I’ve read with interest and appreciation a post from Living Church’s Covenant blog on “The Growth and Decline of the Anglican Church in North America.” Jeremy Bonner and David Goodhew make some helpful big picture observations on ACNA church membership and attendance statistics. So my observations here should be taken as a supplement, not a criticism. (And I should confess at the beginning that I am no statistician.)
My main observation is that although church statistics, when compiled diligently, are a good measure of baptisms, those joining, those attending and those dying, they are not and really cannot be a good measure of those being repelled.
Yes, when a denomination is bleeding members like The Episcopal Church of recent decades, one can be sure there is a lot of repelling going on. But in more normal situations where growth or decline is slow or, as in ACNA’s case, the numbers are overall holding their own, it is largely conjecture how many are being repelled and why. With the reader’s forbearance, I will use myself to illustrate while not presuming how common or uncommon my experience is.
Too many years ago, it was time for me to move away from my college town. There I was an active member in a mainline Presbyterian church. But I was so provoked by the apostasy and Leftist political activism of the denomination that I determined whatever new church I joined would not be in that denomination.
Now the church statistics eventually reflected I left the Presbyterians, but never told why I left. And that is no fault of the statistics nor of that local Presbyterian Church. (I let them know I was moving, but do not recalling telling them I was done with the denomination.) For all the statistics reveal, I did not have a Presbyterian Church near my new home or could have fallen away from churchgoing altogether. Other than when someone departs to the church triumphant, church statistics usually reveal little about why someone leaves. How many are repelled is a guess and perhaps a wildly inaccurate one.
Even more beyond the reach of church statistics are those who might have considered joining a church but were repelled even before visiting. That has been the case between the Episcopal Church and me . . . twice. During the aforementioned move, I rejected TEC quickly for one reason: Spong. Influenced by Francis Schaeffer in my youth, as I still am, I was convinced that a church that doesn’t care enough about truth to discipline the likes of John Shelby Spong doesn’t care enough about truth, period. So the toleration of Bishop Spong wrote off TEC for me immediately.
Some years later, as I was moving again, my attitude toward TEC was more complicated. By that time, I had become very interested in Anglicanism. I was even open to joining the Episcopal Church providing the diocese I was joining was strongly orthodox. But when I saw that the TEC bishop in my new area was wimpily orthodox at best, I bypassed the several Episcopal Churches in town to join the only non-TEC Anglican church in town. (And I thank God that has been an excellent church home for me.)
Thus the Episcopal Church by its lack of orthodoxy and discipline drove me away so that I did not join in the first place, along with untold others who might be interested but consider it a no-go denomination due to heterodoxy. But we will not show up in their statistics.
With this and similar problems with church statistics in mind, let’s take a quick look at one of several issues in the Anglican Church in North America for which statistics provide little guidance.
To put it bluntly, ACNA has something of a Spong problem. No, ACNA does not have any heretic bishops. By a “Spong problem” in this context I mean that the most prominent public voices of ACNA, with the exception of Archbishop Foley Beach, tend to be to outside or barely in the mainstream of ACNA. They are not apostate, but they tend to be less traditional and more Neo-Evangelical than most orthodox Anglicans, and they tend to be more wedded to Liberal/Left political activism. Thus, like Spong, their profiles and words are of a kind prone to drive traditional Anglicans and many other orthodox Christians away
To be fair, there is no question these voices have attracted some people to ACNA. I personally know of a woman drawn in by Tish Harrison Warren. And the diocese home to several of these voices and somewhat notorious within ACNA for being less traditional and more politically active, the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO), has been growing and fast. The same could not be said for the TEC Diocese of Newark, which practically imploded under Spong’s leadership.
The rest of ACNA is treading water statistically as the Covenant article examines. There’s been growth in some areas, shrinkage in others, but overall the numbers are about the same. Yes, that is better than most U. S. denominations can say. One could conclude from the statistics that the rest of ACNA should become more like C4SO, as some pockets already have. I can confidently say from the inside that would be a disastrous conclusion.
For C4SO is akin to what many orthodox Anglicans have fled from and will flee again if forced. I know of several who have either left other ACNA dioceses or are thinking about leaving due to “wokeness.” Personally, I know that if I were to move now to an area with a good ACNA church and a good Continuing Anglican church, I would likely pick the Continuing Anglican church. But, again, whereas statistics reflect C4SO’s growth well, the statistics do not measure how much Neo-evangelicalism and wokeness from C4SO and elsewhere in ACNA are repelling people. The situation may be better or worse than I suspect; we just do not know, and the statistics are not much help.
One may already notice these observations beg some important questions. Among those is how much should one focus on numbers in the first place. Healthy ambition for the growth of the Lord’s work is commendable. But it has been noted that the heavy emphasis put on numerical church growth at ACNA’s founding has led to trouble. Fr. Raymond Kasch has expressed this well:
“The problems facing ACNA go back to the DNA set in 2009. When I heard the numerical goals as a delegate in Texas I thought that was a mistake. Numerical goals tend to make you compromise to meet them. Faithfulness to the truth should be the goal. Numerical goals have you ordain and consecrate folks who are not ready because they hopefully help you reach the goal. Numerical goals have you abandon sacred traditions in lieu of “missional” options in hopes that they will prove more user friendly…. Numerical goals have you ignore biblical standards for ordination to include those who should never be ordained in order to avoid schism. Numerical goals promote politics rather than apostolic authority…”
And the ministry and teaching of Jesus at times drove away as many people as it attracted. We probably should not try to drive away people, other than predators and false teachers. But if our orthodoxy and faithfulness does not repel some, we should question if we really are being orthodox and faithful. People walked away from Jesus; some will walk away from us if we are faithful. (Yes, I do think our Southern Baptist brethren are experiencing this now.) But if the faithful themselves are the ones walking away or looking for the exits, that should alarm us.
Discernment in how to achieve numerical growth is necessary. And ACNA’s approach so far reminds me of a town so eager to grow that it invites a large bar and outdoor music venue and hastily locates it in the middle of a residential neighborhood, impelling the residents to move away. The new misplaced venue may be a great success in itself, but at what cost to the community? But now I have touched on a larger subject.
Back to the original subject, church statistics can measure growth well, and the Diocese of C4SO is clearly doing something right. What church statistics do not measure well is how ACNA’s approaches to growth may be harming the church as a whole and driving faithful people away. The need for ACNA’s bishops to take this to heart may be more urgent than statistics reveal.
I am not in agreement with how CS4O has handled things. Not in the least. But those wanting to run after a couple of wrongs in a diocese they are not in, is in many ways rash and imprudent. If you want perfection, no church will ever satisfy. If you want perfect accountability, no church will ever satisfy. If you want a church that abides by your standards, no church but the church of self will ever fulfill this standard. I have greater faith that the ACNA can work these things out. I’ve been there since the beginning, and there since we were the Common Cause. Actions are being taken. Bishops, priests, and deacons are openly voicing their concerns. And if we are to fall into the thinking that the grass is greener elsewhere, Continuing Anglicans, Catholics, and a growing number of Orthodox have been some of the most inconsistent and least accountability-centered institutions.
C4SO is the leaven in the ACNA. Growing “so fast” should be a clue. They are not “doing something right” but doing new age, psychology-based pseudo church. Of course the world loves it. Of course their numbers are up. They attract the world. They are progressive Christianity clothed in historical verbiage. It’s a shame this has been allowed to flourish. Where is the Wisdom in the ACNA leadership? This is the very leaven that took down the PCUSA and TEC. A little compromise here, a little there…..A little Enneagram here, a little Peter Scazzero there…We left TEC because of the lack of reverence for the Word of God. C4SO reveres in word but not deed. Theyve honed Romans 16 tickling of the ears.
Wake up Archbishop Beach!
If your analysis is correct, then TEC should be booming.
No. Because TEC are blatant about their disregard for the Lord‘s Word. They don’t hide it. They’re proud of it. The TEC didn’t start out being blatant blasphemers. They started out a little at a time like I said above, a compromise here, a compromise there. In the beginning it sounds cool. People want to be a part of the new thing “suddenly” found to make church more appealing. As if the apostles and church fathers missed the mark. Then the orthodox members get tired of fighting and leave, allowing the progressive congregation to become even more and more liberal. Then after a while they begin to die out. It’s the same pattern that happen in PCUSA and TEC. Read John Gresham Machen. He describes in detail these patterns. Indeed, after all these years nothing is new under the sun. The same pattern is happening here in the ACNA. These progressive congregations within the ACNA including many in C4SO are well on their way to failure.
Early on in the progressive charge, parts of TEC did boom. Just as C4SO is. Once the disease filtered out to the rest of the denomination and was shoved down people’s throats, that is when the exodus began.
Show the numbers. Because it didn’t happen. The TEC Diocese of Newark did not boom under Bishop Spong. It just didn’t happen.
I was not thinking of Newark but more of California, particularly the part that Alan Jones had sway over. And it would not be diocesan but specific parishes. Also, “Boom” is a relative word………..choose “temporary increase” if that feels better.
Oh my and how could I forget the several parishes in New Orleans in my long ago Diocese of Louisiana………..must be getting old…………
Dr.,
Yes, by that that time the heresies were becoming noticeable. Few seekers after God are attracted to such things… they can find them more easily in secular philosophies and politics.
If the church fails to be called out (apart, holy) from its surrounding culture, it loses both its moral influence and its power to evangelize. A church that resembles or emulates the culture around it will offer nothing different from what the culture around it has to offer. So people will ask: what’s the point? The more the church attempts to mirror the culture, the less effective it will be – and it will eventually die a deserving death.
Yes, but TEC’s downfall was really a very slow process, starting way back. As C.S. Lewis had his demonic Undersecretary Screwtape say,
“The ‘safest’ road to hell is the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” It is the slowly heated frog in the pot desensitization metaphor…
The acceptance of heterodoxy in TEC can be seen in the 1960’s with bishop James Pike, then Prayerbook changes and women’s ordination in the 1970’s, and then came the absolute heresies of Spong’s books, the acceptance pansexuality among clergy and abortion at any time for any reason whatsoever.
But you can see the beginnings of the downward spiral all the way back in the 1800’s with the ‘enlightenment’ liberal German theologians and their influence away from the authority of Holy Writ. The Episcopal seminaries jumped into those wrongheaded and deceptive ideas with both feet. And now, here we are.
https://virtueonline.org/cultural-desensitization-acts-evil
ila,
Archbishop Beach is certainly more knowledgeable and worried about these things than you or me. However, in his less-than-fully-authoritative position (he is not like the Pope nor even has the power of many other Anglican Archbishops), there is not much he can do in his pastoral role but privately discuss and rebuke. I would bet he has done just that. The College of Bishops rule in ACNA, and that means (unfortunately) when it comes to provincial changes, bureaucratic procedural red tape… and politics can slow things way down.
When one does not have position power as ABp Beach does not [as you accurately describe] then one has to be crystal clear and laser beam focused on the top priority of the organization.
This is not what ABp Beach has done. But he better get on to it soon.
The TOP priority is not this particular issue, it is getting the gospel preached to those who do not know Jesus, and this Beach has been always “crystal clear and laser beam focused on.” I don’t want him to get too distracted by this secondary stuff.
Let’s see how that works out…………..
We will indeed see, dusty. And I for one am not worried. Beach will do his part. Others not so much.
I pray they are aware and are working toward a good outcome, Bruce.
Amen! I think that they are even more aware now with articles like this and comments from those like you and myself.
I really resonate with this article. I understand there is a work-group working on racial issues. This can be good, if it’s handled in an orthodox way, though I’m not sure what that would be unless we stress the need to be welcoming to all regardless of race. But if we use the language of Critical Race Theory, that will be a game changer for me.
I should acknowledge up front that I’m not familiar with C4SO. But I do have a parallel experience which I think is relevant.
A certain smallish conservative Evangelical denomination in my neck of the woods embarked on an emerging church project intended to attract seekers. The man they appointed to lead the project was gifted, but would not have technically qualified to pastor a traditional church for reasons not worth going into here. They failed to anticipate that within 15 years, this project would grow so massively that the mega-church which it became would outnumber all other delegates to their synod combined.
Now that’s a problem. Because now you’ve got a serious imbalance and you’ve got the entire denomination basically being governed by seekers and spiritually immature newcomers, under the leadership of a guy whose doing a tap dance with heresy.
My take-aways from this are 1) Don’t fudge the rules for a charismatic leader, and 2) Be sure that you build into your governance limitations around the project’s representation and voting power.
[…] Anglican Ink, here is an article by Mark Marshall titled The ACNA has a “Spong” problem – and if one cares about the Anglican Church in North America, it might be a good idea to […]
So, this is a non geographical “diocese”? It overlaps the “cascadia” region having a couple of congregations in Seattle.
What happened to the old St. Luke? They left TEC and joined ACNA and then wandered off again. Did they land in C4SO with a new name?
Yes, non-geographical.
To essentially equate folks that like some democrat positions as Spongian is ludicrous. The ACNA is going to die quickly if its essence is republicans who were tired of TEC’s nonsense. I’ve experienced a very similar thread in my current denomination as well–ECO Presbyterian, which recently came out of PCUSA. The claim was they they had to leave because PCUSA allowed unorthodox views of sexuality, but the longer I have been a member the more obvious it is that politics were tied in just as much.
What you call TEC nonsense, many of us remember as out and out heresy. And if Democrats tend to gravitate toward more heretical positions, chips fall where they fall.
We cannot entirely separate religion from politics, however much we would like to do so. It is a known fact that those who are theologically and morally conservative (or liberal) also tend to be politically conservative (or liberal). There are some significant exceptions of course (like ChINOS – Christians in name only), but they only “prove the rule”; every valid generality has exceptions and the rare instances that do not fit shows that the general rule exists.
True conservatives tend to be circumspect and disciplined (and to avoid change) in most areas of life, while true liberals tend to be flaky and inconsistent (and to love change for the sake of change) in most areas of life. We all have our biases and you can see mine.
Grin.
Raymond Kasch’s quote is on target:. “Numerical goals tend to make you compromise to meet them. Faithfulness to the truth should be the goal. Numerical goals have you ordain and consecrate folks who are not ready because they hopefully help you reach the goal. Numerical goals have you abandon sacred traditions in lieu of “missional” options in hopes that they will prove more user friendly…. Numerical goals have you ignore biblical standards for ordination to include those who should never be ordained in order to avoid schism. Numerical goals promote politics rather than apostolic authority…”
Had numbers not been so important in ACNA’s birth, the compromise with WO would not have occurred, and probably the Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others (C4SO) would not have been part of ACNA at all.
John Shelby Spong was the arch-heretic of heretics, and we have none of those in ACNA. But with C4SO and Bishop Hunter, I think we may have Spongy the Camel’s nose in the tent. JMO
It is a great pity that so many leave the church and no one asks why. There seems to be the assumption that we are passive ‘pew-fodder’. A little pastoral care / market research would be wise.
Just getting to know each other in some depth should work. Then people would be truly missed and we would seek them out to find out if they are OK.
There are parts of the Church which are going out of business as a result of a lack of customer care. How many of you have had a ‘phone call from your priest to see how you were doing during this Covid ‘lock-down’ ?
This is a tricky matter. I was part of an ACNA community for a short time. I left because one of the priests was less than orthodox and I felt they were on the same path as the mainline parish I’d left.
Then a sweet and well-intentioned person did follow up to ask why I hadn’t been seen lately. I was honest and explained myself – against my better judgement. The concerns I shared filtered back to the priests and several months later I received a very defensive almost accusatory note from one of them, making me feel that even if I wanted to return it would be awkward to do so.
My bet would be that a large group of people would rather avoid the possibility of ending up in conflict / burning bridges / causing offense, etc., and would not give a complete explanation.
That said, had the priest been the one to reach out to me, and had the response to me been less defensive and more pastoral, everything could certainly have turned out differently.
Not good that he responded in a defensive manner. I’d almost ask “what was he thinking?” Your response to that is perfectly normal and to be expected.
ACNA has more of a Marcus Borg problem than Spong rot; make it up as you go. Many years ago I did read one of Spong’s books where he explains his points (12?) of atheism. Quite frankly it was on the level of a thirteen year old snot nose boy’s essay in which the teacher handed out a C- just to make sure the student didn’t repeat. The big question is how many of C4SO churches would follow Hunter if he decides to split?
When I first heard an Episcopalian observe that ‘we don’t have to leave our brains at the door” it struck a positive cord with me. Over time I realized that was “code” for making up your own cr** on the basis of a Sunday school education. I also realized that if you are going to swim in the deep waters of the ancient Churches (i.e. Orthodox or Catholic) you need to engage your mind or you will drown.
Not only is rational thought necessary for dealing with the ancient churches, it is necessary for understanding the scriptures themselves. ALL Christians need to discipline their brains to the task.
“The Christian doctrine of revelation, far from making human reason unnecessary, actually makes it indispensable and assigns to it its proper place. God has revealed himself in ‘words’ to ‘minds.’ His revelation is a rational revelation to rational creatures. Our duty is to receive his message, to submit to it, to seek to understand it, and to relate it to the world in which we live. That God needs to take the initiative to reveal Himself shows that our minds are finite and fallen; that He chooses to reveal himself to babies (Mt. 11:25) shows that we must humble ourselves to receive his Word; that He does so at all, and in words, shows that our minds are capable of understanding it. One of the highest and noblest functions of man’s mind is to listen to God’s Word, and so to read his mind and think his thoughts after him, both in nature and in Scripture.” (John R.W. Stott)
But unbelievers just won’t get it, no matter how intellectually brilliant they may be. “And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:13-14)
Well said!
One cannot do better than quote the scriptures, and John Stott explains them so well.
Not a big question for me. As an orthodox ACNA member, I hope he does split and that the most liberal of the churches follow him… and good riddance. I don’t care much about numbers at this stage, I care about depth of faith and commitment to the scriptures and Apostolic doctrine. Sometimes schism is necessary to preserve the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). https://www.virtueonline.org/schism-and-sword-spirit-bruce-atkinson
ACNA needs C4SO more than the other way around. As much as people here seem to want to believe numbers don’t matter–they definitely do to an extent, and it would be an embarrassingly large decline for ACNA without C4SO, for a new denomination that puts so much emphasis on church planting and evangelism.
I disagree, that is, unless CS4O turns much more orthodox, which I do not expect to happen. The last thing ACNA needs is any influence in a direction back toward the apostate Episcopal Church!
The Church (made up of all true believers) needs to stand on the scriptures and never become worldly. When numbers only mean more nominals and the elevation of secular values, it harms people rather than saves them.
The Church is supposed to be (and was at first) truly counter-cultural– rebelliously so. The human “world” is our enemy; so said Jesus (echoed by James). Jesus repeatedly said that the world (meaning cultures and governments) would hate His disciples (e.g., Matt 10:22, 24:9; Luke 21:17; John 15: 18-19, 17:4). James told us not to be friends with world because that would make us enemies of God (James 4:4). And as Paul made clear in Ephesians 6, we are engaged in spiritual warfare. John was also clear about how we deal with the “world” in 1 John 4.
When churches echo the culture, they make themselves enemies of God. It is that simple.
This fact also makes discernment of who are true shepherds and who are false shepherds much easier. The cultures of the world (the Zeitgeist) will love the false shepherds, but the true shepherds (like the prophets of old) will not be popular with pagans, nominals, and heretics.
When it comes to evangelism (numbers if you will)… We are to trust in God’s power to accomplish what needs to be done, instead of trusting in our own abilities and efforts. “Not by worldly power and might, but by My Spirit, says the Lord.” (Zechariah 4:6b) “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:47b) And we also should remember that Jesus taught “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…” (John 6:44). We are not to depend on bishops, especially not those faddish types who are moving in a PC direction — as is happening in CS4O with the psychosocially charismatic Todd Hunter.
Consider me called to be one of God’s watchers at the gate (Ezekiel 33) warning the ACNA leaders of enemies within.
I agree with you a good deal in the comments I have seen here. probably 80-90% or so.
However, I see a different cultural/worldly problem than you do. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it sort of seems like you see American culture as a binary of good and evil, right and left, conservative and liberal (political). With this, you see Christianity as being on the good/right/conservative side of things.
Having grown up with the right/conservative side of things, I can easily see the incompatibility with much of the left/liberal ideology with Christianity. However, as I’ve grown older, I can see the horrendous glaring evil that is part of the right/conservative side of things as well. Christianity is not compatible with either group. Both sides have riches which we should plunder (as St Augustine says), but it all needs to be done with a sanctified and critical eye. To give a small example– I have been the beneficent of leftwing policies such as the Affordable Care Act (as mismanaged and frustrating it can be), and I know that many other folks much poorer than I am (rather than simply borderline) have benefited from such policies as well.
The Lord of Heaven’s Army is not on anyone’s “Side” except His own, and looking through Church History (as a protestant at-least!) you can quite firmly tell where the Church erred over and over again, while also seeing the thread of the Holy Spirit’s gracious action even in the midst of dangerous, glaring flaws.
I think it is important to reflect on what are truly First, secondary, and tertiary matters to you. Reflect on the fact that our daily office constantly reminds us that God was grieved with an entire generation for their faithlessness, and it was not the up and coming generation. I do not agree with a good amount of Critical Race Theory (I’m guessing Bp Hunter agrees with that too), but I do know, both from being the husband and family to a woman who is a racial minority and having biracial kids and from countless conversations I have had with non-white friends, that racism, both individual and structural is very real and has a very real impact on their lives. I think it is a giant blind spot that the Baby Boomer, Greatest Generation (and to a slightly lesser extent Gen-X) have largely not reckoned with in a way that has lead to repentance and righteousness.
Of course, who can argue against the fact that there is good, bad, and heretically ugly thinking on whatever side of the political fence you want to point to. I preach this myself. But I would suggest back at you… “I think it is important to reflect on what are truly First, secondary, and tertiary matters to YOU.” It is that time of year to get off our self-congratulatory soapboxes and realize our own fallibility. If I cannot substantiate my thinking with the scriptures, then either I am in error or the scriptures do not sufficient address the question (and thus it is not all that important in the first place). A number of political issues can be reasonably debated using scripture… and the resolution turns about to be rather balanced. With primary issues, there is no compromise to be found in the scriptures, but with other issues (prominently debated right now in our culture), the answer is moot as far as the Bible is concerned… like the role of secular government vis a vis the Church and/or individual responsibility in many areas, such as dealing with the pandemic, the poor, illegal immigration, and gun control.
I don’t think the Roman Catholic Church has reached the conclusions it has, which err on the side of being compassionate when it comes to immigrants, without extensive study of the Scriptures (Note: There is, of course, within Christian thought room for debate on how exactly we go about this–George W Bush has written on immigration and he has a different vision than Joe Biden, though both support things like a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants!). What is the compassionate thing to do for the richest nation on earth when impoverished mothers and children trek on foot for months to reach our borders? Refugee resettlement used to be a largely bipartisan matter, with many republican presidents allowing more refugees into the USA than democrats.
I really do not have the time or energy to elucidate on what the Scriptures say about things like that, or even the thoughts and actions of my refugee Reformed patron John Calvin!
Here’s the thing though–when it comes to the ACNA, instead of allowing secondary or tertiary things to remain where they were, the Bishops decided to release a very messy statement on what terms priests should use to describe sexuality, unless of course, their own bishop gave different recommendations!
To answer my question you reflected back to me–I do that a lot! I am uncomfortable at my current church–Presbyterian, ordains women, instituted ‘virtual’ communion during the pandemic, has blundered with a lot of bothsidesism when it comes to the pandemic and racism, uses corporate terms and means more than humble prayer to drive things, etc.
I am both too ‘conservative’ and too ‘liberal’ for my church… though perhaps I am just too ‘catholic’ 🙂
We do not have to rehash the entire Reformation here, but there is a long list of unscriptural “conclusions… which err” which have come from the Roman Catholic Church over its long history, including a number of needed reformations which have yet to occur. The RCC itself has shown that it does “not have the time or energy to elucidate on what the Scriptures say about things like” these. So this makes much of your post without merit from your first sentence.
I am not saying that other churches are without fault. They are ALL too much of the world and the thinking of men instead of the Word of God. As Archbishop Thomas Cranmer famously said, “There was never anything so well devised by men which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted.” And this corruption began very early in the Roman church.
https://virtueonline.org/heresy-and-orthodoxy-part-iii-bruce-atkinson
Yep. Just consider what is going on within the UMC. I suspect that the post-split orthodox Methodist church will be much stronger and stable as compared to the ps-UMC they are calling it.
I am presently fed up with the PCUSA at the national level. I would officially leave, if it were solely up to me and not for the fact that our congregation has been of great support to my wife through what has been a very extended trying season over the past decade. That said, my pastor knows why I will probably be scarce, when we resume regular services post-covid, and been put to notice that I am a member on paper only.
My problem is theologically, I am well within the orthodox Reformed camp, so preference would be the PCA, which has a strong, vibrant congregation locally. Alternatively, I could attend the local ACNA plant or the local LCMS. I would even consider the post-split, orthodox Methodist denomination that arises from the ashes of the looming UMC schism, even though I don’t hold to a Wesleyan theology, despite having been Methodist for part of my childhood, though in my heart, I will always be a Baptist, which is what I was for much of my life until 13 years ago.
I understand and empathize. If it were not for the BCP Eucharist being the center of congregational worship and for the 39 Articles of Religion, I might be a Baptist (per Dr. Albert Mohler).
You are all being killed off by the enemies hidden inside the Trojan Horse you opened your city gates to. And that Horse is something you still worship, passionately and enthusiastically, even as the hidden Achaeans slaughter your people all around you. You think the Horse is fundamental to your faith, but your ancestors would be stunned by it. And anyone who, like Laocoon, names the Horse and cries out Equo ne credite is banned in a heartbeat.
This is what happened in (and to) the Episcopal Church and is happening to other mainline denominations. Even ACNA is not entirely protected from ‘the heterodox from within.’
Christ Church Plano transfered from the Diocese of Pgh to C4SO a few years ago and C4SO grew immensely. How long will Christ Church remain part of C4SO? I wonder? How much of their growth is by bringing the unchurched to Christ? I wonder?
I also wonder.
[…] Read More […]
As a relatively new Anglican (5 years) I have been playing “catch up” trying to understand the massive riffs that have occurred with the TEC and COE. I can see the concerns people have with Bishop Hunter. Many Anglicans I know are fond of Hunter’s devotions, and leanings. Many Anglicans I know are fond of liberal theology but I have often wondered if they really understand what we say/pray in the liturgy, and what we profess in the creeds. It seems in certain Anglican church settings they more theologically align with TEC but for some reason they have ended up in the ACNA. I am puzzled by this.
The more the U.S. turns the corner away from historic Christian faith we will need Bishops to speak with true clarity. Without clarity and directly addressing the issues we will only persist in having a group of folks that like the bells and smells but don’t live into Apostolic faith.