possible for bishops to be appointed in the American province from another province (i.e. Kenya or Uganda or wherever). It will be a bureaucratic nightmare and I think unprecedented.

As a (undergrad…:yup: ) student of history, one thing that seems to occur thorughout history is the idea of the pendulum swinging the other way; thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Will there be a counter-movement within Episcopalianism that can pull it back towards a more theological conservative and Scriptural path…a swinging of the pendulum from this theological liberalism (almost unitarianism in some areas) to conservatism? Any guesses on this?