State of the Anglican Communion...

[Aymn27]

It appears that a realignment is coming closer to a reality. I was wondering where you all stood as to what you would do should that occur.

[SeenAndUnseen]

I selected "Associate with whatever body becomes recognized by the AC", but only optimistically. I would hope that my own parish would remain within the AC and whatever body is officially recognized, but I also know that I am loyal to my parish and I do not see myself leaving it over a realignment. These are trying times.

[cenimo]

My wife and I like the church we're in right now but the way things are going we can't see putting Episcopalian, or Anglican or any denomination ahead of Scripture.

We just look at the "label" outside of any church as almost meaningless and figure most churches have true believers - and doubting Thomases.

The more any church or any denomination gets away from the Crucifixion and Resurrection and argues issues, the weaker it gets.

[higgs2]

No way would I even consider leaving ECUSA. I am so incredibly proud and pleased to be a member. I admire Bishop Griswold immensely. I don't think we will leave the AC, but if we are forced to, I imagine we will go forward and continue working towards love and charity and justice for all of God's people.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

I voted "Associate with whatever body becomes recognized by the AC", though I am deeply loyal to ECUSA. I hope we continue to be a part of the Communion.

[CFoxDWH]

I love my priest and my congregation, but I refuse to be just another Protestant breakaway group. I hope that my church would not break away if (if, not when) the Communion splits. If they did, well, I don't know. I guess either the new American branch or Orthodoxy.

[romaneagle13]

I kinda feel the same as CFox. I am not really sure what I would do then. I suppose it would have to happen and then I would make a decision. I have considered three options--remaining in the ECUSA, switching to the resulting AC branch or joining the ELCA. But as it stands I don't really feel that I am ready to make a decision, especially as the split has not yet occurred.

[ContraMundum]

I'm a Continuer. We were kicked out/broke away some time ago. Over a decade on, it's the best thing that ever happened to us. We don't have to deal with our consciences being snuffed out by those who believe that the Spirit is calling them to further refoms and we don't lose our property to large diocesan bodies who later just shut down the churches and sell them to people wanting them to be art galleries. That's not to sound harsh, but once you've lived it you just can't describe it any other way. I love all Christians, even my liberal brethren, but cannot live under the power of those who think I'm no longer valuable.

To be frank, leaving (or being booted out of) the Canterbury communion has been a blessing, and "recognition" by Canterbury is no longer an issue either. They've basically acknowledged that our Continuing body is legitimately Anglican. They've had no choice. Furthermore, now that talks with Rome are nearing stages that appear to be final, our path has paved the way to the greater Christian unity that has eluded the ARCIC for a long time. Further blessing has been the tremendous growth of continuing bodies, most notably from Africa, where even the Canterbury communion bishops fully support and even endorse the continuing movement in the western nations.

I admire those friends who have not left the CAnterbury communion but have stayed the course through organisations like Forward in Faith. It's a tough battle, mainly for episcopal oversight, but worth the fight.

It's a good time for Continuers. No one should be afraid of becoming a Continuing Anglican anymore. Continuers have recognition, energy, zeal and most of all strength in faith.

[Zacharias]

Fr. Onesimus
Are you an Eastern Orthodox priest? :)

[svdbygrace]

Being an non-Offical Anglican I don't know what I would really do if this took place. I like what I have learned, and found out about the ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion. :thumbsup: However, I have found some things I just can't agree with, but that's the beauty of Anglicanism... ;) :)

[Leonard]

Are you an Eastern Orthodox priest? :)

I'm with the Charismatic Episcopal Church. Theologically we're definitely more closely related to Orthodoxy than to ECUSA, but we are a separate organization with lines of Apostolic Succession through Rome, Canterbury, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

[Father Rick]

I'm with the Charismatic Episcopal Church. Theologically we're definitely more closely related to Orthodoxy than to ECUSA, but we are a separate organization with lines of Apostolic Succession through Rome, Canterbury, and Eastern Orthodoxy.FYI... Freak4JC was part of an ICCEC parish for quite some time.

Technically your icon should probably be 'Anglican' rather than 'Orthodox'....

Or even 'Old Catholic' since the ICCEC's line of succession is from Old Catholic lines...

[Zacharias]

I'm with the Charismatic Episcopal Church. Theologically we're definitely more closely related to Orthodoxy than to ECUSA, but we are a separate organization with lines of Apostolic Succession through Rome, Canterbury, and Eastern Orthodoxy.

Like Fr. Rick said I used to be ICCEC. Nice to meet you. :wave:

[Aymn27]

FYI... Freak4JC was part of an ICCEC parish for quite some time.

Technically your icon should probably be 'Anglican' rather than 'Orthodox'....

Or even 'Old Catholic' since the ICCEC's line of succession is from Old Catholic lines...
Actually it is from the National Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil and is just one "step" away from Roman Succession - at least that's the one they promote!

[john23237]

Yes, I do see hope. The serious problem is the failure to communicate. Remove that burden, and we'll finally have a level of stability unlike ever before.




As the old line goes, from your lips to God's ears. I can think of no greater blessing for us than that your assessment is correct in this regard. Lambeth 2008 is only a few years away and, frankly, I would expect nothing less than a spiritual bloodbath, but I pray that I am wrong. Perhaps the young people of our Communion can communicate with one another, develop an understanding of mutual respect, and work for the common good without selling out our beliefs or any group within the Body of Christ. I will pray that your efforts in this regard are realized. Regardless of the final outcome, bless you for trying. John.

[Inside Edge]

The real issue, for me, has little to do with one camp's interpretations of scripture or adherence to tradition. I joined the Anglican Church because of its members' ability to co-exist in the presence of disagreement over one thing or another. I don't see why any given party simply cannot say, "Hey, you're welcome to that point of view or interpretation, but I won't be practicing or preaching it..." To my knowledge, the AC doesn't make a habit of drawing lines and kicking people out. If people want to leave, they can leave. If it decides to take the "ask people to leave" course - then fine, they're not the church I thought they were and I'll be sad for a while, but content to remain a part of whatever the ACoC continues to be.

But luckily (hopefully?), I don't think that will be the course of action. The internet (this site not excluded) is a haven for those who are hardcore. And I don't necessarily mean hardcore about their faith - perhaps so, but moreso about their opinions. And so, we read here an awful lot from people who can't find anywhere else to hear themselves complain, and/or, people who feel by typing it for the public to read will somehow exact some influence on the topic. It seems to me there is a small minority out there who actually want or feel or are of the opinion that schism or separation or whatever is actally necessary (or even coming). There's a few wingnut bishops out there of the same nature, but I think they too are in the minority.

The majority, I find, are quite close to what Paladin Valer has inferred: people who may have one opinion about one thing or another but are prepared to move on without all the excessive drama and extremist talk. If the leaders of the Communion are at all equipped to deal with the management of the Church, then they'll act on behalf of that majority.

[Fish and Bread]

Well said! I fear it will fall upon deaf ears, but well said. The one thing I have learned on these boards is that with young men like you and Paladin Valer in our churches, schism or not, the future of the ECUSA will be bright. Keep up the good work guys. It may sound trite, but you are our future and we are blessed to have you.

Thank you very much for your kind words. :)

John

[trooper]

There is supposed to be a meeting in L.A. this next weekend between liberal and conservative bishops to discuss the situation in the US. There is some talk that they are really just going to discuss how to divide property, etc. "the divorce is happening, now we just have to decide who gets the stuff, and try not to upset the children" is how I have seen it described. That will be quite telling, I think.

[pmcleanj]

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31242&stc=1&thumb=1Ladies and gentlemen,

This is an official moderator post.

I apologize for my absence of the last three days, due to unexpected problems I encountered on a business trip.

Let me remind you of some basic rules.

First and foremost, this site is a ministry with the mission statement "uniting all Christians as one Body". That's not just for mutual support purposes, but primarily because when we are united in mutual support, we are more effective in our witness to the world. The ugliness of internal squabbles handicaps our fulfillment of the great commission. Remember, everytime you see "guest" up in the "active users" header, you are seeing the words of this forum acting as witness.

Decent, honest and honourable, mutually respectful words, are therefore absolutely mandated for this site. Please review the site rules (http://www.christianforums.com/rules). Certain of the rules have been violated in this thread, so I wish to remind you of those rules in particular:

You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. Choose your language respectfully. This is not the place for school-yard slurs.
You will not post anything that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. There are ways to disagree while still building unity.
You will not post anything that puts down or belittles any Christian group or denomination. The Bishops of the Church are our shepherds: disrespect and mockery of them is disrespect for the position they hold. Respectful denunciation of doctrine with which you disagree is part of your heritage as an Anglican, but derogatory name-calling is not, and will not be permitted.
You may not debate specified contraversial topics, of which homosexuality is one. Understand that discussing how the issues surrounding homosexuality may affect the Church is permitted here. However, discussing the morality or immorality of homosexuality itself is a violation of this rule.


Posts that violate these rules will be deleted or editted, or you will be asked to edit them. Posts that violate rule 4 will be moved to the appropriate forum, where you will have 24 hours to conform to the rules of that forum by providing independent citations that support your opinions.

You may wish to go back and review your threads in these posts, and proactively remove any rule violations. More importantly, you may wish to review your posts and see where you have been a stumbling block to your brothers and sisters, or where you have been a negative witness to our lurkers, and ammend those posts, with apologies where, after prayer and reflection, you feel such apologies may be necessary.

Regards,
Pamela Mclean

[higgs2]

There is supposed to be a meeting in L.A. this next weekend between liberal and conservative bishops to discuss the situation in the US. There is some talk that they are really just going to discuss how to divide property, etc. "the divorce is happening, now we just have to decide who gets the stuff, and try not to upset the children" is how I have seen it described. That will be quite telling, I think.

Where did you hear this?

[pmcleanj]

Closed for staff review and clean-up

[pmcleanj]

Please limit discussion to the State of the Anglican Communion. Specific controversial issues affecting the state of the Anglican Communion may be debated in Philosophy and Morality, provided that posters conform with P&M rules.

[UberLutheran]

The internet (this site not excluded) is a haven for those who are hardcore. And I don't necessarily mean hardcore about their faith - perhaps so, but moreso about their opinions. And so, we read here an awful lot from people who can't find anywhere else to hear themselves complain, and/or, people who feel by typing it for the public to read will somehow exact some influence on the topic. It seems to me there is a small minority out there who actually want or feel or are of the opinion that schism or separation or whatever is actally necessary (or even coming). There's a few wingnut bishops out there of the same nature, but I think they too are in the minority.

Case in point: when I went to the synod assembly in May, many people considered me a "wild-eyed radical" for daring to suggest that opposing sides "agree to disagree" and opt to focus on things where we really could have some influence.

Last week, here at work (I work in an IT department) I have been described as "religiously conservative" because I don't work on Sundays, I observe the Sabbath (albeit on Sunday), and am religiously observant. Our yearly sales meeting begins this weekend, with a large party beginning on Sunday. My reaction to a Sunday party was a shocked, "But it's the SABBATH!" -- and my manager responded, "Why, those HEATHEN!" -- and we both laughed.

[Fish and Bread]

It appears my earlier comments were removed, but I did still wait to weigh in briefly. I'll be sticking with ECUSA, which I think is a wonderful Christian fellowship where the Spirit of Christ is alive and well. I've found a home there and plan on staying for a very long time. :)

John

[julian the apostate]

inside edge<<for daring to suggest that opposing sides "agree to disagree"


is there something i am missing?
why is that so hard to do?

[Inside Edge]

Case in point: when I went to the synod assembly in May, many people considered me a "wild-eyed radical" for daring to suggest that opposing sides "agree to disagree"...

That was actually Uberlutheran...just to clarify :)

[trooper]

In answer to the earlier question about the meeting in LA, I don't know where I first read about it. I know that if you want to check you can Google something like "episcopal bishop LA meeting" or something like that and read about it. I think that it is supposed to be representative of the various factions: Bp. Duncan will be there and I assume whoever his counterpart is will be as well.

[bfoos]

Being an non-Offical Anglican I don't know what I would really do if this took place. I like what I have learned, and found out about the ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion. :thumbsup: However, I have found some things I just can't agree with, but that's the beauty of Anglicanism... ;) :)

I'm sorry...can we just get over this strange obsession with diversity in it's oh, so modern, or post-modern form? Anglicanism is not, historically, or doctrinally, or in any other way (other than modernity's re-invention of it) obsessed with the contemporary notion of diversity and tolerance.

Anglicanism has been broad in the sense of allowing lattitude in adiaphora. In things essential, however, Anglicanism has always been Catholic and Creedal. In other words, Anglicanism, to be true to what it is, must be dogmatic about the catholic faith and practice as it has always been expounded and practiced.

This great diversity in it's comtemporary application (i.e. homosexual bishops, et. al.) is as foreign to true Anglicanism as it is to any orthodox jurisdiction--unfortunately, America leads the way in contemporary diversity and the Episcopal Church has let itself be influenced way beyond belief.

She seems to be in the midst of suffering the consequences at the moment--application of pressure from the 3rd world bishops and eventual expulsion from the Communion, or so it looks.



Sorry for the soapbox...just very tired of this apparent buy-in that Anglicanism is the religion of the Post-Modern world. Many have tried to make it so...but it just doesn't work--or rather, it ain't the same animal after you've castrated it and done the gene-therapy....

[PaladinValer]

There will be no split anytime soon. Not until, at the absolute very earliest, 2008 Lambeth.

And I might remind everyone that only the ABC has the right to declare who is in the Communion.

The Communion could go back to stability if all sides would effect their moratoriums (which some have and some have not) and actually talk. Of course, with radicals on both sides, this will not be easy, but the less extremes on the sides as well as the moderates can work things out.

As for the extremers, if they want it their way and their way only, then they can, by all means, split. The rest won't shed tears in the way they may think.

[thejesusfish90]

I hope I can manage to post this in the most respectful and rule adherent way possible... As a note to this post I mean it not as an attack upon liberal viewpoints, rather just an examplanation of what has been labelled as an 'extremist' rationale.... From the perspective of my self, my church, my diocese and most of the global south of our communion (Comprising the majority of the anglican church), which being in nature largely conservative, I see maitaining communion with a body which inadvertently accepts and ratifies the ordination and consecration of activily homsexual bishops and clergy and the blessing of their unions, by accpeting and maintaining communion with those who practice these rites (although have ceased, however without apology and repentance) as indicative of an acceptance by association of these practices on behalf of my doicese, my church and myself, which directly contradicts with my/our thoughts regarding this issue... What I am saying simply is that while we are in communion with the anglican church as it stands I am inadvertently supporting practices, which in my understanding of scripture are contrary to the teachings of the scripture, which are in this understanding of scripture inherrently sinful, with one party by their actions suggesting that it is not sinful and the other declaring that it is sinful.... If sin cannot be known or accepted to be sin, then we are incapable of repenting of it, and when we are called to christ we are called to repent of our sins and follow him.... Thus if membership in the body of the anglican church provides my unwitting assent to this than I am also declaring that they are not sinful, and am thus denying the oppurtunity to repent of (what I regard as) their sins... Thus I cannot really see my self remaining part of the anglican church as it is understood today excepting repentance on behalf of ACoC and ECUSA in regards to the ordination of active homosexuals and the blessing of their unions....

lol... I hope that this rambling has made any kind of coherent sense... :P

In Christ

Chris

[Inside Edge]

That made perfect sense, it's just unfortunate that your spiritual identity depends so greatly on what other churches only generally associated with yours practice and believe...especially if it only hinges on the one issue you mentioned.

For example, some of (what I might consider) the nasty practices or beliefs of "Global South" churches, priests, and bishops only affect me insofar as it upsets me and I hope their practices will change for the better. However, I'm completely comfortable and confident in my own beliefs, my local parish's and diocese's practices and teachings, regardless of those things across the world which I think should not be done. If someone takes offense to me by association with "them," I only have to explain that everything about everyone is not the same everywhere, and that I personally don't do those things.

My beliefs, faith, and reputation have little to do with their doings - they are simply a part of the Communion who does things differently (at least, for now).

[thejesusfish90]

Through association however, people immediately percieve likeness in thought, and practice... By being part of a body which indeed validifies these kinds of practices and happily remaining in communion with them, then I am inadvertently supporting this, my lack of action and full association with these bodies declare my support, while yes people on the inside may know that we are opposed to this, will people on the outside know? Do non-anglicans know that the anglican church is organised in such a way that there can be division in thought and theology whilst unity? Will I have to tell every single person who I reveal my anglicanism to that I am a Sydney anglican and possess some different views to the rest of the communion, and if by not telling them passing my own unwitting acceptance of the acts of members of the communion who remain members even despite actions which (in my perspective) go against scripture? Will the diocese and entire global south have to get up and say "Wait no, what they're saying isn't nessesarily correct"? If that is the case and given the severity of the issue (It regards a matter of what constitutes sin) then the question is begged can we realistically remain part of the anglican church?

In Christ

Chris

[ahab]

Hi Inside Edge,

For example, some of (what I might consider) the nasty practices or beliefs of "Global South" churches, priests, and bishops only affect me insofar as it upsets me and I hope their practices will change for the better. I think the problem is that the rest of the communion in general not just the global south considers one particular practice of the ECUSA and Canadian provinces unacceptable full stop. This is reagrdless of any other nasty practices we might think certain other provinces have.
So the reality is that there may be many nasty practices accross the communion but one being promoted by the ECUSA and Candian churches is a deal breaker.

Peace:)

[pmcleanj]

This is an official moderator post.

Do Not Discuss Homosexuality in this Thread.
It may lead to your posts being deleted, or to you receiving warnings.

[thejesusfish90]

I sent out a couple of PM's regarding my posts... and I want to express my apologies for violating the forums rules... I understand that what I discussed is a sensetive topic and am very sorry for trying to raise it in the forums....

In Christ

Chris

[PaladinValer]

I hope I can manage to post this in the most respectful and rule adherent way possible... As a note to this post I mean it not as an attack upon liberal viewpoints, rather just an examplanation of what has been labelled as an 'extremist' rationale.

Did you read what I said? Did I call all conservatives "extremists"? Did I say the same of liberals? No.

Unless you personally consider yourself to be such, what then have you to worry of?

From the perspective of my self, my church, my diocese and most of the global south of our communion (Comprising the majority of the anglican church), which being in nature largely conservative, I see maitaining communion with a body which inadvertently accepts and ratifies the ordination and consecration of activily homsexual bishops and clergy and the blessing of their unions, by accpeting and maintaining communion with those who practice these rites (although have ceased, however without apology and repentance) as indicative of an acceptance by association of these practices on behalf of my doicese, my church and myself, which directly contradicts with my/our thoughts regarding this issue.

The fact of autocephalousy remains intact. What needs to be done is to bridge the massive communication gap.

What I am saying simply is that while we are in communion with the anglican church as it stands I am inadvertently supporting practices,

False. Autocephalousy, remember? That's the key point.

[ContraMundum]

That made perfect sense, it's just unfortunate that your spiritual identity depends so greatly on what other churches only generally associated with yours practice and believe...especially if it only hinges on the one issue you mentioned.

I would have to chip in a say that all of our spiritual identity is deeply tied up with those we are communion with, indeed the whole body of Christ. If one part suffers, we all suffer. The body of Christ is a living organism.

Actually, the issue mentioned is not that important because it's a symptom of something else. What liles beneath it is far more important to Continuers and orthodox Anglicans. What lies beneath is a paradigm that seems obsessed with changes that are novel and therefore offend other historic denominations no end.

It's like a fantasy the radical movers are living out at our expense.

They seem to think that by ridding themselves of the traditions that have been common to all and then adding new modern ones that somehow all the other Christians will follow. The sad news is that this will never happen. Rome will never do as Canterbury, nor will the Orthodox. Some protestants may (indeed some did it first), but really, that is about all.

But, because the radical movers have the centres of training, teaching and authority in the church, they make disciples with ruthless efficency who in turn pass the new tradition on. It's really an oligarchy. Everything the Reformers accused Rome of the new movers and shakers are doing to us little Anglicans in the pews. If you don't like it, you're out, even though you're following in the footsteps of your fathers. They now even involve civil authorities to enforce their new reign. It's very strange and in the end, the orthodox will be forced to leave.

But, as CB Moss put it, schism is the alteration of catholic faith and order. The orthodox Anglicans can't be accused of that.

However, I'm completely comfortable and confident in my own beliefs, my local parish's and diocese's practices and teachings, regardless of those things across the world which I think should not be done. If someone takes offense to me by association with "them," I only have to explain that everything about everyone is not the same everywhere, and that I personally don't do those things.

...but because we are all one body in Christ, what others do does effect us, even if we don't "feel" like it does.

It does because we are one body!

My beliefs, faith, and reputation have little to do with their doings - they are simply a part of the Communion who does things differently (at least, for now).

I think this is sad.

The Anglican communion has been more diverse since the Reformation, I'll grant that. However, that doesn't mean that diversity has no boundaries, and we all agree on that.

But now as time has moved on since then, formal diversity is in fact material schism. Each diocese votes on what it thinks is right. This to me proves that no one really knows what to believe in the end, so they put it to vote, and each diocese votes differently. That's not unity, that's a shambles. That's not being steadfast in the faith once delivered, that's being blown by every wind of doctrine.

Think about it. Please.

[thejesusfish90]

lol, to begin with an apology again, Im sorry if I sounded like I was attacking your post PV in my first post in this thread, I was being a little too dramatic, I don't regard myself as a conservative extremist, but im sure that I'd be considered so in the eyes of many, and I got the feeling that mine was considered to be an extremist viewpoint, again sorry for the misinterpretation....



The fact of autocephalousy remains intact. What needs to be done is to bridge the massive communication gap.




Reffer to my 2nd last post... association with the body and membership in this communion is enough to suggest support, the act of being in communion with another body is that of being of sufficient agreement with them that you can affirm the fact that while no you may not agree with everything they do, all important bases are covered, conservative groups indeed regard this issue as being of massive importance (again it deals with what sin actually is)...If there is such intense disagreement on this issue, again can we realistically maintain unity? Yes our province is autocephalous, but do the general non-anglican public know this? My assertion was that the public would percieve agreement on our behalf regarding this issue, which is a major concern for me (especially in Australia where the anglican church is probably similar in nominal size and influence with the Roman Catholic Church)... I will definately agree however, Commication is indeed nessesary and I do not agree with people being unwilling to talk, however I nor my diocese will budge from our position, which I can imagine will effectively hinder communication....

In Christ

Chris

[PaladinValer]

No, it doesn't suggest support. Unless Lambeth canon is changed, your argument doesn't make any logical sense.

[Fish and Bread]

I wanted to respond to a few themes here:

1. Firstly, changing beliefs may or may not be a bad thing. The scriptures say Jesus only revealed to us what we were ready for and the Holy Spirit would guide us thereafter in all things. That implies some degree of change. Now, we can't continue to be catholic and orthodox if the *essentials* of the faith change -- i.e. who Jesus was, what he did, and why he did it -- but our application of those essentials can and will change at certain points if we follow the words of the scripture. I mean that in a broad rather than a specific way, not just related to any one issue. Change can be a great sacrifice, but on occasion it's what God calls us to.

2. Secondly, it is impossible to keep everything exactly the same. Because the world around us changes and our scientific and culture understanding of that world changes, even keeping the same rules and practices now presupposes different things than it once did. For example, people who believe 7-day creation today are actively rejecting scientific evidence and know they're actively rejecting it, meaning the belief is in a very different context than 1,000 years ago when all Christians believed in 7-day creation.

3. I do sympathize with some who feel indentified with things they don't endorse because of their denominational affiliation. I know that can causes problems and embarassment for folks as they're out and about in their communities. It's one thing to be embarassed about something you *do* believe, and another thing to have to face that over something you don't. So even though I may endorse some of the things you may be embarassed about, I still understand why this may negatively impact you and I apologize for any problems this is causing folks, though unfortunately from my perspective it is difficult to avoid while holding to my faith, though some of the impact is regretable in some respects.

John

[ahab]

What I am saying simply is that while we are in communion with the anglican church as it stands I am inadvertently supporting practices,
yes I agree with you thejesusfish90, :)

[ahab]

Hi PaladinValer,

No, it doesn't suggest support. Unless Lambeth canon is changed, your argument doesn't make any logical sense. Well to me yes it does. The question is why would it be important for anyone whether Lambeth cannon was changed or not, if they were at liberty to either adhere to it or not.

Peace:)

[PaladinValer]

That isn't a logical nor sound argument because the Communion is autocephalous.

[ContraMundum]

I wanted to respond to a few themes here:

1. Firstly, changing beliefs may or may not be a bad thing.

Actually, it's not allowed at all. It's therefore a bad thing. Jude 3 etc etc

The scriptures say Jesus only revealed to us what we were ready for and the Holy Spirit would guide us thereafter in all things.

Not exactly. The Holy Spirit was promised to the Apostles to bring to remembrance what He taught them. That's why we consider their faith in their writings inspired, and not Spong's. There is no "ongoing" revelation promised regarding doctrine. One deposit of faith, that's all. The Holy Spirit leads us back to the original revelation, not to a new one. Once for all.

Unless I've misunderstood you, I think that pretty much sums up what every Christian up until modernism reared its ugly head was convinced of.

Change can be a great sacrifice, but on occasion it's what God calls us to.

He charges us to change to conform to the faith once received, not to change the faith once recieved, there's a difference. Change to revert and conform to truth, not change the truth to advance.

2. Secondly, it is impossible to keep everything exactly the same. Because the world around us changes and our scientific and culture understanding of that world changes, even keeping the same rules and practices now presupposes different things than it once did. For example, people who believe 7-day creation today are actively rejecting scientific evidence and know they're actively rejecting it, meaning the belief is in a very different context than 1,000 years ago when all Christians believed in 7-day creation.

Massive problem here from my perspective at least.

Depends on who's science you want to believe. Depends on which set of criteria you choose to filter your thoughts through. In any case, the scriptures do not change. That's not me saying that, that's Jesus. You know the verses. I don't like disagreeing with Him.

When scientists are saying that everything you were taught in school about long ages and evolution is not exactly a closed case and new debates are opening, you'd better think about your faith in science and how you alter your beliefs according to the fancies of the day! Sciences will change theories an awful lot in your lifetime, but the scriptures won't.

[Fish and Bread]

Actually, [change is] not allowed at all. It's therefore a bad thing. Jude 3 etc etc

Change is part of life, my friend. Now, I don't want to be misunderstood here -- there are truths and moral laws that are eternal. Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. God is love. We are to love God and love one another. Sometimes, though, we do not fully understand the teachings that have been given to us. For example, implicit in Christianity is the ill-adviseability of slavery, but in many quarters the bible was used to condone slavery as late as the 19th century. We're fallible humans and we didn't always fully understand God's will for us in that area, but with the help of the Holy Spirit God has leading us closer to his will and a proper understanding of the scriptures.

There is no "ongoing" revelation promised regarding doctrine.

Then why did Jesus say that he was not telling us everything and that there were some things that we could not yet bare to hear? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe God's will for us changes, right and wrong is a constant, but I do believe sometimes we don't properly understand God's will immediately and through study and prayer begin to know it more fully.

John

[Simon_Templar]

The true christian faith can not change, if it does it has become less true and less christian. The word true, truth etc, is a term of relationship between a standard and things measured by that standard. The christian faith is true only as it adheres to the standard of God revealed in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Writ which was given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit through the apostles.

Thus, if we change our faith in any significant way from the traditions and teachings laid down by the apostles under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we have become less true and less christian. This is the point C.S. Lewis was arguing in Mere Christianity... if you change the core doctrines of the faith, the faith you have is no longer christian. It is something else.

Furthermore, to suggest that ongoing revelation can change the faith is tantamount to suggesting that God changes. God is eternaly unchanging, it is we who must change and conform to him.. not He who must change and conform to our culture.

[Inside Edge]

But now as time has moved on since then, formal diversity is in fact material schism. Each diocese votes on what it thinks is right. This to me proves that no one really knows what to believe in the end, so they put it to vote, and each diocese votes differently. That's not unity, that's a shambles. That's not being steadfast in the faith once delivered, that's being blown by every wind of doctrine.

This is the only convincing line of thought I've seen on the "split" issue, and I would agree with it. Yes indeed, it may be fair to say we're not really a Communion as it stands now, in reality. That each diocese is so different in so many different ways (theologically, traditionally, etc), that in effect, we don't fit the common definition of Communion. I would agree, but where I draw my line is that I don't believe the various sub-divisions need to to stop recognizing each other's validity. So yes, it can be argued that my "definition" of Communion is pretty weak. If the AC broke into 10 separate churches, gave themselves all different names, but still recognized each other (in the sense that we were all Christians and a member of one church would be welcome at the table of another), then I'd have no problem splitting the whole thing up. But it seems to me that historically, people don't like to part ways softly - schism or realignment or whatever usually involves accusations and failure to even treat the other organization or group with any sort of respect.

Through association however, people immediately percieve likeness in thought, and practice... By being part of a body which indeed validifies these kinds of practices and happily remaining in communion with them, then I am inadvertently supporting this, my lack of action and full association with these bodies declare my support...

First, I say again, I personally don't care what people percieve of my religious attitudes, particularly if they don't ask. I think it's a bad thing to let other's perceptions dictate how I feel about myself or other people, for the most part. Secondly, you're not inadvertently supporting anything. If you speak out against it, if you make efforts in your own community to 'not adopt' things you disagree with, if you take advantage of whatever opportunities arise to educate or testify to those you disagree with outside of your local church, then you are not lacking in action. I believe the "get lost" approach is extreme and unecessary (and even unGodly).

And your case goes both ways: why don't you look at it from the other side? That those who are not in agreement with you are implicitly supporting your views? It seems to me that the root of this argument or feeling is a lack of confidence or a fear of something else.


Furthermore, to suggest that ongoing revelation can change the faith is tantamount to suggesting that God changes. God is eternaly unchanging, it is we who must change and conform to him.. not He who must change and conform to our culture.

You know, this is something that might need its own thread. But, to digress a little:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and my thoughts on it are in no way solidified. Now, God may well be unchanging, but what does that mean? Relative to us or Him? If God is the Alpha and Omega, is present at the beginning and end simultaneously, then that means there can be a billion changes in the universe but He remains unchanged. If I exist at all points in time, at the inception and finish, then any fluxuations in creation are constant to me - they have happened and I know it, and so it matters not where or when I am in my creation. It's all constant.

But what about from the creation's point of view? We're subject to an unknown future, to living in some form of linear time. To us, things can and do change. Any change experienced or perceived by us, however, is still a constant to a being which "is" at all points in time and creation.

So what I'm getting at is that God can be unchanging - but things can change drastically in our world, while to God, history is just one big, unchanging state.

Who did I lose? :)

[SeenAndUnseen]

God is unchanging, but our understanding of Him is imperfect. Our understanding of God is based on what we are given in scripture, what we can divine by reason, and what is handed down in tradition. God is too big to be trapped in anyone's frame, and too powerful to be expected to behave properly (ie; always the way we anticipate, based on our limited and imperfect understanding.)
Revelation is ongoing. If it weren't, we would already be able to fully comprehend God. We would be in His presence.
Christianity does have basic truths. The words of Christ are in red in most New Testaments I have seen. The words from his own mouth are few as recorded, but as long as the Church is doing her best to carry out the work of the Kingdom of God according to those ways, she is practicing Christianity and following Christ, in good conscience, in the context of whatever place and time we find ourselves in, to the best of her ability, in the name of Jesus Christ. What more is there, really?

[julian the apostate]

contra<<When scientists are saying that everything you were taught in school about long ages and evolution is not exactly a closed case and new debates are opening, you'd better think about your faith in science and how you alter your beliefs according to the fancies of the day! Sciences will change theories an awful lot in your lifetime, but the scriptures won't.


this is where the fundies fall apart completely, and any conversation becomes tedious
they can know who is in and out of the kingdom of heaven
and deny basic science that is right before them

i need to know about one work of lasting art , literature , scientific contribution made by fundamentalists in the last 150 years or so (the only 150 yrs they have been around)

at a point i understand that this is how your faith works, you probably cant help it, that is what i tell myself anyway to provide a buttress against my darker feelings that it is simply a sub-cult of christianity ,

but when people come from that viewpoint and then decide who is in and who is out
it is a bit alarming and we are forced to ask ourselves

do they have a religion or a pathology?

i wouldnt want to stand by and watch the anglican communion become the sbc

i understand that the internet brings out the more medieval viewpoints of christianity, it is what it is

sorry just had to say all that

the fundies may one day find out how many people they have stumbled by their eccentric beliefs

[john23237]

Through association however, people immediately percieve likeness in thought, and practice... By being part of a body which indeed validifies these kinds of practices and happily remaining in communion with them, then I am inadvertently supporting this, my lack of action and full association with these bodies declare my support, while yes people on the inside may know that we are opposed to this, will people on the outside know? Do non-anglicans know that the anglican church is organised in such a way that there can be division in thought and theology whilst unity? Will I have to tell every single person who I reveal my anglicanism to that I am a Sydney anglican and possess some different views to the rest of the communion, and if by not telling them passing my own unwitting acceptance of the acts of members of the communion who remain members even despite actions which (in my perspective) go against scripture? Will the diocese and entire global south have to get up and say "Wait no, what they're saying isn't nessesarily correct"? If that is the case and given the severity of the issue (It regards a matter of what constitutes sin) then the question is begged can we realistically remain part of the anglican church?

In Christ

Chris

Chris, I do not wish to offend you, but some of us feel the same way about the archdiocese of Sidney and it's leadership. Frankly, to many of us, Sidney "Anglicans" seem to be little more than 'Southern Baptist want to be's. Quite candidly, I am far more 'in communion', if by this you mean accord, with the Lutherans down the street or for that matter the Roman Catholics, than I ever will be with the thinking of your Archbishop. None the less, I have heard no one suggest we seperate ourselves from Sidney as it has abandoned orthodox catholic thought for Calvinism. If we can find the Christian charity to tolerant the fuzzy thinking of Sidney, perhaps, just perhaps, Sidney can find some level of tolerance for the ECUSA, Tolerance, however, is not the strong suit of Calvanism, now is it?

[john23237]

Anglicanism has been broad in the sense of allowing lattitude in adiaphora. In things essential, however, Anglicanism has always been Catholic and Creedal. In other words, Anglicanism, to be true to what it is, must be dogmatic about the catholic faith and practice as it has always been expounded and practiced.



How interesting! Bishop Spong has spent the last twenty years questioning orthodox catholic theology including basic creedal beliefs and has received some support here in North America, but we did NOT hear demands that he be removed or communion would be broken. If you cannot see the "dichotomy" here, you are not looking.

[john23237]

Hi Inside Edge,

I think the problem is that the rest of the communion in general not just the global south considers one particular practice of the ECUSA and Canadian provinces unacceptable full stop. This is reagrdless of any other nasty practices we might think certain other provinces have.
So the reality is that there may be many nasty practices accross the communion but one being promoted by the ECUSA and Candian churches is a deal breaker.

Peace:)

And one wonders why that is, as we all know it has nothing what so ever to do with bigotry. Sorry Pam, this one was just too good to resist. I will say five Our Fathers, ten Hail Marys, and a good act of contrition!

[bfoos]

Anglicanism has been broad in the sense of allowing lattitude in adiaphora. In things essential, however, Anglicanism has always been Catholic and Creedal. In other words, Anglicanism, to be true to what it is, must be dogmatic about the catholic faith and practice as it has always been expounded and practiced.

--------------

How interesting! Bishop Spong has spent the last twenty years questioning orthodox catholic theology including basic creedal beliefs and has received some support here in North America, but we did NOT hear demands that he be removed or communion would be broken. If you cannot see the "dichotomy" here, you are not looking.

If I'm not mistaken, my original post mentioned the downfall of Anglicanism in the 20th century in America. Historically, "Anglicanism has always been Catholic and Creedal." Because the Church in North America is off its rocker does not mean that historic Anglicanism has been.

Has the 3rd World Bishops dealt with the American Church as they should have? Many would say no because they were not quick enough, many would say no because they are doing anything at all.

In my first-hand and second hand dealing with the Africans, the sense I get is that they really did not know the extent of what was going on. It makes me sad that Spong could spout heresy for so many years and not be called on the carpet by the American Church. It makes me sad that the international Church did nothing as well.

Yet, again, Spong and the lack of confrontation regarding his teaching has nothing to do with what the Anglican Church has always stood for doctrinally. Until the 20th century, tolerance meant I'll allow for your cassock, surplice and stole if you'll allow for my chausible, girdle, etc.--well, actually, that tolerance didn't get going until the late 19th cent., but you get the drift.

[john23237]

If I'm not mistaken, my original post mentioned the downfall of Anglicanism in the 20th century in America. Historically, "Anglicanism has always been Catholic and Creedal." Because the Church in North America is off its rocker does not mean that historic Anglicanism has been.

Has the 3rd World Bishops dealt with the American Church as they should have? Many would say no because they were not quick enough, many would say no because they are doing anything at all.

In my first-hand and second hand dealing with the Africans, the sense I get is that they really did not know the extent of what was going on. It makes me sad that Spong could spout heresy for so many years and not be called on the carpet by the American Church. It makes me sad that the international Church did nothing as well.

Yet, again, Spong and the lack of confrontation regarding his teaching has nothing to do with what the Anglican Church has always stood for doctrinally. Until the 20th century, tolerance meant I'll allow for your cassock, surplice and stole if you'll allow for my chausible, girdle, etc.--well, actually, that tolerance didn't get going until the late 19th cent., but you get the drift.

I would ask you to consider, for a moment, the origins of the Anglican Communion. It exists only because the Church of England chose to seperate its self from Rome ( or the other way around depending upon one's viewpoint). In any case, the true point in question was that of authority, namely should the final authority of the church rest within the nation state (at that time the crown) or with the international authority (the Roman See). For better or for worse, the CoE and therefore, the Anglican Communion, owes it's existance as a seperate body to the idea that the final authority of the church is properly held within the nation state. If this is a "founding concept" of Anglicanism so to speak, then do not the churches in North America have every right, indeed, an obligation, to follow what they believe to be the wishes of the Holy Spirit in these matters? If, however, we were wrong on the idea of national authority in the first place, should we not dissolve our member churches and the entire communion and go back to Rome to ask forgiveness for our four hundred year old ...er... mistake?

[thejesusfish90]

Chris, I do not wish to offend you, but some of us feel the same way about the archdiocese of Sidney and it's leadership. Frankly, to many of us, Sidney "Anglicans" seem to be little more than 'Southern Baptist want to be's. Quite candidly, I am far more 'in communion', if by this you mean accord, with the Lutherans down the street or for that matter the Roman Catholics, than I ever will be with the thinking of your Archbishop. None the less, I have heard no one suggest we seperate ourselves from Sidney as it has abandoned orthodox catholic thought for Calvinism. If we can find the Christian charity to tolerant the fuzzy thinking of Sidney, perhaps, just perhaps, Sidney can find some level of tolerance for the ECUSA, Tolerance, however, is not the strong suit of Calvanism, now is it?
lol, ytou havent offended me mate, I can understand that people will not like what my diocese does (I sometimes dont), and were this simply a matter of sacraments, undefining theology, simple doctrinal conflicts and worship style than I would have no problem with it... I would not brake away from the anglican church over a small issue... but as Ahab posted this issue is indeed of paramount importance, and were I to elaborate upon this i would either close this thread or need to edit this post, which is not something I want to do... I will simply repeat what I said in my first post in this thread: "If sin cannot be understood to be sin, than we are incapable of repenting of it"....


No, it doesn't suggest support. Unless Lambeth canon is changed, your argument doesn't make any logical sense.


My argument isn't that officially we are endorsing the theology/practices of other dioceses by maintaining communion with them, but rather that people being understandably uneducated in the complexities of the organisation of anglican church, will percieve likeness in thought and practice, will people know that our diocese opposes the actions of other dioceses? Will people even understand the anglican church as a worldwide body largely opposes this? No, they wont, and if in order to make this known we have to actively campaign against the actions of another diocese, then again the question need be begged can we realistically maintain communion, that we are in thought and action comfortable with being associated with these bodies? However even still autocepholosy only goes so far, if we cannot have coherency of thought and doctrine on such an important issue, than they are challenging the basis of what we know as constituting basic universal anglican beliefs, if this challenge is not suppressed but rather accepted and welcomed as 'autocepholousy' then regardless of what may theoretically be true, the character of what constitutes an anglican has changed through accepting this practice indirectly...

In Christ

Chris

[pmcleanj]

... rather that people being understandably uneducated in the complexities of the organisation of anglican church, will percieve likeness in thought and practice, will people know that our diocese opposes the actions of other dioceses? Will people even understand the anglican church as a worldwide body largely opposes this?...
I hear and understand this concern.

But knowing the non-Anglican masses as well as I do I have to wonder... Will they even realize that your province has broken communion with those other diocese? Won't it be just as much an advertising effort to communicate that you are no longer in communion with those other dioceses, as it would be to communicate that you disagree with the actions of those other dioceses?

[ContraMundum]

Change is part of life, my friend. Now, I don't want to be misunderstood here -- there are truths and moral laws that are eternal. Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. God is love. We are to love God and love one another. Sometimes, though, we do not fully understand the teachings that have been given to us. For example, implicit in Christianity is the ill-adviseability of slavery, but in many quarters the bible was used to condone slavery as late as the 19th century. We're fallible humans and we didn't always fully understand God's will for us in that area, but with the help of the Holy Spirit God has leading us closer to his will and a proper understanding of the scriptures.

Life changes, God doesn't. His word is final, authoratative and eternal. Do we agree on that?

Then why did Jesus say that he was not telling us everything and that there were some things that we could not yet bare to hear?

He didn't say that. That is the point. He spoke those words not to us, but to the Apostles. John 16:12,13 is really about the promise of inspiration to the Twelve. As I said, that is why they are inspired and Spong isn't.

But anyway, say your understanding is correct. I'll grant you that. That doesn't mean that any new truths will be revealed in this life, does it? Perhaps he is referring to the next?


Don't get me wrong, I don't believe God's will for us changes, right and wrong is a constant, but I do believe sometimes we don't properly understand God's will immediately and through study and prayer begin to know it more fully.

John

I agree. But it really depends on who are teachers are as to how we are swayed.

[ContraMundum]

contra<<When scientists are saying that everything you were taught in school about long ages and evolution is not exactly a closed case and new debates are opening, you'd better think about your faith in science and how you alter your beliefs according to the fancies of the day! Sciences will change theories an awful lot in your lifetime, but the scriptures won't.


this is where the fundies fall apart completely, and any conversation becomes tedious
they can know who is in and out of the kingdom of heaven
and deny basic science that is right before them

i need to know about one work of lasting art , literature , scientific contribution made by fundamentalists in the last 150 years or so (the only 150 yrs they have been around)

at a point i understand that this is how your faith works, you probably cant help it, that is what i tell myself anyway to provide a buttress against my darker feelings that it is simply a sub-cult of christianity ,

but when people come from that viewpoint and then decide who is in and who is out
it is a bit alarming and we are forced to ask ourselves

do they have a religion or a pathology?

i wouldnt want to stand by and watch the anglican communion become the sbc

i understand that the internet brings out the more medieval viewpoints of christianity, it is what it is

sorry just had to say all that

the fundies may one day find out how many people they have stumbled by their eccentric beliefs

You've completely misunderstood me. Totally.

I don't care to judge who's "in or out". I just am expressing caution at letting the faith change because someone in the world has a new theory about something. The theories change. You need to weigh things up.

I'll let the accusation of me being a fundie slide for now, but I do find it very insulting.

What's worse is that I would agree with you to some degree, and you didn't notice.

[Simon_Templar]

You know, this is something that might need its own thread. But, to digress a little:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and my thoughts on it are in no way solidified. Now, God may well be unchanging, but what does that mean? Relative to us or Him? If God is the Alpha and Omega, is present at the beginning and end simultaneously, then that means there can be a billion changes in the universe but He remains unchanged. If I exist at all points in time, at the inception and finish, then any fluxuations in creation are constant to me - they have happened and I know it, and so it matters not where or when I am in my creation. It's all constant.

But what about from the creation's point of view? We're subject to an unknown future, to living in some form of linear time. To us, things can and do change. Any change experienced or perceived by us, however, is still a constant to a being which "is" at all points in time and creation.

So what I'm getting at is that God can be unchanging - but things can change drastically in our world, while to God, history is just one big, unchanging state.

Who did I lose? :)

I don't mean to suggest that nothing in the world can change, or that we can't change etc etc.. the creation is in a constant state of change. However, what I was addressing is the fact that God is the standard and source of our faith.. the christian faith. Thus if we attempt to change that faith, or argue that the faith can change.. then God himself must change as he is the standard of the faith.
I should make clear here that I'm not even referring to the trappings of our faith, things like the type of music we have, or the color schemes we use even the wordings we use in liturgy etc.. God has created the church in such a way as to make room for expression of the differences he has made in us. The true distinctions from culture to culture show forth the manicolored glory of God's wisdom, that not even the angels have completely known.
The doctrines and moral standards of the faith are founded in the very nature and character of God.. thus they can not change unless God himself change.

[thejesusfish90]

I hear and understand this concern.

But knowing the non-Anglican masses as well as I do I have to wonder... Will they even realize that your province has broken communion with those other diocese? Won't it be just as much an advertising effort to communicate that you are no longer in communion with those other dioceses, as it would be to communicate that you disagree with the actions of those other dioceses?


You know your probably right, which is why this whole situation is such a shame (in my eyes), people took note when these practices were carried out, and I believe they lost their certainty that it was something which can be understood as wrong, however I personally cant see a low key split occuring, I believe that the lambeth conference 2008 will be quite a horrible ordeal and will basically consist of two un budging sides and a whole lot of moderates in the middle (As PV suggested earlier) arguing quite inistantly and unswayingly (is that even a word?), either one side or the other will leave IMO, unless repentance can be brought about, and in Australia an Anglican break in communion would attract media attention (like I said were around equal in size and influence to the Roman Catholic Church, PM John Howard is himself a nominal anglican, and so to was his ex-deputy John Anderson (except he seemed to be a little more genuine, he I think put the seal of approval on the Aussie Bible... :P)).. and so people would take note of a provincial break, and may even realise that it is only a small majority actively doing this, moreover, Im sure my diocese will more than likely change our name should we resort to leaving the communion and so I would no longer need to Identify myself as being in communion with this body... but you know what I felt really bad saying that. a break in communion is never something to want, and look forward to, however the scale of the issue is such that I cannot realistically see anyother reasonable way out of it, excepting as I keep on saying repentance...

YBIC

Chris

[ContraMundum]

If, however, we were wrong on the idea of national authority in the first place, should we not dissolve our member churches and the entire communion and go back to Rome to ask forgiveness for our four hundred year old ...er... mistake?

Or, we can make inter-communion with Rome and accept the past as just another time of struggle.

Your comments regarding the origins of Anglicanism are good, but I think we would all agree that true Anglicanism started long before the Reformation and was always Catholic. This should alone answer the question you pose.

As for Affirming Catholicism, while it's interesting, it's critics think that it isn't very Catholic and really only affirms the outer trappings of Catholic Christianity while embracing a more liberal approach. I have no idea, personally, so I'd love to hear your understanding of it so I can get a different perspective.

[ahab]

this is where the fundies fall apart completely, and any conversation becomes tedious
they can know who is in and out of the kingdom of heaven
and deny basic science that is right before them
i need to know about one work of lasting art , literature , scientific contribution made by fundamentalists in the last 150 years or so (the only 150 yrs they have been around)
at a point i understand that this is how your faith works, you probably cant help it, that is what i tell myself anyway to provide a buttress against my darker feelings that it is simply a sub-cult of christianity ,
but when people come from that viewpoint and then decide who is in and who is out
it is a bit alarming and we are forced to ask ourselves


I think you have a problem there. The 'fundies' dont think like that. ;) The 'fundies' see that the teachings of Jesus indicate that no-one can say who is in the Kingdom or not except our Lord, if you knew and obeyed the teachings of our Lord you would also see the fundies were right on the issue that is causing the division, and the teachings that show we must disassociate. 1 Cor 5.
'Bigotry' as was mentioned, is the feeling that results from the conviction of the teaching .:cool:

Peace:)

[bfoos]

As I am sure nothing I could say would allow you to believe that one can hold to orthodox catholic theology and still support gay rights in the church, I will not bother to explain the concept of Affirming Catholicism....

Well, rather than being dismissive, why not try a well-reasoned argument for starters. I'm notoriously open to logic and reason.

Not to mention, the post-modern mind is amazingly open to dichotomies and contradictions, so I do, indeed, believe that many "hold to orthodox catholic theology and still support gay rights in the Church." Now, whether that actually makes any reasonable sense is another thing. I have yet to be convinced of that. For that matter, I've never seen a cogent argument put forward to defend it.


...but I would ask you to consider, for a moment, the origins of the Anglican Communion. It exists only because the Church of England chose to seperate its self from Rome ( or the other way around depending upon one's viewpoint). In any case, the true point in question was that of authority, namely should the final authority of the church rest within the nation state (at that time the crown) or with the international authority (the Roman See). For better or for worse, the CoE and therefore, the Anglican Communion, owes it's existance as a seperate body to the idea that the final authority of the church is properly held within the nation state.

This point has already been addressed--particularly regarding the antiquity of the English Church. Secondarily, though the national authority issue is definitely of great interest and severely underestimated in today's American Church scholarship, I'm not sure that your either/or statement doesn't create a false dichotomy. There is obviously, at the time of the reformation, the argument for the authority of antiquity, conciliar authority and a more ancient view, in general, of the college of bishops.

Of course, the idea of a nation-state is foreign to the 16th century, and the crown is not really the same thing. Too many distinctions between them to be overlooked.

"...owes it's existence as a separate body to the idea that the final authority of the church is properly held within the nation state." There is definitely something to this, but I believe you make too much of it. If there is any truth to be found within the 16th century, it is that nothing is that simple.


If this is a "founding concept" of Anglicanism so to speak, then do not the churches in North America have every right, indeed, an obligation, to follow what they believe to be the wishes of the Holy Spirit in these matters? If, however, we were wrong on the idea of national authority in the first place, should we not dissolve our member churches and the entire communion and go back to Rome to ask forgiveness for our four hundred year old ...er... mistake?

Finally, the issue is really here. Even given the authority that Henry and the English Church and parliament give to the monarch within the Church of England, there is a much more authoritative authority that they all look to. The authoritative and exegetical tradition of the Church--the consensus of the faithful--guided the English Church in her moves.

Henry's argument, of course, for his authority in the Church is based upon the tradition of the Church (Constantine, Byzantine Emperor, Charlemagne).

The one authority that the English Church has never had has been the authority to abrogate the teaching of the Church which is based upon Holy Scripture. This is clearly what the ECUSA has done and there is no argument for it except absolute autonomy from everything. That may be a dearly held tenet of Americanism, but it is not a tenet of Christianity.