@Gamma Gamaliel I suspect that the more, ahem, moderate parts of Reform have sadly gone the way of Evangelical Anglicans doing communion with North end celebration.
Was that ever not the case in Reform circles?
Sorry, having trouble parsing this sentence - do you mean were Reform usually doing North end celebration? I think it's been rare for a long time even amongst con-evos.
[Hosts please forgive brief Ecclesiantical digression] Rare or not, the nearest church to me follows this practice (or did at least until the vicar retired a few months ago). It doesn't strike me as a particularly hardline con-evo place.
They can define themselves as "Anglican" I think the Communion might want to coin their own term for them.
Schismatics?
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
Serious questions, because I don’t know the answers:
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
They can define themselves as "Anglican" I think the Communion might want to coin their own term for them.
Schismatics?
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
Serious questions, because I don’t know the answers:
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
If that was all that was required Methodists would be Anglicans.
They can define themselves as "Anglican" I think the Communion might want to coin their own term for them.
Schismatics?
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
Serious questions, because I don’t know the answers:
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
If that was all that was required Methodists would be Anglicans.
Fair point, though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, rather than churches with roots in groups that began in but separated from the Church of England in the way that Methodists did.
And what about the “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” questions?
Independent Anglican?
That would give a nod to their history and their present status.
But again, it seems like “Independent Anglican” would describe, for example, The Episcopal Church (US) prior to the formation of the Anglican Communion.
What I’m getting at is if a church could reasonably be considered “Anglican” before there was an Anglican Communion as such, then can being a member of the Anglican Communion be the sine qua non of being legitimately Anglican?
And thinking about what I said earlier:
. . . though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, . . . .
maybe the more pertinent identifier is churches who episcopacies trace back to the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church.
They can define themselves as "Anglican" I think the Communion might want to coin their own term for them.
Schismatics?
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
Serious questions, because I don’t know the answers:
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
If that was all that was required Methodists would be Anglicans.
Fair point, though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, rather than churches with roots in groups that began in but separated from the Church of England in the way that Methodists did.
And what about the “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” questions?
I think communion with Canterbury is essential, but then as an Anglican in communion with Canterbury I would say that, wouldn't I?
Originating from CofE or SEC missionary activity is not necessary either - the Anglican churches in Spain and Portugal have a history not totally dissimilar to that of the Old Catholics and separated from Rome in the 19th century.
They can define themselves as "Anglican" I think the Communion might want to coin their own term for them.
Schismatics?
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
Serious questions, because I don’t know the answers:
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
If that was all that was required Methodists would be Anglicans.
Fair point, though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, rather than churches with roots in groups that began in but separated from the Church of England in the way that Methodists did.
And what about the “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” questions?
I think communion with Canterbury is essential, but then as an Anglican in communion with Canterbury I would say that, wouldn't I?
But my question was whether Anglican bishops outside Britain, such as those in the US, would have described themselves as “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” prior to the first Lambeth Conference.
Independent Anglican?
That would give a nod to their history and their present status.
But again, it seems like “Independent Anglican” would describe, for example, The Episcopal Church (US) prior to the formation of the Anglican Communion.
What I’m getting at is if a church could reasonably be considered “Anglican” before there was an Anglican Communion as such, then can being a member of the Anglican Communion be the sine qua non of being legitimately Anglican?
And thinking about what I said earlier:
. . . though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, . . . .
maybe the more pertinent identifier is churches who episcopacies trace back to the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church.
I was thinking more of the Independent Catholic movement. Churches like the Brazilian one or the Philippine one or even Old Catholics, all of which have RC heritage but are no longer in communion with Rome. They identify with their RC roots, preserving a similar clerical structure, Liturgy and popular spirituality etc but have for various reasons broken away.
They can define themselves as "Anglican" I think the Communion might want to coin their own term for them.
Schismatics?
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
Serious questions, because I don’t know the answers:
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
If that was all that was required Methodists would be Anglicans.
Fair point, though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, rather than churches with roots in groups that began in but separated from the Church of England in the way that Methodists did.
And what about the “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” questions?
I think communion with Canterbury is essential, but then as an Anglican in communion with Canterbury I would say that, wouldn't I?
But my question was whether Anglican bishops outside Britain, such as those in the US, would have described themselves as “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” prior to the first Lambeth Conference.
If AI is to believed, they would have done but not in the sense of being under the Archbishop's direct jurisdiction as it were.
As citizens of a Republic that was no longer under the British Crown, Episcopalians in the USA would not have recognised the British Monarch as 'supreme governor' of the Church of England of course.
But it would seem that prior to the first Lambeth Conference they would still have seen themselves as in some way in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and Anglican churches in other countries besides the US and Great Britain and Ireland.
If the AI is right, then the first Lambeth Conference wasn't seen as 'creating' the worldwide Anglican Communion as such but recognising a unity that already existed.
The Archbishop of Canterbury isn't a Pope, of course. We could wonder what being 'in communion' with Canterbury actually meant in practice before 1867 of course.
But then we are all still wondering what being Anglican actually means anyway ... 🤔
Which is part of Anglicanism's charm, perplexing as it might be to everyone else or even to Anglicans themselves.
I still think there is a recognisable family resemblance and family identity for all that but would struggle to define it exactly.
Independent Anglican?
That would give a nod to their history and their present status.
But again, it seems like “Independent Anglican” would describe, for example, The Episcopal Church (US) prior to the formation of the Anglican Communion.
What I’m getting at is if a church could reasonably be considered “Anglican” before there was an Anglican Communion as such, then can being a member of the Anglican Communion be the sine qua non of being legitimately Anglican?
And thinking about what I said earlier:
. . . though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, . . . .
maybe the more pertinent identifier is churches who episcopacies trace back to the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church.
I was thinking more of the Independent Catholic movement. Churches like the Brazilian one or the Philippine one or even Old Catholics, all of which have RC heritage but are no longer in communion with Rome. They identify with their RC roots, preserving a similar clerical structure, Liturgy and popular spirituality etc but have for various reasons broken away.
They can define themselves as "Anglican" I think the Communion might want to coin their own term for them.
Schismatics?
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
Serious questions, because I don’t know the answers:
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
If that was all that was required Methodists would be Anglicans.
Fair point, though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, rather than churches with roots in groups that began in but separated from the Church of England in the way that Methodists did.
And what about the “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” questions?
I think communion with Canterbury is essential, but then as an Anglican in communion with Canterbury I would say that, wouldn't I?
But my question was whether Anglican bishops outside Britain, such as those in the US, would have described themselves as “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” prior to the first Lambeth Conference.
I don't know, to be honest. My guess is that, if you'd asked them they'd have said 'yes' but squinted in puzzlement at the thought that it was of particular significance.
They can define themselves as "Anglican" I think the Communion might want to coin their own term for them.
Schismatics?
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
Serious questions, because I don’t know the answers:
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
If that was all that was required Methodists would be Anglicans.
Fair point, though with “have roots in,” I was thinking more of bodies outside Britain that grew out of the missionary work of the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and that continued as independent churches in independent nations, rather than churches with roots in groups that began in but separated from the Church of England in the way that Methodists did.
And what about the “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” questions?
I think communion with Canterbury is essential, but then as an Anglican in communion with Canterbury I would say that, wouldn't I?
But my question was whether Anglican bishops outside Britain, such as those in the US, would have described themselves as “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” prior to the first Lambeth Conference.
I don't know, to be honest. My guess is that, if you'd asked them they'd have said 'yes' but squinted in puzzlement at the thought that it was of particular significance.
Many of their churches will have other associations and history that would have been more salient at the time.
For the celebration of Holy Communion the priest stands at the (liturgical) North end of the Holy Table, facing "South" (i.e. across the sanctuary), sideways on to the congregation.
In my youth this was associated with "Low" churches (particularly those under the patronage of the Church Pastoral Aid Society). Also the Church of Ireland.
This practice was frequently also linked to celebrating wearing "choir" dress (cassock, surplice, scarf, and hood - NO stole), and also the use of a slice of leavened bread for communion.
(The three practices were summarized as "North End, scarf and hood, and Mother's Pride" (the last being a current brand of sliced wbite bread)).
@chrisstiles@angloid I said "I suspect that the more, ahem, moderate parts of Reform have sadly gone the way of Evangelical Anglicans doing communion with North end celebration" - ie, the moderate membership of Reform has practically gone extinct in the same way that North end celebration has (ie not saying that North end celebration is a feature of said Reform membership). Sorry for any confusion.
I have strong feelings about this news and I'm also suffering from my worst ever post NZ trip jet lag so I'm not sure how well I will express this!
The split was I know inevitable and maybe even necessary as there were insurmountable differences.
But I'm sad, so very sad.
Beaky husband and I were mission partners sent by Church Mission Society UK (founded by Anglican church here and working with the Anglican Communion worldwide).
We were sent to work for three plus years with wonderful colleagues (both clergy and lay) in the Anglican Church Kenya which is part of GAFCON. This necessitated grace on the part of us all as our theological and cultural backgrounds were very different.
There were some tricky moments but also some very beautiful ones.
I know of several parishes and even dioceses here in the UK with links to Anglican Communion churches which are part of GAFCON.
So the question I've got echoing around my head is how will this split affect the cross-cultural partnership of Anglican churches which has been in place for so many years?
Are there likely to be churches which are part of GAFCON who decide, no, we’re sticking with the traditional Anglican Communion even though we don’t like the new ABC? Even a few?
I think yours is a poignant and appropriate reaction, @MrsBeaky.
Whether our own reaction is one of sadness, or of 'good riddance', of indifference or whatever else it might be, yours is a salutary reminder that however we cut it and whatever our 'churchpersonship' or theology, there are human beings involved.
I'm not convinced that all GAFCON members will be on board with this split. There has always been a, ahem, diversity of views between those commited to a "my way or the highway" view of the Anglican Communion and those who just wanted recognition that the centre of gravity of the Communion was in the global south.
I think there is room for the grace to continue at local level. Parishes may be able to keep their contacts, even as their bishops become more open in their conflicts. That's the point I would make: as @MrsBeaky says, this is not new; it's more of an opening of a tension into an outright fracture. I can't weep for the appointment of the new archbishop, on the grounds of her being female anyway, but I can weep with those who fear a loss of relationship coming out of this decision by GAFCON.
Perhaps I'm odd, or just as spiritual as a brick, but I do not and never have felt in any relationship with people who are diametrically opposed to me on matters that really matter to me - I feel closer to people who don't claim Christianity but with whom I align on those issues. It's a bit like the way I feel I have far more in common with atheists than YECcies. Even within Christianity I feel far more at home with liberal and progressive URCs or Methodists than Evangelical CofE or "alternative oversight" ACs.
For me, both home and away it is about finding the people with whom my values and practices align (both inside and beyond church circles) and building some sort of relationship- both individual and corporate- with them which works towards one of my favourite verses in the Bible: Micah 6:8 This is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God.
At the same time I try to be gracious in how I respond to fellow Christians whose stance on a whole host of stuff is diametrically opposed to my own- and it's really hard, I often fail and sometimes in the face of intransigence I can only wish them well and walk away.
I don't think that's 'odd' or unspiritual at all @KarlLB and I certainly feel closer to some people outside my own circles than I do to some of those within them.
I also think it's possible to align one's sympathies with people over some issues but not others.
So whilst I may not be on the same page as someone 'theologically' in all respects I can still appreciate or admire aspects that overlap with my own views on things and also to some extent those that don't.
I also think that as @MrsBeaky says there are times when we can nothing but wish people well and walk away - or allow them to walk away from us.
I often feel a 'connection' based on shared experience with people from my charismatic evangelical days, for instance, even though I may no longer be on the 'same page' as them or we've gone in different directions.
There are different levels and gradations of 'relationship' of course.
I don't feel any affinity with prosperity-gospellers or YECies, but I might with mainstream Methodists or moderate evangelicals despite ecclesial or theological differences on some points.
"Canterbury" is still vacant. Sarah Mullally doesn't legally become Archbishop until January, and won't be enthroned/installed until March.
I meant the current Anglican leadership really, whoever’s temping.
I confess that I did know what you meant. However, the issue of "Anglican leadership" isn't nearly that straightforward. Some of the spiritual responsibilities fall to the Archbishop of York (Stephen Cottrell). But the temporal buck might stop with the Secretary-General to the Archbishop's Council (William Nye).
ISTM that the less the current Anglican leadership says about the 'historical' split, the better.
Olive branches of friendship can still be offered, of course, if and when occasion demands.
I don't think there are many GAFCON-style parishes in Our Town, though I daresay there are some in Our Diocese. I expect they will carry on regardless, as it were.
I think different groups are more varied than you (general you) might think, and that applies equally to liberal and/or progressive (they are definitely not the same thing!) churches too. Not all individual Methodist/URC etc churches are progressive even if the wider denominations as a whole lean that way - so much depends on the local culture and leadership. Likewise there are liberal Anglican churches that would think of themselves as being super progressive but aren't - there are forms of bigotry that aren't based on gender or sexuality, but often classism for eg is not seen to count as being a real form of discrimination.
In my own experience as someone read as female, the GAFCON end of Anglicanism and the Society end (not all churches affiliated with the Society are under alternative oversight) are vastly different. The latter for instance won't generally be complementarian and usually are pretty LGBTQ+ friendly, in the same way that many local RC churches can be (and indeed it's not that unusual to find people who are fine with openly gay priests as long as they're male). Like RC churches, I often find that Society churches are more friendly to single people, poor people, disabled people, and immigrants than many liberal Anglican churches. As someone who is in 3 out of 4 of those groups, sometimes it's more complicated than liberal good/conservative bad.
Also - I would say that actually being part of XYZ marginalised group "on the ground" can be very different to being an ally. If you're a member of multiple marginalised groups at the same time, sometimes the material reality of one part of your identity is going to be prioritised. That's not something that allies generally face the reality of.
@Pomona that last is something I am feeling very hard at the moment. Relatively recently concluding that I am AuDHD, as well as looking single and being gay - being in a long-distance relationship with an ardent atheist will do that for church purposes - is a very complex venn diagram to sit in the middle of.
@Pomona, there are two types of liberalism, and it is important to distinguish between them. There is a liberalism that has a polemic that is as dogmatic as the conservative one, just as it is pro everything the conservative agenda is anti and vice versa. There is also another form of liberalism that is fundamentally more about attitude and the ability to honour those whose perspective is radically different from your own.
The URC liberalism is of the second kind. Are there people who hold conservative views within the URC? Yes, of course, it would not be of that type of liberal church if there were not. It, however, also gives space for people who hold radically different views from those and manages to hold the two groups together. As Geoffrey Nuttall pointed out, this goes back to the Puritan (separatist) understanding of the ways the Holy Spirit works.
In the Baptist Union, you can be seen as a reflection of this, the same underlying liberal attitude, but the majority of congregations are conservative but with a sizable minority of liberal congregations
@Jengie Jon I meant more distinguishing between liberal and progressive, which I think is more to do with your second point - but also that things vary naturally according to the local area, if there are any multi-denominational partnerships, etc. For eg there seem to be quite a lot of Methodist churches around me, and they are generally somewhat more conservative leaning than the national Methodist norm (though not universally so). I personally just chalk that up to regional differences and would think that the same applies to the URC, Baptists etc too.
I think there is much to be said for finding those of different ecclesiastical tribes that we respect and admire.
When I was preaching in our former church (newfrontiers (con-evo charismatic)) I managed to sneak in quotes from various patristric sources and the likes of +Frank Weston (in hindsight I should have realised my days were numbered but hey-ho).
@Pomona that last is something I am feeling very hard at the moment. Relatively recently concluding that I am AuDHD, as well as looking single and being gay - being in a long-distance relationship with an ardent atheist will do that for church purposes - is a very complex venn diagram to sit in the middle of.
It is indeed. For me personally, a lot of the time that means prioritising accessible (and for me that means both accessibility in terms of disability and also just being able to get there!) churches even if it's less of a perfect fit in other areas. If a church is an amazing inclusive space in terms of gender/sexuality but they keep unreliable hours or they don't have a disabled-friendly toilet, that's not much good to me unfortunately - and often it is churches in modern buildings that have the most accessible facilities as a whole (although this often means RC churches as much as eg Vineyard).
Meanwhile in Ireland two bishops associated with GAFCON have made statements. +Down and Dromore has welcomed the statement by ++Rwanda, while +Kilmore Elphin Ardagh has been far more guarded, referring to an evolving situation. +Connor has said nothing so far, and nor have the remaining eight CofI bishops not associated with GAFCON said anything either.
Meanwhile in Ireland two bishops associated with GAFCON have made statements. +Down and Dromore has welcomed the statement by ++Rwanda, while +Kilmore Elphin Ardagh has been far more guarded, referring to an evolving situation. +Connor has said nothing so far, and nor have the remaining eight CofI bishops not associated with GAFCON said anything either.
The Bishop of Down and Dromore, The Right Reverend David McClay, said:
‘There was nothing substantially new in the communiqué that GAFCON has not said on many occasions in recent years. GAFCON is not leaving the Anglican Communion, GAFCON is the Anglican Communion and those aligned in any way to GAFCON have not departed from historic Anglicanism as others have in recent decades.’
‘This is a time for all to prayerfully reflect on our calling to biblical truth. This for me is something that I believe I promised when ordained a deacon, when ordained a priest and when ordained a bishop and is, therefore, something deeply precious, often challenging, always humbling and both a privilege and a priority.’
‘Unity is precious and is something that Anglicans including the Church of Ireland have always treasured. The call is upon all of us to live under the authority of God’s Word and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.’
The Bishop of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh, The Right Reverend Ferran Glenfield, commented:
‘As to GAFCON, there is a realignment happening in the Anglican Communion.
The centre of gravity is moving south from Canterbury. The emergence of GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches indicates the direction of travel for the majority churches in the Communion. It is not clear how this will evolve. It is a case of wait and see.
As of now, I have no plans to attend the G26 conference in Nigeria.’
@Pomona that last is something I am feeling very hard at the moment. Relatively recently concluding that I am AuDHD, as well as looking single and being gay - being in a long-distance relationship with an ardent atheist will do that for church purposes - is a very complex venn diagram to sit in the middle of.
It is indeed. For me personally, a lot of the time that means prioritising accessible (and for me that means both accessibility in terms of disability and also just being able to get there!) churches even if it's less of a perfect fit in other areas. If a church is an amazing inclusive space in terms of gender/sexuality but they keep unreliable hours or they don't have a disabled-friendly toilet, that's not much good to me unfortunately - and often it is churches in modern buildings that have the most accessible facilities as a whole (although this often means RC churches as much as eg Vineyard).
I have done this in a different way. Being a recovering Anglo Catholic I am now in a small church with little musical tradition because it is very inclusive and healing for me now. I don't have to stay for ever but the calm of the liturgy and the relaxed feeling without overstimulation is essential for me right now.
@Pomona that last is something I am feeling very hard at the moment. Relatively recently concluding that I am AuDHD, as well as looking single and being gay - being in a long-distance relationship with an ardent atheist will do that for church purposes - is a very complex venn diagram to sit in the middle of.
It is indeed. For me personally, a lot of the time that means prioritising accessible (and for me that means both accessibility in terms of disability and also just being able to get there!) churches even if it's less of a perfect fit in other areas. If a church is an amazing inclusive space in terms of gender/sexuality but they keep unreliable hours or they don't have a disabled-friendly toilet, that's not much good to me unfortunately - and often it is churches in modern buildings that have the most accessible facilities as a whole (although this often means RC churches as much as eg Vineyard).
I have done this in a different way. Being a recovering Anglo Catholic I am now in a small church with little musical tradition because it is very inclusive and healing for me now. I don't have to stay for ever but the calm of the liturgy and the relaxed feeling without overstimulation is essential for me right now.
This is totally understandable imo. I think also knowing that it can be as temporary or otherwise as you need is very healing too.
@Jengie Jon I meant more distinguishing between liberal and progressive, which I think is more to do with your second point - but also that things vary naturally according to the local area, if there are any multi-denominational partnerships, etc. For eg there seem to be quite a lot of Methodist churches around me, and they are generally somewhat more conservative leaning than the national Methodist norm (though not universally so). I personally just chalk that up to regional differences and would think that the same applies to the URC, Baptists etc too.
Nope. You really need to learn church history. Methodism is a merged church in the UK, and each church has its own flavour. Equally different churches dominated in other areas. I live in a region with a high number of the lowest of the low(Methodist New Connexion) among Methodists for just this reason. Though with Sheffield being a Methodist city and the lowest of the low always being small, you really have to know what to look for to spot it now. There was even one branch that was Anglo-Catholic in flavour. If you get to talk to the older people, they quite possibly could tell you which denomination they come from because their grandparents told them. The merger happened around 1930, but the flavours are still there. I could certainly tell the difference between Carver St Wesley and Hanover Methodist (now both closed) in the 1990s. The removal of stationing by conference means that churches now pick their minister, which will slow the dissolution of the individual character of congregations.
Methodist are not descendents of Puritan/Separatists and therefore my comments about Baptists and URC do not apply to them.
Comments
No, we got there first with that one. That's what we call the rest of you ... 😉
But it does raise the issue of course as to what exactly is required in order to consider oneself 'Anglican'?
Being out of communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't 'look' particularly 'Anglican' to me, but then what is required to be Anglican?
Does calling oneself Anglican make one an Anglican?
[Hosts please forgive brief Ecclesiantical digression] Rare or not, the nearest church to me follows this practice (or did at least until the vicar retired a few months ago). It doesn't strike me as a particularly hardline con-evo place.
SPLITTERS!
The "Continuing Anglican" types always struck me as rather akin to Lefebvrist RCs.
Was being “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” a defining mark of being “Anglican” prior to the first Lambeth Conference (1867)? Would, for example, the bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (as it was then called) have described themselves as being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to that first Lambeth Conference?
Is it sufficient for identification as “Anglican” to have roots in the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church and to share the heritage of the Book of Common Prayer?
If that was all that was required Methodists would be Anglicans.
And what about the “in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury” questions?
That would give a nod to their history and their present status.
What I’m getting at is if a church could reasonably be considered “Anglican” before there was an Anglican Communion as such, then can being a member of the Anglican Communion be the sine qua non of being legitimately Anglican?
And thinking about what I said earlier: maybe the more pertinent identifier is churches who episcopacies trace back to the Church of England and/or the Scottish Episcopal Church.
I think communion with Canterbury is essential, but then as an Anglican in communion with Canterbury I would say that, wouldn't I?
Originating from CofE or SEC missionary activity is not necessary either - the Anglican churches in Spain and Portugal have a history not totally dissimilar to that of the Old Catholics and separated from Rome in the 19th century.
I was thinking more of the Independent Catholic movement. Churches like the Brazilian one or the Philippine one or even Old Catholics, all of which have RC heritage but are no longer in communion with Rome. They identify with their RC roots, preserving a similar clerical structure, Liturgy and popular spirituality etc but have for various reasons broken away.
If AI is to believed, they would have done but not in the sense of being under the Archbishop's direct jurisdiction as it were.
As citizens of a Republic that was no longer under the British Crown, Episcopalians in the USA would not have recognised the British Monarch as 'supreme governor' of the Church of England of course.
But it would seem that prior to the first Lambeth Conference they would still have seen themselves as in some way in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and Anglican churches in other countries besides the US and Great Britain and Ireland.
If the AI is right, then the first Lambeth Conference wasn't seen as 'creating' the worldwide Anglican Communion as such but recognising a unity that already existed.
The Archbishop of Canterbury isn't a Pope, of course. We could wonder what being 'in communion' with Canterbury actually meant in practice before 1867 of course.
But then we are all still wondering what being Anglican actually means anyway ... 🤔
Which is part of Anglicanism's charm, perplexing as it might be to everyone else or even to Anglicans themselves.
I still think there is a recognisable family resemblance and family identity for all that but would struggle to define it exactly.
You sort of recognise it when you see it.
I don't know, to be honest. My guess is that, if you'd asked them they'd have said 'yes' but squinted in puzzlement at the thought that it was of particular significance.
Many of their churches will have other associations and history that would have been more salient at the time.
For the celebration of Holy Communion the priest stands at the (liturgical) North end of the Holy Table, facing "South" (i.e. across the sanctuary), sideways on to the congregation.
In my youth this was associated with "Low" churches (particularly those under the patronage of the Church Pastoral Aid Society). Also the Church of Ireland.
This practice was frequently also linked to celebrating wearing "choir" dress (cassock, surplice, scarf, and hood - NO stole), and also the use of a slice of leavened bread for communion.
(The three practices were summarized as "North End, scarf and hood, and Mother's Pride" (the last being a current brand of sliced wbite bread)).
The split was I know inevitable and maybe even necessary as there were insurmountable differences.
But I'm sad, so very sad.
Beaky husband and I were mission partners sent by Church Mission Society UK (founded by Anglican church here and working with the Anglican Communion worldwide).
We were sent to work for three plus years with wonderful colleagues (both clergy and lay) in the Anglican Church Kenya which is part of GAFCON. This necessitated grace on the part of us all as our theological and cultural backgrounds were very different.
There were some tricky moments but also some very beautiful ones.
I know of several parishes and even dioceses here in the UK with links to Anglican Communion churches which are part of GAFCON.
So the question I've got echoing around my head is how will this split affect the cross-cultural partnership of Anglican churches which has been in place for so many years?
I could weep.
Whether our own reaction is one of sadness, or of 'good riddance', of indifference or whatever else it might be, yours is a salutary reminder that however we cut it and whatever our 'churchpersonship' or theology, there are human beings involved.
On both sides.
Micah 6:8 This is what the Lord asks of you: only this, to act justly, to love tenderly and to walk humbly with your God.
At the same time I try to be gracious in how I respond to fellow Christians whose stance on a whole host of stuff is diametrically opposed to my own- and it's really hard, I often fail and sometimes in the face of intransigence I can only wish them well and walk away.
I meant the current Anglican leadership really, whoever’s temping.
I also think it's possible to align one's sympathies with people over some issues but not others.
So whilst I may not be on the same page as someone 'theologically' in all respects I can still appreciate or admire aspects that overlap with my own views on things and also to some extent those that don't.
I also think that as @MrsBeaky says there are times when we can nothing but wish people well and walk away - or allow them to walk away from us.
I often feel a 'connection' based on shared experience with people from my charismatic evangelical days, for instance, even though I may no longer be on the 'same page' as them or we've gone in different directions.
There are different levels and gradations of 'relationship' of course.
I don't feel any affinity with prosperity-gospellers or YECies, but I might with mainstream Methodists or moderate evangelicals despite ecclesial or theological differences on some points.
Olive branches of friendship can still be offered, of course, if and when occasion demands.
I don't think there are many GAFCON-style parishes in Our Town, though I daresay there are some in Our Diocese. I expect they will carry on regardless, as it were.
I know, I'm sorry.
And I hate that it is like this.
In my own experience as someone read as female, the GAFCON end of Anglicanism and the Society end (not all churches affiliated with the Society are under alternative oversight) are vastly different. The latter for instance won't generally be complementarian and usually are pretty LGBTQ+ friendly, in the same way that many local RC churches can be (and indeed it's not that unusual to find people who are fine with openly gay priests as long as they're male). Like RC churches, I often find that Society churches are more friendly to single people, poor people, disabled people, and immigrants than many liberal Anglican churches. As someone who is in 3 out of 4 of those groups, sometimes it's more complicated than liberal good/conservative bad.
The URC liberalism is of the second kind. Are there people who hold conservative views within the URC? Yes, of course, it would not be of that type of liberal church if there were not. It, however, also gives space for people who hold radically different views from those and manages to hold the two groups together. As Geoffrey Nuttall pointed out, this goes back to the Puritan (separatist) understanding of the ways the Holy Spirit works.
In the Baptist Union, you can be seen as a reflection of this, the same underlying liberal attitude, but the majority of congregations are conservative but with a sizable minority of liberal congregations
When I was preaching in our former church (newfrontiers (con-evo charismatic)) I managed to sneak in quotes from various patristric sources and the likes of +Frank Weston (in hindsight I should have realised my days were numbered but hey-ho).
It is indeed. For me personally, a lot of the time that means prioritising accessible (and for me that means both accessibility in terms of disability and also just being able to get there!) churches even if it's less of a perfect fit in other areas. If a church is an amazing inclusive space in terms of gender/sexuality but they keep unreliable hours or they don't have a disabled-friendly toilet, that's not much good to me unfortunately - and often it is churches in modern buildings that have the most accessible facilities as a whole (although this often means RC churches as much as eg Vineyard).
The Bishop of Down and Dromore, The Right Reverend David McClay, said:
‘There was nothing substantially new in the communiqué that GAFCON has not said on many occasions in recent years. GAFCON is not leaving the Anglican Communion, GAFCON is the Anglican Communion and those aligned in any way to GAFCON have not departed from historic Anglicanism as others have in recent decades.’
‘This is a time for all to prayerfully reflect on our calling to biblical truth. This for me is something that I believe I promised when ordained a deacon, when ordained a priest and when ordained a bishop and is, therefore, something deeply precious, often challenging, always humbling and both a privilege and a priority.’
‘Unity is precious and is something that Anglicans including the Church of Ireland have always treasured. The call is upon all of us to live under the authority of God’s Word and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.’
The Bishop of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh, The Right Reverend Ferran Glenfield, commented:
‘As to GAFCON, there is a realignment happening in the Anglican Communion.
The centre of gravity is moving south from Canterbury. The emergence of GAFCON and the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches indicates the direction of travel for the majority churches in the Communion. It is not clear how this will evolve. It is a case of wait and see.
As of now, I have no plans to attend the G26 conference in Nigeria.’
I have done this in a different way. Being a recovering Anglo Catholic I am now in a small church with little musical tradition because it is very inclusive and healing for me now. I don't have to stay for ever but the calm of the liturgy and the relaxed feeling without overstimulation is essential for me right now.
This is totally understandable imo. I think also knowing that it can be as temporary or otherwise as you need is very healing too.
Nope. You really need to learn church history. Methodism is a merged church in the UK, and each church has its own flavour. Equally different churches dominated in other areas. I live in a region with a high number of the lowest of the low(Methodist New Connexion) among Methodists for just this reason. Though with Sheffield being a Methodist city and the lowest of the low always being small, you really have to know what to look for to spot it now. There was even one branch that was Anglo-Catholic in flavour. If you get to talk to the older people, they quite possibly could tell you which denomination they come from because their grandparents told them. The merger happened around 1930, but the flavours are still there. I could certainly tell the difference between Carver St Wesley and Hanover Methodist (now both closed) in the 1990s. The removal of stationing by conference means that churches now pick their minister, which will slow the dissolution of the individual character of congregations.
Methodist are not descendents of Puritan/Separatists and therefore my comments about Baptists and URC do not apply to them.