Status of ACNA and Anglican Communion

I am not going to get into homosexuality...but...the reality is that whenever a church sins, which I realize is a subjective standard for many, the individual parishioner does not sin. To say you are Episcopalian does NOT mean you are saying you support everything the TEC does anymore than saying you are ACNA means you necessarily agree with everything they teach either.

I share your desire to be in a church where my bishop is teaching the true faith...I really do...But there have been NUMEROUS examples from history where a bishop in one part of the world or another rejected a traditional Christian teachings (some much more serious than anything we are discussing now), and I find it hard to believe those Christians who lived under the care of that bishop should be guilty of the false theology of their leader. You can be a good Christian in virtually any denomination and I believe that while some absolutely have the Christian story more correct than others, an individual's faith and devotion is what matters.

Now you can certainly argue, as I am sure you will, that Christians are called to be in communities of faith where the truth is being taught. I don't disagree with that and I think that any bishop who professes a false teaching should repent, which is to say "change," but if every Christian left a community of believers whenever his or her bishop taught something incorrect, you wouldn't have any visible Church at all because in all places, bishops have at one time or another taught something we now regard as false. In America, this is true. Most Christians in this country are not under the care of a bishop and largely because of one concern or another. The Gospels are clear that those who lead Christians astray will answer to God...and personally, that is enough for me.

If the time comes when the TEC is unbearable and totally rejects the Christian faith, I will certainly leave to be under the care of a more responsible bishop. At this point in time, that is not an option for me since there essentially are NO stable ACNA parishes near where I live. If I lived close to one, I would likely join without question, but I still would not disparage those who choose to stay and maintain traditional Christianity.

 

We should follow our bishops. If we have an orthodox bishop, we need to attend his diocese. It is his job to fight the battles of the national churches, and leave one to join the other if the national synods crumble. So the structure should be that you attend to your local bishop, and he decides if he wants to keep the diocese in TEC or take it to ACNA if things become unbearable as they did in South Carolina.

 

I certainly agree with you to an extent, but what I find troubling is where you wrote: "The Gospels are clear that those who lead Christians astray will answer to God." How can one sit by and watch people being led astray in the church they attend? That would involve ignoring what the Bishop is teaching and secretly holding different beliefs. An alternative to leaving would be organizing to get the errant Bishop to repent or to be removed, in other words, raising hell about what is going on.

 

Raising hell doesn't work in the Chicago diocese...You have to understand that in many liberal regions in the country, the liberal laity, clergy, and church staff outnumber the orthodox by a significant number, especially now that many conservatives have left. So, I suppose you would say...well then, why stay or attend at all? A lot of people have asked that question, myself included. But at the end of the day, I think people stay for a few reasons...1. The good for them still outweighs the bad. 2. If you reject certain Roman Catholic teachings AND believe in the episcopal church government as well as the Real Presence, where will you go? The Eastern Orthodox Church is one of the very limited alternatives and they don't exist everywhere or only exist in very ethnic parishes. Plus, some Anglicans have real problems with Orthodox theology. What about continuing and ACNA parishes? Well, they also don't exist everywhere, and in some parts of the country, are basically non-existent. I live in an area with MANY Episcopal churches and virtually no regularly operating ACNA or continuing parishes...and I live in one of the largest cities in America! In New England, where I am originally from, there are very few ACNA churches. 3. There are a great many people who grew up in the Episcopal Church, love it, and feel bound to it the way a person might feel towards his or her own country. Even if your nation is doing the wrong thing, you don't abandon your country and move to another one! You stay and advocate for reform. I think that is what many orthodox Christians are doing in the Episcopal Church, but it isn't working.

I think the problem is...there are no widely available good alternatives. If and when the Anglican Communion gets serious with the Episcopal Church on its theology on a whole range of issues (some more important than homosexuality in my view), I think you may see the AC bring the ACNA into the Communion officially or push the Episcopal Church out. If this happens, the growth of the ACNA will expand dramatically and the TEC may finally begin to reform in important areas. This of course is all speculation on my part, and I am nowhere near as versed as many on this forum.

 

I sympathize with your situation Justin. I will pray for you and hope that some resolution to your predicament comes along. It must be very difficult for you. Sorry if I sounded insensitive in my prior posting.

 

Actually, I agree with almost everything you say. And I have been and am in much the same position. The nearest AMiA church to me is a long drive, and an ACNA church a longer drive still.

I still don't know how it's possible to be in a local TEC church served by an apostate bishop. What would one do -- just stay at home when the bishop visited? And what about your tithes and offerings? I could not in good conscience support a bishop or a denomination financially who I regarded as having departed the faith.

 

You absolutely did not! Prayers are always appreciated and I have been blown away by how helpful and supportive people have been on this forum. I am not alone in this difficult situation and I, like others here, will continuing praying with vigor in hopes of a solution.

 

I agree with you that it's very difficult. For me personally, simply being present when an apostate bishop visits really isn't an issue at all...As I said before, Christians throughout the world have long been subjected to the leadership of poor bishops who reject the faith, not to mention some pretty horrific popes! It is our duty to do what we can to have the right people in the right places and to stay in Christ's Church.

The much more difficult issue is funding. Unless I am guaranteed that my donations will stay in the parish, I won't give a single penny, as difficult as that may be. The national church has not only allowed some key elements of Christianity to be ignored by apostate bishops and priests, but they have done what I consider to be absolutely unacceptable: openly and fully endorsed abortion...including advocating for pro-abortion laws in Washington.

 

Agreed with you Justin.

 

Read the following, and then tell me if you think that being in communion with Canterbury is essential for being Anglican. As I said, I'd rather be in communion with apostolic Christianity as recorded in scripture:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/30544

 

I don't see anything in that article which proves your point. Secular marriage, even for those who completely deny homosexual marriage in church, is nothing more than a legal contract. It says nothing about religious values, which I am sure is your point.

 

So, the AoC says about same gender relationships: "which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all" and that this is "not, at heart, a faith issue", and you don't see anything wrong with that. Tell me how affirming same gender relationships, in any context, is not a faith issue, and tell me how such relationships "strengthen us all". This is a denial of what the Bible says about homosexual acts. It is thus a denial of orthodox Christianity.

 

How is divorce any more of a supposed sin, or perhaps masturbation? How about the millions of couples cohabiting, or youth and young adults shacking up for nothing more than a good romping, or the usage of contraception? Certainly I may not agree with any of these things, but I doubt we should begin an Inquisition-like purifying of the Church of its sin-ridden laity!

I have a few friends who are gay and lesbian, and if people think that they are sinners by virtue of their from-birth attraction to the same sex, then I think they should pay attention to their own spiritual life over others.

It is not a faith issue because it doesn't question the Creeds of our Faith. I suppose that we should also bring back slavery since it was endorsed by Saint Paul, or racism because black people have the mark of Cain or the curse of Ham, or womanly obedience and quietude because she is nothing more than one's beautiful property. If you agree to such things, then I think it would also be absolutely fine to demonise homosexuality.

 

So you want to justify one sin by appealing to others, huh? You want to ignore and/or deny what the Bible clearly says about homosexual sex. Just because the Creeds don't mention homosexuality doesn't mean it is not a faith issue because the Bible does mention it and condemns it.

You cannot compare homosexuality to slavery, racism, or womanly obedience. They are not analogous.

ANY sex outside of heterosexual marriage is a sin. Further, there is absolutely no evidence that homosexuals are "born that way." No homosexual gene has ever been discovered -- unless you count TEC apostate Bishop Gene Robinson.

There is a great divide forming and already formed between those who want to stay faithful to scripture and those who want to abandon it in favor of cultural relativism and hedonism. I stand with the former, and hundreds of thousands of Anglicans are doing the same, by voting with their feet and going to scripturally faithful Anglican bodies.

 

I have no interest in defending him on any issue to be quite honest, and I am always reluctant to criticize without knowing the full context of the conversation. He may very well have clarified his statements later. However, he has been QUITE CLEAR that he does NOT support homosexual marriage in church, so your argument is, to some extent, mitigated by that at least. Secondly, what I think he means to say is that from a civil rights point of view, he supports it. He even goes on, as you quoted, to say it is not a faith issue...Why would he say that unless he meant it in a civil rights context?

I think it is INCREDIBLY dangerous for any religious organization to attempt to limit the freedom or liberty of individuals. People should always be able to freely choose to live the way they desire so long as it does not negatively alter the lives of others, even when that choice goes against what other perceive to be God's command. For instance, as Christians, we are instructed that it wrong to always be drunk. Yet, I don't, and neither should you, support a law which makes it illegal to be an alcoholic. The Bible tells us divorce is wrong. Are you saying legal divorce should be outlawed by our secular government? Virtually no religious figure would say that and certainly none that I am aware of.

To be quite frank with you, I don't have much of an opinion, either way, on homosexuality. I know what the Bible says, I have seen how both sides of the argument debate the evidence, and historically, it is undeniable that the weight of tradition is in your favor. However, I think the REASONS behind why homosexuality between monogamous couples who desire to adopt and raise children is immoral are not well developed at all. And in my personal opinion, which I realize means nothing and should mean nothing, I don't see much of a difference theologically between heterosexual relationships which CANNOT produce children and homosexual relationships which cannot produce children. If lust is not the goal of the relationship and love AND family is, then I have yet to see a theological reason beyond "the Bible says so" that really makes sense. Again, personally, I don't care about this issue all that much and I don't have a firm opinion one way or the other. I think there are MUCH, MUCH bigger issues the Church must deal with than worrying about this.

However, even if I did firmly believe as you do about this issue, I couldn't in good conscience support limiting the rights of others because of a religious belief I have. Such a position can only lead to a majority of people, based on a religious belief I don't share, to force myself or my posterity to accept laws which I find offensive to liberty. For me, liberty is sacred in secular government because, among other reasons, it allows Christianity to flourish.

 

Even more important than a purging in the church is a purging in society at large using secular government. Have we learned nothing from British history, where one change in regime led to the persecution of Catholics, and then Protestants, and then Catholics, and then Protestants? Back and forth for decades! Politics taints everything it touches, including religion. If history doesn't at least tell us that then history tells us nothing.

Again, even we all agree homosexuality is a grave sin...so is divorce, so is sex before marriage, so is drunkenness, and the list goes on and on. Yet, no one is advocating for the government to pass laws which prohibit those behaviors, a fact I am thankful for.

 

I agree with you that homosexuality is not analogous to the issues you listed above. However, I think you are missing the point. Support of secular rights is not the same as support of religious doctrines.

 

To be honest, I thank GOD for having freed me from the shackles of the earlier conceptions of womanhood. We can read the Bible beyond telling women that they must be obedient to their husbands, or must be quiet in church, or must be forbidden in teaching doctrine in the church, or to be considered lesser than a man.

Inasmuch as I believe in obedience to my future husband, whomsoever he may be, I still do not believe that we should ever be telling other faithful Christian sisters that they can never raise questions in the congregation, or participate in leadership positions. I certainly hope that we have gone beyond that, because we lose our limitations of material identity in Christ Jesus.

 

Here is an good article from the American Anglican Council on the AoC's speech. By the way, the American Anglican Council is a good organization to support if one believes in Biblical and traditional morality. This article shows that the Council "gets it":

http://www.americananglican.org/arc...n=Weekly+Update+June+7,+2013&utm_medium=email

 

I appreciate the opinion for sure. I certainly do not disagree with you. I too am glad that the understanding of what a woman's role is in society has radically shifted.

However, not that I hold a strong opinion on homosexuality either way, I do believe that the issues you raise above and the issue of homosexuality are entirely different. The role of women in church and society is an issue of church and societal organization from a Christian perspective, and it is not difficult to imagine why Paul may have written what he did about women in church when writing to numerous communities across the globe. Paul's opinions on women in ministry and women in general appeared to be radically different depending on who he was talking to, which is evidence of the fact that Paul very much wrote with the intended audience in mind. The issue of homosexuality, on the other hand, is not about societal or church organization; it is about our fundamental roles as humans in the world and with our relationship with God as creator. The issue is really about family, which one could argue is more important than nearly anything else.

Thus, the questions surrounding homosexuality are centered on answering questions like: Why were we created? What is the purpose of sex? How does sex relate to family? What is God's vision of family? Again, all of these questions can be answered, I believe, by someone who supports homosexuality as a valid form of sexuality within the context of family. My point is merely to show, however, that these questions are much bigger and more complex than the issue of women in the church, which is really just a question about what role women should have in society. The theological underpinnings of the homosexuality issue are much more difficult to deal with than the issue regarding women.

Plus, throughout scripture, there are MANY reasons to believe our view of women in the church and in society should change. There is not, however, the same kind of support for homosexuality, which is only mentioned in a negative light in scripture.

So while I don't know the right answer, I can at least accept that the slavery issue, the issue of women in church and society, and the issue of homosexuality are on totally different levels. I don't the argument that they are all the same is valid.