March 22, 2017

March 26, 2010


How Would You Summarize The Various Anglican Factions in the US?

If you had to, in a very few words, offer a summary of “how things have divided” in Anglicanism in the US—short enough for someone to be able to actually remember it and hold it in his or her head, how would it look?

Here was my effort in response to an email question:

I think what you may mean by the “family tree” are the various splinters and factions?  At least that’s what I gather.

I don’t know of such a visual, and honestly, I think only the most nerdy wonk would be up for that—it a lot of arcane knowledge.

I’m nerdy, though, so here’s a very brief summary of what I see with all the Anglican Splinters floating about in the US.


—1870s—departure of many low-church evangelicals from TEC to form the REC

—1970s—departure of many Anglo-Catholics from TEC to form—eventually—some 40 different “Continuing Church” entities

—2000—departure of many charismatic/evangelicals from TEC to form the AMiA [in alliance with Rwanda]

—2006—departure of many charismatic/evangelicals from TEC to form:
           CANA [in alliance with Nigeria]
           clusters of parishes/clergy in alliance with Kenya, Uganda, and the Southern Cone

—2008—departure of three AngloCatholic dioceses—Fort Worth, San Joaquin, Quincy—and one evangelical diocese—Pittsburgh

—2009—formation of ACNA, attempting to combine the four departed dioceses, CANA, the AMiA, Kenya, Uganda, Southern Cone parishes/clergy, and the REC

 


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

67 comments

One minor tweak: San Joaquin was never an Anglo-Catholic diocese. It is better described as an Evangelical diocese with an Anglo-Catholic bishop who is himself also at home in the Charismatic stream.

[1] Posted by Fr Dan Martins on 3-26-2010 at 08:49 AM · [top]

And I’d say this includes a good many of us in this diocese, as I’m sure Fr Dan knows.  Quite a good mix, actually.

[2] Posted by Cennydd on 3-26-2010 at 09:04 AM · [top]

I can’t help but notice the phrase “...from EC to form….” I think the division is quite simpler: Orthodox vs Liberal Christianity.

[3] Posted by Festivus on 3-26-2010 at 09:45 AM · [top]

And the two don’t mix.

[4] Posted by Cennydd on 3-26-2010 at 09:53 AM · [top]

Do you count Communion Partners or do they remain an informal network w/in TEC?

[5] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 3-26-2010 at 10:02 AM · [top]

And I think that the Underground Pewster is a unique entity.

[6] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 3-26-2010 at 10:02 AM · [top]

I think I keep Communion Partners an informal network, TF.

Plus, I didn’t try to summarize the various factions *within* TEC—of which as nearly as I can see there are five categories.

[7] Posted by Sarah on 3-26-2010 at 10:14 AM · [top]

1784—Departure of many low-church evangelicals to form the Methodist Episcopal Church

[8] Posted by James Manley on 3-26-2010 at 10:14 AM · [top]

Good one, James Manley.

I could probably have added the Puritan separatist departures, [as opposed to the Puritans who stayed and were satisfied with the ES.]

[9] Posted by Sarah on 3-26-2010 at 10:19 AM · [top]

Sadly fr. Dan is correct and it is becoming more evangelical and charismatic as time marches on.
I see Anglicanism in the U.S. as the Samaritan Woman at the well. She has has had five husbands (I equate the different factions of ex-spouses) and is not married to the one she is with now (ACNA to Canterbury). There is spirit of divorce in Anglicanism in the U.S.

[10] Posted by TLDillon on 3-26-2010 at 10:55 AM · [top]

Cennydd…there are not enough Anglo-Catholics in our diocese. We are a small minority left.

[11] Posted by TLDillon on 3-26-2010 at 10:57 AM · [top]

Maybe the labels - Anglo Catholic, Anglican, evangelical and charismatic, low, high are not the separators
I see divisions based on Bible focused versus focus on politically correct philosophy/theology. The Church is
based on people coming together in a Jesus focused community. NOT how we always done “it” NOR the loudest squeaky wheel demanding attention.

[12] Posted by MercyMe on 3-26-2010 at 11:30 AM · [top]

And that’s a fact we’ll just have to live with, I guess….as we’ve always managed to do.  But, y’know, I’m not going to let it ruin my day.  I’ll continue to pray my Anglican Rosary and do the other things that I’ve always done.

[13] Posted by Cennydd on 3-26-2010 at 11:33 AM · [top]

And I can worship in Low Church, Broad Church, or High Church surroundings, because for me, the most important thing is to worship God….informally or otherwise, because, you see, I don’t think He really gives a fig HOW we worship Him, as long as we DO it.  Vestments and all that goes with them may mean something to US, but not to HIM.

[14] Posted by Cennydd on 3-26-2010 at 11:38 AM · [top]

#10 - a better analogies can be found the Parable of the Two Sons or the Parable of the Tenants in Matthew 21.

[15] Posted by Festivus on 3-26-2010 at 12:06 PM · [top]

In regard to your 2006 entry, I would do 2005-2006 to encompass more of the larger parish defections (a couple occurred before 2006).  By use of the slash, did you mean charismatic and evangelical churches, or to suggest that each of the parishes that left has characteristics of both?  I would change it to say evangelicals and charismatic/evangelicals.  None of the Uganda originated parishes I have visited was charismatic in the sense of exhibiting or promoting speaking in tongues, etc.  I am sure there are members who do, but it’s not a defining characteristic of the parish or represented on Sunday morning.

I agree with #12 that we may need new labels. Years ago, I recall being told by a member of my Diocese that that Presiding Bishop Griswold was “conservative” because he was a “liturgist”. To him, whether you were “liberal” or “conservative” was equated to how someone approached the mechanics of the service, and not necessarily church doctrine, theology or even what was being spoken from the pulpit. The same member considered a neighboring church, with guitars instead of an organ, “liberal”. Yet the members of that parish were among the most theologically orthodox in the Diocese.  It’s been a long since the “charismatic movement” swept through some of the mainline churches, and I wonder if we share a common meaning of that term, as well as “evangelical.”

[16] Posted by Going Home on 3-26-2010 at 12:09 PM · [top]

#16 - that’s why I somewhat seriously said you had two labels - orthodox and liberal.

The liberal label could be defined many ways, but simply it is the absence of orthodox theology (not necessarily liturgical practice). It’s modis operandi is practice over uniform belief.

Orthodox on the other hand can have varied expressions of charism and application, but their core and root theology is noticeably Orthodox; theology drives practice and expression.

My 2 cents.

[17] Posted by Festivus on 3-26-2010 at 12:26 PM · [top]

Overall, a good summary. If my knowledge counts for anything, I believe most of those “continuing churches” left after the Convention in St.Louis in 1977.  Also, many of those have formed their own larger groups such as the Anglican Province of Christ the King and Anglican Church in America.  I don’t know of 40 such “continuing church” groups but maybe there are.

[18] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 3-26-2010 at 12:35 PM · [top]

Sorry Festivus I am not seeing what you re seeing….

[19] Posted by TLDillon on 3-26-2010 at 12:37 PM · [top]

—1970s—departure of many Anglo-Catholics from TEC to form—eventually—some 40 different “Continuing Church” entities

The 1970’s departures included a number of more Low Church types, which apparently was one of the reasons for the initial splits.  Also, the “40 different” number bandied about includes lots of groups that can not be traced ot the Affirmation of St Louis.

You are also forgeting some of the groups that left in the 1960’s.  IIRC, the APA (at one time a Common Cause Partner) can trace part of its lineage from the American Episcopal Church, which left in the 1960’s.

Then there is the 1990’s departure of large portions of the Episcopal Synod, resulting in the Episcopal Missionary Church, if my research has served me correctly.  Those that stayed behind became Forward in Faith North America.

[20] Posted by AndrewA on 3-26-2010 at 03:42 PM · [top]

Probably the easiest way to classify the various groups would be a simple two axis graph, with the Y access being the High-Low category and the X being an indication of how liberal the group is.  Does the group, for example, accept no female ministers at all, or does it accept female deacons but not priests and bishops?  Do they accept the 1979 BCP?  Do they allow remarriages among the laity?  Amoung the clergy?  Stuff like that.

[21] Posted by AndrewA on 3-26-2010 at 03:46 PM · [top]

RE: “Also, the “40 different” number bandied about includes lots of groups that can not be traced ot the Affirmation of St Louis.”

True—and that’s certainly a distinction that some Continuers try to make in order to absolve themselves of the grotesque fracturing and bishoping that took place amongst the Continuers.  The distinction is there, true, but people won’t stop putting all 40 or so under the grouping of “Continuers”—and they’re right to do so despite some St. Louis Declaration folks attempting to ameliorate the display of fracture through their rhetoric.

It’s true that low-churchers left in the 1970s too, but the percentages were vastly Anglo-Catholic, just as the percentages of those parishes who have left in the aughts for Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, and Southern Cone were vastly evangelical with charismatic practices.  It’s true that some were folks like Matt Kennedy—but that is such a minority that I have not noted those with additional categories.

[22] Posted by Sarah on 3-26-2010 at 04:09 PM · [top]

I should add that the desire to act, now, as if the various theological divisions above aren’t worthwhile or significant now is a mistake.

There’s a reason why, despite all of the attempts and work of Bishop Duncan and others to unify with any of the Continuing groups, that did not happen.  The *theological differences are vast*.

And there’s a reason [among many, and as much as people hate for me to say it, I’m going to say it] that so many conservatives in TEC are not going to join ACNA and that is *in part* the vast disparities in theology that exist.

That simple observation—borne out in many many many many many many conversations with Stayers in TEC—does NOT mean that now the thread can turn to “ACNA and the Evil Ones.”

It’s just a detail that reveals the much larger, more global issue which is that yes, the whole differences amongst charismatics, AngloCatholics, evangelicals, and Reformed Anglicans really really really do matter and have real consequences.

Interestingly, the COE has 1) managed to hold in many more “extremes” [I don’t mean by “extremes” something negative] among both AngloCatholics and evangelicals than TEC has managed and 2) I have little doubt that if those AngloCatholics or evangelicals currently held within the COE were to depart they would most certainly *not* end up in the same entity together.  Which is one thing that leads me to my speculation that Anglicanism does indeed need something other than “confession” to hold together various groupings, and that something that I call a “center that holds” has been the See of Canterbury, much as that will cause much disagreement and gnashing amongst some who can’t abide the current holder of that See.

[23] Posted by Sarah on 3-26-2010 at 04:19 PM · [top]

Notice how deftly she sweeps Matt into “such a minority”.  So smooth!

smile

mrb

[24] Posted by Mike Bertaut on 3-26-2010 at 04:19 PM · [top]

Back in 06 and 07 I periodically blogged about the Continuers, whose stances and consistency I respect [despite my disagreement with some of their stances] just as I respect the Roman Catholic stances and consistency, yet disagree.

The APA seemed to sincerely wish for unity with other Anglican Christians, but the WO issue was too much for them in regards to ACNA, and they had to maintain their own entity’s integrity, which again, I completely respect. 

Here is one of those posts for those who wish to *start* exploring the Continuing history:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/4934/

My hope is that the largest and healthiest of the Continuing organizations could unite with one another but as we all know—such uniting after splitting is danged difficult.

[25] Posted by Sarah on 3-26-2010 at 04:48 PM · [top]

Tee hee—yes, Mike.

; > )

But someday he will be crowned bishop and then where will lay peons like me be!!!???

[26] Posted by Sarah on 3-26-2010 at 04:50 PM · [top]

Are +Howe and +Lawrence evidence that a “third way” involves strong DIOCESAN (not “national”) Bishops?

[27] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 3-26-2010 at 05:02 PM · [top]

[comment deleted—off topic; please see other extensive threads for this now five-year-old question]

[28] Posted by Publius on 3-26-2010 at 05:24 PM · [top]

[comment deleted—off topic; please see other extensive threads for this now five-year-old question]

[29] Posted by Fr. David McElrea (formerly farstrider+) on 3-26-2010 at 05:25 PM · [top]

[comment deleted—off topic; please see other extensive threads for this now five-year-old question]

[30] Posted by Fr. David McElrea (formerly farstrider+) on 3-26-2010 at 05:27 PM · [top]

[comment deleted—off topic; please see other extensive threads for this now five-year-old question]

[31] Posted by Cennydd on 3-26-2010 at 06:00 PM · [top]

Which is one thing that leads me to my speculation that Anglicanism does indeed need something other than “confession” to hold together various groupings, and that something that I call a “center that holds” has been the See of Canterbury, much as that will cause much disagreement and gnashing amongst some who can’t abide the current holder of that See.

I know you already know this, but the thing is, England is the exception in the Communion, because the Anglicanism is the Church of England.

What you refer to as “The See of Canterbury” I refer to as “Cultural inertia left over from several hundred years worth of the legal, political, economic, nationalistic, cultural, academic, artistic, and social advantages of belonging to the Established Church and not being labeled Noncomformist or (even worse) a Papist.”

In the United States, most of the truly hard core Calvinists simply find a Reformed Church, and most of the truly hard core sacramentalists simply join the Roman Catholic Church or even the Orthodox.  Note your own observations about most of your ex-TEC friends finding EPC or the RC.  There simply isn’t the same motivating factor to call yourself Anglican.  Being American doesn’t mean being Episcopalian in the same way that being English used to mean being Anglican, before the Ingsoc types started taking over the islands.

[32] Posted by AndrewA on 3-26-2010 at 06:22 PM · [top]

The first post 1873 division I remember was 1963 when the Rev. James Dees of Statesville in the western Piedmont of North Carolina formed the Anglican Orthodox Church.  I don’t know why he did not join the Reformed Episcopal Church, but the AOC continues to minister and has a web site.

St. Francis Anglican Church, Spartanburg, SC, dates from 1970. It was at one time part of the English Rite of the Polish National Catholic Church and on a visit to the church some years ago I was shown the ordination certificate of its then rector in English, Latin, and Polish.

[33] Posted by TomRightmyer on 3-26-2010 at 08:24 PM · [top]

Sadly, now, we are comparing christians who believe in Christ as ” The way, The truth and The Life” with those who see Christ merely as A   WAY. THAT Is even a bigger difference than those who support woman’s ordination and those who don’t, etc.

I can tolerate theological differences and different liturgical styles but when we are discussing those who believe in Christ as I described above without those who don’t.  Well, I just can’t agree to disagree.

[34] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 3-26-2010 at 08:59 PM · [top]

Well said, SC blu cat lady!

[35] Posted by Tami on 3-26-2010 at 09:06 PM · [top]

Blu Cat is right. That is the primary distinction between the divesity that I used to live with in TEC and the situation in the ACNA. I also agree with the observation that most of those who have left no longer view Canterbury as a future unifying force.How Anglicanism will be defined without that is an open question. I will stay and support my orthodox ACNA church as long as it is doing God’s work in the community and drawing people to Christ and in the pews. I have no desire, however, to be part of a small protest group.

[36] Posted by Going Home on 3-26-2010 at 09:51 PM · [top]

I can not help but think that if those who would just move away from WO within ACNA what kind of gate opening there would be to bring in all the factions of the splinter groups and to me that would be worth it…..If ACNA is to be taken seriously I would think that that would be a loftier goal. To bring all Anglicans under one big roof ...God would be pleased IMHO

[37] Posted by TLDillon on 3-26-2010 at 09:54 PM · [top]

I think you’re right, and it would behoove Archbishop Duncan to start working on a plan for that.

[38] Posted by Cennydd on 3-26-2010 at 10:14 PM · [top]

Of course, he’d be working with and leading the College of Bishops on that plan….and inviting the bishops of the Continuum.

[39] Posted by Cennydd on 3-26-2010 at 10:21 PM · [top]

37 and 38- I agree. I just wish Bishop Duncan and a few others in the ACNA did.

[40] Posted by Going Home on 3-27-2010 at 12:23 AM · [top]

As long as those who are pro WO are within ACNA ...I fear it will never come to fruition. So much for:

Ephes. 4:12-16
  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: [13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: [14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; [15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: [16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

[41] Posted by TLDillon on 3-27-2010 at 12:40 AM · [top]

And this is what we have to work on….and we can do it by putting pressure on our bishops from the bottom up.  We can do that by letting them know how we feel, and there’s nothing which says that individuals cannot speak to their bishops directly by phone, snail mail or email.  You don’t have to go through your clergy first.

[42] Posted by Cennydd on 3-27-2010 at 12:46 AM · [top]

Trust me ...I do not!

[43] Posted by TLDillon on 3-27-2010 at 12:54 AM · [top]

Are there not enough High Church but not Anglo-Catholic (former) Episcopalians around to be worth a mention?

[44] Posted by Toral1 on 3-27-2010 at 01:22 AM · [top]

As a former Roman Caholic (and now Anglican) I don’t see what the big deal with the diversity of ACNA.  Diversity in Orthodoxy is a good thing. Roman priests in the United States can be easily divided into the same catagories of Catholic, Evangelical, Charismatic, and Heretics.

[45] Posted by King E on 3-27-2010 at 07:20 AM · [top]

RE: “Are +Howe and +Lawrence evidence that a “third way” involves strong DIOCESAN (not “national”) Bishops?”

Interesting thought, Tim—I hadn’t thought of that before . . .

[46] Posted by Sarah on 3-27-2010 at 07:47 AM · [top]

I have never been able to comprehend one being High Church but not Anglo-Catholic. To me that is like saying I am a Pepsi but not with the fizz.

[47] Posted by TLDillon on 3-27-2010 at 08:09 AM · [top]

Sarah:  Obviously strong non progressive and therefore traditional bishops are the third way, and in the absence of such leadership things fall apart quickly in a diocese. Case in point SW Florida.
In my opinion, there are really only two divisions around which folks need to coalesce:
Traditional Christian, i.e the faith once delivered for all time; and
Progressive Christian:  Christ is always doing a new thing to encounter the present culture.  Note the always new and prophetic themes put forth as innovation after innovation was thrust upon the faithful.
The progressive’s have won the control of the structure and governance in TEC, and in order to assure total victory that leadership MUST eliminate the concept of the highest ecclesial authority in the church being the diocesan bishop. Hence the aggressive moves to consolidate power in her office and the Executive Council.  Unfortunately, the trend is continuing in the AC as well with the emergence of the Standing Committee of the AC as the strongest player.  As this continues the progressives will assure control over the ACas well.
With so much control now in place the time may well have come when the likelihood of election of a strong traditional bishop in a diocese may be impossible.  If it is not at that point yet, it soon will be.
In summary then I think our days of having strong diocesans upon which we can depend in TEC are very numbered, indeed.

[48] Posted by aacswfl1 on 3-27-2010 at 08:11 AM · [top]

#48 that is an excellent point.  If we won’t be able to get orthodox bishops - or even moderates who can say “no” to the craziness from the activist religion club - then any talk of strong episcopal leadership is moot.  Dioceses can elect good folks, but they won’t get consents.  So there will be yet another layer of incoherent stand off, as Dioceses won’t elect the club leaders’ anointed candidates, and the club leaders and their wannabe local followers won’t give consent to those elected by orthodox dioceses. 

That may be one of ACNA’s strongest arguments for the inevitability of going outside - although some will continue to do so via Rome or Orthodoxy, and many will simply give up on the whole enterprise (which is what the club desires - hard to see their antics as anything more than to wring some salary and pension out of an institution they hate and desire to wreck anyway).

[49] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 3-27-2010 at 09:23 AM · [top]

48 and 49-
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the very fact that the majority of TEC bishops and other leaders were already on record that they would reject any Anglo Catholic candidate (leaning on the canon III.1 and other parts of Title III and IV) certainly forced the hand of both Quincy and Ft. Worth (and to a lesser extent San Joaquin).  Simply stated, upon retirement of the current bishop, the canons of TEC would force upon those dioceses bishops who were unacceptable to the parishes.  No ifs, ands or buts.  The movement was just like that in so many parishes, when women rectors have been forced upon Anglo Catholic parishes, but in these cases, it was on a diocesan scale.
And TEC made clear in its uncanonical deposition of +Duncan that any leader of that level of orthodoxy would no longer be allowed to reside in an episcopal see (one suspects that we may see similar action taken against +Lawrence soon). Recall that +Duncan was “deposed” for “abandoning the communion of the Church”- that is to say, as no longer fit to say Mass in TEC because of his doctrine.  Recall also that he was deposed before the final vote was taken by the diocese to depart TEC- so he was not deposed for leaving TEC.

[50] Posted by tjmcmahon on 3-27-2010 at 10:17 AM · [top]

Thinking about TEC, I wonder if, when “classifying” US Anglicans, we should not include the emerging “Communion progressive” faction?  We noted with some interest on a thread a while back the essay written by Pierre Whalon (one of my favorite progressives, he is polite, has some feel for the history of the church, and answers his email).  He and several others signed off on the Anaheim statement after GC.  I suspect that, through his contacts in Europe, he had an inkling of where the moderates in the CoE were prior to the Glasspool consents (since made abundantly clear by the recent Fulcrum piece on consequences for TEC, and what they should entail), and this led him to write his essay.  Some of the more intelligent progressives have come to the realization that they went too far, to fast.  They are “leading” but are now so far ahead that the the main group (Anglican Communion) has lost sight of where they turned off and has stayed on the main road, while TEC has taken a byway that crosses a canyon over a condemned bridge.  The “communion progressives” now see the “bridge is out” sign, but are just discovering that the TEC vehicle has a sudden acceleration problem, and the brakes don’t work.

[51] Posted by tjmcmahon on 3-27-2010 at 10:27 AM · [top]

And therefore the train wreck.  The train has picked up speed, the brakes don’t work, and there’s no stopping it.

[52] Posted by Cennydd on 3-27-2010 at 10:52 AM · [top]

RE: “Obviously strong non progressive and therefore traditional bishops are the third way, and in the absence of such leadership things fall apart quickly in a diocese. Case in point SW Florida. In my opinion, there are really only two divisions around which folks need to coalesce: Traditional Christian, i.e the faith once delivered for all time; and
Progressive Christian:  Christ is always doing a new thing to encounter the present culture.”

Well, I wouldn’t say the word “obviously” with regards to the third way.  I personally think and have maintained that the first thing needed for “third wayism” is an actual lay organization that focuses on third wayism in TEC.  But that, obviously, is not to be.

I just can’t go the way of “only two divisions” AACSWF, because if I did I’d go be Roman Catholic.

But for me, theology matters.  And I just can’t go along with some of the comments on this thread of “the differences amongst evangelicals and charismatics and AngloCatholics really aren’t important.”

They are.  They are to me.  And they are to many many others.

[53] Posted by Sarah on 3-27-2010 at 11:03 AM · [top]

Worship God.  Worship Him in a church, a forest glade, in your home, at the beach, in a public park, a school, a storefront, and with or without vestments or music.  He doesn’t care how you do it, as long as you DO it.  ‘Form’ is meaningless to Him.  Just worship Him with awe and reverence.

[54] Posted by Cennydd on 3-27-2010 at 11:32 AM · [top]

In re the “some 40 different” Continuing Church entities: I dearly wish I would stop encountering this distorted/misleading assertion (or others similar to it) over and over. Most of the U.S. Continuing movement is concentrated in four or five bodies! That doesn’t, of course, let the leaders of those bodies off the hook for the divisions that have so long persisted in the mainstream Continuum. My own belief has always been that, if the core Continuing bodies would consolidate, we would soon stop hearing claims that there are 40 or 50 (or whatever) Continuing Church groups! To be fair, some serious attempts have been made to seek unity, but it is hard not to conclude that, in the end, one or more of the parties wasn’t really THAT serious. Maybe it is just a matter of time. But then, time marches on, affecting both opportunities and context. One leading U.S. Continuing body is now actively seeking unity, but with Rome. Assuming that goal is realized, it will leave behind a smaller core American Continuum to consider whether further inaction on the question of unity will serve God’s will for the Continuing movement.

[55] Posted by ATraycik on 3-27-2010 at 03:00 PM · [top]

[comment deleted—off topic]

[56] Posted by richard reed on 3-27-2010 at 03:25 PM · [top]

AMEN!

[57] Posted by Cennydd on 3-27-2010 at 04:51 PM · [top]

[comment deleted—off topic; please see other extensive threads for this now five-year-old question]

[58] Posted by Fr. David McElrea (formerly farstrider+) on 3-27-2010 at 04:52 PM · [top]

Please note, incidentally, that I am not trying to convince you to cross over. I know you have other reasons for remaining, and I can respect those reasons. I am simply saying that this reason makes no sense to me.

[ED: Understood—but remember, I no longer try to explain such things—that was my commitment now 9 months ago.]

[59] Posted by Fr. David McElrea (formerly farstrider+) on 3-27-2010 at 05:01 PM · [top]

Thank you, AndrewA and others who have pointed out that
many Catholic-minded Anglicans who no longer felt they
could stay where they were have decided (with great
difficulty, in many cases) that they no longer
saw any obstacle to full communion with the Church of
Rome.  This includes many martyrs such as Thomas More
and Bishop John Fisher, as well as many others such
as the great Cardinal Newman and your present writer,
a happy (Roman) Catholic Christian of about three years.

Yes, someone could point out to me that perhaps Thomas
More and John Fisher are poor examples, because
the split between Canterbury and Rome did not become
clear and final for many years after King Henry VIII’s
outrageous actions, and therefore, strictly speaking,
they never left the Church of Rome.  But this point is also significant, because I know I’m not the
only one who has agonized over the question, “Am I, as
an Anglican, on the right side of that split?”  It has
given many of us no great pleasure to answer, “No,
unfortunately, I’m sure I’m on the wrong side.”

Another point to mention is that, although up till about
now, Anglicans who went over to Rome have had no alternative but to do it individually (with very rare
exceptions), that has changed with Our Holy Father’s
announcement that he will receive “Anglican-use parishes.”  I think everyone may be really surprised to
see how many Anglicans (especially in the U. S.) are
going over to Rome in groups!

[60] Posted by PaulA. on 3-27-2010 at 05:30 PM · [top]

I have never been able to comprehend one being High Church but not Anglo-Catholic. To me that is like saying I am a Pepsi but not with the fizz.

I guess you would have to ask Laud.

I don’t know how the original poster meant the term, but there are at least two possible ways I can think of to be “High Church but not Anglo-Catholic.”

One is if you define “High Church” to be simply a matter of ritual or style, in which case you can say that someone has a High Church style but is not-Anglo Catholic in theology.

The other is to make a theological distinction between Anglo-Catholicism and what High Church was before the Tractarians and the Ritualists came along in the 19th century.  The biggest differences, I would say, start with Tract 90, go through the Anglican Missal, and end in the (for many English Anglo-Catholics) Novus Ordo.

[61] Posted by AndrewA on 3-27-2010 at 06:43 PM · [top]

Sarah,
The APA’s decision to not go with the AC/NA had much more to do with “the bottom line”, than maintaining their integrity. Several of the their wealthiest parishes had said that they would leave if the APA were to join. The APA know who butters their bread.

[62] Posted by RMBruton on 3-27-2010 at 07:35 PM · [top]

TLDillon,
It is all too common these days to confuse High Church with Anglo-Catholic. The fact remains that a number of High Churchmen like Dean John William Burgon opposed the Ritualists.

[63] Posted by RMBruton on 3-27-2010 at 07:39 PM · [top]

Hey folks—I’m just coming back into this thread and seeing that the whole “why not join ACNA” discussion is once again joined.  I’ll be deleting comments and maybe doing some banning as I review.  I was very clear about the purpose of this thread—very clear about what it was not to turn into, too.

I appreciate all the good comments about theology and how to better summarize various Anglican factions—good helpful stuff.  But once again the OCdisordered aren’t able to let it go—that’s pretty clear.

RM Bruton, as nearly as I could determine they simply could not be in an entity where some of the parishes and dioceses practiced WO.  Obviously I can—I’m a part of TEC.  But I don’t see how they could have maintained the integrity of their theology and done so—WO for them is a salvific issue and to be in an entity that puts men’s souls in jeopardy of eternal damnation due to NOT receiving the sacraments was anathema to them.

And I don’t see that they would have spent two plus years engaged in all of this only to withdraw because of a few parishes.  Why waste the time of engagement?

Now I suppose it’s possible—anything is possible.  But their public statements were quite firm and clear and consistently stated and their key reason was the theology of WO.  That is a communion dividing issue for them.

RE: “I dearly wish I would stop encountering this distorted/misleading assertion (or others similar to it) over and over. Most of the U.S. Continuing movement is concentrated in four or five bodies!”

While it’s true that the large chunks are in four or five bodies, it is not at all misleading or distorted to point out that there are almost two score.  They’re well documented and listed in multiple places.

[64] Posted by Sarah on 3-27-2010 at 08:11 PM · [top]

TomRightmyer, thanks for comment #33.  I believe there was another one as well that began over a Southern issue??  I’m muddled on that one.

There’s some good folks, I believe, over at St. Francis in Spartanburg.  Incidentally, from my observation I would peg you as one of the most ecumenical [and knowledgeable about things ecumenical] Anglican clergy that I have ever met.

[65] Posted by Sarah on 3-27-2010 at 08:50 PM · [top]

On a broader note, it seems to me that there are three types of church within the Anglican communion. Which will ACNA become?

The first is the Anglophile Church. This consists of people who are of English descent or who like to be associated with the English. They include the Church of England, Scottish Episcopal, Church of Ireland, and Anglican churches in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

The second is the former Mission Church. This is the principal voice of protestant Christianity in a region. In the colonial era, European and North American churches agreed that each would evangelize particular parts of the World. Anglicans were responsible for forming churches in countries like Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Rwanda. In other areas, another church was the primary mission agency (e.g., Presbyterians in Malawi, French Reformed in Lesotho, English Congregationalists in Botswana).

The United States has a unique third model. TEC is neither Anglophile nor a Mission Church. In an attempt to differentiate itself in the huge diversity of churches in the US, it invented the idea that its episcopacy separated it from the surrounding Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Pentecostals and others. To Anglophiles and Mission Churches, episcopacy is a form of governance. To TEC, it is a theological necessity.

The real question, then, is whether ACNA will become merely a version of TEC, desperately trying to define its niche, or the exciting, vibrant, meaningful community that can be found in the other two models.

[66] Posted by NotaBene on 3-28-2010 at 11:31 PM · [top]

#66, NotaBene,

Hoping for a Matthew 28:19-20, sacramentally and liturgically excellent, charism-driven model to develop and thrive…

[67] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 3-29-2010 at 02:52 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.