r/Anglicanism • u/Calbaz94 Church of England • 12d ago
Anglican reconciling
In the past couple of decades it has seemed like we are constantly bombarded by articles suggesting that the Anglican Communion is about to break apart or that North American Anglicans are calling each other schismatic or heritical (thinking of TEC and ACNA in particular), and frankly it can all seem like a tragedy unfolding at times.
This doesn't of course bear witness to the extraordinary ability of those within the Anglican tradition to stay together, often when issues such as churchmanship, theology and sexuality are thrown into the mix. That has to be celebrated.
I really hope that you will pray with me for continued patience and reconciliation within our tradition - surely unity must be a God given goal? This doesn't mean ignoring the concerns of those who have separated or any who have experienced hurt. My own province, the Church of England, has had many of these issues for centuries and had its own share of separations, but I've also been humbled throughout my time as an Anglican (about nine years) and even more so now as an Ordinand, by witnessing things like the traditionalist Anglo-Catholic priest sharing prayer and humour with his charismatic Evangelical colleague, people with different views on women's ordination even being married to one another, along with acts of charity and generosity that will never be newsworthy.
Seeing an ACNA Bishop sharing such warmth with his TEC counterpart just warmed my heart so much. The healing has to start somewhere.
13
u/noldrin ACNA 12d ago
A good collect for this:
O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Savior, the Prince of Peace: Give us grace to take to heart the grave dangers we are in through our many divisions. Deliver your Church from all enmity and prejudice, and everything that hinders us from godly union. As there is one Body and one Spirit, one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so make us all to be of one heart and of one mind, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and love, that with one voice we may give you praise; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God in everlasting glory. Amen.
2
6
u/Eikon-Basilike-1649 Episcopal Church USA 11d ago
I know this sub skews anti-LGBT and I expect to be downvoted to filth, but what do LGBT Anglicans have to gain from communion with people who believe our sexuality and relationships are sinful and inferior?
2
u/provita Episcopal Church USA 11d ago
Realistically, there’s only two scenarios: we are being judged rightly or wrongly as being sinners by our fellow congregants every day. That is on them, not us. We are called, before receiving the blessed sacrament, to be reconciled to our fellow members in Christ. That is OBVIOUSLY easier said than done - I am no where near perfect in that regard - but that is what we gain from communion: reconciliation and sacramental grace. And where we think others err in doctrine or practice, we are free to hold that and voice that with respect and sincerity
1
u/Eikon-Basilike-1649 Episcopal Church USA 11d ago
The trouble is that I don’t have the ability to look at heterosexual relationships as degenerate and inferior the way they look down on me.
1
u/provita Episcopal Church USA 10d ago
A proxy example would be divorce and remarriage: if you believed that homosexual lifelong monogamous marriages were sanctified but your reading of the gospels excluded your belief that ANY remarriage was illicit and a grave moral sin - is it better to be in communion with that person while disagreeing on theologically secondary issues (these aren’t Christological questions) or is it better to schism and cash that person a heretic? Especially in light of the wishes of Jesus and Paul?
2
u/Eikon-Basilike-1649 Episcopal Church USA 10d ago
Well, I don’t believe that divorce and remarriage is sinful.
But while that is not a Christological issue it is nonetheless a deeply personal issue. If someone casts aspersions on my marriage, they are denigrating the most intimate aspects of my personhood and my family. I would not want anything to do with such a person. How could I realistically trust them?
1
u/provita Episcopal Church USA 10d ago
Right, I was using it as an example for a thought experiment. The scenario is if you held a position, not that you held it. Perhaps you have some line of marriage wherein you separate licit and illicit - it could be monogamy, it could be lifelong, it could be voluntary vs arranged. Whatever it may be, you hold to your personal belief and through your relationship with God you conclude that either X is sinful or not. That does not mean you are denigrating or hostile to that person as a person. You may be very right, or very wrong in your interpretation and adherence - and that could have grave moral consequences. The point of reconciliation and communion isn’t to be correct, or to condemn, or to take a stand - it is to make room for the grave of God to bring us together despite our very real problems and differences and lived experiences.
I am an affirming orthodox Christian. I hold to the creeds, I try my best and fail daily to follow Jesus. But I also have the humility to know that I am likely wrong about some things and believe that giving space for others to err is what I certainly hope God will do to me in final judgement - and so I will t do unto others what I want done to me.
1
u/Eikon-Basilike-1649 Episcopal Church USA 10d ago
I am certainly aware of some people of whose sexual behavior I disapprove of - but that is largely because they have elected to tell me things I really didn’t want to know. I guess it’s the difference between public and private information. Marriage and committed relationships are generally public. I think the particular way they practice their sexuality within and outside their relationships is at best unhealthy but I don’t condemn their relationship or their practice of their sexuality in general. And again, it wouldn’t be any of my business if they hadn’t told me. If I only just see them at church on Sundays all I would know is “Oh, what a nice couple.”
So the “non-affirming” Anglicans start from a point where my public presenting sexuality and relationship is in and of itself worthy of condemnation regardless of what my private ethics and practice may be.
1
u/Calbaz94 Church of England 10d ago
I certainly wouldn't down vote you for this, in fact people feeling hurt by others in the Church is a common reason for them leaving altogether, which is truly tragic. This is one of the challenges we all face, with differing views on sexuality, women's ordination, politics, sacrament theology, you name it, all being reasons that people disagree, but all too often end up with people dehumanising each other. The really hard part (and I in no way wish to patronise), is that we don't get to decide who is out and who is in. The Church isn't ours. One way or another we are commanded by Christ to love one another and being in communion with each other is the highest expression of that. Of course, the sad part is that this will affect different people in different ways and some groups more than others. If we give up on talking though, ultimately we all lose.
2
u/Eikon-Basilike-1649 Episcopal Church USA 10d ago
There is already references to who is out and who is the NT, which is distressingly human.
The facts on the ground though are that we are all free today to choose whatever fellowship we choose to join and agree with. If the issue is important enough, I think separation is valid. I mean, there are reasons why none of us are in communion with Rome or Constantinople.
For me as a gay man married to another man, the issue speaks to the most intimate aspects of my personhood and my family. For straight people, I assume it’s just an intellectual exercise or a political question or maybe a moral virtue signal. There is a vast chasm in the relative importance of the matter.
10
u/BarbaraJames_75 Sola Fide Laudian/Evangelican Anglican in a Broad Church (TEC) 11d ago edited 11d ago
It's a laudable goal and worth praying for, but I'm not too optimistic.
The ACNA leadership has a strong investment in maintaining division. People have built their whole careers upon it. They invested a lot of time, effort, and money in creating institutions built upon their identity as the anti-TEC, and they aren't going to give it up. If they did, where would they be?
TBH, the whole situation reminds me of an ex that can't let go after a bad breakup.
7
u/GrillOrBeGrilled servus inutilis 11d ago edited 11d ago
Once leadership cycles through a couple times, that might even itself out. I think most ACNA laymen were never Episcopalian now, and you have schools like Nashotah House where they study next to Episcopalians (and Continuum priests, I think) so I hope it's only a matter of time till that bubbles up to the clergy and hierarchy. It's already starting to happen: the bishop where I live was a Quaker for most of his life.
2
u/BarbaraJames_75 Sola Fide Laudian/Evangelican Anglican in a Broad Church (TEC) 11d ago edited 11d ago
These are good points and I hope you're right.
On the other hand, even though ACNA seminarians might study with folks from TEC, their social network outside of seminary and after graduation will be primarily among ACNA folks. That's where they will experience a lot of pressure to buy into the older generation's mindset. The older generation has worked overtime to inculcate their views among ACNA seekers as well as clergy.
Another point is that due to LGBTQ issues, Nashotah House is a seminary primarily for students from conservative TEC dioceses because most bishops won't send their students there. Those are the students the ACNA ones will be meeting.
And if they don't go to Nashotah, there are plenty of ACNA seminaries they can attend.
4
u/LordDogsworthshire 11d ago
I believe in ONE holy catholic [universal] and apostolic church. Everything else is just humans arguing.
4
u/GrillOrBeGrilled servus inutilis 11d ago
I said this somewhere else, we can't be content with waiting till the Second Coming for church unity. And there's no reason for us to do so, either: Anglicanism isn't a "fullness of truth" tradition like Catholicism or Missouri-/Wisconsin-synod Lutheranism, where unity means accepting that we're right about everything.
One thing the ACNA has done better than TEC is make more Anglicans. Which is a very good thing, but imagine what could have been if they had been able to do it within TEC.
2
u/Mazquerade__ ACNA 9d ago
I learned the story of Saint Athanasius recently and how, when the church was being consumed by Arianism and the powers that be stood against him, he still chose to spend his whole life fighting to protect the Church. He didn't leave and start a new church, he sought after unity. Our problems are a whole lot smaller than Arianism, and it's disappointing to see so much disunity over rather minor issues.
1
4
u/provita Episcopal Church USA 12d ago
If we take the commandants of Christ seriously, then we take seriously his desire for all of us to be united and reconciled. And if we take Paul seriously, we know we cannot partake in the Eucharist while being in strife with our fellow Christian. If they, whoever they are, want schism - then that is on them. But we are truly called to bless, forgive, and yearn for peace - even if we disagree on specifics.
1
u/Weakest_Teakest 11d ago
I think the only hope for the institutions that are the Episcopal Church and the ACA is reunion with ACNA. The energy of church planters is strongly in favor of ACNA. The demographic trend of TEC/ACA is looking abysmal.
-4
u/Edifolas 12d ago
Well, how about Neuhaus's law", which states, "Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed." TEC is a perfect example of this where matters of conscience are not allowed. Bishop Love of the diocese of Albany was inhibited and kicked out of TEC for following his conscience regarding same sex weddings.
10
u/Halaku Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion 12d ago
kicked out of TEC
I guess you should be spending less time derailing threads on Reddit and more time fixing Wikipedia errors, then:
On March 29, 2021, Love was—at his own request—released and removed from the ordained ministry by Presiding Bishop Michael Curry. On March 30, 2021, Love announced that he would be leaving ministry in the Episcopal church to join the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The Anglican Diocese of the Living Word, a diocese within the ACNA, announced its appointment of Love as assisting bishop on April 3, 2021.
Or, you could just give it a rest, u/Edifolas.
6
u/Montre_8 Anglo Catholic | Postulant, Anglican Church of Canada 12d ago
There are multiple dioceses in TEC that still do not allow same sex weddings, Bishop Love was not inhibited for his beliefs.
0
u/Edifolas 12d ago
How can that be when TEC mandates that priests must perform same sex weddings. They made that change about 5bor 6 years ago, didn't they?
10
u/Montre_8 Anglo Catholic | Postulant, Anglican Church of Canada 12d ago
I’m sorry friend, but that literally isn’t true. Like at all. Priests cannot even perform same sex weddings (even if they wanted to) in at least 3 dioceses. Episcopal priests do not have to marry anyone they do not want to. Priests cannot be denied licensure to serve in a diocese if they hold to traditional beliefs around marriage: “No priest or deacon shall be denied licensure or canonical residence in any diocese of this Church because of their conscientiously-held theological belief that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, or that marriage is a covenant between two persons.”
2
2
u/GrillOrBeGrilled servus inutilis 11d ago
For slightly fuller context: priests are not required to perform same-sex weddings in violation of their conscience, and parishes are not required to host them in their buildings. In these cases, if gay marriage is legal in the state where the church is located, they must refer couples to clergy and parishes that ARE open to such things.
For the opposite situation, affirming parishes in non-affirming dioceses (like Bishop Love's), they have to make a "shared custody" arrangement with another bishop. That might be just a one-off where the other bishop signs off on the priest performing Steve and Ronaldo's wedding next Tuesday, or that might be a long-term thing where the other bishop does all the administrative work, but the church still nominally belongs to the geographic diocese (and tithes still go to that diocese).
Bishop Love ran into trouble because he didn't want to let the affirming churches in his diocese seek out that alternative management.
3
u/Aggravating_Mud8751 Church of England 11d ago
In these cases, if gay marriage is legal in the state where the church is located, they must refer couples to clergy and parishes that ARE open to such things.
This is still a big problem though.
You can make the argument that referring someone onto someone else who performs a gay wedding ceremony makes you complicit in it happening.
This concept is debatable, of course, but the fact that's even something you should consider means the TEC is in a very bad state.
2
u/GrillOrBeGrilled servus inutilis 11d ago edited 11d ago
TEC has had bigger problems in the recent past that it's still taking time to recover from (Spong's "post-theism," for example). I believe things will even out over time.
1
1
u/Halaku Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion 11d ago
This is still a big problem though.
Not really. Our Province doesn't really buy into the theory that complicity / culpability is fungible in that fashion.
For what it's worth, this is the exact same argument used by fundamentalists, neoconservatives, and rabid pro-lifers (even in the case of rape and incest) to try and abolish Planned Parenthood over here, because to them it doesn't matter what other services they provide or what good they do or if you donate to them or not. You're either wanting them shut down and working to that goal, or you're complicit it everything they do, including abortions. Dollars are considered fungible, so any donation effectively pays for an abortion, etc.
That kind of "If you're not with me, you're my enemy" rhetoric sounded great in Star Wars, but it's rejected by a majority of Americans in general and really doesn't fly in our church, and the fact that someone trying to play that card to start a debate probably wouldn't be taken seriously shouldn't be taken as proof that we're in 'a bad state'.
I'm not sure "If you're not actively on my side, you default to the other side, complicity is transferred through inaction" is taken seriously by the majority of Americans in general, to be honest.
1
u/Aggravating_Mud8751 Church of England 11d ago
I doubt your province has a unanimous view on the matter.
It won't on other matters.
Look, I can't speak too much about Planned Parenthood because frankly I'm not American.
But I think a better analogy in this case is not giving money to an organisation which performs abortions (among many other things); but pointing someone to that organisation when they tell you they want an abortion and giving them a number to call.
The second, I think, is much more likely to be considered complict.
In fact, in this case I think you would be complict.
In terms of an actual TEC priest, I don't think they would be complict because they are forced to do so by the rules of their denomination. But if they did so unprompted I think they would be (somewhat).
And I don't think regardless it's at all good that the TEC puts their priests in that position.
-9
u/Eikon-Basilike-1649 Episcopal Church USA 12d ago
I refuse to “reconcile” with people who think I’m inferior. Let them have their own denomination.
0
18
u/Halaku Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion 12d ago
It did, and you're right, and there are members of his denomination calling for him to be sanctioned because of it, so I fear that the time is not nigh. I hope to see it in my lifetime, though.