When did Anglicanism go astray?

[jimmyjimmy]

Well, the last time I checked the Christian Democratic party was still very alive and active in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy

They seem a moderate group. Conservative to a European is moderate or Liberal in the US.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

There are conservative Anglicans, but even they allow female priests, I believe. If the ACNA the most conservative branch, then from where I sit, Anglicans have lost their footing and succumb to worldly thinking, which most of Anglicanism did many moons ago, so I would have to say the OP is correct, with all due respect to Albion of course.

 

[Albion]

There are conservative Anglicans, but even they allow female priests, I believe.

No, they don't. Not one of the Continuing Anglican churches ordains women. That was one of the founding principles of the movement and all these churches have remained true to it.

If the ACNA the most conservative branch, then from where I sit, Anglicans have lost their footing and succumb to worldly thinking, which most of Anglicanism did many moons ago...

The ACNA is hardly the most conservative branch, but that aside, this church, which is actually a federation, hasn't decided on whether or not to ordain women. Several of the member bodies within ACNA absolutely forbid it.

However, ACNA includes four former Episcopal dioceses that left TEC to join ACNA, bringing a handful of women priests with them. They are grandfathered in, but they are few in number and I don't think any of them are serving as rectors (pastors).

 

[Paidiske]

Not even all Anglicans in communion with Canterbury ordain women as priests (diocese of Sydney being the most local example to where I am).

But if ordaining women is your litmus test of "going astray" then we probably need to go back to first principles and outline where the boundaries of acceptable faith and practice are (as I originally said to the OP), because clearly some of us would disagree!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

No, they don't. Not one of the Continuing Anglican churches ordains women. That was one of the founding principles of the movement and all these churches have remained true to it.


The ACNA is hardly the most conservative branch, but that aside, this church, which is actually a federation, hasn't decided on whether or not to ordain women. Several of the member bodies within ACNA absolutely forbid it.

However, ACNA includes four former Episcopal dioceses that left TEC to join ACNA, bringing a handful of women priests with them. They are grandfathered in, but they are few in number and I don't think any of them are serving as rectors (pastors).

I'm pleasantly surprised, and I stand corrected, and I'm very glad to hear that not all Anglican churches are apostate. It's not easy for any of us to hold back the tide of rebellion, disdain and disregard for God's word. The devil has been fighting the same battle since the Garden, "Did God really say?", and in his footsteps, and from within the church, those doing his bidding parrot the very same words and fight the very same fight. They have gutted entire denominations. . .

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I write this as someone who loves the BCP and partakes of the service often but I do have a question, when did the theology of Anglicanism turn into Progressivism? Recently an Iranian Anglican traveled to North American and could not find an Anglican that was not teaching immorality or at least supporting sin so he became a Presbyterian. He said the Anglicans in the Middle East, Asia and Africa are giving up martyrs but the Anglican in North American are only teaching immorality and persecuting believers. He was shocked at how unchristian the Anglicans in NA are compared to the Anglican being harassed in Iran.

For my Calvinist and Reformed brothers and sisters...what happened to them?

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: I asked in the Anglican forum and one poster was pretty emotional about it and attacked the man who fled the liberalism in Anglicanism.

I wish that we would start using a term other than liberal/liberalism for what you've described above. Progressive Liberalism, as much as I despise it, sounds too innocuous.

Complete disregard for God's word on gender roles isn't liberal, it's rebellion. Promoting homosexuality isn't liberal. It's evil. It seem that they are influenced by, and doing the work of the father of lies whose agenda is to destroy the Church, so, should we call those working for so diligently for his cause - liberals???

 

[Radagast]

Recently an Iranian Anglican traveled to North American and could not find an Anglican that was not teaching immorality or at least supporting sin so he became a Presbyterian

Well, (1) North American Anglicans are a tiny, tiny, tiny subgroup of Anglicans worldwide, and (2) even in North America there are conservative Anglicans.

 

[Radagast]

But if ordaining women is your litmus test of "going astray" then we probably need to go back to first principles and outline where the boundaries of acceptable faith and practice are

I have more in common with the Sydneysiders myself, but I agree with that: there are many things that are far more important than ordination (or not) of women.

And one must remember: the average Anglican is black, conservative, and lives in Africa. The USA has only 3% of Anglicans (probably even less now), and Australia/NZ only 6%.

 

[Albion]

I have more in common with the Sydneysiders myself, but I agree with that: there are many things that are far more important than ordination (or not) of women.

Not to make this unnecessarily contentious, but the resistance to women's ordination was what it was because the
Anglo-Catholics (some of them) in the American and Canadian churches believed that ordaining ineligible candidates (women) compromised the validity of the sacraments and perhaps also the lines of Apostolic Succession.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I have more in common with the Sydneysiders myself, but I agree with that: there are many things that are far more important than ordination (or not) of women.

And one must remember: the average Anglican is black, conservative, and lives in Africa. The USA has only 3% of Anglicans (probably even less now), and Australia/NZ only 6%.

The most important thing is what the current issue of the day is. A person or group is going to give in where the pressure is applied. You might say that women's ordination isn't a big deal, but when the churches fell to it, it was the hot-button topic of the day, just as same-sex marriage is today, and the very same people who've compromised God's truth for cultural acceptance haven't stopped at the ordination of women. They in fact can't stop because the same arguments they used to ignore the plain teaching of scripture on gender roles in church and home are the very same arguments used by homosexuals to get themselves ordained, and now "married".

Everything is a "big deal" when it comes to how we treat the authority of God and His word to us.

 

[Radagast]

Not to make this unnecessarily contentious, but the resistance to women's ordination was what it was because the Anglo-Catholics (some of them) in the American and Canadian churches believed that ordaining ineligible candidates (women) compromised the validity of the sacraments and perhaps also the lines of Apostolic Succession.

That wasn't the situation in Australia, where the debate was quite different. But, as I said, there are many more important issues, like belief in the Trinity or in the Resurrection.

 

[Albion]

That wasn't the situation in Australia, where the debate was quite different. But, as I said, there are many more important issues, like belief in the Trinity or in the Resurrection.

I think I know what you mean, but it was mainly Anglo-Catholic clergy who led the walkout from TEC in the late 1970s over this issue. Now that you mention it, however, many or most of the several thousand laypersons who launched the Continuing Anglican movement were not Anglo-Catholics.

 

[Radagast]

I think I know what you mean, but it was mainly Anglo-Catholic clergy who led the walkout from TEC in the late 1970s over this issue.

I assume you're talking about the USA here.

 

[Albion]

I assume you're talking about the USA here.

Yes--and Canada. The founders of the Continuing Anglican movement, that is to say, who left The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, mainly over this issue (women's ordination).

 

[chevyontheriver]

when did the theology of Anglicanism turn into Progressivism?.

There was a shift at the Lambeth Conference in 1930. That was the year they did their first limited acceptance of contraception. The very first denomination to do so. Of course something progressive had to be brewing before that and many would have resisted progressive trends, and are still resisting even today.

 

[FaithfulPilgrim]

It wasn't a complaint but a lament, a deep sorrow, a mourning over the current state of Anglicanism in the West.

Yours in the Lord,

jm
PS: Historically speaking Baptists have been Reformed. Please see the Confession in my sig, it lines up with the Westminster in almost every area.

Not always. The original Baptists were Arminian. I am a Calvinist-leaning Baptist myself, though.

 

[Albion]

It wasn't a complaint but a lament, a deep sorrow, a mourning over the current state of Anglicanism in the West.

I was almost going to object, but then I got to those final three words ("in the West"). You acknowledge, I take it, that most of the Anglicans of the world are not in similar straits, so what we're saying is that Christianity in general is in trouble--in the West, that is.

 

[HeraldOfTheHolyOne]

Anglicanism went astray when the Church of England rejected the reforms of the Westminster Assembly.

 

[JM]

Not always. The original Baptists were Arminian. I am a Calvinist-leaning Baptist myself, though.

That's only true if you deny the typical baptist mode of baptism by immersion. The Arminians poured and sprinkled. The Particular Baptists insisted in immersion. It would be accurate to say that modern Baptists find roots in Puritanism which was Calvinistic.

 

[JM]

I was almost going to object, but then I got to those final three words ("in the West"). You acknowledge, I take it, that most of the Anglicans of the world are not in similar straits, so what we're saying is that Christianity in general is in trouble--in the West, that is.

Yes, in the West.