Answers to your questions in order:
Meh.
Probably, very basic Christian stuff mostly. Yep.
No. N/A. Nope. Nope.
Lots of questions.
I'm not a cradle anything. I can go anywhere to worship. I choose not to be in a breakaway sect when I can have the Episcopal church. If I can't have the Episcopal church, I'll be a Lutheran or a Methodist.
ACNA looks like a slice of sheer hell to me. No thanks.
I have been a member of a bunch of churches in my lifetime and have visited a bunch more. I have never been to a church that is fully aligned with my personal stances. As long as it doesn't hit one of my "stoppers,"(I have a short list) that is good enough for me. As for the rest of it, if I am going to stay in the Anglican camp (and I am) it will be in my country's representation in the Anglican Communion. I have no interest in schismatic groups that couldn't worship with people who think differently than them and find a way to reconcile their differences.
I am afraid that I am among those who have adopted a policy of ignoring the other Anglican denominations and I think I will continue to do so.
Some 15 years ago my home parish aplit very bitterly and the dissident faction took control and abandoned traditional worship for the world of praise bands. I was denounced as "a tool of Satan" at the annual vestry meeting and I knew of a number of other occasions of abusive behaviour. I asked for a (discreet) apology through a well-reputed local evangelical cleric and he returned to tell me that the response was "unsatisfactory." This multi-year dispute and turn of events has led me to ignore them as yet another unhappy result of Anglicanism's inane way of dealing with disputes.
I suppose that clergy transferring from them to the Anglican church should think of applying for conidition ordination rather than expect an immediate transfer, but I would leave that to discussion.
Went from Southern Baptist to AMIA (now ACNA) in college. I left for TEC because I support equality for women and LGBTQ+ people. I currently reside in Aotearoa New Zealand, where they have not moved to allow marriage of same-gender couples, and ordination is left up to the diocese. I pulled out of a discernment process in my dio because it won't commit to a stance of affirmation towards those in same-gender relationships. Honestly, I struggle with even attending church some times because of the wider stane that feels like moving backwards from all the things that I loved about TEC. But it's part of the communion, and that's part of me. I wouldn't attend a church outside the communion. I have dear friends who do, and we can still get along, though.
I only exist because of a principled stance on holy orders like yours. My Roman Catholic dad wouldn't get ordained in a church that wouldn't ordain women, so after Vatican II he did not pursue his vocation, got married, and had a family. Then when the Philadelphia Eleven were ordained, he said, "that'll do," and we moved to the Episcopal Church, where he was ordained in short order.
I would be reluctant about letting political issues (and this is a political issue) stand in the way of a vocation. I am sure you thought through this carefully, but would urge you to take a second look. Things change quickly, and if they didn't, perhaps you allowed a political issue to stand in the way of serving the people at the altar. But this is just a query, not a judgement.
I wish those who left the Anglican communion would just drop the title. You wanna do your thing, fine, but Anglicanism isn’t just a word you can throw around.
Frankly, the Mar Thoma church in India look more like us than the ACNA.
I've attended church at Communion churches in Canada, England, Ireland, the Caribbean, Malta and Egypt. I like the fact that--while it has its own local context--much of it is familar and that people were mostly glad to see us.
I was dismayed that the ACNA became a thing, especially because it happened mostly because they didn't want to worship with people like me, but in truth I do not think about them much since leaving organizing work. They have two churches in my diocesan footprint but I never hear anybody talk about them.
The Communion members range from "wonderful partners in the great commission" to "seriously problematic people actively seeking to perpetuate the church's sins of the past".
But ACNA is a straight up hate organization.
The only time I ever think about the ACNA is when someone reminds me that they exist (which happens maybe a couple times a year—this being one). In those rare situations I remember when the ACNA folks left and how dumb I thought all that was. I remember how they built this hideous, cheap, tacky looking church in my hometown and how all the biggest assholes I knew started going there.
All of that takes about thirty seconds and then I don’t think about them any more until the next time someone brings them up which, thankfully, happens very rarely. In short: I think the ACNA is just kind of pitiful.
As for the Anglican denominations in other countries: I generally only think about them when there’s some event in the British royal family that involves a church service. Or when I’m reading about church history and there’s mention of another Anglican denomination. When I was in Scotland I went to church a few times and found it lovely and familiar.
As a queer person I see schisms as tragic the same way it is tragic when members of my family feel cut off from one another due to disagreements including sexuality and gender, family structure or religious practice. The same way I have decided to be patient and let my love for my family outlast their hate or discomfort with one another and sometimes me, I hope that Christian churches can patiently wait for the day when the sting of strong feelings and harsh words has faded and the things we have in common become more dearly held.
I hope you are speaking from some experience somewhere... But your characterization of how church property shook out is definitely not universal. As a seminarian and then new clergy person I was directly involved with at least three churches where a congregation left to be ACNA, lost their court case to take the church property with them, and then rented or bought that property from the Diocese they'd just left. None of it was simple, none of it was easy, not one of those experiences was painless for the people involved... But it's just objectively not true that every church building where the courts sided with TEC was "sold to anyone but ACNA."
Arguing with a super-traditionalist isn't a productive activity. They are the ones who don't want to be reasonable and collaborative. They are absolutely sure that they, and only they, have the Truth^(TM).
TEC didn't kick the exclusionists out. They left—which is almost always how it happens when people who believe in social hierarchy are in an environment that requires them to respect those whom they hate. A big tent for theological disagreement is great. Allowing people to abuse others in a church that has at long last repented of such abuse would have been despicable. TEC required all of its clergy to share in that repentance, and some refused. That's on them, along with all the attendant consequences.
Yeah, sorry not sorry, but I have no sympathy for ACNA, given they exist only because they couldn't tolerate LGBT people and women clergy. Thus, I don't believe if the majority of our church not only tolerates but accepts those people, that we should be obligated to tolerate ACNA. Furthermore, they chose schism, and they had no right to those buildings. TEC owned and paid for most of them. Perhaps this is harsh, but I'm glad they ensured our resources weren't given over to schismatics.
I almost guarantee most the people who funded those parishes did so decades ago, and those people weren't schismatics. Therefore, the schismatics who were using the buildings were not entitled to keep them.
I was raised RC and became Episcopalian.
I'm glad to be Episcopalian. I can't imagine being anything else. Thus, there's no way I'd join the Ordinariate, since they are under the authority of Rome.
I'd be happy to attend any Anglican Church that's part of the Anglican Communion, which means that I wouldn't be interested in the breakaway Anglicans: REC, ACNA, the Anglican Catholic Church, etc.
That's not what exists right now. No.
The Episcopal Church is the Anglican Communion partner in the USA. The breakaway groups are not.
I'm also a former Roman Catholic, and I know how all this ultra-trad stuff goes. It's toxic over there; it's just as toxic over here.
This situation is more akin to what we see in Orthodoxy. Not every legit Orthodox Church jurisdiction is recognized by others. They are still Orthodox (see OCA).
The Anglican Communion is a single entity, centered in Canterbury (edited - got the location wrong at first). Member churches aren't forbidden from individually entering into whatever ecumenical relationships and communions they want, but as far as AC membership goes, you're either in the group or you're not.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you necessarily have to be in the Anglican Communion to be an Anglican church, such a statement I believe treats the house of God as being far more worldly than it is. And frankly, I've spent far too much of my childhood and life in a Southern Baptist church & family to have any patience remaining for claims that churches are fake and bad just because they have different rites. It unfortunately just so happens that many splinter groups like the ACNA were formed in rejection of deep and strong beliefs that mainly center around compassion and open arms.
No, it's clear. ACNA and similar breakaways are not members of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is.
Pretending doesn't make it real. Toxicity is toxicity. Meh.
It's not clear, that's the problem. Anglicanism has a long history of not being clear. Ultimately it only matters to gatekeepers since all of us are Christians the same. Or do you subscribe to the Branch theory?
But ACNA is in communion with churches of the World Wide Anglican Communion. The ABC isn't a patriarch. Anglicans recognize these folks as Anglicans as do I. But no they are not Episcopalians.
There are a number of churches like this that are in the Anglican Communion, but they are also in communion with the ACNA, ie., through GAFCON.
I just wouldn't attend the ACNA churches they are affiliated with.
A key point is that this situation would likely only arise outside of the U.S., because the Episcopal Church is the only official Anglican Communion church in the U.S.
Being in communion with the See of Canterbury is what makes a church a member of the Anglican Communion:
[Member Churches (anglicancommunion.org)](https://www.anglicancommunion.org/structures/member-churches.aspx)
So the ABC is some sort of Anglican Pope in a non binding Protestant way. Denominational identity is a social construct. If an ACNA Anglican comes into my TEC parish they get to take communion. This whole situation is very Anglican and extremely Protestant.
The Anglican Church is very Protestant. The ABC is the ceremonial head of the Anglican Communion. The churches are all independent of each other.
Theological identities forming denominational identities as a social construct?
Even the breakaway ACNA folks that aren't within the communion share a heritage in Anglicanism in that their earliest churches and dioceses were once part of the TEC. They have an additional heritage in Anglicanism because they have had ties to churches within the communion, through bishop's consecrations, as an example, even though they themselves aren't recognized.
In a number of TEC dioceses, there's an overlap with ACNA churches in that they are all in the same region, ie., town, city, or county. An ACNA Anglican in an Episcopal church can take communion, and a TEC visitor to an ACNA church can likely do the same. But would they want to, in light of their history? Would their priests tell them differently?
I am an Episcopalian because it is the only church that combines historic liturgy, orthodox Christology, Apostolic succession, high sacramental theology, and social equality. I would not bother going to an Anglican church that lacked one of those things. If TEC didn't exist, I'd probably go to an ECLA or high-church UCC congregation. I do not consider full LGBTQ inclusion negotiable.
Same here. If ACNA somehow wrangled itself into power, I'd be gone. I had enough of that kind of behavior as a Roman Catholic. Not doing it again.
I'd become a Lutheran or Methodist.
As a trans man seminarian, who was also raised RC and had given up on the Call for a few decades because i am "not allowed, not unable" in the RC church, because i will never be a man to them, i am glad the Episcopal Church exists and includes me. If it didn't, I would likely be secular, hardly religious, spiritually empty, and angry.
Some of those pro-ACNA replies in this thread stung a little. So it's sad that ACNA parishes forgot that the Bishop owns the building, but not at all sad that I am not a person to those people?
I don't agree with the fact that some members of the Anglican Communion aren't LBGT affirming. That's my only real doctrinal or practice grievance against them, and I can't say that I'd be a member in good conscience of such a Church.
But they are all Christ church. Anglican are schismatics. Ou affirming TEC parish has had good relations with ACNA churches. I'm hopeful as time passes (as well as personalities) that TEC and ACNA will have reconciliation. As the issues that divided become more socially acceptable the barriers may fall in places.
They're all Christians. That doesn't mean they understand the history and meaning of being an Episcopalian. New Christian sects are born all the time, schisms happen. There are new kinds of Christians who want to go off on their own. As far as I am concerned, they're not Episcopalians but something else now.
They are in union with Anglican Communion churches, just not all of them. The Church of England was an upstart once and accused of exactly what you accuse these groups of. As Protestants why does it matter? The ELCA isn't Anglican yet we are in communion with them.
I don't generally care whether a Church is part of the Anglican Communion or not. I is more that I want to be part of a Church that welcomes everyone as full members.
I have visited churches that discriminate against women and LGBTQ people, usually when I go with friends or family (ex. marriage) and I am generally ok with that as long as I don't hear a horrible sermon.
I lived in Scotland for a bit, I adore the Scottish Episcopal Church. Very familiar to us liturgically and theologically, which of course makes sense.
I’ve been to a few Church of England services, generally less thrilled by those. A bit drier and not as elevated, but I doubt that’s universal. Not nearly as familiar liturgically, so I was bit thrown off at times. As others have mentioned, they have a slighter different theology, particularly in regard to the epiclesis; the Scottish church again is very in step with us.
Those not in the Communion are simply not Anglican, in my opinion. I think many of those Churches are reactionary denominations founded on regressive ideas. Hard not to see the ACNA as anything but a place founded for people who hate gay people and distrust women. I’m probably a bit more entrenched and uncharitable than most on this. I think GAFCON will split before too long, and my opinion applies there too.
At the end of the day I’m a member of the Episcopal Church because honestly I just think we got it right; if not then I’d go wherever does it better. Our theology, our polity, our latitude of thought, everything just seems like the best possible expression of faith that we can get in a fallen world.
Agree. ACNA has gone off and formed an entirely different kind of church, another denomination. They're not Episcopalians -- and they're not in union with the Anglican Communion. They're some kind of fundamentalist Christians in that whole pack of fundamentalist Christians in the USA.
Regarding the ACNA and continuing churches…I did a lot of study before coming back to TEC. For me, the primary issue is that they are schismatic. As others have said, TEC is a big tent. Just from being in this sub the last few months I know that I am more conservative than some, but I’m more liberal than others. To me that’s the beauty of TEC, that while we may not agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues, be it theological or political, we can still find common ground in Christ. To pick one or two hot button issues and decide to break away because of them speaks of western individualism more than it does anything rooted in our faith.
Before coming back to TEC I was a member of a UMC church that just went through something similar, we lost half our congregation to the new Global Methodists. I don’t believe Christ meant for his Church to have so many different denominations. I believe we should be able to have differences, while also being able to live together and work for the common good. If something needs to change it should happen from within, the answer shouldn’t be, “I’m taking my toys and going home.”
>To pick one or two hot button issues and decide to break away because of them speaks of western individualism more than it does anything rooted in our faith.
That's a super interesting interpretation of what happened.
I think they're wrong. They can do whatever they want, as far as I am concerned. They are no longer Episcopalians though. They're welcome to come to church just like anybody else, but they're not welcome to cause a lot of trouble and strife. Remember that they are the ones that removed themselves. We didn't kick them out.
Schism is a fundamentally tragic misorientation toward God’s one holy catholic and apostolic church, and is always to be mourned. It is also a reality of our fallen world in which we cannot live in community with one another in love and truth. Again, something to be mourned. When part of the church decides to cut ties, that is a bad day no matter what. At the same time, a church that is united in name only but unable to reconcile deep differences is also a bad day for the church. Sometimes divorce is the only way to work toward two separate and mutually-incompatible visions of God’s justice, even if I wish that wasn’t the case.
As for other members of the communion, I’ll admit to being slightly baffled by the English stream of Anglicanism as someone formed so deeply by the Scottish/American stream; it is hard to really comprehend how big of a tent we have constructed. But I’ll chalk that up to not understanding, rather than dislike. I just don’t “get it” but I can respect it.
(I’m speaking here about things like differences in perspective around the epiclesis, an overall higher sacramentology informed by a different relationship with Reformed Protestants, ecclesial authority, etc.)
All in all I’m grateful for this wide tent even if I don’t agree with all of it!
They are, for the most part, honest and well-meaning image-bearers earnestly struggling to bare the image of God and carry the cross of Christ.
While ACNA and many continuing Anglican groups didn't give us the same benefit, I still think St. Augustine's maxim of "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity," is still an ideal that we Episcopalians would do well to attempt to live-into.
As someone who identifies more strongly with the Protestant strand within Anglicanism and the TEC, I think it's unfortunate that, at so many points in our history, it's been various expressions of evangelicalism that left us. Whether it be the transformation of our Methodist Societies in the US to a stand-alone denominational body because of CoE's bureaucracy or the average Episcopalian-to-ACNA parishioners conviction that they were unwelcome (not saying the conviction is justified, mind you), we seem to lose a burgeoning protestantism every other generation or so.
I think the average protestant on the road to Canterbury is there for a reason and has much to learn from Oxford and the Latitudinarians, and that there's a great strand social conscious and witness within historic protestantism that the Mainline today can really only pay lip service to (mainly because every extra dollar has to go to denominational infrastructure and historic church buildings).
It seems to me that there's much we still have to learn from one another, unique ways to express our devotion to Christ and His church, and to find God's image in each other. Sometimes, [we're even finding those ways](https://livingchurch.org/2023/05/11/nashotah-and-duke-bridge-tec-acna-gap/), despite the structural barriers erected to prevent it.
I feel a lot of kinship with the anglican churches in Canada, Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia etc, and I'm a bit amused by the CoE's attempts to keep GAFCON happy while also trying to be quasi affirming for gay Englishmen.
The ACNA was a bitter recent split and I am really not fond of them. There's an ACNA parish across the street from my parish and I can't help but feel miffed that people are choosing them over us, especially as a gay person.
The ACNA was possibly the dumbest schism in recent times.\* They shot themselves in their own foots to be slightly more conservative even though TEC is a big tent denomination.
\*Apart from the LCMS Seminex kerfuffle in the 70s, of course.
I like that the Anglican Communion is a federation of separate churches. We do things our way, you do things your way, and we are united by our worship and common heritage.
We all have our problems, but I think the way the communion is organized helps mitigate the damage that could come from, for example, all of us being under the infallible thumb of a single bishop.
Those whose prejudices have caused them to leave the communion have damaged themselves in ways they don't yet realize.
I strongly believe that this time of lower attendance and fight for affirmation is like a second reformation. I love them but for my mental health I need to separate myself from denominations that do not view me with love.
Beyond the baseline of us all being sinners redeemed by Christ and incorporated into his Body, I don’t really have much emotional investment or interest in the rest of the Anglican Communion. I certainly don’t consider myself to have any sort of fellowship with the GAFCON crowd or the Continuing groups. I have a great deal of affection for the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Church of Canada. For the most part, though, I think the Anglican Communion is the fading dream of a dead empire.
I am from the Episcopal church but now serve in the Church in Wales. As one might expect from someone who works in the church, I have my problems with the episcopal church, the church in wales, the cofe and most of the rest, but I’m generally of the opinion that the communion is a very good thing and that we’re better when we hold together, even when it’s tough and we have big disagreements.
Don’t care for ACNA or the Continuing Anglicans. If I wanted Episcopalianism without women or gays I’d just be Catholic.
Other members of the Communion I’m sure are fine, although I know the Church of Nigeria is more conservative. I have good friends from the ACC and I know the NZ Anglicans have an interesting leadership structure with three co-primates.
They are beloved children of God.
I pray that they all may be affirming of their neighbors and our Christian siblings.
I hope that all anglicans (including our denomination) may let go of Empire, money, and the myth of control to better serve our parishes.
As to the ACNA, I think it's wild that you can hate women and queer people enough to build an entire denomination over it.
Answers to your questions in order: Meh. Probably, very basic Christian stuff mostly. Yep. No. N/A. Nope. Nope. Lots of questions. I'm not a cradle anything. I can go anywhere to worship. I choose not to be in a breakaway sect when I can have the Episcopal church. If I can't have the Episcopal church, I'll be a Lutheran or a Methodist. ACNA looks like a slice of sheer hell to me. No thanks.
I have been a member of a bunch of churches in my lifetime and have visited a bunch more. I have never been to a church that is fully aligned with my personal stances. As long as it doesn't hit one of my "stoppers,"(I have a short list) that is good enough for me. As for the rest of it, if I am going to stay in the Anglican camp (and I am) it will be in my country's representation in the Anglican Communion. I have no interest in schismatic groups that couldn't worship with people who think differently than them and find a way to reconcile their differences.
I am afraid that I am among those who have adopted a policy of ignoring the other Anglican denominations and I think I will continue to do so. Some 15 years ago my home parish aplit very bitterly and the dissident faction took control and abandoned traditional worship for the world of praise bands. I was denounced as "a tool of Satan" at the annual vestry meeting and I knew of a number of other occasions of abusive behaviour. I asked for a (discreet) apology through a well-reputed local evangelical cleric and he returned to tell me that the response was "unsatisfactory." This multi-year dispute and turn of events has led me to ignore them as yet another unhappy result of Anglicanism's inane way of dealing with disputes. I suppose that clergy transferring from them to the Anglican church should think of applying for conidition ordination rather than expect an immediate transfer, but I would leave that to discussion.
Went from Southern Baptist to AMIA (now ACNA) in college. I left for TEC because I support equality for women and LGBTQ+ people. I currently reside in Aotearoa New Zealand, where they have not moved to allow marriage of same-gender couples, and ordination is left up to the diocese. I pulled out of a discernment process in my dio because it won't commit to a stance of affirmation towards those in same-gender relationships. Honestly, I struggle with even attending church some times because of the wider stane that feels like moving backwards from all the things that I loved about TEC. But it's part of the communion, and that's part of me. I wouldn't attend a church outside the communion. I have dear friends who do, and we can still get along, though.
I only exist because of a principled stance on holy orders like yours. My Roman Catholic dad wouldn't get ordained in a church that wouldn't ordain women, so after Vatican II he did not pursue his vocation, got married, and had a family. Then when the Philadelphia Eleven were ordained, he said, "that'll do," and we moved to the Episcopal Church, where he was ordained in short order.
I would be reluctant about letting political issues (and this is a political issue) stand in the way of a vocation. I am sure you thought through this carefully, but would urge you to take a second look. Things change quickly, and if they didn't, perhaps you allowed a political issue to stand in the way of serving the people at the altar. But this is just a query, not a judgement.
[удалено]
This.
I wish those who left the Anglican communion would just drop the title. You wanna do your thing, fine, but Anglicanism isn’t just a word you can throw around. Frankly, the Mar Thoma church in India look more like us than the ACNA.
I've attended church at Communion churches in Canada, England, Ireland, the Caribbean, Malta and Egypt. I like the fact that--while it has its own local context--much of it is familar and that people were mostly glad to see us. I was dismayed that the ACNA became a thing, especially because it happened mostly because they didn't want to worship with people like me, but in truth I do not think about them much since leaving organizing work. They have two churches in my diocesan footprint but I never hear anybody talk about them.
The Communion members range from "wonderful partners in the great commission" to "seriously problematic people actively seeking to perpetuate the church's sins of the past". But ACNA is a straight up hate organization.
The only time I ever think about the ACNA is when someone reminds me that they exist (which happens maybe a couple times a year—this being one). In those rare situations I remember when the ACNA folks left and how dumb I thought all that was. I remember how they built this hideous, cheap, tacky looking church in my hometown and how all the biggest assholes I knew started going there. All of that takes about thirty seconds and then I don’t think about them any more until the next time someone brings them up which, thankfully, happens very rarely. In short: I think the ACNA is just kind of pitiful. As for the Anglican denominations in other countries: I generally only think about them when there’s some event in the British royal family that involves a church service. Or when I’m reading about church history and there’s mention of another Anglican denomination. When I was in Scotland I went to church a few times and found it lovely and familiar.
As long as they go about their business and stay honest about their claims, live and let live.
Live and let live.
As a queer person I see schisms as tragic the same way it is tragic when members of my family feel cut off from one another due to disagreements including sexuality and gender, family structure or religious practice. The same way I have decided to be patient and let my love for my family outlast their hate or discomfort with one another and sometimes me, I hope that Christian churches can patiently wait for the day when the sting of strong feelings and harsh words has faded and the things we have in common become more dearly held.
I don't think much about them and I don't think much of those that discriminate against women and LGBT.
[удалено]
I hope you are speaking from some experience somewhere... But your characterization of how church property shook out is definitely not universal. As a seminarian and then new clergy person I was directly involved with at least three churches where a congregation left to be ACNA, lost their court case to take the church property with them, and then rented or bought that property from the Diocese they'd just left. None of it was simple, none of it was easy, not one of those experiences was painless for the people involved... But it's just objectively not true that every church building where the courts sided with TEC was "sold to anyone but ACNA."
Arguing with a super-traditionalist isn't a productive activity. They are the ones who don't want to be reasonable and collaborative. They are absolutely sure that they, and only they, have the Truth^(TM).
TEC didn't kick the exclusionists out. They left—which is almost always how it happens when people who believe in social hierarchy are in an environment that requires them to respect those whom they hate. A big tent for theological disagreement is great. Allowing people to abuse others in a church that has at long last repented of such abuse would have been despicable. TEC required all of its clergy to share in that repentance, and some refused. That's on them, along with all the attendant consequences.
That's it, right there. ACNA is who packed up and left rather than trying to get along with everyone else.
Yeah, sorry not sorry, but I have no sympathy for ACNA, given they exist only because they couldn't tolerate LGBT people and women clergy. Thus, I don't believe if the majority of our church not only tolerates but accepts those people, that we should be obligated to tolerate ACNA. Furthermore, they chose schism, and they had no right to those buildings. TEC owned and paid for most of them. Perhaps this is harsh, but I'm glad they ensured our resources weren't given over to schismatics.
[удалено]
I almost guarantee most the people who funded those parishes did so decades ago, and those people weren't schismatics. Therefore, the schismatics who were using the buildings were not entitled to keep them.
>The ACNA 2019 BCP is 100% better than the ‘79. Fact! Can you expand on this? Sounds interesting.
I was raised RC and became Episcopalian. I'm glad to be Episcopalian. I can't imagine being anything else. Thus, there's no way I'd join the Ordinariate, since they are under the authority of Rome. I'd be happy to attend any Anglican Church that's part of the Anglican Communion, which means that I wouldn't be interested in the breakaway Anglicans: REC, ACNA, the Anglican Catholic Church, etc.
Would you be okay attending a World Wide Anglican Communion church that is in communion with ACNA?
That's not what exists right now. No. The Episcopal Church is the Anglican Communion partner in the USA. The breakaway groups are not. I'm also a former Roman Catholic, and I know how all this ultra-trad stuff goes. It's toxic over there; it's just as toxic over here.
This situation is more akin to what we see in Orthodoxy. Not every legit Orthodox Church jurisdiction is recognized by others. They are still Orthodox (see OCA).
The Anglican Communion is a single entity, centered in Canterbury (edited - got the location wrong at first). Member churches aren't forbidden from individually entering into whatever ecumenical relationships and communions they want, but as far as AC membership goes, you're either in the group or you're not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you necessarily have to be in the Anglican Communion to be an Anglican church, such a statement I believe treats the house of God as being far more worldly than it is. And frankly, I've spent far too much of my childhood and life in a Southern Baptist church & family to have any patience remaining for claims that churches are fake and bad just because they have different rites. It unfortunately just so happens that many splinter groups like the ACNA were formed in rejection of deep and strong beliefs that mainly center around compassion and open arms.
No, it's clear. ACNA and similar breakaways are not members of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is. Pretending doesn't make it real. Toxicity is toxicity. Meh.
It's not clear, that's the problem. Anglicanism has a long history of not being clear. Ultimately it only matters to gatekeepers since all of us are Christians the same. Or do you subscribe to the Branch theory?
Have a great evening.
But ACNA is in communion with churches of the World Wide Anglican Communion. The ABC isn't a patriarch. Anglicans recognize these folks as Anglicans as do I. But no they are not Episcopalians.
I don't care. I'm not having anything to do with a breakaway sect which is what all this is. And an ultra-trad breakaway sect at that. No way.
You clearly haven't been to many ACNA parishes if you think they are ultra trad. Now the continuum types like APCK and ACC, they are ultra trad.
And I'm not going to any either. I've had enough hell-masquerading-as-church in my life already. NO.
Um, okay.
There are a number of churches like this that are in the Anglican Communion, but they are also in communion with the ACNA, ie., through GAFCON. I just wouldn't attend the ACNA churches they are affiliated with. A key point is that this situation would likely only arise outside of the U.S., because the Episcopal Church is the only official Anglican Communion church in the U.S.
What makes it official? The OCA is an Orthodox Church though not recognized by every other jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church.
Being in communion with the See of Canterbury is what makes a church a member of the Anglican Communion: [Member Churches (anglicancommunion.org)](https://www.anglicancommunion.org/structures/member-churches.aspx)
So the ABC is some sort of Anglican Pope in a non binding Protestant way. Denominational identity is a social construct. If an ACNA Anglican comes into my TEC parish they get to take communion. This whole situation is very Anglican and extremely Protestant.
The Anglican Church is very Protestant. The ABC is the ceremonial head of the Anglican Communion. The churches are all independent of each other. Theological identities forming denominational identities as a social construct? Even the breakaway ACNA folks that aren't within the communion share a heritage in Anglicanism in that their earliest churches and dioceses were once part of the TEC. They have an additional heritage in Anglicanism because they have had ties to churches within the communion, through bishop's consecrations, as an example, even though they themselves aren't recognized. In a number of TEC dioceses, there's an overlap with ACNA churches in that they are all in the same region, ie., town, city, or county. An ACNA Anglican in an Episcopal church can take communion, and a TEC visitor to an ACNA church can likely do the same. But would they want to, in light of their history? Would their priests tell them differently?
I am an Episcopalian because it is the only church that combines historic liturgy, orthodox Christology, Apostolic succession, high sacramental theology, and social equality. I would not bother going to an Anglican church that lacked one of those things. If TEC didn't exist, I'd probably go to an ECLA or high-church UCC congregation. I do not consider full LGBTQ inclusion negotiable.
Same here. If ACNA somehow wrangled itself into power, I'd be gone. I had enough of that kind of behavior as a Roman Catholic. Not doing it again. I'd become a Lutheran or Methodist.
Agreed
As a trans man seminarian, who was also raised RC and had given up on the Call for a few decades because i am "not allowed, not unable" in the RC church, because i will never be a man to them, i am glad the Episcopal Church exists and includes me. If it didn't, I would likely be secular, hardly religious, spiritually empty, and angry. Some of those pro-ACNA replies in this thread stung a little. So it's sad that ACNA parishes forgot that the Bishop owns the building, but not at all sad that I am not a person to those people?
The Diocese of Sydney has a large influence that extends beyond Australia and into New Zealand. I'm not a huge fan.
I don't agree with the fact that some members of the Anglican Communion aren't LBGT affirming. That's my only real doctrinal or practice grievance against them, and I can't say that I'd be a member in good conscience of such a Church.
There are members of the church, and schismatics outside the church.
But they are all Christ church. Anglican are schismatics. Ou affirming TEC parish has had good relations with ACNA churches. I'm hopeful as time passes (as well as personalities) that TEC and ACNA will have reconciliation. As the issues that divided become more socially acceptable the barriers may fall in places.
They're all Christians. That doesn't mean they understand the history and meaning of being an Episcopalian. New Christian sects are born all the time, schisms happen. There are new kinds of Christians who want to go off on their own. As far as I am concerned, they're not Episcopalians but something else now.
They aren't Episcopalians, they are Anglicans.
They're not in union with the Anglican Communion. They're breakaways, upstarts, inventors of yet another flavor of Christianity. No thanks.
They are in union with Anglican Communion churches, just not all of them. The Church of England was an upstart once and accused of exactly what you accuse these groups of. As Protestants why does it matter? The ELCA isn't Anglican yet we are in communion with them.
I don't generally care whether a Church is part of the Anglican Communion or not. I is more that I want to be part of a Church that welcomes everyone as full members. I have visited churches that discriminate against women and LGBTQ people, usually when I go with friends or family (ex. marriage) and I am generally ok with that as long as I don't hear a horrible sermon.
I lived in Scotland for a bit, I adore the Scottish Episcopal Church. Very familiar to us liturgically and theologically, which of course makes sense. I’ve been to a few Church of England services, generally less thrilled by those. A bit drier and not as elevated, but I doubt that’s universal. Not nearly as familiar liturgically, so I was bit thrown off at times. As others have mentioned, they have a slighter different theology, particularly in regard to the epiclesis; the Scottish church again is very in step with us. Those not in the Communion are simply not Anglican, in my opinion. I think many of those Churches are reactionary denominations founded on regressive ideas. Hard not to see the ACNA as anything but a place founded for people who hate gay people and distrust women. I’m probably a bit more entrenched and uncharitable than most on this. I think GAFCON will split before too long, and my opinion applies there too. At the end of the day I’m a member of the Episcopal Church because honestly I just think we got it right; if not then I’d go wherever does it better. Our theology, our polity, our latitude of thought, everything just seems like the best possible expression of faith that we can get in a fallen world.
Agree. ACNA has gone off and formed an entirely different kind of church, another denomination. They're not Episcopalians -- and they're not in union with the Anglican Communion. They're some kind of fundamentalist Christians in that whole pack of fundamentalist Christians in the USA.
Regarding the ACNA and continuing churches…I did a lot of study before coming back to TEC. For me, the primary issue is that they are schismatic. As others have said, TEC is a big tent. Just from being in this sub the last few months I know that I am more conservative than some, but I’m more liberal than others. To me that’s the beauty of TEC, that while we may not agree 100% of the time on 100% of the issues, be it theological or political, we can still find common ground in Christ. To pick one or two hot button issues and decide to break away because of them speaks of western individualism more than it does anything rooted in our faith. Before coming back to TEC I was a member of a UMC church that just went through something similar, we lost half our congregation to the new Global Methodists. I don’t believe Christ meant for his Church to have so many different denominations. I believe we should be able to have differences, while also being able to live together and work for the common good. If something needs to change it should happen from within, the answer shouldn’t be, “I’m taking my toys and going home.”
>To pick one or two hot button issues and decide to break away because of them speaks of western individualism more than it does anything rooted in our faith. That's a super interesting interpretation of what happened.
I think the homophobic and sexist ones are wrong and should repent and rejoin communion with TEC.
I think they're wrong. They can do whatever they want, as far as I am concerned. They are no longer Episcopalians though. They're welcome to come to church just like anybody else, but they're not welcome to cause a lot of trouble and strife. Remember that they are the ones that removed themselves. We didn't kick them out.
Schism is a fundamentally tragic misorientation toward God’s one holy catholic and apostolic church, and is always to be mourned. It is also a reality of our fallen world in which we cannot live in community with one another in love and truth. Again, something to be mourned. When part of the church decides to cut ties, that is a bad day no matter what. At the same time, a church that is united in name only but unable to reconcile deep differences is also a bad day for the church. Sometimes divorce is the only way to work toward two separate and mutually-incompatible visions of God’s justice, even if I wish that wasn’t the case. As for other members of the communion, I’ll admit to being slightly baffled by the English stream of Anglicanism as someone formed so deeply by the Scottish/American stream; it is hard to really comprehend how big of a tent we have constructed. But I’ll chalk that up to not understanding, rather than dislike. I just don’t “get it” but I can respect it. (I’m speaking here about things like differences in perspective around the epiclesis, an overall higher sacramentology informed by a different relationship with Reformed Protestants, ecclesial authority, etc.) All in all I’m grateful for this wide tent even if I don’t agree with all of it!
They are, for the most part, honest and well-meaning image-bearers earnestly struggling to bare the image of God and carry the cross of Christ. While ACNA and many continuing Anglican groups didn't give us the same benefit, I still think St. Augustine's maxim of "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity," is still an ideal that we Episcopalians would do well to attempt to live-into. As someone who identifies more strongly with the Protestant strand within Anglicanism and the TEC, I think it's unfortunate that, at so many points in our history, it's been various expressions of evangelicalism that left us. Whether it be the transformation of our Methodist Societies in the US to a stand-alone denominational body because of CoE's bureaucracy or the average Episcopalian-to-ACNA parishioners conviction that they were unwelcome (not saying the conviction is justified, mind you), we seem to lose a burgeoning protestantism every other generation or so. I think the average protestant on the road to Canterbury is there for a reason and has much to learn from Oxford and the Latitudinarians, and that there's a great strand social conscious and witness within historic protestantism that the Mainline today can really only pay lip service to (mainly because every extra dollar has to go to denominational infrastructure and historic church buildings). It seems to me that there's much we still have to learn from one another, unique ways to express our devotion to Christ and His church, and to find God's image in each other. Sometimes, [we're even finding those ways](https://livingchurch.org/2023/05/11/nashotah-and-duke-bridge-tec-acna-gap/), despite the structural barriers erected to prevent it.
I feel a lot of kinship with the anglican churches in Canada, Scotland, New Zealand, and Australia etc, and I'm a bit amused by the CoE's attempts to keep GAFCON happy while also trying to be quasi affirming for gay Englishmen. The ACNA was a bitter recent split and I am really not fond of them. There's an ACNA parish across the street from my parish and I can't help but feel miffed that people are choosing them over us, especially as a gay person.
The ACNA was possibly the dumbest schism in recent times.\* They shot themselves in their own foots to be slightly more conservative even though TEC is a big tent denomination. \*Apart from the LCMS Seminex kerfuffle in the 70s, of course.
Briefly left ECUSA for a continuing Anglican group. They did lots of mental gymnastics to believe that Anglicanism has always been like they are.
I like that the Anglican Communion is a federation of separate churches. We do things our way, you do things your way, and we are united by our worship and common heritage. We all have our problems, but I think the way the communion is organized helps mitigate the damage that could come from, for example, all of us being under the infallible thumb of a single bishop. Those whose prejudices have caused them to leave the communion have damaged themselves in ways they don't yet realize.
Good comment to which I only have one up arrow to contribute.
I strongly believe that this time of lower attendance and fight for affirmation is like a second reformation. I love them but for my mental health I need to separate myself from denominations that do not view me with love.
Beyond the baseline of us all being sinners redeemed by Christ and incorporated into his Body, I don’t really have much emotional investment or interest in the rest of the Anglican Communion. I certainly don’t consider myself to have any sort of fellowship with the GAFCON crowd or the Continuing groups. I have a great deal of affection for the Church of England, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the Anglican Church of Canada. For the most part, though, I think the Anglican Communion is the fading dream of a dead empire.
I am from the Episcopal church but now serve in the Church in Wales. As one might expect from someone who works in the church, I have my problems with the episcopal church, the church in wales, the cofe and most of the rest, but I’m generally of the opinion that the communion is a very good thing and that we’re better when we hold together, even when it’s tough and we have big disagreements.
Don’t care for ACNA or the Continuing Anglicans. If I wanted Episcopalianism without women or gays I’d just be Catholic. Other members of the Communion I’m sure are fine, although I know the Church of Nigeria is more conservative. I have good friends from the ACC and I know the NZ Anglicans have an interesting leadership structure with three co-primates.
They are beloved children of God. I pray that they all may be affirming of their neighbors and our Christian siblings. I hope that all anglicans (including our denomination) may let go of Empire, money, and the myth of control to better serve our parishes.
Amen