Riddle Me This (for ACNA People)

HH I know what you are saying and I totally agree with in relation to the splits in the Church, I was having a conversation with my local Priest last week about the splits in the Church (specifically North America) and we agreed that it has become all too easy for groups to split and go their own way, rather then stay and try address the problems.

I suppose that is why today there are so many Christian denominations around the world.

 

What I posted is true; the GC did exactly what I stated. You can't change it, so all you have left is a personal insult. So, what does that make you?

The orthodox members of TEC are voting with their feet. In the last decade, the churches near me have greatly declined; I was astonished to find out just how much so in that short time period. Some have closed their doors, and many are struggling to stay open, sharing priests between several churches like three or four Methodist churches share a pastor. That used to not be the case just a few years ago.

It is the TEC that has become a joke -- an apostate joke. And people like you are in denial.

 

This is one of the strangest threads in the history of this Board.

Apparently, Bishop Lawrence is simply lying when he told us (in person and at length) that he decided to leave (abandon some would say) the Episcopal Church specifically with regard to two changes in the canon, regarding the ministry of active homosexuals and of transgendered individuals.

The Episcopal Church continue to ordain actively homosexual bishops and clergy. Yet we are supposed to believe that TEC has not accepted homosexuals into the priesthood. We are truly in Wonderland, where words mean whatever we wish.

There will be future resolution to the many disputes. But starting with denial will help no one. The Episcopal Church has rejected gender distinctions with regard to qualifications to the clergy and to other ministries. The Church of England is not quite so clear, but it is likely to be so soon, even it the choice is diocese by diocese.

What will take in order for us to stop the denial? How about same sex blessings within churches? How about the acceptance of marriage of homosexuals, likely at the next convention.

We can decide whether we as individuals believe that TEC is apostate. We are all entitled to out theological opinions. What is clear is the theological opinions of TEC on these matters.
=========

As a final note, there are many Christian churches in the US that accept homosexual marriage. Do we consider the members of these churches our brothers and sister in Christ. If so, we should give the same respect to the misguided in our own Church.

 

Mark, it's not a denial that these things are happening, because they clearly are. It is a rejection of them because they lack canonical authority by TEC's own canons, especially the new Title IV drafted by Schori and Co.

 

As you well know, if there is any technical deficiency, the situation can be fixed by those in authority. They do have the votes. In a very real sense, this happened in the case of Bishop Lawrence. In the first finding in 2011, he was not found to have abandoned the Church. Upon further review, with more evidence, and with much greater care in the preparation of the case, he was found to have abandoned the Church.

So, in the end, I am saying that you are whistling (to be gentle) in the wind. There are those who are still fighting the issue of women's ordination, long ago decided by the Anglican Communion. So it is here. Active homosexuals have been ordained for decades within TEC. Obviously, there was grave error in TEC's methods over the decades and even now. But those will be patched over with many more votes. Unless there is a great sea change in the next couple of years, homosexual marriage will be accepted very soon indeed. The national leaders now understand that the issue is marriage. And, obviously, it doesn't help that those opposed just decide to leave the Communion and look to the Global South to support their schisms.

For me, it is a done deal. TEC will change. I expect leadership to change. However, I do not doubt for a second that active homosexuals will be TEC priests for decades to come, likely with the requirement of marriage.

The Communion, if it can even remain relevant, will decide whether to recognize a second US province or not. IMHO, the Communion cannot kick out TEC because it differs in theological opinion with the Global South regarding the definition of the lesser sacrament of marriage. We are NOT the elephant in the room when primates meet. The REAL issue is the Church of England. The Communion might ignore the US and hope the situation resolved itself, but with the Church of England making its decisions, I suspect the ABC and the Global South will come to an understanding (which may of course be to simply ignore each other).

 

So, you're saying I should just "cease and desist"? Shut up? When people like Bishop Budde are openly violating the Canons of the Church? I don't think so. If they want to change the Canons, they can do that, they have the numbers. Until then, it's fair game to challenge their open violations of their own canons.

The sort of strategy you're advocating is what got us into this mess.

 

No, what got is in this mess was those who couldn't accept women's ordination forming their own churches, and abandoning the Anglican Communion.

It is certainly fair game for you to continue. The effect will be for the canons to be made very clear with no wiggle room.

IMHO, it shows a profound lack of the understanding of politics to push when the only outcome is strengthening the position of your opponents.

 

"No, what got is in this mess was those who couldn't accept women's ordination forming their own churches, and abandoning the Anglican Communion"
What?? How do you suppose? And I guess it's all the wife's fault for a divorce when she finally gets fed up with getting beaten and cheated on and leaves? What a very convenient rationalization for the abuser. I feel like those "orthodox" members of TEC are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. We need to stage an intervention...

 

Another blessing of the ACNA...clarity

From http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/about-acna

 

I couldn't affirm Number 3, as this is an Anglo-Catholic definition of the historic episcopate which claims it is of the essence of the church, not only for the benefit of the church which is the general Anglican position. Strange that the ACNA would adopt this; it excludes the very Evangelicals who were instrumental in starting the ACNA.

 

Perhaps they recognize the historic and traditional 3-fold ministry (notice I didn't say biblical) which is, I believe, essential for church unity. I notice they don't expressly require apostolic succession, though it may be implied. I figure that Number 3 is inspired by the 4th point of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral "The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted". Which, to me, allows for a good deal of latitude on the issue pedigree of the Episcopate, if not on its presence.

 

It seems to me Number 3 is going way beyond that, with the statement that the historic episcopate is an "inherent part of the apostolic faith and practice", not to mention the rest of the sentence which disrespects those Communions without the "historic episcopate". This statement seems to be affirming the historic episcopate as a "divine right" establishment and of the essence of the church. This seems to me to go beyond the Quadrilateral.

I notice this has caused some discussion in ACNA circles.

 

I'd rather clarity prevail. It would be easier if the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church" were changed already to finalize the divorce. Schori and Co. don't want us here so they might as well complete the coup d'etat of the Church. Why half-ass it now?

 

Interesting aanalogies

The reality is that many didn't like where the leadership was going on gender issues in the 70's and many decided to leave, as is the Protestant response to poor leadership. Later, conservatives could not get their own elected, so they voted for ++Schori and then left.

One can decided what issues are church-busting issues. The Church might agree with some of its bishops that there was no physical Resurrection. The Church might decide that Jesus was not really present in the Eucharist. The Church might decide that baptism was not sacramental, but merely an act of obedience. The Church might come out clearly in favor of the TULIP of Calvinism. These might be church-busting issues. These issues speak to the core of our beliefs. The definition of marriage, a lesser sacrament, may be theological error, but IMHO the issue of the definition of marriage doesn't come close to this level of seriousness. As to women's ordination, Bishop Wright has written well on this over the decades. I can understand the opposing position, but again don't think that our view of gender roles should break up the Church or the Communion.

Unfortunately, it is the Protestant Tradition to break up churches when we disagree. If it were simply a matter of TEC apostasy, there would be 2 US Anglican churches: TEC and ACNA. Of course, once the principle of schism was accepted for these issues, there have been many breakups. There must be 40 separate Anglican groups. In my town, we are under SEVEN Anglican bishops. I was used to this situation when I was a Baptist all those years ago. But I thought that this was not acceptable within the Anglican Communion.

 

Perhaps the baptists have the right idea. Maybe the benefit of the Episcopate has run its course. What once was a hallmark of the Church's apostolic unity, has become the most damning piece of evidence of Her utter and irretrievable brokenness. What makes Anglicanism unique--its steadfast appeal to the Holy Scripture as sufficient for salvation, the creeds, the councils, the articles, and of course the BCP--can survive, and more likely thrive within a congregational system. After all the Articles define the church as a congregation of faithful men, perhaps that's where the institution al hierarchy should end. Even without dioceses, we will still be a faith united by common prayer and mystically in the body of christ.

 

I can't disagree with you mark, conservatives have had a bad track record of responding to heresy, namely by always leaving first and asking questions later. Hackney is right that schism is sin, and we who hold ourselves to traditional Christianity have been historically guilty of committing it. That's why TEC is in a place it is now. We needed to make tough choices, and we didn't, we chose easy ones, not realizing the terrible dearth we'd be leaving behind in our church.

In the present moment I do think ACNA I fear is unavoidable, but only because of prior stages of exodus by conservatives, during which it was by no means inevitable that TEC would go into heresy like it ended up.

 

And now, having been largely responsible for the current situation in TEC, conservatives feel justified in calling for TEC to be kicked out of the Communion. Let's just say that this will never happen. The AC could recognize a second Presiding Bishop in the US, but TEC will not be kicked out. Even as it is, it is much larger than all the schismatics combined (after over 30 years), has the largest churches and has churches throughout the country.

When the Church Of England makes its final decisions regarding the ordination of homosexuals and regarding homosexual marriage, the African primates can decide whether it is best for them to go, or not. The bottom line is that The Church of England and The Episcopal Church are not kicking out their liberals anytime soon.

 

Not for long. It's been losing population at the rate of a whole diocese a year. And it just lost the NC Diocese.

Your pronouncements about the CoE are premature at best. Suffice it to say that I don't share your pessimism. You have a right to hold it if you believe it, but see for example news like this:

http://forums.anglican.net/threads/...als-on-the-rise-in-the-church-of-england.598/

Red herring. You present an uphill battle and propose to every one of us to cut and run, is that it?

 

1) That was coastal SC, my own diocese. There is dissent. Many parishes stayed in the continuing TEC diocese. More will come back when the property rights law suits are settled.

2) You are correct with regard to a significant conservative presence in the Church of England. That's what happens when conservatives don't run when they disagree with the decisions of current leadership. I suspect that the solution will be a diocesan option regarding homosexual priests (and marriage), similar to situations regarding female priests. Some would say that it good to give more power to the bishops and the diocesan councils. I certainly share your celebration of the continuing success of the large charismatic churches in England.

3) I am NOT advocating cutting and running. Rather, I am calling for ACCEPTING Our liberal brethren as brothers and sisters in Christ, and accepting them as fellow Anglicans, no matter how much we disagree with them. There are FOUR threads of the Anglican Communion, not one. The Communion (and Christianity is general) is more than conservative evangelicals, no matter how loudly they speak.

BOTTOM LINE
The so-called conservatives have brought Christianity into crises in almost all the US Protestant churches, through their loud rhetoric and schisms. Their intrusion into US politics has been scandalous. The US churches will survive and live to fight another day, now joining together more closely as they better understand the stakes. The schismatics can continue on until the next disagreement, after which they will schism again and again and again. As I have said, I do understand that ACNA may be recognized by the Communion in the future, but not as a replacement for TEC.

The continuers schismed over the ordination of females. ACNA and other schismed over the ordination of homosexuals (25 years after the fact). Few believe that these schism are about anything but these two issues. Let them go and form their own patriarchal church of like-minded believers, until the next schism. BTW, there still are female priests in ACNA. After all, I don't think the Global South has not excluded female ordination.

If I really couldn't accept being in a TEC church, I would join the RCC or the EO or anyone but the schismatic churches who are consciously fracturing Christianity in the US and elsewhere. Of course, as individuals, our choices are often almost made for us when our bishop decides that we are no longer Episcopalians.

 

The only schismatics are those who have committed apostasy -- that is the TEC and any other denomination that has approved homosexual ordination and same-sex unions. People are voting with their feet -- such denominations are continuing to lose members at an alarming rate. Even the United Methodist Church which has not yet gone the way of TEC, ELCA, and PCUSA with regard to the homosexual issue only because of the strength of the Southeastern jurisdiction and the growing presence of African delegates in general Conference, nevertheless continues to lose members.