Found to be pretty interesting. It is coming to a head now, the liberals against the orthodoxy: "Justin Welby rebukes appointment of new 'missionary' bishop" https://premierchristian.news/en/ne...-rebukes-appointment-of-new-missionary-bishop The Archbishop of Canterbury has warned African Anglican leaders against creating 'disturbance and discords' by intervening in Britain with the appointment of a In a letter to fellow Anglican leaders - obtained by the Mail on Sunday - Justin Welby accused them of a 'cross-border' intervention' that would 'carry no weight in the Church of England'. The Scottish Episcopal Church last week made history when it voted in favour of allowing same-sex couples to be allowed to marry in church. As a result, GAFCON, a worldwide group of conservative Anglicans, named English based Rev Canon Andy Lines as a missionary bishop to cater for disaffected Christians in Scotland, England and across Europe. Later this month conservative archbishops, led by the Archbishop of Nigeria, Nicholas Okoh, plan to consecrate Rev Canon Lines at a meeting in America. The former British Army tank commander and father-of-three from Surrey will be tasked with looking after disaffected Anglicans who are unhappy at potential changes to church teaching on sexuality.
Yes. That news story is 3+ years old. Andy Lines, was consecrated a couple of years ago in cooperation with AMiE. There is also +Fenwick of the Free Church of England, which is in full communion with the REC. Both groups are known for very low churchmanship. And +Lines had some sort of personal crisis that caused him to take a 1 year Sabbatical. They were supposedly open to cooperating with Gavin Ashenden, who had been consecrated by a small Continuing church called Christian Episcopal Church but he renounced his orders and became Roman Catholic.
Oh right, I thought this was the newer article where there are now two dioceses in the Gafcon UK, with Bishop Lines being assigned one of them. I suppose that’s because the movement has been growing so much, with defections from the liberal CofE. One of those is now in Europe. What happened with Ashenden is tragic, but he brought it in himself, and he was never going to have any energy or grow the church. All he did was complain about not becoming a Gafcon bishop, so then he went and got himself made Bishop by a schismatical body. Much good that did, because he didn’t acquire any new energy, or help any churches grow in any way shape or form. So I say let Rome have him, he’d saddle them now.
The question that comes up is: what kind of churches are they planting? Because the criticism that comes out universally is that the services they hold make AMiA look rather high church. Most Anglicans who visit leave suspecting they went to a contemporary Methodist church. Is Anglicanism a prayer book church or can one do whatever one wants in the name of church growth?
We are a prayer book church and we should not move to what ever in the name of church growth. That is craving to the call of modernism.
I certainly make no apologies for their churchmanship. They are orthodox on social issues, even surprisingly on things like vehement opposition to women's ordination (in a deeply egalitarian, post-gender, British context). So they're surprisingly solid on matters you could hardly expect. But then they're wobbly on things which shouldn't have even been a question, in the liturgy, in churchmanship, etc. A similar issue exists among the orthodox exiles from Anglican Church of Canada: socially rock solid and culturally impervious, but liturgically... in need of complete re-catechesis. These are the raw materials with which one has to work with. The answer is not to push them out, but to re-catechize and in some ways to re-evangelize them. The reason they got to these positions of prominence which enable them to plant churches, stand firm and resist the atheist demonic influences, but also to play loose with Anglican doctrine, is simply that there are no other leaders left. If the Continuing Churches started to play ball, rejoined the family to lead & assume responsibilities, to offer their gifts of scholarship- if they knew how to make apologetic arguments for liturgy, for set prayers, for the Sacraments, for vestments; then we wouldn't be in this position. But the Continuing Churches don't want to play ball and help lead; they're even starting to verge into their own heterodoxies. Meanwhile the evangelical footsoldiers, lacking anyone to lead them, are doing what they can but not without wreaking havoc in their ranks. That being said, I would rather have havoc-wreaking footsoldiers, because at least then we'd have churches, which one could bring closer to the historic faith over time. The path which the Continuing Churches chose: sit on a high perch pecking at those below; lean back 100% contentedly when all the rubrics are followed, has been a failure for the last 50 years. There is no raw material there to work with. You will never get that person to evangelize, to endure mockery and deprivation, to suffer, to shiver and hunger on a mission field. It's a quintessential self-contented dead end. With the evangelicals, you've got energy, ferocity; and if only you could learn to speak with them, then they could become more Anglican as well. I can tell you that that's what we've seen in ACNA over the last 12 years. In the beginning it was a wild and wooly place; but 10 years of catechesis, provincial assemblies, rock solid leadership from our bishops (etc), have created a solid core among previously unrecognizable sub-movements and camps.
Can confirm, at least in my diocese. There is a major effort underway to bring evangelical Protestant refugees into the fold in the proper Anglican fashion by focusing on the Prayer Book, 39 Articles, and the Liturgy. My pastor has been wonderful on this issue, and has done his work with the full support of our Bishop and Archbishop. (ACNA even restored the Coverdale Psalter to the BCP, which is my favorite translation. Whatever it lacks in "literalness", it more than makes up for in poetic beauty.)