Looking for answers...

[SeekingServant]

Hi Everybody,

I am new to the Episcopal church. I have been attending a wonderful congregation for just over a year and they are some of the most wonderful people I have met. My faith is very hard won. I was once a Hare Krishna (Vaisnava) for many years into my early 30's. I'm going to go into the details, but I started going to various churches and congregations and then in turn began learning church history. Anyways, I have landed in the Episcopal church. I do have very Eastern Orthodox beliefs.

The thing is that I want to settle down now. Like for life. I want to find a tradition that I will be in for the duration. My husband is Buddhist, so I don't know if he will ever come to Christ, but I remain hopeful. As for my own spiritual life, I pray daily from the BCP and try to get to church as often as I can (I have young children). I'm looking at all of the various iterations of Anglican churches and I'm a bit confused. I know that there is a current schism going on with the Episcopal Church and the newly formed ACNA. I just don't know the history of it. Can somebody explain to me what this is without getting overly emotional about it? I'm not understanding the split and also things like church buildings belonging to the Episcopal church and not the congregation itself. Also, if the church building belongs to the Episcopal church, why can't the newly formed Anglican churches just buy the building from them? Why all of this mess? Like I said before, I'm trying to get some answers on this. I have TONS of questions.

In closing, the reason I am not going to the Orthodox Church is because where my family is moving there really isn't an OCA church and also because my husband is Buddhist the Episcopal church is the best fit for our family at present. If my husband becomes Christian, then we can revisit this, but I truly doubt it. I really just want to be a part of a church with an apostolic tradition and the traditions of the early church. I hope this isn't too long. Believe me I'll have more questions later.

Thanks.

 

[Way_to_Galway]

Following the post, because I am likewise interested in learning more and on a journey to find a more permanent home in a denomination of the Christian faith.

As an aside, SeekingServant, my husband is currently unaffiliated but is more Buddhist than Christian these days.

 

[MichaelEric]

The "Anglican Church in North America" (ACNA) is a group of conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians that have split off from the mainline Churches in the US (TEC) and Canada (Anglican Church of Canada) because of very strong differences of opinion on things like same-sex marriage/ordination of openly gay individuals, etc. I would note, though, that similar to the Anglican churches in the US and Canada who remain in full communion with the Anglican Communion, there are still differences of opinion within the ACNA on things like the ordination of women. Sadly, it's just one more schism in the Church, and a completely unnecessary one IMO.

As to why church buildings belong to the Church and not to the local congregation, I can't speak to the situation in the US, but in Canada it comes down to Church Canon, the contents of the original statutes underpinning the Anglican Church of Canada, and a number of relatively recent court rulings affirming this to be the situation. In other words, that's how the Church was formed, and as a corporate entity, the Church has the right to set the rules about how its properties are owned.

You also asked why the TEC or mainline churches wouldn't just sell the building to schismatic groups... no offence meant at all, but isn't that obvious? Why would the Church want to facilitate schism from itself?

Anyway, welcome I'm a former Catholic who's also relatively new to the Anglican Church, and it sounds like you've found it to be as welcoming as I have, which is awesome

Oh PS... the ACNA is not a province in communion with the Anglican Communion. Just FYI.

 

[Mockingbird0]

I've been an Episcopalian since early childhood. I am old enough to remember the 1928 Prayer Book, but not the 1892 Prayer Book. Though I miss some features of the church life that we enjoyed under the 1928 Prayer Book, and I think some of the contemporary-language materials in the 1979 Prayer Book are klunky, for the most part I consider the 1979 Prayer Book to be liturgically and theologically a step forward.

The ACNA split off from us over how we treat our gay neighbors. The ACNA believes that our gay neighbors should be strictly celibate. Since I cannot live a celibate life myself, I think it would be hypocrisy on my part to demand that my gay neighbors meet a standard that I cannot meet.

The ACNA, in some of its dioceses, recognizes that women are called by God to the presbyterate. In other dioceses, they refuse to recognize this. I think they will eventually ban womens' ordination altogether, or split over the issue.

Refusing to allow the schismatics to buy their church-houses makes sense according to strict logic, but I think strict logic is not always the best policy.

 

[gordonhooker]

I've been an Episcopalian since early childhood. I am old enough to remember the 1928 Prayer Book, but not the 1892 Prayer Book. Though I miss some features of the church life that we enjoyed under the 1928 Prayer Book, and I think some of the contemporary-language materials in the 1979 Prayer Book are klunky, for the most part I consider the 1979 Prayer Book to be liturgically and theologically a step forward.

The ACNA split off from us over how we treat our gay neighbors. The ACNA believes that our gay neighbors should be strictly celibate. Since I cannot live a celibate life myself, I think it would be hypocrisy on my part to demand that my gay neighbors meet a standard that I cannot meet.

The ACNA, in some of its dioceses, recognizes that women are called by God to the presbyterate. In other dioceses, they refuse to recognize this. I think they will eventually ban womens' ordination altogether, or split over the issue.

Refusing to allow the schismatics to buy their church-houses makes sense according to strict logic, but I think strict logic is not always the best policy.

I am not in North America so I cannot comment on the OP question. I want to say I think your response was balanced, respectful and humble and your sentiments reflect my own.

Yours in Christ, Gordon

 

[Albion]

Hi, Seeking Servant.

The ACNA was founded in 2009, I think it was, over what was essentially one issue--the place of homosexuality in The Episcopal Church. That is to say, same sex marriage and openly homosexual priests.

However, I think it must be added that there was also a general disagreement on the part of the founders of ACNA with The Episcopal Church's constant involvement with liberal political issues.

The ACNA is not a province of the Anglican Communion. Still, it is a missionary effort of the Church of Nigeria, which is the largest province in the Anglican Communion, which is why ACNA parishes and publications often say or imply that ACNA is a part of the Anglican Communion.

The Continuing Anglican movement, however, came earlier, in the late 1970s, and it concerned two controversial issues of that era. The "Continuers" believed that TEC had broken with Apostolic Succession by ordaining women priests. In addition, they opposed the adoption, by TEC, of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, the edition now used in TEC.

The changes, they said, gave up the idea of common prayer (once a cherished principle) by offering numerous liturgical alternatives, including Rite I and Rite II. More important, however, the changes in the wording de-emphasized our sinful nature and need for a Savior while turning the emphasis towards God's love and our social responsibilities.

As MichaelEric said, the unwillingness of TEC to sell the properties to break-away congregations is obvious. She doesn't want to assist her Anglican rivals in either ACNA or the Continuing Anglican churches. However, she is more than willing to sell them to Muslim groups seeking to establish a mosque or, if not that, to find a buyer who wants to use the property for a non-religious purpose.

And she has spent millions suing in court for the right to claim them only to resell them. All of this appears to have caused more resentment than the refusal to sell to other Anglicans.

As to the matter of ownership, most parish churches were not owned by dioceses or by the national church until the late 20th century when the prospects of such split-off churches as these were in the news. The Episcopal Church then changed its regulations to make all parish property be owned by the national church.

 

[SeekingServant]

Hi, Seeking Servant.

The ACNA was founded in 2009, I think it was, over what was essentially one issue--the place of homosexuality in The Episcopal Church. That is to say, same sex marriage and openly homosexual priests.

However, I think it must be added that there was also a general disagreement on the part of the founders of ACNA with The Episcopal Church's constant involvement with liberal political issues.

The ACNA is not a province of the Anglican Communion. Still, it is a missionary effort of the Church of Nigeria, which is the largest province in the Anglican Communion, which is why ACNA parishes and publications often say or imply that ACNA is a part of the Anglican Communion.

The Continuing Anglican movement, however, came earlier, in the late 1970s, and it concerned two controversial issues of that era. The "Continuers" believed that TEC had broken with Apostolic Succession by ordaining women priests. In addition, they opposed the adoption, by TEC, of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, the edition now used in TEC.

The changes, they said, gave up the idea of common prayer (once a cherished principle) by offering numerous liturgical alternatives, including Rite I and Rite II. More important, however, the changes in the wording de-emphasized our sinful nature and need for a Savior while turning the emphasis towards God's love and our social responsibilities.

As MichaelEric said, the unwillingness of TEC to sell the properties to break-away congregations is obvious. She doesn't want to assist her Anglican rivals in either ACNA or the Continuing Anglican churches. However, she is more than willing to sell them to Muslim groups seeking to establish a mosque or, if not that, to find a buyer who wants to use the property for a non-religious purpose.

And she has spent millions suing in court for the right to claim them only to resell them. All of this appears to have caused more resentment than the refusal to sell to other Anglicans.

As to the matter of ownership, most parish churches were not owned by dioceses or by the national church until the late 20th century when the prospects of such split-off churches as these were in the news. The Episcopal Church then changed its regulations to make all parish property be owned by the national church.

Oh. I guess I can understand why TEC wouldn't just sell the churches back to the individual parishes. I'm a bit naive when it comes to these things. I was thinking that it would be better to keep the churches within the Christian family rather than tear down the building or sell it to a non-Christian entity. The Episcopal church basically runs like a business more than anything else it seems.

I will say that I have noticed a liberal political bent in the church. It isn't exactly a deal breaker, but I have found that to be true of many mainline churches at least where I'm from. I would rather go to a church that isn't so hooked into politics or political leanings. It's important that I go to a church that is Christian, rather than a Republican/Conservative or Democrat/Liberal church. A place where we can take off our political hats for a bit to do the most important work of worshiping God, loving Him, ourselves, and neighbor. I'm not sure that it is possible to go to a church that is more about worshiping God than politics. I live in Northern Virginia so that can tell you how political the area is. I went to a church that had four denominations and they were very liberal. To the point that one day during the joys and concerns portion of the service, a woman got up and just started talking about conservatives and NRA members like they were a group of evil white men. She was white. I'm an American of African descent (directly, my father is from Africa) and I let it be known that I didn't like the tone of the joys and concerns. This same church had weekly vigils/protests in front of the NRA. My great-grandfather on my mother's side (also Black) was a life long NRA member. So you know I was not happy with this. Long story short, I left that church. I was baptized there and dedicated all three of my children there. They were just way too political.

 

[Albion]

SeekingServant, my guess is that you will have many tongue-biting moments in The Episcopal Church in days to come, but, as you correctly noted, the same would be true of the largest of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Congregationalist churches, too. That's the state of mainline Protestantism today--politically active and very much oriented towards liberal positions. The ACNA is only very mildly interested in political issues and the Continuing churches not at all. Yet, and as you indicated, Episcopal laypersons are generally pleasant and refined people, all of which leaves many people such as yourself in something of a bind.

 

[SeekingServant]

I've been an Episcopalian since early childhood. I am old enough to remember the 1928 Prayer Book, but not the 1892 Prayer Book. Though I miss some features of the church life that we enjoyed under the 1928 Prayer Book, and I think some of the contemporary-language materials in the 1979 Prayer Book are klunky, for the most part I consider the 1979 Prayer Book to be liturgically and theologically a step forward.

The ACNA split off from us over how we treat our gay neighbors. The ACNA believes that our gay neighbors should be strictly celibate. Since I cannot live a celibate life myself, I think it would be hypocrisy on my part to demand that my gay neighbors meet a standard that I cannot meet.

The ACNA, in some of its dioceses, recognizes that women are called by God to the presbyterate. In other dioceses, they refuse to recognize this. I think they will eventually ban womens' ordination altogether, or split over the issue.

Refusing to allow the schismatics to buy their church-houses makes sense according to strict logic, but I think strict logic is not always the best policy.

That's sad. I feel a bit split about the issue of gays in the church. I take no issue with gays at all, but I fear that the more radical elements of the community are making a bad name for everyone else. That doesn't mean that we should treat folks in the LGBT community poorly. I guess that many churches that do not allow gays in positions of authority in the church do so because they want to remain in line with what the Bible says about such things, but not be callous about it. I'm still trying to work my feelings on this out. My church has a wonderful gay couple who comes faithfully every Sunday. They just want to be left alone. I guess my issue is that the radicals in the community seem to want to take down Christianity and give Christians who are more traditional when it comes to marriage and family no choice in their feelings on the matter. It's like some folks want for you to not simply tolerate, but promote and encourage them. That isn't realistic in my opinion. Oh well, I wish that the schisms would just stop because it's very hard for people who just want to follow Christ not to be confused with all of the different types of certain traditions. Women ordination is not an issue for me. So long as she is steadfast in her preaching of the Word and not putting her political wish list into the sermon, I'm okay with it. I feel the same way about men too.

 

[SeekingServant]

SeekingServant, my guess is that you will have many tongue-biting moments in The Episcopal Church in days to come, but, as you correctly noted, the same would be true of the largest of the Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Congregationalist churches, too. That's the state of mainline Protestantism today--politically active and very much oriented towards liberal positions. The ACNA is only very mildly interested in political issues and the Continuing churches not at all. Yet, and as you indicated, Episcopal laypersons are generally pleasant and refined people, all of which leaves many people such as yourself in something of a bind.

Exactly. I simply wish to follow Christ and attend a church whose mission is to do the same. I also want for the church to not exactly be conformed to the world. It's not an easy thing. Like I've said before, with my husband being Buddhist, I have to take what I can on the church front. He doesn't like overly political churches either (he attends with me and the kids), but he isn't up for going to a more conservative church because, as a Buddhist, he would take issue with some of the theology and stances of the church. So that does put me in a bind, indeed.

 

[Albion]

Everything else aside, and if we're being practical about the matter, it's the 'my-husband-is-a-Buddhist' part of the mix that probably makes the choice for you. The Episcopal parish near my home has Buddhist and Wiccan members. In short, I can see you in several other church bodies, but not the two of you, so....

 

[SeekingServant]

Everything else aside, and if we're being practical about the matter, it's the 'my-husband-is-a-Buddhist' part of the mix that probably makes the choice for you. The Episcopal parish near my home has Buddhist and Wiccan members. In short, I can see you in several other church bodies, but not the two of you, so....

I know. I see just me as in Eastern Orthodox, Traditional Anglican, or even Roman Catholic. The both of us? Not so much. TEC is pretty much as far as he will go unless he has a conversion moment. He was raised non-practicing Catholic. His parents didn't give him a spiritual base to go by, especially his father, so when he found Buddhism, it was the mystery he was looking for. Little did he know, "the mystery" was right there. He just had to have the eyes to see it. It's also difficult in a culture that wants to give respect to every other faith but Christianity. Oh well. It's prayer time for me anyway. Thanks.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

You say you have a wonderful congregation. Why can’t you be disciples from there?

There is no such thing as a perfect church.

 

[Radagast]

Oh PS... the ACNA is not a province in communion with the Anglican Communion. Just FYI.

Although ACNA is in communion with Sydney, Australia and most African provinces of the Anglican Communion.

 

[Paidiske]

Sydney may act as if they're in communion with ACNA, but officially, they're not.

 

[Radagast]

Sydney may act as if they're in communion with ACNA, but officially, they're not.

They passed a resolution in 2009 saying they were, but I guess there are technical limits on that.

 

[Paidiske]

Indeed. They cannot make such a decision. (And I can't see General Synod passing such a motion, either).

 

[Radagast]

Indeed. They cannot make such a decision. (And I can't see General Synod passing such a motion, either).

Yes, their link explains that, and I agree with you (the phrase "when hell freezes over" springs to mind). But Sydney is clearly going to act as if they are in full communion with ACNA (and, going the other way, ACNA is under no such limitations).

Because, for the foreseeable future, we're all going to pretend that there aren't two distinct Anglican Communions, with a division that runs down the middle of some dioceses.

 

[Paidiske]

Sydney do pretty much whatever they please. They don't act as if they're in communion with the rest of Australia, more or less, so this is just one more instance of that kind of approach.

I don't know if two distinct Anglican communions is quite right. I see it as one communion with fringe elements pulling away at either extreme.

 

[Radagast]

I don't know if two distinct Anglican communions is quite right. I see it as one communion with fringe elements pulling away at either extreme.

Well, I've visited Anglican parishes, of various kinds, on four continents. So far, I've had very little trouble putting them in "Group A" or "Group B."

Possibly, if I explored more, I'd find more of a spectrum, or perhaps a third "Group C" (people do tell me that "trained at Ridley" puts people in Group C).