What do you know about convergence movement (ICCEC,The CEEC, ACCC, etc.)

Dear Everybody

I'm thankful to be here and learn more and more about anglicanism and about you personally.
Do you know the convergence movement?
What do you know about these churches?
- International Communion of Charismatic Episcopal Churches
- The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches
- The Anglican Communion of Charismatic Churches
Have you got personal influences, opinion about these churches?
Are the ACNA and the AiMA convergence churches too?

I know that these churches arent in full communion with the Anglican Communion, but do we say that they are anglicans?
I have these questions, because of my pentecostal background.

Thank you all the loving, helpful answers

 

I think ACNA would be pleased to be called a "convergence" church. At its inauguration a few years ago, it made a big show of its desire to be close to both the Orthodox church and the "evangelical" movement of Rick Warren ('Purpose Driven Church'). Meanwhile, its #1 faction is Anglo-Catholic. It also strives to meld the High and Low movements, and the theme of "Three Streams", which itself is about convergence, is very popular.

So what parts of 'Anglican tradition' does ACNA not want in its convergence?

• The Reformed tradition which emerged during the reign of Edward VI
• Radical liberalism

 

I've seen you state this a number of times, but you haven't yet supported it with facts anywhere.

Wile it's identity is still somewhat fluid in the formative stage, Archbishop Duncan has stated that its aim is to embrace the 39 Articles and 1662 BCP as normative. Also, Gafcon has already officially embraced the 1662 BCP as normative.

 

I go to the CEC. I just started a few weeks ago and I do call myself Anglican, Anglo-Catholic to be precise for me. It is a great church to go to

 

I shy away from anything describing itself as "charismatic."

 

Nope. over my head you could say in the friendliest way possible

 

Since this topic touches a bit on the definition of "via media"... Some claim that "via media" is between Rome and Geneva, others that it is between Wittenburg and Geneva, and yet a third group that it is between Strasbourg and Geneva. I'll go with #3, but obviously it makes a huge difference which of the compromises or convergences is meant.

 

Dear Brothers,

here is an interesting article:
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=46764
Father Randolph Sly Ordained for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter

Father Sly was the archbishop of the Charismatic Episcopal Church.
The Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter is for anglicans .

If The RC church accept Charismatic Episcopal Church as an anglican church body, why dont do the same the "real anglicans" (Coe, TEC)?

 

They only see us as "ecclesial bodies" or "Christian communities". For them, anyone who takes the name Anglican is just one of many heretical sectarians to be taken in under the Ordinariate. The fact that he was ordained as a priest of Rome, and not as a bishop again, shows that they make no difference. All protestants are "re-ordained" by Rome.

 

Honestly, I had a pretty positive opinion of the ACNA until I learned they had embraced the Vineyard Movement with open arms. If you're not familiar with them, they are the ones who started the "holy laughter" movement at their Toronto church, and it was celebrated for over 2 years at various Vineyard fellowships. When I asked a local ACNA Priest about this strange association, he was quick to say that the local Pastors participating in this circus side show were defrocked, but there still remains the huge doctrinal chasm that exists between historic Anglicanism and this charismatic fellowship. They reject the creeds and articles, they refuse to baptize infants and see baptism as an adult avenue for spiritual gifts such as tongues and prophecy. I'm not trying to disparage them, but simply to show the huge difference in belief and practice.

 

The original movement started by John Wimber did not contain the extreme element. Further, there is nothing wrong with a church that practices believer's baptism only. The Church of South India has no problem including Baptists.

 

The Convergence Movement is something near and dear to my heart. Before going with the Old Catholic denomination that ordained me, I talked with several bishops of the CEEC and almost joined there. Still, the OC jurisdiction that I went with is supportive of convergence.

 

As I clearly stated in my post, I wasn't demeaning them in any way, just showing the huge difference in doctrine and dogma. My question that still remained unanswered by the ACNA Priest, was what doctrines were abandoned in the merger. Did the Anglicans cease infant baptism or did the Vineyard movement start it?

 

Perhaps they simply allow liberty of conscience on the issue. That's basically what the CEEC does, and also my jurisdiction. I don't see any problem with that.

 

I'm sorry, but I see that as bi-polar as your theology. Don't you see how much confusion that imparts to their members and to the world? "We're not sure which is right, so we'll practice both". One for a mark of the covenant and the other for adults wishing to be saved and later speak in tongues. Several years ago here in Indy there was a Horizon Christian Fellowship that merged with a large charismatic Methodist church, and the end result was disastrous. The doctrinal chasm was huge, and both churches eventually had a split and have never shared fellowship again.

 

I partly agree with you. We need all the streams of God: The sacramental/liturgical; the evangelical; the charismatic.
The wise church is including all the streams of God. The history shows us that the charismatic movement is empty without the sacramental/liturgical stream and the sacramental church can be empty without the charismatic move of God.

 

I'm sorry, but your insult aside, allowing both is more in the spirit of Christ than making only one option mandatory. For instance, the Church of the Nazarene allows both, and they allow for three modes of baptism, although they prefer believer's baptism. And they are doing just fine with that -- no one is confused.

Seeing that the Anglican Communion has at least eight different views about the meaning of baptism, it is amusing to see you lecturing anyone about confusion, and falsely labeling my theology with an insult. I know liberty of conscience is an affront to some, but it is a cherished principle to many, and many have died to uphold it.

This is a late afterthought, but I had to add it: I wasn't aware that Anglicanism made it mandatory for parents to baptize their infants.

 

I'm sorry you're bristled up and took that as an insult, but it's simply my honest assessment of your contribution here. By your own admission you've had trouble fitting in with any denomination, and even now you have an amalgamation of theology that isn't being challenged in the AMiA. I'm guessing that since you have an ordination that you've had college/seminary training, but again, your theology is all over the page, and your personal confusion will eventually lead to public confusion if you ever achieve a leadership position. You have a right to your individual opinion/theology, but your choice to join an obviously Anglican forum is puzzling with your Anabaptist/Puritan/Wesleyan slant, combined with your distaste of the articles and canons. I wish we were geographically closer so we could sit down over coffee and discuss these issues, I've been where you're at, questioning the ancient against the modern, liturgical vs the evangelical, fundamental vs interpretive, and I finally reached a point where I wasn't willing to waffle any more and realized that they all couldn't be right.

"That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" Ephesians 4:14

Jeff

 

Considering the diversity and even diametrically opposite doctrinal positions in the Anglican Communion, evident even here on this forum and ranging from Anglo-Catholic to Evangelical, High Church to Low Church to Broad Church, Arminian to Calvinist, RCC-leaning, EOC-leaning, Lutheran-leaning, and more, it is quite amusing for you to keep throwing the accusation at me of being confused and having an amalgamation of theology. Looks to me like instead that I would make a good Anglican! LOL

Oh, btw, I have achieved a leadership position, to understate the fact, but I'll say no more than that.

There is no basis for your claim that I have a distaste of the Articles. And as for my "slant", it is not Wesleyan or Puritan. I have stated before that my theology has influences from Baptist, Quaker, EOC, and Anglican sources.

I love liturgical worship; that sets me apart from much of Protestantism, although the Charleston Tradition of the Baptists would be an exception.

You could at least get the facts about me correct if you're going to respond to me.

I wouldn't mind sitting down with you face-to-face; you seem like a good fellow, for the most part. I would welcome the opportunity to dispel your false notions about me and also to get to know you better.

How do you suppose the Church of South India and especially the Church of North India which contains Baptists, Church of the Brethren, and Disciples of Christ along with Anglican, Methodist, Reformed could co-exist within one church? Seems like your theory of amalgamation and confusion would make such impossible. Maybe they decided that what unites them is far more significant than their differences, and perhaps they also respect those differences and allow for liberty of conscience, practicing what Wesley stated: "As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think."

 

As I said, you're welcome to your hodgepodge of belief systems, but beyond your individual mindset the reality and practice is much different. How many Baptists do you see worshiping with Presbyterians or Methodists? How many Quakers study with Pentecostals? How many Church of Christ folks would be Baptized in a Disciples church? Your reference to the Church of India demonstrates only that they either have no desire for biblical truth, or it is so watered down so as not to offend anyone. The Creeds were clear, the scripture is clear, the Councils were decisive, and the articles were complete and succinct. Most of what exists today in the evangelical realm only reaches back to late reformation times, with some branches only going back to Azuza Street. Let's both just agree to sit back and see what happens with the ACNA and the Vineyard, it should be interesting.

Jeff