Church Adventuring: Anglican or Episcopalian or Both?

[Solace Girl]

My transportation problems are over, and I'm thinking of taking the big step of going out into the world and visiting churches again. I did this on-and-off during college, as my standing with the Catholic Church is complicated. I am giving serious thought to switching denominations.

I visited an Episcopalian church a few times in college and felt comfortable. My friend who just graduated seminary school (Lutheran) told me he prefers the Anglicans, and I didn't even know Anglicanism existed in the U.S after the American Revolution. I have done brief research, and the separation appears to be based on different interpretations on sexuality and woman's role in the church.

The nearest church to me is Episcopalian and is led by a female. If I don't want to get deeply involved in these politics, should I visit? There are Anglican churches farther away, but I would be willing to visit both in order to compare and contrast.

When it comes to churches, I'm more concerned about one that supports educated and articulate female laity than clergy.

 

[FireDragon76]

The nearest church to me is Episcopalian and is led by a female. If I don't want to get deeply involved in these politics, should I visit? There are Anglican churches farther away, but I would be willing to visit both in order to compare and contrast..

The differences between Continuing Anglicans and Episcopalians run deeper than just the issues of women's ordination and differences about sexuality, although those are the most salient differences.

Women's ordination is a settled matter in the Episcopal church. And there are some relatively conservative women priests, so you won't be able to tell anything about the churchmanship of a parish merely because of that.

 

[Albion]

My transportation problems are over, and I'm thinking of taking the big step of going out into the world and visiting churches again. I did this on-and-off during college, as my standing with the Catholic Church is complicated. I am giving serious thought to switching denominations.

I visited an Episcopalian church a few times in college and felt comfortable. My friend who just graduated seminary school (Lutheran) told me he prefers the Anglicans, and I didn't even know Anglicanism existed in the U.S after the American Revolution. I have done brief research, and the separation appears to be based on different interpretations on sexuality and woman's role in the church.

The nearest church to me is Episcopalian and is led by a female. If I don't want to get deeply involved in these politics, should I visit? There are Anglican churches farther away, but I would be willing to visit both in order to compare and contrast.

When it comes to churches, I'm more concerned about one that supports educated and articulate female laity than clergy.

Well, as one of those Anglicans, I think you probably would enjoy visiting both churches. How well each goes over with you might depend on how you stand on each of those issues you named, but there are some other factors you might consider also. In general, the Anglican-named churches are likely to be more traditional all around and much less involved in politics than The Episcopal Church. And as always, every denomination varies from one parish to another.

 

[PaladinValer]

My transportation problems are over, and I'm thinking of taking the big step of going out into the world and visiting churches again. I did this on-and-off during college, as my standing with the Catholic Church is complicated. I am giving serious thought to switching denominations.

The Anglican Communion would love to have you a member of her.

I visited an Episcopalian church a few times in college and felt comfortable. My friend who just graduated seminary school (Lutheran) told me he prefers the Anglicans, and I didn't even know Anglicanism existed in the U.S after the American Revolution. I have done brief research, and the separation appears to be based on different interpretations on sexuality and woman's role in the church.

Correction is necessary here: The Episcopal Church is the Anglican Communion here in the United States and there is no other official Anglican Communion body here besides her. We call ourselves Episcopalian and not Anglican because we initially got our line of bishops not from English bishops who refused because we could no longer subjugate ourselves to the Monarch but Scottish non-Jurors, who possessed Apostolic Succession and agreed to provide it. The other reason was because "Anglican" technically means "English", and the newly independent and formal colonials who just got rid of English jurisdiction no longer believed themselves to be of England but of their newly independent country.

The nearest church to me is Episcopalian and is led by a female. If I don't want to get deeply involved in these politics, should I visit? There are Anglican churches farther away, but I would be willing to visit both in order to compare and contrast.

Female ordination is quickly becoming a non-issue in the Anglican Communion. As of just earlier this week, now 1/2 of the 38 Provinces of the Anglican Communion allow women to be ordained even as bishops according to their canons, and I believe 6 to 8 of them have active women bishops.

When it comes to churches, I'm more concerned about one that supports educated and articulate female laity than clergy.

I think The Episcopal Church will be a good fit. There are no longer any dioceses in her that don't allow women's ordination, which is now a truly 100% non-issue here, and as I said earlier, it is quickly becoming a non-issue in the wider Anglican Communion.

 

[Liberasit]

My transportation problems are over, and I'm thinking of taking the big step of going out into the world and visiting churches again. I did this on-and-off during college, as my standing with the Catholic Church is complicated. I am giving serious thought to switching denominations.

I visited an Episcopalian church a few times in college and felt comfortable. My friend who just graduated seminary school (Lutheran) told me he prefers the Anglicans, and I didn't even know Anglicanism existed in the U.S after the American Revolution. I have done brief research, and the separation appears to be based on different interpretations on sexuality and woman's role in the church.

The nearest church to me is Episcopalian and is led by a female. If I don't want to get deeply involved in these politics, should I visit? There are Anglican churches farther away, but I would be willing to visit both in order to compare and contrast.

When it comes to churches, I'm more concerned about one that supports educated and articulate female laity than clergy.

I would recommend that you visit your local church for several weeks and see how you feel about it. Is the worship and teaching good, is the church family friendly? Are there mid-week activities and opportunities for ministry. If you don't click with this church, the do the same for the next one.

The summer is not always a great time to get a fair representation of the church, but you should be able to judge the warmth and sincerity of everyone.

 

[graceandpeace]

The Episcopal Church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

There are continuing Anglican churches & the ACNA as well, but they are not in the Communion.

Based on what you've stated, I think you should consider the Episcopal church. They ordain women & there is not much controversy surrounding women laity serving & being involved. I have been attending TEC for months & really love it.

Good luck.

 

[Albion]

The Episcopal Church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

There are continuing Anglican churches & the ACNA as well, but they are not in the Communion.
Good luck.

The Anglican Communion is but a voluntary association of fairly recent creation that limits its membership to one church per country, some of which have declared themselves out of "communion" and fellowship with other members. It is, therefore, impossible for some of the world's older Anglican churches to belong, even if they wanted to. So, it's wrong to make it sound as though this association confers any sort of validity upon anyone.

By the way, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion, considers the non-members to be Anglicans...and has said so publicly.

When anyone asks about Anglican churches or Anglicanism, could we here POSSIBLY resist the urge to start in with the "Me ME. Look at us, not them" stuff?

 

[Sean611]

The Anglican Communion is but a voluntary association of fairly recent creation that limits its membership to one church per country, some of which have declared themselves out of "communion" and fellowship with other members. It is, therefore, impossible for some of the world's older Anglican churches to belong, even if they wanted to. So, it's wrong to make it sound as though this association confers any sort of validity upon anyone.

It is indeed relatively recent, but that is because Britian took the Church of England to their colonies. Therefore, there was no need for a communion as all were Church of England. Once the colonies started to gain independence, so did the Anglican Church in that country. Thus, the Anglican Communion came into play as a way to have unity between churches that are essentially the same.

I'm sure you already know all of this, but some of the people that read here may take your post to mean that the Anglican Church is new or that Anglicanism wasn't world-wide until the Communion was formed.

 

[Albion]

It is indeed relatively recent, but that is because Britian took the Church of England to their colonies. Therefore, there was no need for a communion as all were Church of England. Once the colonies started to gain independence, so did the Anglican Church in that country. Thus, the Anglican Communion came into play as a way to have unity between churches that are essentially the same.

Of course. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm sure you already know all of this, but some of the people that read here may take your post to mean that the Anglican Church is new or that Anglicanism wasn't world-wide until the Communion was formed.

That seems far fetched to me, and the inquirer in this thread certainly did not. My point was that we here should not be trying to imply that some Anglicans are "real" Anglicans while other Anglican churches are somehow not Anglican, etc. etc. If it seems to add a certain luster to any church for being a member of the Anglican Communion organization, then that can be said without denigrating the 30% or so of worldwide Anglicanism which, for one reason or another (including the ACs limit of membership to one province per country), is not affiliated with the "Anglican Communion."

You are concerned about people possibly misunderstanding what is being pointed to. I would suggest, in return, that they are even more likely to misunderstand the situation if the Anglican Communion organization is held out as a body that somehow determines who is Anglican and who is not.

 

[Sean611]

Of course. And there's nothing wrong with that.


That seems far fetched to me, and the inquirer in this thread certainly did not.

Certainly, but some of those who read here may not be as informed. I don't think that there was anything wrong with what you said or the way you said it, I just wanted to add to it a bit.

 

[graceandpeace]

The Anglican Communion is but a voluntary association of fairly recent creation that limits its membership to one church per country, some of which have declared themselves out of "communion" and fellowship with other members. It is, therefore, impossible for some of the world's older Anglican churches to belong, even if they wanted to. So, it's wrong to make it sound as though this association confers any sort of validity upon anyone.

By the way, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion, considers the non-members to be Anglicans...and has said so publicly.

When anyone asks about Anglican churches or Anglicanism, could we here POSSIBLY resist the urge to start in with the "Me ME. Look at us, not them" stuff?

I was just listing the churches. Since there is that distinction between how churches are labeling themselves, I mentioned it. It wasn't an attack.

 

[Albion]

I was just listing the churches. Since there is that distinction between how churches are labeling themselves, I mentioned it. It wasn't an attack.

And please know that I wasn't steamed, either. But this has come up before and I just hope we can live in harmony whenever any inquirer comes to us with a similar request or question.

 

[graceandpeace]

And please know that I wasn't steamed, either. But this has come up before and I just hope we can live in harmony whenever any inquirer comes to us with a similar request or question.

Okay.

 

[Solace Girl]

...The summer is not always a great time to get a fair representation of the church, but you should be able to judge the warmth and sincerity of everyone.

I understand because of vacations not as many people may be present, but I may go once and see what it is like. I think I might stop at the library and pick some books to understand the religion better. I was given two books when I visited the church near my college, so I have a general idea of the theology. I also absolutely adore British history, so I have a good working knowledge of its origins.

I apologize for creating tension in this subforum. I am a bit ignorant of the details of this denomination.

Is there a supreme leader in Episcopalianism?

 

[PaladinValer]

I understand because of vacations not as many people may be present, but I may go once and see what it is like. I think I might stop at the library and pick some books to understand the religion better. I was given two books when I visited the church near my college, so I have a general idea of the theology. I also absolutely adore British history, so I have a good working knowledge of its origins.

I apologize for creating tension in this subforum. I am a bit ignorant of the details of this denomination.

Is there a supreme leader in Episcopalianism?

There's no tension. Some have not presented facts or have "tweaked" them, but sifting through and checking with sources will fix that problem.

If you enjoy British history, then an appreciative study of Anglicanism is definitely a must. You'll find some excellent folk here who'd be happy to help you out.

There is no "supreme leader" in the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares, and has very little authority outside the Church of England proper; the most important is that the ABC determines which province is in and which is not in the Anglican Communion and is one of the Four Instruments of Unity. The ABC sits on the other three: the Primates' Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council, and Lambeth Conference (our Communion-wide Council).

 

[MKJ]

Is there a supreme leader in Episcopalianism?

No, but I might go for that if we could use that title. i think we'd need a funny hat to go along with the title.

 

[Albion]

I apologize for creating tension in this subforum. I am a bit ignorant of the details of this denomination.

Please don't feel that way. Your question was entirely welcome here, and in fact it's been asked by others before. Whatever tension might exist, it is not because of your question.

In sum, most of the world's Anglican churches belong to the federation called the "Anglican Communion," but there are a number of others that do not belong, for one reason or another. It may--or may not--make a difference to anyone who is a member of none of them at present but is interested in looking more closely at Anglicanism.

 

[Picky Picky]

We call ourselves Episcopalian and not Anglican because we initially got our line of bishops not from English bishops who refused because we could no longer subjugate ourselves to the Monarch but Scottish non-Jurors, who possessed Apostolic Succession and agreed to provide it. The other reason was because "Anglican" technically means "English", and the newly independent and formal colonials who just got rid of English jurisdiction no longer believed themselves to be of England but of their newly independent country.

Just to give a slightly different gloss to that, PV, because there are some myths about the Scottish origins of the American episcopate, the first American bishop, Dr Seabury, asked to be consecrated by Church of England bishops, but they declined because they were not empowered to consecrate anyone unable to take the oath of allegiance. He was therefore consecrated by Scottish bishops.

Soon after, Parliament passed an Act allowing CofE bishops to consecrate non-citizens serving abroad without the oath, and so the second, third and fourth American bishops were consecrated by Church of England bishops: White and Provoost by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of Bath and Wells; and Madison by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London and Rochester.

Those three bishops – White, Provoost and Madison – with their Church of England lines, dominate the American lines of succession.

 

[Albion]

Just to give a slightly different gloss to that, PV, because there are some myths about the Scottish origins of the American episcopate, the first American bishop, Dr Seabury, asked to be consecrated by Church of England bishops, but they declined because they were not empowered to consecrate anyone unable to take the oath of allegiance. He was therefore consecrated by Scottish bishops.

Soon after, Parliament passed an Act allowing CofE bishops to consecrate non-citizens serving abroad without the oath, and so the second, third and fourth American bishops were consecrated by Church of England bishops: White and Provoost by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of Bath and Wells; and Madison by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London and Rochester.

Those three bishops – White, Provoost and Madison – with their Church of England lines, dominate the American lines of succession.

All true--and thank you for that good information. Still, the main reason for the name "Episcopal" was, I understand, the desire not to be identified as Loyalists in the years just following independence when anything English was out of popularity...and the church already had some of that reputation because of its origins, without making it worse by use of a name like "Anglican."

Somewhat ironically, I think, hardly any Episcopalian thought of the word as anything other than the common name for the CofE when I was growing up. Then when the Continuing Churches chose it for themselves, suddenly every Episcopalian started laying claim to it.

 

[Picky Picky]

All true--and thank you for that good information. Still, the main reason for the name "Episcopal" was, I understand, the desire not to be identified as Loyalists in the years just following independence when anything English was out of popularity...and the church already had some of that reputation because of its origins, without making it worse by use of a name like "Anglican."

Somewhat ironically, I think, hardly any Episcopalian thought of the word as anything other than the common name for the CofE when I was growing up. Then when the Continuing Churches chose it for themselves, suddenly every Episcopalian started laying claim to it.

Oh, as to why it is "Episcopal" I am absolutely sure you are right.