Orthodox Anglicans who are creating a new movement at a breakaway summit in Jerusalem have said they feel “betrayal and abandonment” at the current church structure.
The 1,000 conservatives at the Gafcon conference say they feel “profound sadness” that the worldwide Anglican Communion has been driven to the brink of schism by liberals in America and Canada departing from traditional church teaching, particularly over sexuality.
They are working on a statement which shows how they think the church must proceed, which involves faithfulness to the Scripture and an end to “innovations” such as the ordination of homosexual clergy.
They are also developing a “church within a church” which will cater for Anglicans who do not want to be under the leadership of liberal bishops.
“They are also developing a “church within a church” which will cater for Anglicans who do not want to be under the leadership of liberal bishops.”
================================================================
I feel betrayed by the Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. That’s why I worship at a church in the nearby Diocese of Albany, a diocese led by the godly and orthodox Bishop William Love.
As a matter of fact, I do not consider the Bishop of Vermont to be able to, due to his revisionist beliefs and practices as evidenced by his strong support of Gene Robinson, to be able to spiritually preside over the Sacrements.
That is, in my opinion, he is a clerical non-entity when it comes to spiritual matters.
So, I am in a situation where my geographical bishop is not a bishop to me and I have been forced by the progressive-revisionists in Vermont to seek sanctuary in the Diocese of Albany.
Hopefully, the Diocese of Albany can/will become an episcopal leader of “a church within churche[s]” for orthodox Anglicans living in New England and Upstate New York.
A church in a church. What a terrible, unworkable idea! Where has our courage gone? Larry
“Where has our courage gone?”
Larry, I agree, but if all that we get out of this GAFCon is what seems to be forthcoming, then we have to go forward with vigor with what has been given to us.
Larry – just think 20 yrs ahead…..today TEC has 0.8m people on a Sunday…..at current rates, it will not be long before it disappears….we just have to be patient for liberals (all over the world and in the CofE) to reap what they have sowed….few go to hear the non-message. No need to leave the AC…it is ours. The parasites are slowly dying.
Paraphrasing, DBonneville’s comment at SFIF yesterday, the Eucharist is our only current means of separation, discipline and exercise of conscience until functional structures and means of discipline are in place. Thankfully, parishes and dioceses are finding temporary authority and protection outside TEC and the ACoC.
The last 5 years have proven that the ones we have now dont work because of the ABC (and those who have bought and/or influence him) do not wish to employ or be corrected by the current the instruments of unity.
[blockquote]breakaway summit[/blockquote]
Has this reporter even bothered to do any research and listen to what is actually being said?
A church in a church. What a terrible, unworkable idea!
The phrase “church within a church” is perhaps unfortunate. But as I commented at Stand Firm yesterday, what is fundamentally required is a formal and thorough-going break in communion with the Episcopal Church (no communion in the sacraments; no recognition of TEC clergy; etc.). If a real (not rhetorical) break in communion is accomplished, the setting-up of an alternative ecclesiastical organization does not need to happen right away. And neither does an announcement of “separation” from Canterbury need to happen right away, if ever. A formal announcement of separation from Canterbury would only be rhetorical grand-standing in any case.
What is most needed at this point is a real break in communion with TEC; after that, the unglamorous hard work of forming the Common Cause partnership into a cohesive ecclesiastical body.
Hey Larry,
Have you ever heard of the Methodists? They were the tremendously successful revival movement in the CofE/Britain in the 18th Century. The institutionalists of that time didn’t get it for the most part. The Methodists tried their hardest to remain in the CofE as a spiritual society, but politics and institional gear-greasing won out. Now the Methodists number 70 million worldwide. The late Rt. Revd. Frank Vest was an invited guest at the Virginia Conference of the United Methodist Church about 10 years ago. As he looked out over 3,000 assembled clergy and laity his first remark was….”We should never have let you go.”
Unless some dead weight in TEC gets a clue soon, they’ll be a footnote like that.
The idea of “church within a church” is consistent with the NT, which contains warnings about “false brethren”, “super-apostles”, those who preach from “wrong motives” and other warnings to differentiate from those who, while still present in the church, are in error.
But this “news” was already spoken by Bp. Akinola last Sunday in his opening addressed – he spoke of the AC’s “abuse and betrayal” of the orthodox and criticized the “instruments of DISunity.”
As a matter of fact, I do not consider the Bishop of Vermont to be able to, due to his revisionist beliefs and practices as evidenced by his strong support of Gene Robinson, to be able to spiritually preside over the Sacrements.
Donotist: a heresy in which the effectiveness of the sacrament is dependent on the moral character of the priest administering it.
I’m just say’n
#7: Thou speakest well, Old black letter.” But tell me how this absolute break with TEC is to be accomplished? Who will do it? Does GAFCON as a group simply stand up and say, “We will have nothing to do with TEC from this day forward. All those who espouse this position, come forward and join us in signing this declaration.” Will this do the job? If it will, where do I sign? Larry
Re: #s 1, 10,
As # 1 formulated it, that is indeed Donatism, and indeed heresy. But the conclusion still stands that one ought to flee the communion of the Bishop of Vermont, because he is in communion with heretical bishops (such as his neighbor of New Hampshire) and is (as a supporter of homosexualism) a heretic himself. But, alas, one must not only flee the communion of heretical bishops, but also of those bishops that maintain communion with heretical bishops; and unless during my recent two-week holiday when I had no internet access Bishop Love of Albany has broken communion with Bishop Ely of Vermont and Bishop Robinson of New Hampshire, it is simply ludicrous to suppose that by crossing over into Albany to take communion one has removed oneself from the communion of the Bishop of Vermont. Such gestures, however earnestly undertaken, are little more then meaningless and self-deluding charades.
#8: That’s a hilarious anecdote. but painful. Larry
#11, I enjoy your posts very much. I think what is happening with GAFCON is the birth of a movement within the Anglican Communion that will disregard boundaries and current power relationships. GAFCON seems to be saying it is going where the Holy Spirit leads, without regard to the geographic confines that TEC (or AbofC or anyone else) would like to place upon it, and without regard to its current relationship with TEC, ACinC or the AbofC. It will establish its churches wherever the Holy Spirit leads, including and especially in North America, as it has done already to a limited extent. But why announce in your face to TEC and the AbofC what you are going to do. Everything the GAFCON participants have asked in the past has been ignored by TEC and the AbofC. So I believe what is now being said to the world is, we are on a mission for the gospel, and no earthly person, organization, or body of the current church shall get in our way, though we shall not be smug and in your face about where and what we shall do in the future. If I were TEC and CofE, I would think long and hard about the downward trajectory I am on and look at GAFCON very closely. I think the wraps have just been taken off of any pretense of holding back the work of evangelism and mission within North America and UK. If the Bishop of Atlanta thinks having 5 or 6 Anglican congregations within the geographical bounds of his diocese is not what he wants now, for example, I suspect in another few years that number will double or triple, and his numbers will continue to drop as they have since 2003 by over 10%, even though Atlanta has grown continuously. Life is going to become much more complicated for the current members of TEC’s HOB. A separate structure at this point is not necessary. When the money of TEC and other churches begins to dry up, and the Anglican plants’ money is needed, the AbofC will gladly recognize them as Anglicans in a relationship with him. More importantly, the powerful bishops of the GS will require him to recognize their plants in NA, or they will not recognize him, as is sort of happening with the boycott of Lambeth at the present time. Unless AbofC comes around to recognize the boundary crossing plants as part of the Anglican Communion, the boycott of the next Lambeth will be even more massive. GAFCON is just the beginning. Give them more time to put meat on the bones of this movement.
Dr. Tighe said,
“… it is simply ludicrous to suppose that by crossing over into Albany to take communion one has removed oneself from the communion of the Bishop of Vermont. Such gestures, however earnestly undertaken, are little more then meaningless and self-deluding charades.”
=====================================================================
Dr. Tighe, I am a Sacrementalist, that is, I beieive in and cherish the spiritual power and mysteries of the Sacrements, particularly, Baptism and Holy Eucharist.
I do not believe that the Holy Spirit participates in the Sacrements just because an ordained person or a lay person invokes the name of the Holy Spirit.
For example, if I have knowingly sinned and choose not to contritely confess my sin and ask for forgiveness with a heart and mind that intend not to repeat that sin, then I do not believe that I will be “in Communion” during Eucharist. In fact, I will be compounding my sin.
If I knowingly seek to participate in Eucharist with a priest/bishop who is notoriously andf uncontritely “in sin,” then not only will that Eucharist be spiritually defectrive, but I will also be aiding and abetting a sinning clergyman who needs to address his own sins before performing the functions of his office.
While I may not have the right to pass judgement upon such a clergyman, I do have the obligation to not support his sinful behavior.
My method of doing this is called “shunning.” By shunning such a clergyman, I am taking the Biblically correct path of “shaking the dust” from my feet and leaving his village and its iniquities behind me.
Now if I remember correctly, Donatism had to do with the spiritual authority of a bishop who collaborated with the Romans in North Africa during an anti-Christian pogrom. If you look at that situation and the current situation within ECUSA, I find myself to be a straight forward “shunner” and not a “Donatist.”
XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments.
Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ’s, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments.
Neither is the effect of Christ’s ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God’s gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ’s institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men.
Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, that inquiry be made of evil Ministers, and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their offences; and finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed.
–Articles of Religion
Wow, this is a “pile on!”
First Dr. Tighe and now LibraryJim.
Well, Dr Tighe and Library Jim, maybe what you want is to force out of the Anglican Faith those of us who are concerned more about our own souls and those of others and about the message of Salvation much more than mere institutional precepts contrived by man.
It is our worship of the institutional aspects of Anglicanism that has permitted the Anglican Church in the United States to drift so far away from “the Faith once given.”
Too many people in ECUSA care too much about the institution and all of its trappings and care too little about the Gospel and its message of Salvation.
That’s why things are the way they are today.
Those who are calling out “Donatism” in this instance seem to be making an idol of the institution.
What was it that Jesus said about the institutionally ‘ever-so-correct’ Pharisees?
Actually, Anglicanfirst, mine wasn’t so much of a ‘slam’ as a mere pointing out that the article is saying that if one has no choice of a church or bishop, attending communion in a reappraising church is not the worst thing that can happen. The Eucharist is still legitimately consecrated (but beyond that you may not be ‘fed’ spiritually).
When I was growing up, many of my friends would attend the Catholic Mass on Sunday for the Eucharist, and attend a — what’s the word? Protestant? Charismatic? Pentecostal? — church on Wednesday nights for Bible study and praise.
You need to go where God leads you and you will be blessed.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Anglican First”s ecclesiology is Protestant, as is that of many of the Reasserters. The Catholic/Protestant divide in Anglicanism is the deepest of all, and one which may finally result in the undoing of Anglicanism as we now know it. However, the Church remains indefectible.