Why or why not become Anglican?

[HosannaHM]

I think PloverWing had an excellent response that represents much of my thinking and attraction to Anglicanism, too. I will add one more thing about my "why" of becoming Anglican. I wanted a liturgical, sacramental, reverential worship with all the "rootedness" PloverWing spoke about. There are other faith practices that offer that as well, but they do not offer one thing important to me -- making the Eucharist available to all baptized Christians. I reject closed communion practices. Christ wanted his church to be one. I don't think that is a matter of a single organization but of all of Christendom being united at the communion rail. (Yes, I know the counter-arguments; I find them unconvincing.)

This is the exact reason why I'm starting to lean toward the Anglican view over the Lutheran. I have great respect for both denominations, but yes, exactly what you said here

 

[HosannaHM]

-
​

My one condition that would have to be met. Would be they would have to teach that a person receives God's free gift of Eternal Life salvation only by belief/faith in Jesus, with no other action required by the person.

They would also have to teach that once a person becomes at the very moment of belief in Jesus a born again child of God, this person can never lose their born again life and cease to be a child of God. *this second part is really actually part of the first condition i gave, kind of like 1 and 1a

From what I understand- you would be able to hold that conviction as an Anglican, yes. However, not all Anglicans would have to agree with the wording you laid out there. Specifically eternal security/once saved always saved

 

[HosannaHM]

I am Catholic not Anglican. That said, there are reasons for a Baptist to become an Anglican and there are reasons not to become an Anglican.
For:

• Anglicans preserved some of the ancient liturgy and the ancient faith when they separated from the Catholic Church; these were good things to preserve and they help Anglicans to remain within the life and truth held by the ancient churches from apostolic times.
• Anglicans value holy scripture and they value holy tradition; they understand that holy scripture needs a context in which to be interpreted and that the context is the living breathing church and its past decisions (holy tradition).
• Anglican have retained the structure of the ancient church; pastors and priests answer to a bishop who in turn is held accountable by the body of bishops making up the Anglican communion.

Against:

• Anglicans have mixed semi-democratic processes into the ancient monarchical structure of the diocese and also the collegiate structure of the synod and council, mixing laity and clergy into a voting assembly that makes law for the Anglican church in any given jurisdiction.
• Anglicans debate and permit some serious doctrinal deviations that stand in the way of communion with the ancient churches, and practises such as female ordination, same sex individuals in the roles of priest and bishop while they maintain an active and visible same sex relationship, which also stand in the way of communion with the ancient churches.
• Anglicans have abandoned their traditional opposition to divorce and remarriage replacing it with tolerance that matches societal tolerance of these things.

More could be added to the "for" case and also to the "against" case. Yet, in the end, your own conscience must rule in this matter and by it you must be guided.

Hey Xeno,

Thank you! I appreciate the informed response. What you've laid out here might be the concern that led me to post in the first place. I like what you laid out in the "for", but I'm very concerned about the constant changes taking place in recent years.

To be fair, The Catholic Church has done a much better job with your "against" category

 

[The Liturgist]

I used to think the Anglican church had what some might view as a progressive/liberal view of Marriage and Gender

Five more Anglican bishops back same-sex marriages in church

Church of England bishops say clergy should be able to act according to conscience on issue that has divided Christianity

www.theguardian.com

So I am actually not sure where they are on that today.

Here is a Catholic source who was a former Anglican reviewing different issues in the church

What Catholics Must Understand about Anglicanism

Much of the ecumenical adventure between Anglicans and Catholics over the last 40 years has been fruitful, but its success has been limited because many Catholics do not understand the complexity of the Anglican church.

www.catholic.com

Since I don't now much about it - I found some of that article to be helpful.

" I attended an Anglican seminary of the Evangelical persuasion called Wycliffe Hall, and down the road was the Anglo-Catholic seminary called St. Stephen’s House. The two were totally opposed in theology, liturgical practice, culture, and ethos. In Oxford was an Anglican seminary which was “broad church,” or liberal. This third strand of Anglicanism has always been a kind of worldly, established, urbane type of religion that is at home with the powers that be and always adapts to the culture in which it finds itself.​

​

These three forces co-exist in the Anglican church—united by nothing more than a shared baptism, a patriotic allegiance to the national church, and the need to tolerate each other. Unfortunately the toleration frequently wears thin. The Anglo-Catholics, the Evangelicals, and the liberals are constantly at war. Their theology, their liturgy, their politics, and their spirituality are in basic contradiction to one another."​

Of course I have a lot of other doctrinal issues with the Anglican church but I was looking for something more generally applicable across the board for a review.

Actually broad church does not mean liberal, strictly speaking. Broad churchmanship merely relates to a position that is accepting of both the low church, evangelical and high church, Anglo-Catholic positions. It is the heir to two earlier positions, Latitudinarianism and before that, the Elizabethan Settlement, which were intended to do the same thing. However, one can absolutely have conservative Broad Church parishes and indeed I would argue that relatively speaking, much of ACNA can be considered that.

You can also have liberal catholic parishes, as well as liberal low church and liberal evangelical parishes (an example of a liberal relatively low church or lower broad church parish might be Old North Church in Boston).

Anglicanism is complex, but the good thing about it is the extreme attention Anglicanism pays to the reading of all of scripture and to the importance of the Eucharist. Also in terms of its polity Anlgicanism closely resembles the Early Church and the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Anglicanism closely resembles the Early Church and the Orthodox Churches.

I am not very confident that Orthodox churches see it that way.

 

[Paidiske]

If you are Anglican, why are you?

There have already been some good responses which have mentioned many things I value.

Speaking personally, I am an Anglican because, when I wanted to get involved in the church as a young adult, I looked first to the Catholicism my parents had lapsed from, but simply couldn't accept some of its claims, especially infallibility.

Anglicanism, to me, was a church with many strengths - including the ones I admired in Catholicism - but without (what I saw as) the appalling arrogance and pride of saying "We can never be wrong." I appreciate my tradition's humility in saying that as humans, even Christian humans, we can be wrong and are open to ongoing reflection, repentance, and reform.

It wasn't a factor when I became an Anglican - I had no thought of ordination then - but today, the ordination of women is also a very big deal. I don't think I could any longer seriously consider a church which closes some roles to women, as to me that is a serious distortion of the gospel.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

simply couldn't accept some of its claims, especially infallibility.

Seems to me that any and every statement that is true is infallible.

 

[Paidiske]

Seems to me that any and every statement that is true is infallible.

But our apprehension of truth is not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But our apprehension of truth is not.

You must speak for yourself in that matter.

 

[Paidiske]

I am speaking for myself, in saying that I find any claim to infallible apprehension of truth unconvincing.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am speaking for myself, in saying that I find any claim to infallible apprehension of truth unconvincing.

except, no doubt, for your own apprehension of the truth of this statement "I find any claim to infallible apprehension of truth unconvincing."

 

[Paidiske]

except, no doubt, for your own apprehension of the truth of this statement "I find any claim to infallible apprehension of truth unconvincing."

I am not claiming to be infallible, or to perfectly know the truth. But the OP asked those of us who are Anglican, why we are, and that was the point which ultimately made my decision; I could not accept ecclesial claims of infallibility.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have to side with @Paidiske on this one @Xeno.of.athens . There is a distinction between absolute doctrinal infallibility and preaching the faith we believe to be true, admitting our human weaknesses may introduce errors. I myself constantly worry about the possibility of making mistakes in my preaching.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I am not claiming to be infallible, or to perfectly know the truth. But the OP asked those of us who are Anglican, why we are, and that was the point which ultimately made my decision; I could not accept ecclesial claims of infallibility.

I have to side with @Paidiske on this one @Xeno.of.athens . There is a distinction between absolute doctrinal infallibility and preaching the faith we believe to be true, admitting our human weaknesses may introduce errors. I myself constantly worry about the possibility of making mistakes in my preaching.

Personal uncertainty is normal as an experience; infallibility only needs truth for it to be true and papal infallibility rests on the truth of the statements made rather than on any personal attribute possessed by a pope. So we have this issue: Is anything produced by human kind infallible? I think we'd answer yes because

• Holy Scripture is regarded as infallible truth
• Holy Tradition is also regarded as infallible because it is truth
• And the magisterium of the Church as the bride and body of the Lord Jesus Christ is also regarded as infallibly true because of its source in the Lord, the Church having been taught by the Holy Spirit.

Many balk at the concept of infallibility, some extend their doubts to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, but in the end one has to accept as true some things said to be from God or else one's religion is no longer Christian.

 

[Paidiske]

infallibility only needs truth for it to be true and papal infallibility rests on the truth of the statements made rather than on any personal attribute possessed by a pope.

I am not speaking simply of papal infallibility, but of the infallibility of the magisterium more generally.

That said, this statement begs the question. There's no point to saying, "This statement is true, therefore it's infallible." Infallibility is as much about our ability to be certain of the truth of the statements we believe to be true.

Many balk at the concept of infallibility, some extend their doubts to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, but in the end one has to accept as true some things said to be from God or else one's religion is no longer Christian.

I can accept things to be true, without claiming to be infallible in my understanding. I accept that I may, in fact, be wrong, or deluded. I have very strong reason to believe that I am not, in fact, either wrong or deluded, which is why I believe what I believe and order my life accordingly, but I do not claim that it is impossible that I am wrong. Nor can I accept that claim from a church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I can accept things to be true, without claiming to be infallible in my understanding.

The Catholic Church's statements about infallibility are not about an individual reader's alleged infallible understanding of the Church's statements it is rather about the truth of the statements themselves and the magisterium exists to explain and instruct individuals so that they can indeed attain an adequate (not necessarily infallible) understanding of the statements.

 

[Paidiske]

it is rather about the truth of the statements themselves

Yes, I understand this. But it goes beyond the truth of the statements, to say that not only are the statements true (according to our best understanding), but the the church's ability to apprehend and articulate that truth is incapable of error. One does not need to believe that in order to be Christian.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, I understand this. But it goes beyond the truth of the statements, to say that not only are the statements true (according to our best understanding), but the the church's ability to apprehend and articulate that truth is incapable of error. One does not need to believe that in order to be Christian.

Of course one need not believe it; evidently you do not believe it and who is denying that you are a Christian? None that I have seen, least of all myself. Nevertheless, as I stated in one of my posts in answer to a Baptist's question about becoming an Anglican, the ordination of women to the priesthood and as bishops is an obstacle to communion with the Catholic Church and, I believe, to communion with the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and perhaps Coptic churches.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course one need not believe it; evidently you do not believe it and who is denying that you are a Christian?

Your earlier statement was "but in the end one has to accept as true some things said to be from God or else one's religion is no longer Christian."

And I agree. But there is a difference between, "I accept this claim as true," and "I accept this claim as infallibly true." One does not need to hold the second position to be Christian.

Nevertheless, as I stated in one of my posts in answer to a Baptist's question about becoming an Anglican, the ordination of women to the priesthood and as bishops is an obstacle to communion with the Catholic Church and, I believe, to communion with the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and perhaps Coptic churches.

It's not as if they saw our orders as valid before we ordained women, so it's not as if the obstacle is any bigger now than it was before.

Communion with other churches would be a good thing, but not worth setting aside women's vocations for.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am not very confident that Orthodox churches see it that way.

We did, at one time; before a combination of the Russian Revolution and the machinations of Low Churchmen derailed the project, St. Tikhon of Moscow and St. Raphael of Brooklyn were working on a program which would have established full communion between the Russian Orthodox Church (and most likely the Antiochian Orthodox Church; at the time, the Antiochian church delegated its pastoral care in North America to the ROC and St. Raphael Hawaheeny was appointed as a suffragan bishop under Metropolitan Tikhon to specifically oversee the Arabic-speaking parishes that cared for the Syrian Christian immigrant population who were members of the Antiochian Orthodox Church). Indeed as late as 1915, St. Raphael issued a pastoral encyclical authorizing Antiochian Orthodox who could not find an Orthodox parish to receive communion at the Episcopal Church. And as late as the 1940s, ROCOR, the most conservative of the four churches that separated after the rise of the Soviet Union (the others being the aforementioned Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America, the Metropolia, which is now known as the Orthodox Church in America and which included the massive Archdiocese of Alaska, and the Patriarchal Parishes, a group of 72 parishes, now numbering around 24, which remain under a bishop appointed by the Moscow Patriarchate; additionally the Greek Orthodox Church after it set up what amounted to a competing jurisdiction in North America decided to compete further by setting up the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in North America and the American Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Diocese (since massive numbers of Ruthenian Catholics had joined the OCA, led by St. Alexis Toth, due to the Latin Rite hierarchy in North America making the very strange and unacceptable demand that the married priests of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church and other Eastern Catholic Churches who immigrated to North America divorce their wives or resign the priesthood, which was unpopular with both the clergy and the laity for obvious reasons, and this strange policy was only recently reversed, after the foundation of the Anglican Ordinariate, which permits not only married priests but married “Ordinaries” who serve in a quasi-episcopal function (I would have called them Chorepiscopi were I the one who had set up the Anglican ordinariates, because there exists a precedent in the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Assyrian churches for Chorepiscopi, or Choir Bishops, who can be married, but whose episcopal powers are limited to consecrations of altars and the ordination of readers and other persons to the minor orders, but who cannot ordain priests or participate in the ordination of regular bishops). Basically, a Chorepiscopi is literally a glorified Archpriest, an Archpriest with additional authority compared to regular priests, so whereas the titles of Archpriest and Protopresbyter are honorific, the title of Chorepiscopi does contain some actual episcopal authority. Although actually, my understanding is that in some respects, Ordinaries of the Anglican Ordinariate are slightly more powerful than Chorepiscopi.