Continuing Anglican vs. ACNA

Sometimes I wonder whether the Anglican Church is truly a "big tent" church, with unity in diversity. Rather, it seems very "Protestant", with folks forming new groups on an almost continuous basis.

If we cannot accept those from local churches from our four streams as brothers and sisters, perhaps we shouldn't be a Communion.

GAFCON continues to shun the Communion and TEC. TEC has joined ELCA, UMC and others as brothers and sisters in a diverse Christian family. TEC will likely continue in the Communion as long as it exists. Some would say that the ship has sailed and that it time to look forward.

ACNA is the child of GAFCON and shuns TEC. TEC is in an an impaired relationship with the Communion. Who has chosen the better path?

mark1 said:

. . . .Who has chosen the better path?

Click to expand...

Mark1,
That's the million dollar question.

mark1 said:

Perhaps, we will know more about the direction of the Communion when we have a new ABC and the reaction to him. In the end, if the Communion is broken . . .

Click to expand...

How will we know if (and when) the Communion is broken?

...Scottish Monk

This breaks my heart...the possibility of the Communion breaking.

Personally, I agree with the decisions the Episcopal Church has made over the last few years (and decades). But, we are not forcing any other province to adopt any of our stances. And I fail to see how maintaining communion with us is going to somehow harm the Provinces that don't agree with us. Unity in diversity...Dialogue is better than breaking, disagreement is natural.

When an old couple who had been married 70 years was asked by a reporter, "How have you been married so long?", they replied, "Because, in our day, when something was broken, we didn't throw it away...We fixed it."

I think that the way of the world in general and the way of members/former members of the Communion in particular could learn from this. So often we would rather just split off and throw our Unity away rather than actually spend the effort to fix the issues between us in a way that is constructive rather than destructive.

We will know much in the months after the new ABC is named. In many senses, the burden is on GAFCON to come back to primate meetings and a more normal relationship with the Communion as a whole.

In a sense the Communion will be over when the next Lambeth is convened and GAFCON doesn't show up.

Scottish Monk said:

How will we know if (and when) the Communion is broken?

...Scottish Monk

Click to expand...

Episcoboi said:

...Dialogue is better than breaking, disagreement is natural.

When an old couple who had been married 70 years was asked by a reporter, "How have you been married so long?", they replied, "Because, in our day, when something was broken, we didn't throw it away...We fixed it."

I think that the way of the world in general and the way of members/former members of the Communion in particular could learn from this. So often we would rather just split off and throw our Unity away rather than actually spend the effort to fix the issues between us in a way that is constructive rather than destructive.

Click to expand...

Episcoboi...

Dialogue: How do we fix the issues?

...Scottish Monk

mark1 said:

We will know much in the months after the new ABC is named. In many senses, the burden is on GAFCON to come back to primate meetings and a more normal relationship with the Communion as a whole.

In a sense the Communion will be over when the next Lambeth is convened and GAFCON doesn't show up.

Click to expand...

Well, and I don't mean to disagree, but there's all this talk all over the internet of who's in, who's out, who's impaired, is the Communion broken/breaking/about to break, etc. It's been like that for 10 years. But when one looks at the official sources, everyone who is supposed to be in Communion with the Archbishop and Lambeth is in Communion with them. Not showing up is very serious, but they haven't taken the step of formally withdrawing in any real sense.

I only share this because these discussions have negatively impacted friends of mine. I knew people who wanted to become Anglican but didn't do so, because they "heard on the news" that TEC was about to be kicked out. They "read on the internet" that the Communion was about to formally split in two. Several years later, none of that has happened. So from my point of view, I'll wait until something formal happens before declaring formal schisms.

Scottish Monk said:

Episcoboi...

Dialogue: How do we fix the issues?

...Scottish Monk

Click to expand...

TEC could have listened to Lambeth's requests instead of doing things that they knew would alienate people. It's not right to intentionally upset people and then demand that they cave and cave and cave until they have nothing recognizable left. If we are an Apostolic Church, we don't need to change our doctrines to suit the fads of the times.

Scottish Monk said:

Episcoboi...

Dialogue: How do we fix the issues?

...Scottish Monk

Click to expand...

I don't have the answer to this. I think we should start with dialoguing about our differences. The TEC is going to have a to be a little less pushy in getting the other primates to recognize the decisions they don' like. But, the other Provinces are also going to have to speak with us and listen. And the TEC will have to do the same. I mean a couple of provinces have taken a stand....Is this grounds for destroying the communion? NO, it is ground for some serious discernment, work, prayer, and more work.

The open question is the extent of the authority of Lambeth, the primates and the local bishops. If we are an apostolic church, perhaps we would accept that the ABC is the first among equal patriarchs/primates. Yes, TEC could have listened to Lambeth. But so could have GAFCON, the primate of Rwanda and ultimately ACNA. Setting up a provinces in the same territory as that of another primate is a serious matter indeed.

Adam Warlock said:

TEC could have listened to Lambeth's requests instead of doing things that they knew would alienate people. It's not right to intentionally upset people and then demand that they cave and cave and cave until they have nothing recognizable left. If we are an Apostolic Church, we don't need to change our doctrines to suit the fads of the times.

Click to expand...

We can disagree. It's OK. We're Anglican after all.

I AGREE that there is no schism between GAFCON and the Communion. The GAFCON boycotts are serious problems but do not constitute a breakup of the Communion or even an impairment of relationship.

The situation in the US is different from GAFCON itself. ACNA is not part of the Anglican Communion. They are recognized by many primates, but they are not part of the Communion. They left, some as Contimuing churches, some later. Do you disagree?

TEC is a member of the Anglican Communion as much as GAFCON. The situation is similar. TEC and the Communion are also having issues between them.

If one maintains that there is no breakup of the Communion, then TEC is the US province of that Communion. Do you disagree?

10 years is not a long time at all. The resolution might take another decade or two.

With regard to your friends who do not understand the situation, I have little to add. We are not very different from Lutherans and Presbyterians who have had the same issues and have the same problems of schisms, breakups and reconciliations. Methodists are also fighting over the same issues. If one needs a sacramental church that is not in the process of schism, then I would advise the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Adam Warlock said:

Well, and I don't mean to disagree, but there's all this talk all over the internet of who's in, who's out, who's impaired, is the Communion broken/breaking/about to break, etc. It's been like that for 10 years. But when one looks at the official sources, everyone who is supposed to be in Communion with the Archbishop and Lambeth is in Communion with them. Not showing up is very serious, but they haven't taken the step of formally withdrawing in any real sense.

I only share this because these discussions have negatively impacted friends of mine. I knew people who wanted to become Anglican but didn't do so, because they "heard on the news" that TEC was about to be kicked out. They "read on the internet" that the Communion was about to formally split in two. Several years later, none of that has happened. So from my point of view, I'll wait until something formal happens before declaring formal schisms.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades there is a rapprochement between ACNA and TEC. As a different generation takes over the reigns of these Churches they will not feel the sting of enmity that their forbears did. I have seen many impaired communions restored to full communion. The Patriarchal Serbian Church reunited with the Free Serbian Church. The Unification of the two Antiochian jurisdictions here in the USA, and the most impressive was the reunification of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate after being apart for over 80 years. Neither side in these reunifications pointed fingers or blame they simply said we are brothers and sisters and we belong together.

rhartsc said:

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few decades there is a rapprochement between ACNA and TEC. As a different generation takes over the reigns of these Churches they will not feel the sting of enmity that their forbears did. I have seen many impaired communions restored to full communion. The Patriarchal Serbian Church reunited with the Free Serbian Church. The Unification of the two Antiochian jurisdictions here in the USA, and the most impressive was the reunification of ROCOR with the Moscow Patriarchate after being apart for over 80 years. Neither side in these reunifications pointed fingers or blame they simply said we are brothers and sisters and we belong together.

Click to expand...

But what separated them in the first place? Much less than separates ACNA from TEC I believe.

mark1 said:

The situation in the US is different from GAFCON itself. ACNA is not part of the Anglican Communion. They are recognized by many primates, but they are not part of the Communion. They left, some as Contimuing churches, some later. Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

On the same page. I was really thinking particularly of the early AMiA days, where I heard a few AMiA priests claim that TEC was "in the process of being removed"...and later when I repeatedly heard some people call ACNA the "39th province." All I meant is that such claims are basically not accurate. Claims like that, and bad reporting by ignorant members of cable news (and biased bloggers), are what led to confusion among personal friends of mine. That's why I said what I did. Honestly, your assessment is a good one; but for total newcomers and guests who know absolutely nothing about Anglicans, I was just adding that there isn't an actual schism between TEC and the Communion, nor are there two Communions. You know that, and I knew what you meant; just clarifying based on personal experience.

TEC is a member of the Anglican Communion as much as GAFCON. The situation is similar. TEC and the Communion are also having issues between them.

If one maintains that there is no breakup of the Communion, then TEC is the US province of that Communion. Do you disagree?

Click to expand...

Of course I agree. There is schism in America. Schism is wrong. TEC is the American province.

For those who don't know my position, here it is (if anyone cares, which they may not )
1. TEC pushed the envelope in certain areas, agreed to stop doing so, and then resumed. The leaders knew that this would greatly upset many people in the Communion, but they went ahead anyway. I believe that this was wrong.
2. The response involved schism (in America), foreign bishops overseeing American parishes, and lots of lawsuits, confusion, and bad blood. While I place the majority of the blame on TEC (of which I am a member), there are others who are to blame for mistakes as well.
3. Liberals need to do better than say they "listen" to conservatives, if listening always leads to ignoring and rejecting. Conservatives should not cut and run at the first sign of disagreement, because schism is wrong and the Communion is worth saving.

That's where I'm at. If anybody disagrees, no problem. Not gonna debate it. Just sharing where I'm at.

mark1 said:

We can disagree. It's OK. We're Anglican after all. . . . . .

Click to expand...

So true.

Episcoboi said:

This breaks my heart...the possibility of the Communion breaking.

Personally, I agree with the decisions the Episcopal Church has made over the last few years (and decades). But, we are not forcing any other province to adopt any of our stances. And I fail to see how maintaining communion with us is going to somehow harm the Provinces that don't agree with us. Unity in diversity...Dialogue is better than breaking, disagreement is natural.

When an old couple who had been married 70 years was asked by a reporter, "How have you been married so long?", they replied, "Because, in our day, when something was broken, we didn't throw it away...We fixed it."

I think that the way of the world in general and the way of members/former members of the Communion in particular could learn from this. So often we would rather just split off and throw our Unity away rather than actually spend the effort to fix the issues between us in a way that is constructive rather than destructive.

Click to expand...

There is a limit to what can be reconciled and have two groups remain in communion. Some things are not logically reconcilable even from a live and let live perspective if we want to say we are in communion.

Just as an example, consider apostolic sucession. Some Anglicans think that it is required for a valid priesthood and to have a valid Eucharist. Some not so much. As long as all of those people maintain ordaining their priests with an apostolic ordination, they may be able to maintain communion - they can visit each others churches and parishes and those who care can be confident they have a connection to the apostolic church.

On the other hand, if the group who doesn't think it is necessary starts using lay presidency at the Eucharist, that is a serious problem. How then can someone who thinks the apostolic priesthood is a requirement actually visit such a parish and commune with them, and understand they are getting the same Body and Blood they would in their own parish? They couldn't.

The same is true with many other issues. How to reconcile women bishops with those who don't think that women can be bishops? What about the priests a female bishop ordains? Does a visitor have to look up who ordained a priest before visiting his parish?

Unless we want to reduce the idea of being In Communion to something as meaningless as being friendly, it has to have some substance to it. At the least, we have to be able to practice our faith together.

Diversity is no great thing in and off itself. It can be good or bad or neutral, and I am not sure why people are at such great pains to think it is always "healthy". Diversity can mean you actually believe really different things.

Dialogue can just be a way of avoiding calling something what it is. "Having a conversation" as they like to say can be nothing more than a sort of self-indulgent avoidance of making a statement. When you have pushed others out by refusing to really truly submit yourself to them, saying that you would like to "have a conversation" while they are haughtily turning their backs can be a great way to make yourself feel the victim.

The Communion has many, many female priests. The Church of England is likely to have female bishops in the next couple of years. That ship has sailed. There is certainly room WITHIN the Communion for those who disagree with that position including some candidates for ABC. But there is no chance of a reversal.

We will see where we are after the first of the year. I would expect that on other issues, we may see a movement away from the liberalism of TEC. In the end, the ACNA bishops and churches will need to decide whether to rejoin the Communion.

Obviously, there will be those who will stay out. There is a long tradition within the Protestantism of cutting and running when the leadership makes decisions with which we disagree. For them, it is a matter of principle. If the leadership isn't up to snuff in their view for long enough, then there is no other choice but to form a new church group.

MKJ said:

The same is true with many other issues. How to reconcile women bishops with those who don't think that women can be bishops? What about the priests a female bishop ordains? Does a visitor have to look up who ordained a priest before visiting his parish?

Unless we want to reduce the idea of being In Communion to something as meaningless as being friendly, it has to have some substance to it. At the least, we have to be able to practice our faith together.

Diversity is no great thing in and off itself. It can be good or bad or neutral, and I am not sure why people are at such great pains to think it is always "healthy". Diversity can mean you actually believe really different things.

Dialogue can just be a way of avoiding calling something what it is. "Having a conversation" as they like to say can be nothing more than a sort of self-indulgent avoidance of making a statement. When you have pushed others out by refusing to really truly submit yourself to them, saying that you would like to "have a conversation" while they are haughtily turning their backs can be a great way to make yourself feel the victim.

Click to expand...

MKJ said:

There is a limit to what can be reconciled and have two groups remain in communion. Some things are not logically reconcilable even from a live and let live perspective if we want to say we are in communion.

Click to expand...

I think you've said it well. "Communion" doesn't just mean there's an agreement to share the sacraments, etc. Such an arrangement to share is possible BECAUSE there exists an agreement on the essentials of the faith. When that situation ceases, communion is necessarily jeopardized.

And those who believe that having a male priesthood is an "essential of our faith" have left the Communion. After all, essentials are defined by individuals in their personal prayer and personal understanding of Scripture.

Albion said:

I think you've said it well. "Communion" doesn't just mean there's an agreement to share the sacraments, etc. Such an arrangement to share is possible BECAUSE there exists an agreement on the essentials of the faith. When that situation ceases, communion is necessarily jeopardized.

Click to expand...

mark1 said:

And those who believe that having a male priesthood is an "essential of our faith" have left the Communion. After all, essentials are defined by individuals in their personal prayer and personal understanding of Scripture.

Click to expand...

Or it's those churches and provinces which went ahead and ordained women on their own initiative who broke communion.

In any case, the idea that individuals can break the status of full communion between church bodies is questionable IMO.