Orthodox Anglicans create new communion renouncing ties to archbishop of Canterbury

[High Fidelity]

Good for them. Female ordination was already a nail in the coffin, but this is shovelling dirt on the coffin at this point.

 

[RamiC]

Huh, interesting. Ok, so, the Church of England still has a spiritual head who is female; so all Anglicans enabled by Bishop Munro to have a male priest instead of a female one are still being lead by a woman in a position that Bishop Munro might well personally believe should belong to a man. Granted, that is neat that such an allowance for male-only clergy is there, but I think it would still be a difficult road to walk for complementarian Church of England folks.

Wow... thank you for this information, though. I've also learned there is an "Orthodox Anglican Church" out there, too.

There is a statement from Bishop Munro about the appointment of a female AoC, it is up on the website, he says "There is a need to maintain the integrity of my role as a complementarian bishop, called to serve resolution churches across the whole country, yet with a legal title in the Diocese of Canterbury. I am confident from my past experience of working with Bishop Sarah in London, that we can work together to ensure my role upholds complementarian theological convictions and with appropriate spiritual oversight." I have no idea how they intend to do this.

 

[BungalowBel]

I was saddened and kind of flabbergasted to see a woman heading the Church of England.

Honestly, if there were any nearer to me, I might consider a form of Anglicanism that did not ordain women, if such a thing still exists. Not sure. I used to think the ACNA did not ordain women, but this seems to have changed and, at least in some areas, they now seem to do this.

I'm a woman but, honestly, I feel that female ordination to the priesthood (or the equivalent thereof) is one of those things that just leads to problems and worsening theology down the road. I can't pretend it's ok, "just as good as", or not likely to lead to further sexual and moral confusion eventually.

AMiE ordains women as Deacons but not as Presbyters (Priests) or Bishops. However, I suppose that is not of much use to you if you are in the USA.

 

[caffeinated hermit]

AMiE ordains women as Deacons but not as Presbyters (Priests) or Bishops. However, I suppose that is not of much use to you if you are in the USA.

Yeah, I'm in the States, but thank you. I have a feeling this will (possibly) drive more conservative Anglican folks toward the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy or, possibly, complementarian Reformed churches. Which is kind of a shame, cause there's a lot of beauty and value within Anglicanism. You guys kind of bridge the Catholic-Protestant divide in some ways, and it would be helpful to keep some forms of that male-lead.

 

[RamiC]

You guys kind of bridge the Catholic-Protestant divide in some ways,

Is Canterbury anything to do with that? Do Gafcon do the same job?

and it would be helpful to keep some forms of that male-lead.

It is just that they still exist, and if they are suitably male-lead, then the bridge still exists.

 

[PloverWing]

Yeah, I'm in the States, but thank you. I have a feeling this will (possibly) drive more conservative Anglican folks toward the Catholic Church or Eastern Orthodoxy or, possibly, complementarian Reformed churches. Which is kind of a shame, cause there's a lot of beauty and value within Anglicanism. You guys kind of bridge the Catholic-Protestant divide in some ways, and it would be helpful to keep some forms of that male-lead.

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod would also be an option for those who want liturgy but without female clergy.

However, there are several Anglican groups in the US who split off from the Episcopal church over various issues -- including the ordination of women -- in the 20th century. For a conservative Episcopalian who cannot live with the existence of female clergy in the denomination, one of these groups would be the most obvious choice.

 

[caffeinated hermit]

Is Canterbury anything to do with that? Do Gafcon do the same job?

Having a genuine Bishopric may be part of it, but I think it also has much to do with how you guys have retained many things that are Catholic. You're not Biblicists. Or anti-Tradition. I do think GAFCON can do something similar, but the more splintered the tree becomes, the tougher things get.

How do you guys feel about King Charles praying with Pope Leo XIV?

 

[seeking.IAM]

How do you guys feel about King Charles praying with Pope Leo XIV?

All Christians ought to be able to pray together.

 

[RamiC]

Having a genuine Bishopric may be part of it, but I think it also has much to do with how you guys have retained many things that are Catholic. You're not Biblicists. Or anti-Tradition. I do think GAFCON can do something similar, but the more splintered the tree becomes, the tougher things get.

The Gafcon members are the largest in terms of numbers, so it is a pretty strong splinter in that sense. However, without the specifically English history of creating a church that could accommodate everything from virtually Catholic, to very Protestant I suppose that might make for a weaker bridge.

There are Anglican voices accusing Gafcon of going too Biblicist, "The Holy Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ, not the Scriptures, is the Church’s one foundation: “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:19-22).

The formularies of the Church of England and her divines never expressed the heart of the Church’s teaching as “the Holy Bible, ‘translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading,’” with all due respect to the Jerusalem Declaration. " from here - https://livingchurch.org/commentary/you-have-broken-my-heart-a-letter-to-my-siblings-in-gafcon/ .

How do you guys feel about King Charles praying with Pope Leo XIV?

I can only speak for me, so my own position is that either one of the King or the Pope can pray with whosoever they wish to, including each other. I do not see much fuss about it around me in England. If they can have a positive impact on the world's environmental problems by doing it, Amen.

 

[FireDragon76]

Good for them. While the Catholic Church officially congratulated the new ABC, believing Anglicans are severing ties with their establishment. GAFCON are the folks we Catholics should be reaching out to. Forty years ago ecumenical outreach to the Archbishop of Canterbury made sense, but that was when they were vastly different than they are now.

GAFCON are mostly Evangelical Anglicans, and the most likely to be actually anti-Catholic.

You're actually more likely to find more sympathies for Roman Catholicism among those critical of GAFCON, to the contrary.

GAFCON, and even the Archbishop of Canterburry, have very limited influence on actual Episcopalians and Anglicans worldwide. Anglican ecclessiology is not dependent on having uniformity or even fellowship or communion with any particular primate. GAFCON is strictly a case of party politics, principally driven by certain radicals, attempting to assert themselves as "authoritative", "orthodox" voices.

 

[chevyontheriver]

GAFCON are mostly Evangelical Anglicans, and the most likely to be actually anti-Catholic.

I am aware of that. But also aware that the closeness the Catholic Church had with the Anglican institution centered around Canterbury has somewhat evaporated in the last 40 years. I think it would perhaps be more fruitful to try to talk with GAFCON even if they tend to be anti-Catholic much in the same way it wold be better to try to talk with WELS and LCMS than AELC. My opinion anyway.

 

[caffeinated hermit]

Thanks, @seeking.IAM and @RamiC . I was expecting that meeting to be a sticking point, but I'm glad it's not.

 

[RamiC]

Explained: Has Gafcon just split from the Anglican Communion? - that is a link - "In many ways, the arguments over sexuality are a proxy for a deeper debate about what defines Anglicanism itself. It is significant that the Gafcon statement holds up the Bible as the sole source of unity and authority for their renewed Communion.

Historically, the Anglican Communion was built on the more shifting sands of historic relationships, Victoria-era colonialism and international church structures. To some liberals, Anglicanism is an endlessly-evolving loose network of friendships across borders – you were part of it simply because you had always been in communion with these other churches and bishops from over the sea who shared a common ancestry.

But Gafcon is now pushing a very different understanding: that Anglicanism is about fidelity to scripture over Church institutions or transnational relationships."

 

[RileyG]

GAFCON are mostly Evangelical Anglicans, and the most likely to be actually anti-Catholic.

You're actually more likely to find more sympathies for Roman Catholicism among those critical of GAFCON, to the contrary.

GAFCON, and even the Archbishop of Canterburry, have very limited influence on actual Episcopalians and Anglicans worldwide. Anglican ecclessiology is not dependent on having uniformity or even fellowship or communion with any particular primate. GAFCON is strictly a case of party politics, principally driven by certain radicals, attempting to assert themselves as "authoritative", "orthodox" voices.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing!

 

[FireDragon76]

Explained: Has Gafcon just split from the Anglican Communion? - that is a link - "In many ways, the arguments over sexuality are a proxy for a deeper debate about what defines Anglicanism itself. It is significant that the Gafcon statement holds up the Bible as the sole source of unity and authority for their renewed Communion.

Historically, the Anglican Communion was built on the more shifting sands of historic relationships, Victoria-era colonialism and international church structures. To some liberals, Anglicanism is an endlessly-evolving loose network of friendships across borders – you were part of it simply because you had always been in communion with these other churches and bishops from over the sea who shared a common ancestry.

But Gafcon is now pushing a very different understanding: that Anglicanism is about fidelity to scripture over Church institutions or transnational relationships."

The "liberal" explanation of Anglicanism is rooted in actual history. Anglicans have tended to reject strictly biblicist interpretations going back to the very beginning, with Hooker's Lawes of Ecclesiastic Politie laying out a case against Puritan biblicism.

 

[RamiC]

The "liberal" explanation of Anglicanism is rooted in actual history. Anglicans have tended to reject strictly biblicist interpretations going back to the very beginning, with Hooker's Lawes of Ecclesiastic Politie laying out a case against Puritan biblicism.

"II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father,"

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

Articles of Religion — Center for Reformation Anglicanism

So the word of God is identified here as "the Son", and since He is of one substance with the Father, infallible (not the Bible, the Son). Then the Holy Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, and while they are "God's word, written", they are not deemed infallible, nor are they cited as the only required authority, but they do restrict the powers of the church such that the church must not contradict or add to them.

If that makes Anglicanism "liberal", then liberal it is.

Any dispute among Anglicans regarding our churches should be over only that last sentence in my quote "ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed..." and certainly not depend on the infallibilty of the Bible with the Bible afforded the exclusive position as God's word.

 

[FireDragon76]

"II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father,"

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

XX. Of the Authority of the Church.

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation."

Articles of Religion — Center for Reformation Anglicanism

So the word of God is identified here as "the Son", and since He is of one substance with the Father, infallible (not the Bible, the Son). Then the Holy Scriptures are sufficient for salvation, and while they are "God's word, written", they are not deemed infallible, nor are they cited as the only required authority, but they do restrict the powers of the church such that the church must not contradict or add to them.

If that makes Anglicanism "liberal", then liberal it is.

Any dispute among Anglicans regarding our churches should be over only that last sentence in my quote "ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed..." and certainly not depend on the infallibilty of the Bible with the Bible afforded the exclusive position as God's word.

It comes down to whether you believe the Bible is primarily a story centered on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or whether it's primarily a platform for ideological projects to reform society. In some circles, the former will get you branded a "liberal", whereas the latter is the substance of Puritanism.

Of course, Anglicanism has always had an uneasy relationship with Puritanism, a religious movement that arguably predated the Refromation's arrival in Britain (in the form of the Lollards), and the GAFCON movement was chiefly the result of certain Anglican provinces, such as Sydney, that have sought to leverage a Puritan, anti-Catholic identity over and against diocese that don't conceive of Anglicanism in such ideologically rigid terms.

 

[mindlight]

It comes down to whether you believe the Bible is primarily a story centered on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or whether it's primarily a platform for ideological projects to reform society. In some circles, the former will get you branded a "liberal", whereas the latter is the substance of Puritanism.

Of course, Anglicanism has always had an uneasy relationship with Puritanism, a religious movement that arguably predated the Refromation's arrival in Britain (in the form of the Lollards), and the GAFCON movement was chiefly the result of certain Anglican provinces, such as Sydney, that have sought to leverage a Puritan, anti-Catholic identity over and against diocese that don't conceive of Anglicanism in such ideologically rigid terms.

The Puritans were not as biblically accurate as they believed at the time and brought their own prejudices to the reading of scripture. While Christian history may kindly regard their deep devotion, love for Scripture, moral seriousness they were wrong on a lot of stuff also:

1. Over-Individualization of the Faith (1 Pet 2:9)
2. Neglect or Suspicion of the Visible Church and the Sacraments (Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 10:16–17)
3. Theocratic and Covenant-Nationalist Assumptions (Matt 28:19; Gal 3:28)
4. Excessive Suspicion of Tradition and Catholicity (2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 3:15)
5. Overly Rationalistic Hermeneutic
6. Misreading of Christian Joy and Creation (Ps 104; 1 Tim 4:4; Phil 4:4)

The fragmentation of the church has been going on a long while. Unfortunately there is a large amount of institutional and infrastructure weight to the established church and separation does not necessarily allow the old church buildings to come with the new congregations.

A global historical approach that is both sola scriptura and can also respect the Spirit's work in the first four church councils seems to be a better benchmark for true ecumenicalism across the church visible.

 

[PloverWing]

The fragmentation of the church has been going on a long while. Unfortunately there is a large amount of institutional and infrastructure weight to the established church and separation does not necessarily allow the old church buildings to come with the new congregations.

I can't tell exactly what you're calling for here. You might mean:

1) You want the Church of England to be separated from the UK government, so that it is no longer an established church. (Fine by me, as my country hasn't had an established church in over two centuries, but it's not up to me to say what the UK should do.) OR,

2) You want non-Anglicans to have the freedom to worship as they please. (I thought the UK already had that. ) OR,

3) You want the Church of England to split, with some CofE parishes leaving to form their own, alternative, Anglican denomination that is no longer part of the Church of England, something like what happened in the US with the ACNA, and you want the parishes to be able to keep their historic church buildings as they leave.

Is one of these what you have in mind?

 

[mindlight]

I can't tell exactly what you're calling for here. You might mean:

1) You want the Church of England to be separated from the UK government, so that it is no longer an established church. (Fine by me, as my country hasn't had an established church in over two centuries, but it's not up to me to say what the UK should do.) OR,

2) You want non-Anglicans to have the freedom to worship as they please. (I thought the UK already had that. ) OR,

3) You want the Church of England to split, with some CofE parishes leaving to form their own, alternative, Anglican denomination that is no longer part of the Church of England, something like what happened in the US with the ACNA, and you want the parishes to be able to keep their historic church buildings as they leave.

Is one of these what you have in mind?

Well if only the answer to that were clear. Really it depends...

Unlike in the 1930s where parliament was a healthy corrective to a liberal monarch now parliament is a toxic influence promoting a woke agenda ( at least under Labour).

The King is a multifaithist stressing Britain's globalist credentials. That might be good for international relations and state banquets but it sabotages the home church. So both state connections are toxic right now. The case has to be made whether that is irreversible in the foreseeable future.

No there is not freedom of worship, there are "no prayer" zones and any quoting of scripture that questions women bishops, abortion, and gay marriage falls under hate speech. Go to a Muslim area to share the gospel and you will be lynched by a mob or arrested by the police for disturbing the peace. Make the mistake of sounding a little unhinged while discussing religion and a psychiatrist has the legal rights to hospitalize you, thereby ruining careers ,marriages etc. Technically the UK has freedom of speech but it is not as well protected as in Germany where I live, in practice certain areas of speech have been walled off by the politically correct. It is almost unheard of for conservative evangelicals to be able to share faith based perspectives at PhD level in university.

This is a broader problem also affecting more conservative political readings of scripture. The whole Gaza discussions a case in point. Every bible based Christian I know can see through the Muslim media and broadly supports Israel though not it's misdeeds, but the govt is now approving statehood for Palestine despite October 7th and despite fact Hamas a terrorist group are still in place.

In practice GAFCON might be a way to keep some historic buildings as actual places of worship rather than places for a Sunday morning Wokefest But the priority cannot be the money or infrastructure the spiritual pollution that comes with the connection is the priority problem here.

So simply put wait and see it depends how the various negotiations go and how low the UK culture is going to fall before the next revival. Historically we have been here before so. Christian bounce back is not impossible.