And yet, the ACNA and some of these other groups seem to be the ones championing the true, historically conservative Anglican position, while the Archbishop of Canterbury has gone liberal. Who is not wishing to retain, exactly?
By the way, Pentecostalism and Word of Faith are entirely different. Although some of the leading WoF teachers had roots in Pentecostalism, very little if any teaching on tongues is taking place in WoF. For that matter, many of the Pentecostal pastors are distancing themselves from the practice; they're moving towar 'mainstream' on the issue.
GAFCON arose in the first instance in response to what it saw as a drifting away from the historic Anglican Foundations. Specific concerns for how we treat the 39 Articles, how we treat scripture, our theological position on human sexuality, our approach to the sacrament of marriage, and our understanding of the nature of holy orders and more precisely the role of women in ordained ministry. The African Church (which has been the centre of growth for the Anglican Church for some time) has a tendency to be more conservative and more reformed in these matters. TEC with its feet at the heart of the progressive west saw things in a very different light, and the growing tension inside the TEC led to the formation of ACNA in 2009 being a conjoining of a number of break way bodies. Because there is enmity between ACNA and TEC, specifically from 2009 these churches were not in communion, save that both saw themselves ready to welcome people from the other side. For ACNA to be in communion with Canterbury there would I suspect need to be a major thawing out in the relationship with the TEC. Many (but certainly not all) members of GAFCON are in Communion with Canterbury, however we now see a growing number of the African Bishops declining the invitation to Lambeth 2020. One of the objections is that not only have provinces who have moved on the marriage of single gender couples been invited, but that three bishops in same sex unions have also been invited. That of course may be the case, however it is also possible that this is the Anglican Future. The answer is something that a future generation may well read about in whatever passes for the internet in their day. For us in our day, we are called to work out for ourselves what it is to be faithful to Christ and his Church and his mission in our present circumstances.
Look, I myself have gone to Africa twice in the last three years. Your bar is really way too low. Abp. Gordon needs to make his second home in Abuja, or Kampala or Nairobi. He needs to live there like a third of the year, as Archbishop Foley Beach does. Kenya should be in communion with him, like, tomorrow. He needs to go for summer vacations in Singapore, and bus the Bishops, the Deans, and the Archdeacons of the (gargantuan) Province of Singapore to his synods in the US. You and I know both know why he's not doing that. Where in Africa does he go, and are you 100% sure he isn't going to one and the same Anglo-Catholic diocese each time (there are a few in Africa)? Where is the fruit in those visits in terms of larger Anglican recognition? You and I both realize the fact that the Continuing churches are so set in the mould of Anglo-Catholicism and Anglo-Papalism that any whiff of evangelicalism sets them in an allergic reaction in the opposite reaction. Even if Nigeria asked for communion with any of the big four, they would still likely refuse it. That's the sad reality. A worldwide Anglican communion is simply not what they seem to be interested in. Not sure if you were responding to my post or someone else's...
He goes to Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda, Uganda, and Kenya. He plans to go to S. Africa sometime soon. He's asked me to accompany him on that trip. You've never even asked what jurisdiction I'm in, but here's the info: http://www.orthodoxanglican.net/
OK. I am just a struggling Aussie here. So the Orthodox Anglican Communion is a Church listed as Churches of Anglican or Episcopal Tradition on the list of Churches not in Communion. As I understand it, that makes you a Church, per say. GAFCON on the other hand is a membership society of individuals. The membership form seems to imply that it is for Anglicans to belong to one of the Churches in the Community, primarily, though there seems some option to include those who are not. Is you Church, or are members of your Church members of GAFCON? If I was travelling, and I am a member of the Anglican Church of Australia which is in Communion with Canterbury, and I came to one of your Churches what would that mean in terms of my participation in the sacrament?
We are not in any way affiliated with GAFCON. Abp. Gordon has termed that body a 'false start' in terms of renewing Anglicanism. All baptized Christians that affirm the Nicene creed are welcome to receive communion in our churches.
I think the conventional meaning of "in communion" is, "in close or intimate fellowship," but I'm speaking generally. If there's a special definition applied to Anglicanism I'm in no position to know it.
You. Because your last sentence of the post was, Which I took to mean, retain traditional Anglicanism. So I said that it seems like the ACNA and some other groups are doing a better job of retaining traditional Anglicanism than the Anglican Communion itself is doing.
If an Anglican church is a member of the Anglican Communion, it is said to be 'in communion', or "in communion with the See of Canterbury". There are also churches which are 'in full communion' with the See of Canterbury but are not culturally or denominationally Anglican. Otherwise it is said to be 'not in communion.' Generally, Anglican churches that are not in communion with the See of Canterbury have withdrawn because of doctrinal differences. In recent years those differences have included the ordination of women priests and the attitude of the church towards sexuality. http://draft.anglicansonline.org/basics/governance.html So what does this all mean: There are 40 Churches and 6 extra provincial churches who are Members of the Anglican Communion. The list is here. https://www.anglicancommunion.org/structures/member-churches.aspx There are 12 Churches which are neither Anglican nor members of the Anglican Communion but are in full communion with the Anglican Communion and there are a number of other arrangements which is possibly even more complex. That list may be found here: http://draft.anglicansonline.org/communion/infull.html There are a staggering number (100+) of Churches which are Anglican and are not in Communion with the Anglican Communion. That list may be found here http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html I used to think that if we were not in communion it meant that we could not participate in the Eucharist in each others churches, hover now we have a more open flavour to the matter of sacramental discipline in this area. Shane's quote here is exactly how the Parish Church I worship in would see it, and at another Parish the other day an Assistant Bishop made a similar statement. I take the point that the table is set in this world and the next, and that we join with Angels and Archangels and all the company of heaven, so I per se do not have a problem with it. I really do wish we were not quite so fragmented.
I’m not sure that’s correct. but my perspective in reading your post could be distorted due to the liturgical season (see below): Humility is the beginning of wisdom, and self-abasement, free flowing tears, and a lifestyle focused on repentance are acts of grace and blessings conferred by the Holy Spirit. But despair over the prospects of one’s salvation is a sin, an example of selfish self-pity. Someone making more spiritual progress should feel pity for other people, even for irrational animals. Now, I could be wrong in my reading of your post, for this reason: I would note we are at present in the Orthodox church in one of four fasting seasons, the Fast of the Apostles, which follows All Saints Day (an upbeat feast one week after Pentecost, with green paraments and green and gold vestments, symbolizing new life; in the Apostles’ fast, we tend to use orange, red, or dark red vestments). Xerophagia is prescribed on Wednesdays and Fridays, dairy products are out, and fish only is permitted, unless you have permission from your confessor due to illness or travel or other factors (and if your confessor won’t grant a needed permission, he probably is not the right confessor). Thus I find myself in a somewhat penitential mood, so my apologies to my Anglican friends who are in Ordinary Time if I seemingly randomly quote The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the Ladder of Divine Ascent, the Philokalia, the Treatises of St. Isaac the Syrian, or the Arena of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. It’s just that time of year. ~ I would also note that the Word of Faith movement even in its milder forms comes across as positively gruesome right now.
That’s a good question considering mainline Anglican churches and TEC will communicate the unbaptized! The rubric about repelling a notorious evil liver from the sacrament is presumably not in effect.
Right, agreed. Also the Anglican Communion in this troubled time is where the majority of Anglicans are. Which is GAFCON. The See of Canterbury, as hallowed and ancient and holy as it is, is not our version of the papacy. It is currently possessed by a deeply heterodox prelate, and it doesn’t have the right to redefine what Anglican doctrines are. So we are the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is already in formal heresy, and the See of Canterbury is already in material heresy, and closely edging to formal heresy every day.
"Positively gruesome," you say! Well, that seems simultaneously understandable and unfortunate. Understandable, because we always hear the most sensationalized version of another group's errors (either real or alleged) and we tend to believe the worst. Unfortunate, because this has the side effect of promoting divisions between groups... divisions that might not be warranted (sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't). It may come as a surprise to many on this forum that the vast body of Word of Faith churches teach 100% in line with the Nicene Creed. So they are, I would say, substantially orthodox (small o) in their primary body of belief. The errors they hold come into play mainly in matters that are unrelated to those basic doctrines which go to the heart of the Gospel message, the nature of God, and saving faith in Christ. There are many things upon which Christians may reasonably differ without falling out of fellowship. These are matters about which Christians discuss back and forth, debate, and argue; but they don't make the people on either side any less Christian than those of the opposite viewpoint. Word of Faith teachers/preachers fall into this category of holding some views we differ with (and may find silly, obviously false, repulsive, whatever) but still holding to the basic truths of the one true Christian faith. It's not like one of those groups one can still find today which deny the Trinity or (worse yet) teach that God is everything (matter and energy) around us, or follow one of the other big heresies. Is the Roman Church absolutely 100% perfect in all its doctrinal beliefs and teachings? Of course not. Any time fallible human beings get involved in an organization, they make some mistakes. Is the Eastern Orthodox Church absolutely 100% perfect in all its doctrinal beliefs and teachings? I'm certain it is not. Somewhere in their teaching there is something or other which I'm sure the Lord would say, "That isn't quite what I meant." Is any Protestant church perfect? No way. Not even one of the ones in the Anglican Communion. If there were ever a perfect church on this earth at any time, when the first human being joined that church it became imperfect. Such is the effect of us fallible humans. What we see is, this church here has a grasp on some truths that that church there doesn't. And that church there has a really great understanding of something that this church here is short on. And so on. So, for example, the WoF churches have a very strong understanding and emphasis on how to be led by the Spirit of God in one's daily walk; this is something I haven't seen (yet) in my Anglican church. But the Anglicans have a strong understanding of the value of liturgy, and the WoF bunch lacks this. If we ever could get together and talk through these differences, the Church would be stronger and better-balanced for it; but this will never happen because, well, people are people. Still, I feel that all churches which teach the Gospel truth concerning salvation by God's grace only, received only by faith in Christ the Redeemer, should ideally try to view one another as groups of fellow members in the family of God.
I believe that in matters of dogmatic theology, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches are entirely correct; some of the traditional Anglican churches have recovered, in some cases (the Scottish Non-Jurors) by refering to Orthodox doctrine, a correct theology, and on the basis of lex orandi, lex credendi, the actual worship of the Orthodox churches and some of the traditional Anglican churches of an Anglo Catholic or high churchmanship, is entirely flawless. There are no errors, for example, in Mattins or Evensong, or the Litany, in their traditional form, so I feel comfortable saying the Anglican Office is entirely correct, which is doubtless why the Western Rite Orthodox communities did not deign to tamper with it. Also, some of the Anglican communion services are splendid, especially those used by the Scottish Non Jurors and their successors (which have an epiclesis copied from the ancient Divine Liturgy of St. James, which is another liturgy I feel is entirely correct, provided one uses the right recension with sane rubrics). When you add the word “teachings” however you muddy the waters, because we have chaps like Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus or Metropolitan Epiphany of Ukraine on the one hand, and people prone to theological gaffes like Pope Shenouda III of blessed memory, who once managed to confuse the entire Coptic faithful with an article which appeared to contradict the doctrine of theosis. This view is contrary to Matthew 16:18. We must remember, however we define the Church ecclesiologically, that the Church must be perfect, because it is the Body of Christ. One can, throughout history, clearly and consistently distinguish between heretical sects and the Apostolic faith. I have no desire whatsoever for unity with the Word of Faith movement. This is because, as the Gospel says, truth has no fellowship with falsehood; light has no fellowship with darkness. The Word of Faith movement is per se heretical and cacodox; whereas I can say that Anglican Morning Prayer in the 1662 BCP is entirely correct, I can also say that the Word of Faith movement in its worship is entirely incorrect. The law of prayer is the law of belief, and the way the Word of Faith churches pray is wrong and not of Christ. Joel Osteen and his ilk are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Furthermore, I believe only the apostolic faith as held by many traditional Anglicans, some other Protestants, but not Baptists, some traditional Latin Rite Catholics, a few of the Old Catholics, but not the Union of Utrecht, some Eastern Catholics, and the Eastern, Oriental, and Assyrian churches is valid; I desire the reunification of the orthodox components of these churches in a manner that preserves their liturgical patrimony and the work of their theologians in catechesis. That is because these churches have an orthodox faith, and by rights out to form an extended family so that there can be no confusion about who worships with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and who does not (and there are doctrinal tests that are applicable; the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, compatibility with the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in a rejection of the Nestorian and Eutychian error, a rejection of the monergist errors, namely, universalism and Pelagianism, the rejection of monothelitism or other Apollinarian errors and iconoclasm, the avoidance of crypto-pneumatomachianism and several other heresiological qualifiers). Doctrine matters. The doctrines of the Word of Faith movement can be shown to be antithetical to the apostolic faith, so there is no point in unity with them. The error of Pietism* would have us believe otherwise, but Pietism is a gross error on a par with Zwinglianism or Memorialism or Quietism. *As the term was understood in Poland and the eastern realms of the Kingdom of Prussia, a kind of Latitudinarian Extremism; Scandinavian Pietism appears to be something else, and this point is poorly understood.
The situation with the Church of England is so upsetting, but groups like The Society give me hope that a traditional faith may be preserved in parts of it.