What Is An Apostolic Church?

[Albion]

OK, so which continuing church should the ACNA have joined? I think there's about 40+ of them and the largest one has about 9,000 members total and the smallest one is primarily composed of bishops.

Those who follow these things, such as the Fellowship of Concerned Churchmen, classify them as in about a half-dozen groups with a total membership of about 30,000. Obviously, I'd say, every guy who's registered a church with "Anglican" in the name (because there's no law against it) isn't to be called a Continuing Anglican any more than he should be viewed as representing a schism in the ANGLICAN Church in North America's efforts. And don't forget that ACNA itself has never been united, not even at its birth. It remains a divided federation of independent churches with different theologies.

But it did have momentum, several sitting TEC bishops, and lots of attention from the media when it was launched. I have no doubt that if it had wanted to call the Continuers together with itself for talks, it could have produced something...but ACNA's leaders chose not to do that.

Most of them believe the same things, and none of them ordain women. So, why are they so fragmented?

The same thing that has hobbled ACNA. A failure of leadership to really lead. The communicants have always been in favor of pulling together.

Is 35 years not a long enough time to work out their differences?

I'm talking about the prospects for Continuers and ACNA to work together, not another rehashing of why the Continuers haven't pulled themselves together. Oftentimes, the addition of a new player can make all the difference in these situations.

Since ACNA wanted to attempt to create a new unified Anglican province it doesn't seem like there was much of a point in trying to further that goal with tiny splinter sects that don't seem to value unity.

And it is exactly that kind of Episcopalian snobbery that doomed ACNA's prospects for ever growing much beyond where it is now--which is just about where it was at its founding.

I truly don't mean this in a derogatory way

Really? Is it lack of information, then?

I don't think that you can call a Christian group that has only 15-20 congregations and refuses to merge with other like-minded groups "orthodox."

That's a fascinating definition of orthodoxy. I'll have to remember that.

 

[RadixLecti]

I'm talking about the prospects for Continuers and ACNA to work together, not another rehashing of why the Continuers haven't pulled themselves together.

It was a sincere question. No one has ever explained to me why the continuers were split into so many different groups. What I know about them is what I read from their blogs. I wasn't even born when the continuing churches split or when the Prayerbook of the Episcopal church was revised. I have visited two continuing congregations, and both met in trailors and had only about 10 people in attendance on Sunday morning. Why can't you just explain why the Continuers are divided? What divides them, etc.? There's no other way for me to find this out except by asking people. There isn't even a Continuing Anglican church in my state, as far as I know.

I really think you misread my previous post. When I said I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, I actually meant it. I just think that part of orthodoxy is being in communion, however I'm beginning to understand more and more why people become "non denominational."

And finally, you seem to think I have some control over the direction of ACNA, which I do not. I'm not in any position of authority so there's really nothing that I can do about it. It's not as though people of my generation caused the problems in Anglicanism. We just inherited them from our "Baby-boomer" parents.

 

[Albion]

It was a sincere question. No one has ever explained to me why the continuers were split into so many different groups. What I know about them is what I read from their blogs. I wasn't even born when the continuing churches split or when the Prayerbook of the Episcopal church was revised.

All right, but I'll have to be summary. The main causes for the divisions between the genuine Continuing bodies is rivalry between the bishops. Unfortunately, it looks like the same mindset characterizes ACNA.

Some of the rivalry concerned churchmanship, but the differences between the now-separated bodies is relatively small, except that some are High Church and others Low Church, yet most of the jurisdictions proudly claim to have both. At bottom, it appears that bishops like to be the big fish in any sized pond, and church mergers necessarily leave one primate or more as nothing more than a diocesan bishop. (You'd think that wouldn't be so bad, wouldn't you?) I might also speculate that breaking free from TEC is no easy task, as many ACNA parishes are now finding out, meaning that once you accomplish it, it makes leaving again and starting up a new jurisdiction too easy.

I have visited two continuing congregations, and both met in trailors and had only about 10 people in attendance on Sunday morning....There isn't even a Continuing Anglican church in my state, as far as I know.

That's unfortunate. Some are like that, but others are quite well-established and own some very nice, conventional church buildings. The Anglican Church in America has three or four parishes in Massachusetts, I think, and you could find them on the church website in case you have any interest.

I really think you misread my previous post. When I said I didn't mean it in a derogatory way, I actually meant it. I just think that part of orthodoxy is being in communion

Well, ACNA doesn't have anything over the Continuing churches in that regard, you know. But anyway, what you wrote in your previous post looked like a totally different rationale for the use of the word "orthodox."

I don't think that you can call a Christian group that has only 15-20 congregations and refuses to merge with other like-minded groups "orthodox."

And finally, you seem to think I have some control over the direction of ACNA, which I do not.

No. But you do appear to want to get the point across that you think of the ACNA as superior to the Continuing Anglican churches.

 

[RadixLecti]

That's unfortunate. Some are like that, but others are quite well-established and own some very nice, conventional church buildings. The Anglican Church in America has three or four parishes in Massachusetts, I think, and you could find them on the church website in case you have any interest.

It looks like they have a couple congregations in the state, but none in the Boston area.

No. But you do appear to want to get the point across that you think of the ACNA as superior to the Continuing Anglican churches.

Nope. I'm pretty annoyed at both. But, if the continuers were unified I would have a pretty high opinion of them. And if the ACNA were orthodox I'd have a pretty high opinion of them. I do believe that there are great people in both movements. I feel like people who are more orthodox in faith should be able to be held to a higher standard, and that is why it is frustratiing to me that the Continuers didn't get things together before I was born. If they had, they'd be a major denomination by now and not so many Americans would have left Anglicanism for evangelical groups etc.

So here's the deal. I have two Anglican options. TEC or ACNA. I can only choose between options that are available to me. This is the same choice that many people in ACNA have made, hoping that things would get better. Is ACNA basically TEC with the clock rolled back 30 years? It seems like it. But, is it not better to be in TEC now or 30 years ago? The remaining option for many people is just to leave Anglicanism all together. But where would you suggest going? (Seriously, where do you think the best place for most Anglicans would be to go if they're considering leaving Anglicanism over liberalism?)

 

[Albion]

But, if the continuers were unified I would have a pretty high opinion of them. And if the ACNA were orthodox I'd have a pretty high opinion of them.

Pretty good summary there!

So here's the deal. I have two Anglican options. TEC or ACNA. I can only choose between options that are available to me. This is the same choice that many people in ACNA have made, hoping that things would get better. Is ACNA basically TEC with the clock rolled back 30 years?

I'm not sure of that. In its guts ACNA is different, I think, but is it willing to waffle on almost everything indefinitely order to gain a following? Too much attention is paid to appearances IMO (which may account in part for its aloof attitude towards the Continuers).

But, is it not better to be in TEC now or 30 years ago? The remaining option for many people is just to leave Anglicanism all together. But where would you suggest going? (Seriously, where do you think the best place for most Anglicans would be to go if they're considering leaving Anglicanism over liberalism?)

Ah, the 64 dollar question, as they used to say. For several reasons, I would not venture to actually answer that here, but I do feel this much. Anglicanism is not the only variety of Christianity that is worth contemplating. But so long as there is an ACNA parish for you, I'd probably stay there. Our reservations about ACNA, after all, are less involved with where it stands right now (troubling as some of that is) than about what it will amount to in time.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mod Hat...

This thread has undergone a cleanup; posts by non members of this forum teaching and debating in this thread have been removed.

Please read the stickies at the top of this forums main page. If you are not a member here, you may ask questions and post in fellowship; no debating, no teaching. Any such posts are off topic and in violation of the rules of this forum and of Christian Forums Community rules as well, and could result in warnings and infractions being issued.

Thanks and God bless,

Mark
Staff Supervisor.

 

[WisdomTree]

This is rather a complex issue, isn't it?