Does The Anglican Communion Matter?

[Albion]

Because schism is not edifying and is unsustainable.

Is an alliance that is split down the middle by disagreements serious enough that provinces of the "Communion" have declared that they are not "IN Communion" with others any longer...

any better?

It isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

I can think of several alternatives that would be better.

 

[Rurik]

I

I can think of several alternatives that would be better.

What?

 

[Albion]

What?

Well, for example, you might have every Anglican church represented but without the ability to force any province to do or believe anything other than the basics of the faith.That would be the "common heritage" idea exaulted.

Or you could have an absolutely regimented compact binding whatever members are allowed to belong. Those who do not go along with the rules would be expelled.

IOW, what's wrong with the Anglican Communion today is that it's neither fish nor foul.

It's thought of by the average Anglican as somehow like the RC or EO organizations, but it doesn't have the ability to function like either one of them. As a result, it is floundering.

Either make it a looser association that doesn't pretend to be more than it is, or else make it a tighter organization that is not equivocal about what it stands for. There is precedent for both approaches. I realize that various readers will reject one of both of the suggestions above, and that's fine with me; but for myself, I don't agree that the Anglican Communion can't be improved upon.

 

[mark46]

I agree that the Communion could be improved. IMHO, that need for improvement is not a good reason to leave the Communion.

Well, for example, you might have every Anglican
church represented but without the ability to force any province to do or believe anything other than the basics of the faith.That would be the "common heritage" idea exaulted.

Or you could have an absolutely regimented compact binding whatever members are allowed to belong. Those who do not go along with the rules would be expelled.

IOW, what's wrong with the Anglican Communion today is that it's neither fish nor foul.

It's thought of by the average Anglican as somehow like the RC or EO organizations, but it doesn't have the ability to function like either one of them. As a result, it is floundering.

Either make it a looser association that doesn't pretend to be more than it is, or else make it a tighter organization that is not equivocal about what it stands for. There is precedent for both approaches. I realize that various readers will reject one of both of the suggestions above, and that's fine with me; but for myself, I don't agree that the Anglican Communion can't be improved upon.

 

[DariusArcturus]

but for myself, I don't agree that the Anglican Communion can't be improved upon.

I think we're actually closer to the same page than we realize. There is certainly more room for improvement in everything, the Communion especially.

 

[DariusArcturus]

I agree that the Communion could be improved. IMHO, that need for improvement is not a good reason to leave the Communion.

Very well put. This is my position as well.

 

[ebia]

It's thought of by the average Anglican as somehow like the RC or EO organizations, [

Is it?

 

[Rurik]

Well, for example, you might have every Anglican church represented but without the ability to force any province to do or believe anything other than the basics of the faith.That would be the "common heritage" idea exaulted.

What role do you see the Lambeth Confrence filling then? I think that it might be allready filling this role.

Or you could have an absolutely regimented compact binding whatever members are allowed to belong. Those who do not go along with the rules would be expelled..

I thought we had allready tried it with the Thirty Nine Articals. That seems not to work.

It's thought of by the average Anglican as somehow like the RC or EO organizations...

Really?

 

[mark46]

I can understand why one might reject this caricature of what it means to be a universal Church. How many million Catholics or Orthodox disagree with their Church on various issues? How many have been expelled?

It is rare to get expelled from the Roman Catholic Church or one of the provinces of the Eastern Church for disagreeing with the Church.

It is a characteristic of a universal Church to have black sheep and to have many who disagree.

Or you could have an absolutely regimented compact binding whatever members are allowed to belong. Those who do not go along with the rules would be expelled.

 

[MKJ]

Because schism is not edifying and is unsustainable. The Anglican Communion was founded to bring all of the fragmented denominations from the Church of England back together under the banner of our shared history (plus a bunch of housekeeping conveniences).

I prefer a more unified church over a bazillion mini denominations, hence I am for the Communion and its vision to try and keep all corners of Anglicanism together in some capacity.

It isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

If schism is unedifying and unsustainable, then perhaps we should put our money where our mouths are and join Rome or Constantinople. THat would be the logical thing to do if unity in the Church trumps all other considerations.

If we are in schism from those bodies, it means that we think there are in fact issues that are worth standing up over.

I wouldn't really describe the AC as an attempt to bring the bodies descended from the CofE "back into unity" exactly, as I don't think that is historically accurate. I would say it is an institutional recognition that the Church is both universal and local.

But it doesn't do that simply by calling itself "the Anglican Communion". It has to actually work as a both universal and local institution in order to be able to claim that it has unity.

So yes, that unity is, in itself, better than disunity, if we believe in an institutional apostolic universal Church.

But if there is in fact no unity except in name, the whole thing is really kind of meaningless. It hasn't kept all corners of Anglicanism together. And what if the unity is at the expense of how we fundamentally understand what it is to be a Christian? If we can't answer questions like "what is the deposit of faith", "how do we understand the Scriptures", "what is the role of Tradition", or "what do we mean (or not mean) by development of doctrine", we aren't going to have unity, no matter what organization we all say we belong to.

 

[MKJ]

Is it?

I think in the sense that he means, yes. But most of those people would probably not actually say, or even think, they believe that.

If I understand him correctly, he is referring to the fact that although Anglicans explicitly admit they are only one of several apostolic churches, all of which may and can commit error, some Anglicans seem to cling to organizations like the AC or TEC as if they are a kind of "final iteration" of The Church.

That is, if we explicitly say that schism may be necessary or even just a fact at times, or that there may be a need for organizational overhaul, it is inevitable that those things could apply to any current Anglican organization. TEC could require a complete overhaul in its administration and leadership. The AC could become completely ineffective or a positive liability. Schism could be justified.

Yet we keep seeing these kind of statements where people say it would never be right to give up on the AC as an institution, or that they would never leave TEC for an alternate episcopal body. Not just as a matter of particular local circumstances, but as a sort of statement of principle.

And yet these people don't seem to feel they ought to go join the RC Church, despite it being pretty darn close to orthodox Anglicanism - it certainly doesn't have any of the major Christological heresies that many say are the only real reason for schism.

It is a very strange combination of beliefs.

 

[MKJ]

I can understand why one might reject this caricature of what it means to be a universal Church. How many million Catholics or Orthodox disagree with their Church on various issues? How many have been expelled?

It is rare to get expelled from the Roman Catholic Church or one of the provinces of the Eastern Church for disagreeing with the Church.

It is a characteristic of a universal Church to have black sheep and to have many who disagree.

I imagine he means member churches, not individuals. Though if he is thinking of a confessional Church like the Lutherans, even individuals might be bound to assent specifically and individually to the confession.

 

[DariusArcturus]

I imagine he means member churches, not individuals. Though if he is thinking of a confessional Church like the Lutherans, even individuals might be bound to assent specifically and individually to the confession.

If the organization does not have "black sheep" of some variety on the individual, congregational, diocesan, and provincial levels something is very, very suspicious.

It would make me worry that somehow they weren't human.

 

[TomUK]

It is self-evident that the churches in the Anglican Communion aren't in communion. Surely that is sufficient for us to acknowledge there needs to be a shift within us - merely accepting the status quote hasn't been an option for some years.

Before we even address the issue of what it is in our Anglican patrimony the unites, we need to establish what the communion is that we aspire to. (and where (who?) those barriers to communion may be).

 

[Cjwinnit]

Well, for example, you might have every Anglican church represented but without the ability to force any province to do or believe anything other than the basics of the faith.That would be the "common heritage" idea exaulted.

There will be more than a few Episcopal churches that insist that gender equality, LGBTIQX rights and social justice are so core to the gospel that they couldn't leave it out.

 

[Albion]

There will be more than a few Episcopal churches that insist that gender equality, LGBTIQX rights and social justice are so core to the gospel that they couldn't leave it out.

Well, I wasn't offering a hard and fast formula but more a choice of two quite different approaches, either of which could work IMO. And if either of them worked, the result would be an improvement. As for your point here, I can only offer a personal opinion and that would be...OK, go for it.

What I suggested with that particular possibility was a loose association of all Anglican jurisdictions agreeing on little more than the basics of the faith. I do not consider the homosexual agenda to be in that category, even though I'd be counted as a traditionalist on that issue. The Nicene Creed? Yes. The refficacy of the sacramets? Sure. The Historic Episcopate. Of course. But homosexual clergy and Leftish politics? No. That proposal was for a loose association and I don't see any reason for this issue to be a barrier.

But you see, that's why a loose association is an improvement; it doesn't suppose that every member HAS TO be in charge of the internal decisions of every other member or that what the other province is doing necessarily characterizes them merely because both parties belong to the same organization.

 

[seekingsister]

What I suggested with that particular possibility was a loose association of all Anglican jurisdictions agreeing on little more than the basics of the faith. I do not consider the homosexual agenda to be in that category, even though I'd be counted as a traditionalist on that issue. The Nicene Creed? Yes. The refficacy of the sacramets? Sure. The Historic Episcopate. Of course. But homosexual clergy and Leftish politics? No. That proposal was for a loose association and I don't see any reason for this issue to be a barrier.

But you see, that's why a loose association is an improvement; it doesn't suppose that every member HAS TO be in charge of the internal decisions of every other member or that what the other province is doing necessarily characterizes them merely because both parties belong to the same organization.

What happens to TEC vs ACNA/etc. in that case? In your mind, would you see a future in which the splinter Anglican groups rejoin the Episcopal Church on the condition that parishes can opt out of anything beyond the core Christian beliefs, or one in which all of the splinter groups get recognition by the Anglican Communion directly and maintain separate statues from TEC?

 

[Albion]

What happens to TEC vs ACNA/etc. in that case?

As I laid out that suggestion, I meant that, ideally, all Anglican churches would be included. That would only make it stronger, and it would also mute the two-way split of the liberal Western provinces of the AC vs. the Global South. I see no logic in not including them and, of course, the Continuing Anglicans.

In your mind, would you see a future in which the splinter Anglican groups rejoin the Episcopal Church on the condition that parishes can opt out of anything beyond the core Christian beliefs, or one in which all of the splinter groups get recognition by the Anglican Communion directly and maintain separate statues from TEC?

I doubt that the former one of those two possibilities will occur in our lifetimes. That's just the way the course of human events goes. Such things are not out of the question, but it usually takes a long time. As for the second idea, I've suggested that the Anglican Communion as it is structured today cease to be or at least morph itself into a loose association based mainly upon a common heritage.

If that is the Anglican Communion you are thinking of there, yes, it would be a federation in which every member agrees to the membership of every other one without necessarily buying into all the doctrinal or political stances of the others, but they all remain independent or have smaller alliances between some of them. Then, given this opportunity for joint projects, fellowship, etc., maybe we could see some smoothing of the way for closer cooperation down the road. There would, of course, be no more of the "only one province per nation" thinking.

 

[mark46]

Many Anglicans have indeed gone home to Rome. Many have the understanding that TEC is Catholic without the pope. So, yes, in the US, going back and forth between TEC and RCC has happened for centuries. When I was in Boston, it was difficult to distinguish RCC from TEC churches and services, other than the ordained women.

Yes, many self-identified orthodox Christians will continue to consider RCC and EO. After all, if the central issue uniting a Church is doctrinal purity (and finding a Church that agrees with me), then moving to RCC or EO makes sense.

I agree that orthodox Anglicanism is close to RCC (and EO for that matter). Many would disagree. Their option is the very evangelical ACNA.
===================

Perhaps, in the end, one question is the understanding of Church. If it is the Baptist/Protestant understanding of the universal, invisible church, the parish is the center, with little need for sacraments, hierarchy and unity. There were 14 organizations of Baptists when I was a member.
===================

I am one who is considering leaving this hodge-podge of churches, where schism is a natural and accepted consequence of differences of theological opinion. For me, that is not what Church is about. Perhaps, some day, I will give up on the idea of a universal Church and accept only a universal church.
====================

Many here point to the Protestant Reformation as a great success. IMHO, Luther would take his posting down from the wall if he saw the consequences of his standing for reforming the Church. IMHO, the idea that it is right to form a new Church whenever we have serious enough disagreements is at the heart of the problem of 21st century Christianity.

And yet these people don't seem to feel they ought to go join the RC Church, despite it being pretty darn close to orthodox Anglicanism - it certainly doesn't have any of the major Christological heresies that many say are the only real reason for schism.

It is a very strange combination of beliefs.

 

[MKJ]

Well, I wasn't offering a hard and fast formula but more a choice of two quite different approaches, either of which could work IMO. And if either of them worked, the result would be an improvement. As for your point here, I can only offer a personal opinion and that would be...OK, go for it.

What I suggested with that particular possibility was a loose association of all Anglican jurisdictions agreeing on little more than the basics of the faith. I do not consider the homosexual agenda to be in that category, even though I'd be counted as a traditionalist on that issue. The Nicene Creed? Yes. The refficacy of the sacramets? Sure. The Historic Episcopate. Of course. But homosexual clergy and Leftish politics? No. That proposal was for a loose association and I don't see any reason for this issue to be a barrier.

But you see, that's why a loose association is an improvement; it doesn't suppose that every member HAS TO be in charge of the internal decisions of every other member or that what the other province is doing necessarily characterizes them merely because both parties belong to the same organization.

I guess my question about this approach would really be, what is the point? It wouldn't be much different than most meetings or associations of mainline Protestant churches.

I guess I wonder what such an association would actually do? It wouldn't do most of the things or need most of the institutional structures that the AC has now.

But it would probably be at least an honest association, unlike the situation we have now.