Clarification: at about 16:22 it is stated that the queen appoints all bishops in the church. That is for the Church of England, not for other churches in the Anglican Communion, e.g., the Church of Nigeria, the Episcopal Church (USA), etc.
@@alfredroyal3473 But only for the Church of England, and not for any other churches in the communion. Neither the UK Prime Minister nor the UK monarch has any role in the selection of bishops in other churches in the communion.
@@doubledee9675 I knew that. The C of E is the established church in England and other Anglican provinces are separate. In Scotland the Anglican church is the Scottish Episcopal Church but it is not the established church, that is the Church of Scotland which is a Reformed/Calvinist church with no bishops.
@@ronashman8463 All Christians should listen to an important lesson of history: All states fail and disappear. Their state laws, institutions, constitutions and currencies all fail disappear. By contrast, Christian institutions last for millennia. We can use the Soviet Union as a great recent example. Now today, there are over 100 million Russian Orthodox Christians. States are mortal. The Body of Christ is immortal. "Debating" with short lived temporal mortal states is mostly useless. Christians and Christian institutions are more important than states and their citizens.
God and Christ are not neutral they are the very reason you breathe and are on solid ground. The English have to renounce hypocrisy and apathy and repent, wail, and cry out for forgiveness. Too much nonsense, pride, and apostasy and too much emphasis on who's first and on top and about pension plans. Do not give another cent to any Anglican English or Catholic denomination that keeps Christ out of its pews and Church.
You should cover the formation of the Anglican Ordinariate Chair of St. Peter. It was instituted by Pope Benedict XVI. It allows Anglican parishes who are unhappy with the Anglican Community and have decided to join the Catholic Church. They are allowed to keep their Anglican liturgy and traditional customs; but adhere to the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm a member of that. It's great and growing fast! Unlike the former Anglican Use, we get our own bishop and basically our own English Rite under the banner of the Latin Rite.
I am not sure on what side you fall. Well done indeed! You have succeeded in presenting impartial news, and it is as welcome to my ears as rain in a drought.
@@imgrant5344 I was merely commenting about the delivery of the sole video I have seen from this content creator. Perhaps he grievously mistreats those he dislikes, does that change his work? If a racists paints a picture devoid of racism, is it automatically a bad picture because of the one who painted it? Is a sexists money worth any more or less than someone whose mind cannot distinguish gender? Surely the idea of the 'death of the author' divorcees the content created from the creator so that each maybe judged independently. That the creator gains no virtue of their work, and the work no sin of its creator. Your comment is unrelated to mine, I wonder if you left it in response by mistake? Perhaps you were meaning to replay to someone else in the comment section?
Phenomenal insight on this. From attending a few Episcopal services, the denomination is NOT getting younger. No surprise to see growth trending from Africa where there's more excitement and zeal.
I go to an ACNA church and almost half the church is under 18. We're getting people not only leaving the episcopal church but also leaving Baptist and Methodist churches who want a traditional worship service and historical grounding in the faith. One guy told me he left his Baptist Church because he was sick of the "Jesus is my boyfriend" worship music. Our diocese has added I think 8 churches in the last five years. People want orthodox teaching.
The Episcopals in America are dying because they chose to abandon many, many biblical laws for the sake of modernity and wokeism. Thankfully God's judgement is being cast upon them and they are shrinking. My parents have gone to one for years, I pray often for them to come back.
@@_thisismeisthatyou9277 At the ACNA parish I attend, we have some baby boomer members who came out of TEC/PECUSA, but the majority of the members are millennials and zoomers from different backgrounds. My wife and I came over from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod not too long ago. Of the four priests and three deacons who serve the parish or are faculty, staff, or students at a nearby seminary, I only know of one who was raised Episcopalian. It’s a wonderful, vibrant community.
@@augustinian2018 that sounds similar to our church. The older members broke from the episcopal church and formed ours right before the ACNA started and all the younger members are from different backgrounds too. I was raised independent Baptist. The priest was a Methodist, then Lutheran.
@@footballnick2 Yeah… very true. Sometimes I think these specific denominations are the main reasons why Christianity is dying in the newer generations. There’s a Methodist church across the street from my university and college kids go to the back of that church to smoke weed as tradition (from what I’ve heard). The church’s roof also recently burnt down (I don’t know how). They actively support anti-Bible political propaganda. Very ironic!!
Interesting lessons for the Catholic Church too. The German synodal way wants similar changes as the Episcopal Church already made. But in contrast to the Anglican Church, the German Catholic Church can’t decide to allow blessings of same sex relationships (although some priests just do it) or appoint women as priests, because Catholicism is more hierarchical I guess.
@@Treviscoe To acknowledge their prophetic role fully. Look at the examples of Mother Angelica or Mother Theresa. But women as mothers potentially play the greatest role. You can never “pay” enough to great women, those with a prophetic mission.
@@Treviscoe That is a depraved and corrupted sentiment. One should do what is Holy for the sake of what is Holy, not for earthly rewards. To think of such a demand is to be divorced from that which is good and virtuous. Since you are one who thinks materially instead of spiritually, I will aid in dispelling your framing. Churches typically only compensate those who devote their whole life to the Church. A mother or father who takes their family to Church on Sunday or who organizes community events will never be compensated. In the case of the Catholic Church, priests, nuns, and monks are all compensated; mostly through housing and food stipends. The Church is not a place to bring your worldly resentment and entitlements.
Great video, but I did note one minor inaccuracy: At 9:30, you identify one of the primates who boycotted Lambeth as the primate of Brazil. The official Anglican Communion province in Brazil, the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil, is theologically liberal and performs same-sex marriages. The Brazilian primate who didn't attend is part of the Anglican Church in Brazil, a conservative breakaway group similar to ACNA that isn't part of the Anglican Communion but participates in GAFCON and GSFA.
I thought it already had split. There are numerous denominations in the Anglican communion. Recently some Anglicans even broke off and joined Catholisism - the Anglican Ordinariate
@@gamerofedge8111 I legitimately currently attend an active and growing one in Texas. I don’t know why you felt the need to make such an inaccurate and bold claim but kindly stop spreading lies
@@dear_totheheart The Anglican Ordinariate hasn’t been active or valid in either church for 15+ years lmao, your probably attending an offshoot which isn’t considered Anglican or Catholic officially.
@@gamerofedge8111 Dude I found his ordinariate with like two seconds of research, its still going. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter
Some provinces are probably too small for there to be a split. Much more likely is Anglicans like me in Wales preferring to attend Baptist (or some other denomination) churches.
There's the possibility of a model similar to the Diocese of the Southern Cross (which I think only has a handful of member churches so far). A sort of catch-all conservative diocese supported by nearby conservative diocese.
Thank you for laying things out so clearly. As someone who is on one end of the spectrum it’s hard to engage with the situation without it feeling like an echo chamber or an argument, so I appreciate your thoroughness and neutrality.
Yes it's breaking. I have just left in wake of a series of recent events (bishop of europe's comments regarding the word "woman, non-binary priests, and now this). As Christians we submit to scripture. If the church refuses to do so, then the church falls. Faith is not a question of culture or compassion, it is a function of surrender to God's word.
The problem with ‘scripture’ is that what is in the current Bible was selected over a period of a few hundred years, with many other gospels and books being rejected by the orthodox church. The New Testament was selected by men. As for the Old Testament, Christians should have dumped that in favour of Jesus’ teachings.
Scripture is always interpreted and applied by human beings. There's no such thing as the unadulterated "word of God." If you doubt this, just examine which parts of Leviticus, chapters 18-23 Christians consider binding and which parts they don't. Why isn't there "faithful surrender" to everything in it?
@@conscienceaginBlackadder Well not really, that way people who care about the church and its traditions get to keep the "brand" and all of the cathedrals and church buildings that belong to it.
I'm from outside the Anglican Church, but like UMC and GMC in USA (and Africa I think) there needs to be a division. How can a Biblical and non-Biblical co-exist. They can't. It will happen with the Uniting Church in Australia soon too, and I'm seeing it here in the Anglican Church.
@@firepower7654 I was replying to a comment by @Soarel that Biblical and non-Biblical could co-exist in the same church teachings. She thinks they can, I think they can't, that's what I was agreeing to disagree about. That comment seems to have been deleted now.
The Church of England now states that there is "no official definition " of a woman and that "additional care" was required when trying to define the word. Welby will also return two Benin bronze artifacts to Nigeria, these same artifacts were given as a gift to the Archbishop of Canterbury during a visit to Nigeria in 1982. C of E has destroyed the Anglican Communion by engaging in woke politics for decades
The C of E's bizarre doctrine is simply the result of the the doctrine of Bible Alone. Every strange and fanciful heresy is justified by a belief that Jesus is leading the Bible reader into truth of doctrine. Thanks Martin Luther, thanks Calvin, etc
Interesting how the commission for electing the Archbishop of Canterbury is undergoing a process similar to what happened to the College of Cardinals, from being almost solely comprised of clergy of the diocese itself, then to clergy of the general region, then finally electors from the whole world.
That's not correct. The Pope is soley elected by the College of Cardinals. Although (technically) they can choose to elect a bishop who is not a cardinal. As I understand it the Abp of Canterbury is selected from several names put forward to the Crown Nominations Committee. I think the PM has the final say? and the appointment is signed off by the Soverign.
@@colinlavelle7806 Yes, as I said the College of Cardinals used to be the clergy of the diocese of Rome and now comprises bishops from the entire world. I never said that the College of Cardinals ceased to be the body responsible for election.
One thing to watch is what happens when Prince Charles takes the throne because it's no secret that he's less devout than his mother. When the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is lukewarm about his faith, what does that mean for those below him?
I'm one of those from the British Commonwealth (Australia spicifically) who still have the British Monarch as there head of state, who want the throne to skip the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles) and go to the Duke of Cambridge (Prince William).
Let's be real: nearly the entire British populace could take or leave the Church of England. But the monarchy still has a solid plurality of popular support. I'll be the main thing keeping the CoE from being scrapped as a state institution is the fear of the same thing happening to the monarchy.
I would argue that in many ways the Anglican communion is already split, even if that split never becomes formalized. There are fractures within the fractures themselves. That's not meant to be an indictment of anyone, it just seems to be the obvious reality. One thing that I know that Anglicanism has in common with Catholicism is that the Church in the west is in decline but the Church in the global South, especially in Africa and Oceania, is greatly on the increase. I believe the day will come when we see an African Pope. More videos about the Anglican Ordinariates would be interesting because this was one Catholic answer to the Anglican problem. I've worked a little bit with some local Ordinariate prayer groups that are trying to organize enough to become a parish themselves. They have a wonderful vibrant faith, I know that they live their faith well and live it quietly but sincerely from what I can see. I can't help but think that there are a lot of Anglicans throughout the world who perhaps are the same way, they're trying to live right and they're living it quietly but sincerely.
Catholicism is growing and is also in decline. The decline is a rejection of the new liturgy and bad theology that came after Vatican II, and the growth is the orthodox movement, in which most parishes have doubled or tripled in size. A very simple recipe for any church is that if they are focused on anything that isn't worshiping God, they will fall apart.
Actually, the part of the Anglican church owing fealty to Justin Welby and his confusion on human sexuality is in decline. The majority of the Anglican church lies within what was once called "developing countries," especially those in Africa. Those churches, along with dissenting churches in North America, are estimated to comprise 70% of what was once a unified Anglican Communion. These are represented by GAFCON and the Global South. Both have been publicly critical of Welby's desire to subvert scripture to the secular values of the present culture. Essentially, the Anglican Church is experiencing its own Arian moment, in which the Roman Catholic church doctrine denied the divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius and others, after much persecution by church authorities and government, held firm and Arianism was finally declared a heresy. So it will be with Justin Welby's movement to deny God's appointment of a family consisting of one man and one woman, and its present sacramental stature within the true church.
@@Anon.5216 it doesn't create two separate Catholic churches anymore than the other 22 rites of the church create separate Catholic churches. While I understand that concern, it represents a flawed understanding of Catholic ecclesiology.
There aren't schisms in Eastern Orthodoxy, only breaks in communion. There have been around 100 breaks in communion since Pentecost, it's quite a common thing. Schism is different: that's what happened to Arians, Apollinarians, Donatists, Montanists, Monophysites, Roman Catholics, etc.
@@Kdriggs15 Very different. All Christians should listen to an important lesson of history: All states fail and disappear. Their state laws, institutions, constitutions and currencies all fail disappear. By contrast, Christian institutions last for millennia. We can use the Soviet Union as a great recent example. Now today, there are over 100 million Russian Orthodox Christians. States are mortal. The Body of Christ is immortal. "Debating" with short lived temporal moral states is mostly useless.
It would be interesting to know if those Anglican churches in decline are matched with growth in other denominations - i.e. are Anglicans voting with their feet?
Look up the ten largest, and still growing, churches in the world; may be a shock to you. I am excluding many churches in an organization ; just SINGLE churches, ok?
15:35 - "the most liberal churches, those promoting same-sex marriage, are nearly all in decline". A very telling observation! And all around, an excellent video.
These churches have no choice but to decline because other anti same sex marriage churches treat them like pariahs and there are more anti homosexuality than pro. Sometimes there are logical reasons for decline, not everything is as it seems.
Conservatives love to self righteously point out liberal church decline as if that "proves" the liberal churches are wrong. If people leave conservative churches these conservatives say theose people can't handle the truth
I think the easiest thing to do is leave the church. For me, it was the only decision I could make. I miss holy communion but not the constant harping on extraneous politics and obsession with human sexuality. Concentration on a spiritual life is difficult enough and it demands constant attention. The church makes things not central to a relationship with Jesus Christ most important and neglects the true calling of all churches, help people become mystics by being a nursery of souls. Walk quietly and live a simple life. Our world has gone insane and lost its way, it is a shame the Churches have followed the secular world into a wilderness from which there can be no return.
Nearly all of the mainline Protestant churches in North America and Europe are in decline, regardless of how they view same-sex marriage. And, they were in decline decades before Gene Robinson was elected Bishop. The trend is even more pronounced among Millenial Americans and those younger, a majority of whom are quite supportive of same-sex marriage.
The churches that ordain practicing homosexuals are in terminal decline. All most all of churches that ordain practicing homosexuals are also promoting transgenderism . No wonder God has abandoned these apostate churches.
Wait til they get older and ask why society is all screwed up. I was for same-sex marriage in my youth. But changed. Though if a homosexual couple want to live together, fine. Married by the State, sure. But not in the church. I used to view marriage just another process of life. But I now view it as sacred.
There is also a large division among the Anglican churches in the degree to which they are political, connected to the state, or an institution of the state. In England the Anglican church has a very different history and position in society institutionally than the the Anglican church does in, say Nigeria. Anglicanism sowed the seeds for its split the first time it became a purely religious institution in countries that were neither English politically nor culturally nor ethnically. That created an underlying difference in the relationship of the church to its members and the wider society and culture. The non-English churches are, in a way, more religious and less secular, not only in practice but in structure. That makes them more independent. As long as the underlying cultures were in relative agreement and in step, or at least following one another (following English culture in particular), they held together. But as the cultures and countries moved in different directions, those underlying structural differences pulled the parts of the church in different directions. In the more English and institutionally secular and cultural countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia, things move with the culture and politics, while countries not sharing those politics or culture feel no need to move with the English. Long term, it raises the question of what exactly the basis of the Anglican church is, as a distinct religious entity. Is it political, is it scriptural, is it cultural? In England the foundation of the church seems to be far more political and cultural and traditional (as in based on tradition). In other countries the basis is very different, the church lacks the historical and cultural and traditional grounding. It tends to be more scriptural, by necessity. And that basis has been proving to be more fruitful than the traditional, political, cultural anglicanism (small A) of the English countries, which is rapidly shrinking and becoming a minority within its own faith community.
It's not Sydney which as split...get your facts straight. Sydney has had a calvinist leaning for many years. In 1970 Pope Paul VI visited Australia and the Anglican Abp of Sydney refused to attend an inter-faith service in Sydney........ooooh no we can't associate with the Pope of Rome...say no more !!!
1️⃣5️⃣1️⃣ Anathemas were written by RCC’s Council of Trent in 1500s part of The Counter Reformation. 151 Curses against Gospel Truth Believers remain “on the books”UN-changed for the 4+ centuries as official RCC dogma. The Jesuit Army was established and employed via same Council. Jesuits took an Oath with a Goal~ Bring Europe under Papal authority Reading the Oath of the Jesuits is finding a vital historical fact. IF one thinks “Come Home to Rome” is a benevolent plea for holy unity, Think Again.
"Is Anglicanism splitting?" I left ECUSA in 1980, and have encountered several 'splits' in the past 40 years, finally landing in the Anglican Catholic Church, which was formed in 1980. I would say that, yes, it is VERY split. Fortunately, several of the bodies that formed are now in full communion with each other, and don't care one iota what Canterbury thinks, so the turmoil, which began with women's ordination, is settling down.
It is not a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia that's creating a fuss, but rather a new body calling itself Anglican but which has no connection at all with the Anglican Church of Australia.
As far as I'm aware as a RC there are no dioceses that have actually split from the Anglican Church of Australia. This move has been led the the very protestant (and wealthy) Diocese of Sydney. There has been a new diocese created the Diocese of The Southern Cross. Sydney Anglicans are more like Presbyterians. Anglicans are on the decline in Australia.
To me, a Roman Catholic (with "orthodox" views), I wonder why the ordination of women was not mentioned. Is this a "done deal" withing the Anglican Community?
It's not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination, that was the issue that led to the continuing churches in the US, and it's an issue that divides people within and outside of the communion. But the issue of homosexual marriage is just far more pressing at the moment.
Brother, do you have a video planned to talk about the significance of King Charles III's day one decision on his majesty's approach to the Church of Scotland?
Sad what's happening to the Anglican communion - I can see this happening where I'm from Northern Ireland with the Church of Ireland. Some wanting Same-sex marriage and many not. It's dividing the Christian community.
@HyperVoxel, Yeah, you can't really get around Romans 1. The sometimes clever arguments that are made to explain away other passages (such as arguing over which translation for certain Greek words is most accurate) just doesn't work for Paul's diatribe in Romans 1. It seems that in response liberals/progressives just want to dismiss Paul altogether.
Anglicanism as an institution can split. The True Church of Jesus doesn't. Apostatizing is not splitting, it is falling away, departing from the Truth.
I went to an Anglican Church (ACNA) near my home and quickly learned that the individuals (clergy) there were part of the NAR/Vineyard/Toronto Blessing/IHOPKC movements. It was very bizarre and they had some weird ministry affiliations
That diocese is Church 4 The Sake of Others and is a very problematic diocese as many clergy came from evangelical denominations and were not properly vetted and trained. Look for a different parish as not all C4SO churches are like that or look for a church affiliated with AMIA (Anglican Mission in America). Look for an old fashioned traditional service and you will be amazed.
As the Roman Catholic Church now has popes that are not Italian, so the Church of England should install an Archbishop of Canterbury who comes from another Anglican province,say, Nigeria, for example. Also the overlapping new conservative dioceses can be admitted as an alternative ordinariate, like the Eastern Rite churches within Roman Catholicism.
If the institution is maintaining an anti-biblical posture, then what’s the point of having a church? If you don’t agree with what the Bible teaches and commands, then don’t have a church, as simple as that. Call it a social club or a secular organization. Don’t bother on having services, priesthood, etc. Let those who actually love God and believe what the Bible says have a church. I think that it is better to have real believers within a church (or a Christian organization) even if they are much less people. Having these organizations under the mask of Christianity just creates confusion and perverts the word of God.
There are already non biblical churches that don't recieve such condemnation. Mostly pentecostal and baptist that practice a very unchristian method of speaking in toungues to momic those punished by go to build the tower. Such as the Assemblies of God, the Church of God, Foursquare churches, Apostolic churches, and Vineyard churches. So mostly pentecostal and baptist.
‘What the Bible says’ most of the time means exactly ‘what old men for hundreds of years have been interpreting the Bible as’. For example pastors like to say we are terrible sinful people quoting the apostle Paul. But if you’ve actually read the Bible most Christians aren’t as cruel and terrible as Paul had been pre his conversion to Christianity. How can you take what the Bible says exactly without looking at the realistic personality and character and circumstances of a particular person? As a human being I know how a lot of people are sheep, it is so easy to agree or like a person even if they are wrong, as long as they can word their arguments in a convincing way, or maybe they have some values you identify with. My point is just because something has been done and believed for a few thousand years doesn’t mean it’s right or true. If it were than there shouldn’t be equality for the different genders or races
Some exegetes believe that the inclusion of the Adam & Eve narrative at the beginning of the Hebrew scriptures was designed to established the heterosexual normative complementarity that essentially grounds a Hebrew understanding of human sexuality. The Hebrews lived in proximity to nations who had 'no problem' with bisexuality, promiscuity, child sacrifice, homosexuality, temple prostitution, bestiality, etc... and this Genesis creation account was YHWH's prescribed manner in which to establish an ordered sexuality amongst his people that embodied true basic human dignity and blessing. The apostle Paul (as a formally trained Hellenistic Jew living in close proximity to a cosmopolitan Roman imperial ethos) would have also been familiar in his own era with the practices/behaviour of the Greco-Romans and their 'tolerance' of myriad sexual predilections. Paul in fact categorizes a 'list' of particular behaviours deemed wholly incompatible with the kingdom of God in his letter to the Corinthians. One has to think/presume that Paul either 'got it all wrong' or else one has to submit to the biblical instruction that some sexual/behavioural choices will result in exclusion from God's kingdom. It's likely that Jesus of Nazareth's own inclusion of at least one woman who formerly participated in prostitution would have caused concern for some in his small group of followers from town to town. Responding to grace and repentance were critically vital in that specific regard. Forgiveness heals much. Mercy in the midst of suffering is extended to all who desire to follow Jesus Christ. Brokenness is brokenness and is not wholeness. All of us struggle with succumbing to sin and sinful practices... but we don't overcome sin by rebranding it grammatically/semantically to suit our subjective whims or proclivities. Attempting to sanctify that which is biblically referred to as abominable never works out well in the long term. For over nineteen centuries the canonical teaching of orthodox christian communities was never in serious dispute as to the rejection of homosexual practices within churches. In the first century of the Common Era the apostle Paul reminded the Roman church community that acquiescence to the imperial Roman state in matters moral/ethical was to be soundly rejected. They were not to be "conformed to the world but rather to be transformed" in their very apprehension of kingdom values/priorities so as to honour their bodies and their Creator. My how the tables have turned. Now a sentimental and narcissistic fixation upon genitals/pleasure/orifices has often functionally replaced that which was understood scripturally as being 'the biblical standard' for over 1900 years. This hinges upon hermeneutical, ideological and exegetical decisions that impacted Christian ethics in the latter part of the 20th century. Apparently that which was formerly clear as a bell (i.e., Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9 ) was now as dissonate as a gong (or so some in the church community were leading us to believe).
Certainly St. Paul was not a fan of same-sex sexual relationships, but his understanding of them was mired by Greco-Roman excess. He clearly thought that all homosexual interactions were either an "overflow" of unchecked desire or the result of pagan worship. We know now that this is not strictly true: Some people are born with an exclusive, innate sexual desire for members of their own sex. St. Paul's sexual ethic was developed with the assumption that our Lord's return was almost immediately imminent. For that reason he told the Corinthians to stay in the situations they were in, for slaves to stay with their masters and for the unmarried to remain unmarried. Unless one is applying these same principles to the present day, we are already taking liberties with Paul's ethical approach. Paul thought it was foolish for Christians to marry when Jesus was coming so soon; yet he allowed them to so that their lust would not be their downfall. In a world that has given up any pretense of sexual moderation, which would have made the Greeks themselves blush, we are casting our gay and lesbian siblings to the wolves instead of leading them into an expression of the faithfulness and chastity that undergirded St. Paul's message. It is interesting that, despite interpretive efforts the contrary, Paul never explicitly condemns what faithful Christians in the progressive camp are arguing for today: devoted, faithful and monogamous relationships between gay and lesbian couples. We can argue all day about what 'arsenokoitai' really means or how applicable Levitical law is to Christians today (I think Matthew Vines and David Bentley Hart's exegeses on the subject are good but not perfect), but for whatever reason the Holy Spirit allowed for a bit more wiggle room than Christians have historically acknowledged. While tradition is valuable, one can (and I would argue should) reexamine our forefathers in light of what has been revealed to us by the experiences of LGBT people who want nothing more than to reconcile their lives to Christ. As an Anglican in the Episcopal Church, our Articles of Religion acknowledge that even ecumenical councils can and have erred regarding matters of the faith (Article 21). Despite the early Church Fathers' exhaustive arguments against slavery, Christians for centuries founded and dealt in the most evil slave trade in human history. For nearly thousands of years, Christians believed that women were the wrong substance of person to preach the Gospel, handle the sacraments, or hold authority over Christian communities. It is possible for Christians to have been wrong then, and it's possible for them to be wrong now. I agree with you that the Christian community should be fighting back against our oversexed, overstimulated culture. Perhaps there is, as Anglicans love to say, a middle way that avoids Pharisaical fundamentalism, which has lead to the persecution of many and has failed to win people to Christ, and the laissez-faire liberalism of our secular world, which only leads to destruction.
@@williamdonahue2422 1.You only need to argue over arsenokotai if you're trying to justify and unjustifiable position. 2. So what if people are born with innate homosexual desire. We are all born with innate sinful desires. 3. Your argument about slavery and women works for anything: eg. "for centuries the church has argued against paedophilia but if the church was wrong then it could be wrong now" 4. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever explicitly condemn marrying your dog...so it must be okay ....It's only condemned in Leviticus, but one can still debate how applicable Levitical law is today...
One of the most insane things happening, happening in plain sight... is the entirety of modern Christianity splitting over an issue as random as homosexuality and gay marriage. Who would've guessed 2000 years ago that this would the issue to split the entire body of Christ in two? Madness I tell you, absolute madness. I can't believe it, as I watch it happening
It's not random and to be honest it's expected, christianity has always been at odds with sexual practices that are not a heterosexual marriage, and they did it when the others were accepted, be it the platonic love of pederastry between the greeks (in some cities more than just platonic), the homosexual relationships that citizens of rome had with non-citizens, the poligamy that jews and gentiles saw as normal, the prostitution and ritual prostitution so common in the greek world (specially in Corinth) or the adultery, something really common between romans since only citizens could marry so it wasn't really seen as adultery and many of these relationships had everything that the bishop of the anglican church said he knew a relationship should have, stability, love, faithfulness etc... It's no wonder that after 2000 years of condeming these practices the church would split when someone started to accept it, besides, it creates a deeper problem in doctrines such as the divine inspiration of the scriptures (allowing people to create a canon inside the canon) and of God's attributes, if the law reveals gods sanctity as Paul wrote and God doesn't change, why would a moral rule of christianity change? It's almost the same as saying that God has changed
The misnomer of 'gay' for homosexuals is so wrong. A friend of mine was a deputy police officer in Los Angeles for 25 years ; he said that the most vicious crimes were committed by homosexuals against their lovers. In Ecuador, Cuenca,a 47 yo closet homosexual man was stabbed 32 times by his 15 yo lover. Nothing 'gay' about them ; most are miserable but have to hide it. Yet, I feel sad that so many dont accept Jesus who can help them.
As far as I am aware, GAFCON is not part of the Anglican Communion as they are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. So, in effect, there can be no split from an entity outside of this body.
Planning on it! Not sure what you have seen, but here are some other videos of mine that are like this one (imo). The Orthodox Church's Cold War over Ukraine ruclips.net/video/WxOgnERhs-c/видео.html United Methodist Church Split - What's Going on in 2022? ruclips.net/video/G6fOEmQEfuc/видео.html Denomination Considers Women Pastors, Removing Premillennial Requirement ruclips.net/video/6sko8Osyduc/видео.html Just Announced: The Global Methodist Church ruclips.net/video/JNshvA_k3nc/видео.html
The Anglican Church lost the plot back in 1974 when it ordained its first female priest and then in 1989 when it ordained its first female bishop. To act like it is suddenly happening now is ridiculous. I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy years ago, any conservative with any sense should do the same.
I doubt it, the Church of England has always had an implicit tension that began with tensions between those more reformed and those more Catholic, the puritans and the Bishops, liberals and conservatives. So it is with global Anglicanism. Ever since the Elizabethan settlement this has been the real strength of worldwide Anglicanism, that it embodies the nature of the whole Church Catholic in living in communion with those tensions. But by the measure of any ecclesiology, especially as we have affirmed an episcopal ecclesiology, it is unacceptable for there to be overlapping dioceses especially under the authority of another bishop and province and still remain part of the Anglican communion. It is a basic principle of ecclesiology for there to be one bishop, one diocese. So this is why ANCA is not Anglican. However, the Church of England has allowed there to be 'flying Bishops'- that is Bishops who have episcopal permission by the diocesan Bishop to exercise oversight over those who cannot accept the pastoral ministry of the diocesan Bishop.
This is an insightful comment. I agree. I suspect a similar arrangement (with the flying bishop) would be instituted if GAFGON/ACNA gained official recognition inside the communion.
I saw Reading Minster (UK) was flying the latest Intersex Progress Pride flag with the stripes, the chevrons and the circle. So it sounds like they are taking the result of the last Lambeth Conference seriously (NOT). There are actually a lot of Africans here (for reasons I don't understand) and many of them go to church.
Over the past few years I began seeking to leave the Baptist faith behind for an orthodox/liturgical church body. After a great deal of research, including nearly every one of your videos on the topic, I had narrowed my choice down to either Anglicanism or Lutheranism, but many of the things mentioned in this video solidified my move to become a confessional Lutheran. This video affirms to me that I made the right choice. Thank you for what you do.
So, why? Christians are always talking about love. That is, we love you if you are straight. I see this as hypocrisy, that's just me. But, enjoy your Lutheran Church. I left religion because of homophobia and misogynism. I feel free. I will never worship a god that would make me, to treat me as a second class person.
@@Lepewhi I didn't leave the Baptist tradition to join the confessional Lutheran church for any other reason than because it is the most closely aligned Christian denomination to what is taught in the Bible. I got no qualms or problems with anyone, I just want to follow Christ as best I can. Sorry if you feel like a "second class person" and left the church. I hope you're able to reconcile those things one day.
I long ago left the Anglican Church over the ordination of women and same sex marriage and the ordination of homosexuals. When I saw the 1979 Prayer Book, I knew all this coming and just a matter of time.
They have their own special issues. At the present time Constantinople and Moscow no longer share eucharist unity and the Patriarch of Moscow is simply Putin's lapdog.
What is going on in the Anglican church is a mirror image of the entire west in losing its way. It is sad to see the destruction of Christianity in the west.
Marriage isn't some civil document. It's a holy sacrament that binds man and women to share in the life of God. This really isn't subject to debate or change. It's following God's will and not doing your own will.
In February The Church of England votes as to whether to allow same sex marriage and there is a fair chance it will pass. If it does the split, i think, will be unavoidable.
I always laugh at Episcopalians who talk about scriptural authority when the entire reason for the church's existence was to get around the clear proscription of divorce set out by Jesus.
The American Episcopal church was created by the Scottish. The Scottish Episcopal church has a separate origin than the church of England, from conflicts in C17 Scotland over church government, bishops v congregation presbyteries. After it was settled that it was allowed to exist, it formed communion with Canterbury as a strength bond because they both believed in bishops.
No, divorce as set out by the Pope. Who in the eyes of Henry VIII, royalty especially European believed their births were divinely ordained, and the election of a Pope was that of a political appointment of a man of common birth.
@@reeferfranklin Yep, a freethinking church that does not hold itself tied to agree with a view written arbitrarily by one guy in the past who did not even argue it from evidence. Though it's only a tenth the size of Scotland's Presbyterian established church, in Edinburgh they are practically equal. It supports several big central churches for each of the top 3 denominations, must be a religious city, including 4 Episcopal ones, each with different service styles. There is a conservative Evangelical Alliance faction, line a church within a church, who would agree with Paul, and their city church is Ps'n'Gs (St Paul's + St George's), a guitar-rock happy-clappy one. Double-named from a merger of 2 churches in the 1930s, the Paul in it comes from its Evangelical setting up in the Victorian era as a move from an older site in a back alley on the Royal Mile. But this older site, instead of abandoned, was taken by the Oxford Movement for High church Anglicanism, with incense and choral psalms and Latin and lots of saints' days. It was named Old St Paul's to distinguish from the new one, and they have been rivals ever since. Old St Paul's is a radically pro-gay liberal congregation, a magnet for gay couples to join and feel accepted. Its straight members joke about being almost the minority, but are proud of it as an enlightened moral example. Retired famous bishop Richard Holloway, the early leading pro-gay bishop, belongs to it and was once its minister. A good number of its servers team are gay. Really ironic that its saint is Paul - just last week we had a procession and soup banquet there for the feast of his conversion. Curious historical accident too, that traditional high ceremonial liturgy now goes with modern pro-gay enlightenment, while modern happy-clappy style goes with traditional Bible literality.
The Archbishop's comments are really quite sad. To me, the formula is simple a) sex outside of marriage is considered fornication and therefore sinful, and b) marriage is repeatedly affirmed as between a man and a woman. The desire to be kind to others cannot cause us to set aside clear textual instruction. One can set aside all manner of academic biblical theory and simply ask yourself, "If this was changed in the New Testament, wouldn't that have been made really clear by Jesus or the Apostles, and wouldn't the Church have figured that out a long time ago?"
@@soarel325 Both the Old and New Testament condemn fornication which is defined as sex outside of marriage. So the question becomes whether or not same-sex marriage is acceptable. The most quoted New Testament passage against this is Romans Chapter 1 which references men and women leaving their natural ways. While many see this as clear, there are others who claim this is a reference to pederastic relationships. Yet, Jesus reaffirms that marriage is between a man and a woman in Matthew 19: "4 Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." This leaves the burden of proof on the progressive Christian to explain how it is that a clear teaching from the Old Testament was massively revised by Jesus in the New Testament without spelling it out clearly, as well as why it is that we have only recently received this revelation.
@@aaronjones8905 The term "fornication" is not used or defined in that way in the New Testament. The Greek word porneia referred to prostitution, which is what Paul condemns (you will sometimes see it translated as "sexual immorality" or "Illicit sex" instead of "prostitution", but "prostitution" is what it meant to his Greek-speaking audiences). Various sex and marriage arrangements are found in the Old Testament which aren't practiced today or even viewed as morally repugnant, so we'll ignore that for now. Where in Matthew 19 is there a condemnation of homosexual marriage (which was not a social phenomenon in 1st-century Palestine)?
And yet, all is the creation of the Lord God. And, omnipotent, he is capable of all. (I'm not gay BTW, I'm married with 3 kids). If gay people are born, then they are born of God, and I don't know about you, but I'm pretty confident that being gay isn't a 'habit' or chosen lifestyle. Many gay people have certain physiological traits. Thus, the lord God is creating some people to be homosexual. Why? We can't know his way. Perhaps it is to test our love and foregiveness, as characters of the heart that sit above gripping and grabbing onto textual content in the Bible. Every person sins against the scriptures. You look clean shaven to me - check the scriptural content on that. Do you live according to the sciptures on fabrics and sea food, as per Leviticus? I'd bet you don't! So, as humans and as Christians, we have a problem or a challenge where living per the scriptures is concerned. No-one lives purely per the scriptures. Thus, choose your sin. We are all sinners. Matthew makes it pretty clear that it is not our job - but only God's - to judge our fellow brothers.
@@unkelartgarf3792 In order for these people’s beliefs to be coherent they either need to claim that God is casually and arbitrarily cruel to certain people in making them more prone to sin, or to deny the truth that sexual orientation is innate.
10:45 minutes. And that is where the Anglican Church goes off the rails. You can not be a member of the body of Christ if you are in rebellion against the word.
There is fundy body of Christ + there is liberal body of Christ. There is corn on the Sabbath as a role model for just taking what you like from the word
The inevitable result of the practice of Bible Alone. Continual disagreement over what the bible teaches and continual division into separate groups. Thankyou Luther, thankyou Calvin, etc
A PRICELESS JEWEL The conjugial inclination of one man to one wife is the jewel of human life and the depository of the Christian religion. - Emanuel Swedenborg, "Conjugial Love", 457
I don't think one denomination can withstand such divergent views on important issues. The Southern Baptists are a lot closer together on issues, have congregational polity, and might still have a split within a couple of decades!
I think it would be easy to prove the thesis "All church schisms are over political divergence or unanswered theological questions". Where the former is a special case of the latter (unanswered theological questions on current political trends).
@fluffysheap I do not think that it will be a decade or two. The lines are already being drawn between men like Mohler, Greear, and Litton and more conservative members. That was partly what the Conservative Baptist meeting during the conference was about. Granted, they are not splitting yet, but when men like John MacArthur, who is not Southern Baptist, and Voddie Bauchum are in attendance along with a majority of the conservative attendees for the purposes of harmonious fellowship that they will not receive elsewhere at the conference, you are seeing the lines drawn. Issues reaching critical mass in the organization are: the denominations choices regarding reports of sexual abuse that arose six years ago, the continuing fallout from their decision to embrace a social justice framework and Critical Race Theory as a framework to consider their history in particular and Biblical Truth in general, the growing acceptance and tolerance of homosexual marriage in the membership, the roles of women in the church, particularly as pastors, board chairs, and denominational leaders. All of these are beginning to hit a strident bubble. An indication of the size of a split will be the messages that are preached at conferences. If one side is preaching unity above all, and the others are preaching that the highest duty is to doctrine; then a split is near, and if you look at who occupies the various camps and who they associate with, you can even guess the size of the split. Currently, I think that the SBC is on track to lose about one out of fifty to one hundred churches if they split. I say this because a great many of the "discontented" will die in the SBC no matter how bad things get because they love the denomination and its history more than they love God and his call for separation for doctrinal purity.
@@willscott4785 There are actually lots of questions on how to deal with the current situation. What influence, if any, should the church have on civil marriage? Should the church dictate the kinds of relationships allowed by non-members? In that vein, should American christianity continue to support non-sectarianism, or was that a mistake born of pragmatism to establish the country? Are (classical) liberalism and christianity actual anathema to each other? (Instead of supporting each other like the old "protestant work ethic" idea implies). If that is the case should we be moving towards a "post-liberal" era / "dark enlightenment" like some groups are currently advocating for? Should homosexuality be criminalized (there blood will be upon them), be shunned, be tolerated outside the church (secular / nonsectarian), tolerated within the church as an infraction like premartial sex is, or are the verses condemming it interpreted wrong (as some progressive christian types argue)? Some gay relationships are clearly loving (as in more than lust), and people know and love their gay friends and relatives. They dont feel it is moral to treat it as wrong and can't accept their loved ones as sick or broken. If morality is "written on ones heart" by god, who "is love", then why don't their moral intuitions on gay issues match scripture? How can love be ungodly? If moral intutions dont match scripture and they construct some kind of work-around (say reinterpreting scripture), what's to stop it on 1000 other issues, whats the logical stopping point? Conversely, if they are right to object, then how much of scripture and tradition is faulty? If they are mistaken, scripture isn't, they are pious, and moral intutions are supposed to be the work of god, then that clearly begs some questions. Should the alleged hypocrisy of tolerating divorce and premartial sex while vocally denouncing homosexual marriage as degrading marriage cause introspection? Maybe some denominations will consider this a valid criticism and start reverting to more conservative sexual norms. Or perhaps the opposite will occur, and some denominations will soften on both gay issues and their other marriage related lapses. What is to be done when a single church contains wildly different political views, and those views influence the theology of members? Should schism occur? Some kind of ecumenism? Should personal opinions on theology be discouraged or even personal study by laity banned (pre reformation catholic)? Should political engagement be discouraged to maintain peace and coherence (JWs)? If some forms of love are diseased and should not be acted upon, yet god allows some people to be born inclined to that kind of love, isnt that unduly cruel? Some say they are supposed to be celibate, which means suffering is an exercise of their faith (if they chose it). Those who currently argue faith should have nothing to do with suffering, but call for lifelong celibacy, clearly are begging another set of questions that need resolving. See, lots of questions. Many of them common to any big political / historical events affecting the church. Another good example is the discovery of the new world, and the questions raised by generations of humans unable to hear the gospel. Some answered by switching to deistic or universalist beliefs, some argued they were deemed innocent due to their ignorance of the law, others that they go to heaven if they don't believe but don't sin (lenient/progressive sects), others declared a mission to convert (manifest destiny believing sects), and finally Mormons invented an entire new gospel supposedly preached to the natives.
I'm a gafcon Anglican who is part of ACNA. We split from Anglican Church of Canada due to their heretical practices. I couldn't be happier being away from them. Praise the Lord 🙏
In August 2003 I was a confirmed Episcopalian. When they chose the New Hampshire "bishop" they left me. My brother who was a atheist was stunned because he knew that was wrong. I have been a Baptist for the last 20 years, currently at a large northern Conservative but independent church.
I can’t wait to see the Anglican church fully going back to following the Pope 🤍 catholicism is the truth and Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against his one and holy church A Middle eastern Christian here 👋🏼God bless you all ✝️
My bet on what will happen is simple: Anglicanism keeps splitting and then splits totally. With the split there will be more and more overlap and thus the size of each churches' membership will grow smaller. I do think it is very possible that Africa in the future will be the only place with any notable Anglican churches
There is only one Church in my Bible (Word of God) And He (Jesus Christ) is the head of the body (believers), the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Colossians 1:18 NKJV bible.com/bible/114/col.1.18.NKJV Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause DIVISIONS and offenses, contrary to the doctrine (singular) which you learned, and AVOID them. Romans 16:17 NKJV bible.com/bible/114/rom.16.17.NKJV
And do you think there might be splits over there eventually. It could happen, especially if certain countries there have a change of opinion on certain issues (although it might be a few decades)
@@krazykris9396 I mean it's prots, it will happen but will it be just one random rouge priest? or will it be a massive game changing movement. I can't say. It will depend on many things but also too it will depend on if the head of the Anglican communion's see is moved. And if so where.
I'm not sure about that last. Even in the West, conservative churches are growing; it's sometimes just that the provincial leadership hasn't quite caught up. In Australia, for instance, a motion against same-sex marriage was passed both by the laity and the clergy, and was only defeated by a narrow margin of bishops in the province's synod. Liberalism and decline aren't inevitabilities.
The problem comes down to marketing. The more liberal branches chose to "keep the church relevant to modern society" by accepting homosexuality, as has larger society. The more conservative branches recognized that the church derives its relevance by standing up against practices in modern society that conflict with the gospel. And that is why people are leaving the more liberal churches-- because they simply have nothing of value to offer, just a vague direction to "love" and a self-congratulatory feeling for congregants that they are on-trend. Unfortunately, there is a market for that. Conservative churches offer values that are congruous with the gospel. For me, it's no contest.
The Episcopal Church in the Philippines (Cordilllerias) has been declining since the 80's with the emergence of Evangicalism. Population is increasing but Anglicans going to church is getting fewer, if Jesus won't return in the next 100 years, the Episcopal Church here won't survive the stated time frame. (It's cold because leaders are cold too)
Speaking as a former Anglican, without repentance, reformation and revival, Anglicanism is doomed to destruction. That said, the same is true of Protestant Dissenting (Nonconformist) traditions. We are all in a mess. LORD, have mercy!
@@kell_checks_in Oh I wasn't speaking about social consequences, I was talking about their *manner* of speech and the plainness with which they tend to state their positions.
@@kell_checks_in - As someone who has lived in the UK for 50 years, I'd love an example? I'm not aware of anyone "thrown in prison" here for an opinion? Compared to the US, the UK is a very liberal (small 'l'), tolerent country. Opinions espousing or supporting terrorist ideals may get one in some hot water, but still almost certainly not "thrown in prison".
@@unkelartgarf3792 During the two world wars a problem that soldiers from colonial armies had was that the people in the Uk had a habit of saying things in euphemisms and understating things. For example if an Englishman was a homosexual people would say that he was a confirmed bachelor. A colonial would say he was a faggot. Colonials had a hard time communicating with the people of the UK. Tories in Canada believe that our ties to Britain has saved Canada from being cursed with the violence that is so common in the USA.
@@unkelartgarf3792 Did you know #MichaelSavage, a conservative radio host in the US, isn't allowed to travel to the UK? 🤔 Free speech in the UK isn't what it was.
The Anglican Communion has been in disarray for years. There was the Reformed Episcopal Church which were basically Presbyterian in theology with an Anglican liturgy. There were Anglo-Catholics throughout the Communion and host of Continuing Anglicans such Episcopal Missionary Church, the ACA, the PCK and now the ACNA. There is even a Celtic Orthodox Church and other crosses of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy.
I admire the Anglican "big tent" idea, hard as it might be to realize. to think faithfulness requires one point-of-view on a few litmus test issues, seems impossible.
Yeah, crazy, huh? They should have absolutely no standards. G.d's word, Shmod's word. Who is he to tell people how to live according to biblical tradition.
“A theology which denies the historicity of nearly everything in the Gospels to which Christian life and affections and thought have been fastened for nearly two millennia … can produce only one or other of two effects. It will make him a Roman Catholic or an atheist.” -C.S. Lewis, 1964
Lewis was clueless .The only true Christians in the C of E. are the few evangelicals who are there thinking they can change a spiritually dead church. They should not be there, as God says do not unite yourselves with unbelievers.
@@comicsans1689 I was brought up in an English village where traditionally all the locals were expected to be members of the local C. of E. They were 'hatch ,match and dispatch. 'members who were not real Christians ,it was all about tradition . My grandparents and mother were converted , after hearing an Evangelical from the local city preaching the true gospel of belief and repentance. They were clueless before ,listening to local vicars .It would appear you are not a Christian or you would not say that.
The principal cause of the decline of the Anglican church is that it has departed from the fundamental teachings of the Holy Scriptures on many issues. It has ceased to be evangelical in its outreach contrary to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ and it has capitulated to the secular influences of the world around us. As far as the gay/homosexual issue is concerned it has allowed its ministers to fly in the face of the clear characterisation of that practice as sin in Romans Ch 1. In recent years same-sex relations have been glamorized by society, Jesus confirmed that God’s will for marriage has always been lifelong heterosexual monogamy (Matt. 19:4-6).Alternatives may be fashionable, but they are expressions of God’s abandoning people to the “lusts of their hearts” and to “impurity,” On this and other matters of morality the Anglican church under Welby, Robinson and their ilk is verging on apostate. So sad.
Evangelicals have plenty of fear-cult Evangelical churches, enough for their own needs. The whole modern point of Anglicanism is for there to be a freethinking liberal not Bible-dictated church. The church of William Temple, David Jenkins, Richard Holloway
Just an observation from a Catholic perspective, when the Gospel is abandoned, heresy is tolerated, even entertained to the point that the faithful are confused and divided, how could any church survive?
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
Clarification: at about 16:22 it is stated that the queen appoints all bishops in the church. That is for the Church of England, not for other churches in the Anglican Communion, e.g., the Church of Nigeria, the Episcopal Church (USA), etc.
Good clarification, I should have made that clear since I refer to so many churches in this video.
The Prime Minister appoints in reality.
@@alfredroyal3473 i didn't realise that. I'm surprised they didn't put in a super progressive archbishop
@@alfredroyal3473 But only for the Church of England, and not for any other churches in the communion. Neither the UK Prime Minister nor the UK monarch has any role in the selection of bishops in other churches in the communion.
@@doubledee9675 I knew that. The C of E is the established church in England and other Anglican provinces are separate. In Scotland the Anglican church is the Scottish Episcopal Church but it is not the established church, that is the Church of Scotland which is a Reformed/Calvinist church with no bishops.
You do a great job at succinctly summarizing these complicated issues from a neutral perspective
Absolutely, sir.
@@ronashman8463 All Christians should listen to an important lesson of history: All states fail and disappear. Their state laws, institutions, constitutions and currencies all fail disappear. By contrast, Christian institutions last for millennia. We can use the Soviet Union as a great recent example. Now today, there are over 100 million Russian Orthodox Christians. States are mortal. The Body of Christ is immortal. "Debating" with short lived temporal mortal states is mostly useless. Christians and Christian institutions are more important than states and their citizens.
God and Christ are not neutral they are the very reason you breathe and are on solid ground. The English have to renounce hypocrisy and apathy and repent, wail, and cry out for forgiveness. Too much nonsense, pride, and apostasy and too much emphasis on who's first and on top and about pension plans. Do not give another cent to any Anglican English or Catholic denomination that keeps Christ out of its pews and Church.
You should cover the formation of the Anglican Ordinariate Chair of St. Peter. It was instituted by Pope Benedict XVI. It allows Anglican parishes who are unhappy with the Anglican Community and have decided to join the Catholic Church. They are allowed to keep their Anglican liturgy and traditional customs; but adhere to the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.
I do have a video on the Ordinariates! here it is: ruclips.net/video/8tlPqyp2Q8s/видео.html
Of course Romanism is all about subjugation to the majesterium and obedience to the devilish pope
Exactly, after all, there is no real communion or Priesthood in the apostolic sense within anglicanism
I'm a member of that. It's great and growing fast! Unlike the former Anglican Use, we get our own bishop and basically our own English Rite under the banner of the Latin Rite.
@@JudeMichaelPeterson member of what?
I am not sure on what side you fall.
Well done indeed!
You have succeeded in presenting impartial news, and it is as welcome to my ears as rain in a drought.
See how he treats his enemies. Its like praising a racist. There are groups this guy hates and it shows.
@@imgrant5344 I was merely commenting about the delivery of the sole video I have seen from this content creator. Perhaps he grievously mistreats those he dislikes, does that change his work? If a racists paints a picture devoid of racism, is it automatically a bad picture because of the one who painted it? Is a sexists money worth any more or less than someone whose mind cannot distinguish gender?
Surely the idea of the 'death of the author' divorcees the content created from the creator so that each maybe judged independently. That the creator gains no virtue of their work, and the work no sin of its creator.
Your comment is unrelated to mine, I wonder if you left it in response by mistake? Perhaps you were meaning to replay to someone else in the comment section?
it's funny because him just reporting what's happening sounds like he agrees with the conservatives church to me
@@Soulwrite7 what did he say? because while art can be separated from the artist, the artist will never be separated from the art
As a member of the ACNA, I thank you for stating the situation with clarity and brevity.
Phenomenal insight on this. From attending a few Episcopal services, the denomination is NOT getting younger. No surprise to see growth trending from Africa where there's more excitement and zeal.
I go to an ACNA church and almost half the church is under 18. We're getting people not only leaving the episcopal church but also leaving Baptist and Methodist churches who want a traditional worship service and historical grounding in the faith. One guy told me he left his Baptist Church because he was sick of the "Jesus is my boyfriend" worship music. Our diocese has added I think 8 churches in the last five years. People want orthodox teaching.
The Episcopals in America are dying because they chose to abandon many, many biblical laws for the sake of modernity and wokeism. Thankfully God's judgement is being cast upon them and they are shrinking. My parents have gone to one for years, I pray often for them to come back.
@@_thisismeisthatyou9277 At the ACNA parish I attend, we have some baby boomer members who came out of TEC/PECUSA, but the majority of the members are millennials and zoomers from different backgrounds. My wife and I came over from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod not too long ago. Of the four priests and three deacons who serve the parish or are faculty, staff, or students at a nearby seminary, I only know of one who was raised Episcopalian. It’s a wonderful, vibrant community.
@@augustinian2018 that sounds similar to our church. The older members broke from the episcopal church and formed ours right before the ACNA started and all the younger members are from different backgrounds too. I was raised independent Baptist. The priest was a Methodist, then Lutheran.
@@footballnick2 Yeah… very true. Sometimes I think these specific denominations are the main reasons why Christianity is dying in the newer generations. There’s a Methodist church across the street from my university and college kids go to the back of that church to smoke weed as tradition (from what I’ve heard). The church’s roof also recently burnt down (I don’t know how). They actively support anti-Bible political propaganda. Very ironic!!
Interesting lessons for the Catholic Church too. The German synodal way wants similar changes as the Episcopal Church already made. But in contrast to the Anglican Church, the German Catholic Church can’t decide to allow blessings of same sex relationships (although some priests just do it) or appoint women as priests, because Catholicism is more hierarchical I guess.
A good argument against women priests is, IMHO, that women are too valuable to the Church community.
@@johnschuh8616 Fine, then pay them for what they do for the Church community or don't pay priests. Either would be fair.
@@Treviscoe To acknowledge their prophetic role fully. Look at the examples of Mother Angelica or Mother Theresa. But women as mothers potentially play the greatest role. You can never “pay” enough to great women, those with a prophetic mission.
The church WILL reform eventually and accept the SCIENCE that being gay is natural.
@@Treviscoe That is a depraved and corrupted sentiment. One should do what is Holy for the sake of what is Holy, not for earthly rewards. To think of such a demand is to be divorced from that which is good and virtuous.
Since you are one who thinks materially instead of spiritually, I will aid in dispelling your framing. Churches typically only compensate those who devote their whole life to the Church. A mother or father who takes their family to Church on Sunday or who organizes community events will never be compensated. In the case of the Catholic Church, priests, nuns, and monks are all compensated; mostly through housing and food stipends.
The Church is not a place to bring your worldly resentment and entitlements.
Great video, but I did note one minor inaccuracy: At 9:30, you identify one of the primates who boycotted Lambeth as the primate of Brazil. The official Anglican Communion province in Brazil, the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil, is theologically liberal and performs same-sex marriages. The Brazilian primate who didn't attend is part of the Anglican Church in Brazil, a conservative breakaway group similar to ACNA that isn't part of the Anglican Communion but participates in GAFCON and GSFA.
Thank you so much for keeping us updated on current events within the Anglican Communion. May our Father richly bless you. Amen.
You are THE authority to quote when discussing points of departure and shifting stances, good stuff always.
I thought it already had split. There are numerous denominations in the Anglican communion. Recently some Anglicans even broke off and joined Catholisism - the Anglican Ordinariate
Anglican Ordinate hasn't been active for years, it's no longer considered Catholic.
@@gamerofedge8111 I legitimately currently attend an active and growing one in Texas. I don’t know why you felt the need to make such an inaccurate and bold claim but kindly stop spreading lies
@@dear_totheheart The Anglican Ordinariate hasn’t been active or valid in either church for 15+ years lmao, your probably attending an offshoot which isn’t considered Anglican or Catholic officially.
@@gamerofedge8111 Dude I found his ordinariate with like two seconds of research, its still going. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter
@@hydra5758 I’d never seen that before, I’d always heard it had ended in the 2000s and was no longer accepting members. Ty for correction.
Some provinces are probably too small for there to be a split. Much more likely is Anglicans like me in Wales preferring to attend Baptist (or some other denomination) churches.
There's the possibility of a model similar to the Diocese of the Southern Cross (which I think only has a handful of member churches so far). A sort of catch-all conservative diocese supported by nearby conservative diocese.
Great video mate. It's currently a very interesting preposition to speculate around what's going to happen at GAFCON 2023
Thank you for laying things out so clearly. As someone who is on one end of the spectrum it’s hard to engage with the situation without it feeling like an echo chamber or an argument, so I appreciate your thoroughness and neutrality.
Have you seen how he treats his enemies?
Thank you for putting together this video. I now have a better understanding of what’s going on. God bless you.
Is Anglicanism Splitting? Yes, yes it is. Been happening for over a decade now.
Try hundreds of years. Episcopalians and methodists are a result of prior splits.
Try since 2009. Anglicanorum coetibus, fam. Look it up.
Come home to Rome
@@punishedgoy9131 Give us a call when Rome comes home to the gospel.
Thats why need a Catholic/Universal faith, not a faith that splinters into smaller and smaller fractions every few years.
Yes it's breaking. I have just left in wake of a series of recent events (bishop of europe's comments regarding the word "woman, non-binary priests, and now this). As Christians we submit to scripture. If the church refuses to do so, then the church falls. Faith is not a question of culture or compassion, it is a function of surrender to God's word.
The problem with ‘scripture’ is that what is in the current Bible was selected over a period of a few hundred years, with many other gospels and books being rejected by the orthodox church. The New Testament was selected by men. As for the Old Testament, Christians should have dumped that in favour of Jesus’ teachings.
Scripture is always interpreted and applied by human beings. There's no such thing as the unadulterated "word of God." If you doubt this, just examine which parts of Leviticus, chapters 18-23 Christians consider binding and which parts they don't. Why isn't there "faithful surrender" to everything in it?
Dont leave, just expel those who are commiting heresy.
@@lesigh1749 that's the same as leaving. each side expel each other and have a schism
@@conscienceaginBlackadder Well not really, that way people who care about the church and its traditions get to keep the "brand" and all of the cathedrals and church buildings that belong to it.
I'm from outside the Anglican Church, but like UMC and GMC in USA (and Africa I think) there needs to be a division. How can a Biblical and non-Biblical co-exist. They can't. It will happen with the Uniting Church in Australia soon too, and I'm seeing it here in the Anglican Church.
LGBT-accepting Christians are no less "non-Biblical" than Christian men who shave their beards and wear their hair long.
@@soarel325 we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
@@nambourwesleyan You'll agree to disagree that Biblical and non-Biblical can coexist in the same church teachings?
@@firepower7654 I was replying to a comment by @Soarel that Biblical and non-Biblical could co-exist in the same church teachings. She thinks they can, I think they can't, that's what I was agreeing to disagree about. That comment seems to have been deleted now.
@@nambourwesleyan Ok...That makes sense now.. Cheers.
FIRST! Last time I was this early, the Church of England was united
SECOND
That literally never happened
The Church of England now states that there is "no official definition " of a woman and that "additional care" was required when trying to define the word. Welby will also return two Benin bronze artifacts to Nigeria, these same artifacts were given as a gift to the Archbishop of Canterbury during a visit to Nigeria in 1982. C of E has destroyed the Anglican Communion by engaging in woke politics for decades
Henry
Just like the church of Scotland. The C. of E. was always fake like it's founder.
The C of E has been dead for more than 1000 years ; just not buried.
The C of E's bizarre doctrine is simply the result of the the doctrine of Bible Alone. Every strange and fanciful heresy is justified by a belief that Jesus is leading the Bible reader into truth of doctrine. Thanks Martin Luther, thanks Calvin, etc
@JP Not sure what your are smoking there old son
Shhh, shut up.
Interesting how the commission for electing the Archbishop of Canterbury is undergoing a process similar to what happened to the College of Cardinals, from being almost solely comprised of clergy of the diocese itself, then to clergy of the general region, then finally electors from the whole world.
ruclips.net/video/_iRxm_GU-mc/видео.html
That's not correct. The Pope is soley elected by the College of Cardinals. Although (technically) they can choose to elect a bishop who is not a cardinal. As I understand it the Abp of Canterbury is selected from several names put forward to the Crown Nominations Committee. I think the PM has the final say? and the appointment is signed off by the Soverign.
@@colinlavelle7806 Yes, as I said the College of Cardinals used to be the clergy of the diocese of Rome and now comprises bishops from the entire world. I never said that the College of Cardinals ceased to be the body responsible for election.
One thing to watch is what happens when Prince Charles takes the throne because it's no secret that he's less devout than his mother. When the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is lukewarm about his faith, what does that mean for those below him?
I'm one of those from the British Commonwealth (Australia spicifically) who still have the British Monarch as there head of state, who want the throne to skip the Prince of Wales (Prince Charles) and go to the Duke of Cambridge (Prince William).
Let's be real: nearly the entire British populace could take or leave the Church of England. But the monarchy still has a solid plurality of popular support.
I'll be the main thing keeping the CoE from being scrapped as a state institution is the fear of the same thing happening to the monarchy.
@@nathanjohnwade2289 I'm not sure King William would be much better.
Good riddens to Charly boy. He about theological astute as a chimpanzee.
@@nathanjohnwade2289 And many of us who want a republic.
Ready to Harvest on a Monday?
Also Jeffery Epstein and John McAfee didn't kill themselves
I would argue that in many ways the Anglican communion is already split, even if that split never becomes formalized. There are fractures within the fractures themselves. That's not meant to be an indictment of anyone, it just seems to be the obvious reality.
One thing that I know that Anglicanism has in common with Catholicism is that the Church in the west is in decline but the Church in the global South, especially in Africa and Oceania, is greatly on the increase. I believe the day will come when we see an African Pope.
More videos about the Anglican Ordinariates would be interesting because this was one Catholic answer to the Anglican problem. I've worked a little bit with some local Ordinariate prayer groups that are trying to organize enough to become a parish themselves. They have a wonderful vibrant faith, I know that they live their faith well and live it quietly but sincerely from what I can see. I can't help but think that there are a lot of Anglicans throughout the world who perhaps are the same way, they're trying to live right and they're living it quietly but sincerely.
Catholicism is growing and is also in decline. The decline is a rejection of the new liturgy and bad theology that came after Vatican II, and the growth is the orthodox movement, in which most parishes have doubled or tripled in size. A very simple recipe for any church is that if they are focused on anything that isn't worshiping God, they will fall apart.
Actually, the part of the Anglican church owing fealty to Justin Welby and his confusion on human sexuality is in decline. The majority of the Anglican church lies within what was once called "developing countries," especially those in Africa. Those churches, along with dissenting churches in North America, are estimated to comprise 70% of what was once a unified Anglican Communion. These are represented by GAFCON and the Global South. Both have been publicly critical of Welby's desire to subvert scripture to the secular values of the present culture.
Essentially, the Anglican Church is experiencing its own Arian moment, in which the Roman Catholic church doctrine denied the divinity of Christ. St. Athanasius and others, after much persecution by church authorities and government, held firm and Arianism was finally declared a heresy. So it will be with Justin Welby's movement to deny God's appointment of a family consisting of one man and one woman, and its present sacramental stature within the true church.
I hope the Ordinariate does not create two separate catholic churches. Anglican converts should be one with catholics in catholic churches.
@@Anon.5216 it doesn't create two separate Catholic churches anymore than the other 22 rites of the church create separate Catholic churches. While I understand that concern, it represents a flawed understanding of Catholic ecclesiology.
There are already Popes in the past that were from Africa though..
it would be interesting to compare the Anglican experience if impaired communion with the schisms currently experienced within Eastern Orthodoxy.
The current “schisms in the Orthodox Church aren’t over theological views and are still a part of one Church. So it’s a little different.
There aren't schisms in Eastern Orthodoxy, only breaks in communion. There have been around 100 breaks in communion since Pentecost, it's quite a common thing. Schism is different: that's what happened to Arians, Apollinarians, Donatists, Montanists, Monophysites, Roman Catholics, etc.
What schism do you mean?
@@duckmeat4674 this one ruclips.net/video/WxOgnERhs-c/видео.html
@@Kdriggs15 Very different. All Christians should listen to an important lesson of history: All states fail and disappear. Their state laws, institutions, constitutions and currencies all fail disappear. By contrast, Christian institutions last for millennia. We can use the Soviet Union as a great recent example. Now today, there are over 100 million Russian Orthodox Christians. States are mortal. The Body of Christ is immortal. "Debating" with short lived temporal moral states is mostly useless.
It would be interesting to know if those Anglican churches in decline are matched with growth in other denominations - i.e. are Anglicans voting with their feet?
Look up the ten largest, and still growing, churches in the world; may be a shock to you. I am excluding many churches in an organization ; just SINGLE churches, ok?
15:35 - "the most liberal churches, those promoting same-sex marriage, are nearly all in decline".
A very telling observation! And all around, an excellent video.
These churches have no choice but to decline because other anti same sex marriage churches treat them like pariahs and there are more anti homosexuality than pro. Sometimes there are logical reasons for decline, not everything is as it seems.
A Canadian University traced conservative and liberal churches and discovered the same.
And Evangelical churches are thriving and full of young people.
Conservatives love to self righteously point out liberal church decline as if that "proves" the liberal churches are wrong. If people leave conservative churches these conservatives say theose people can't handle the truth
@@riverdonoghue9992 Evangelical doesn’t mean liberal. Most evangelical churches are pretty theologically conservative still.
I think the easiest thing to do is leave the church. For me, it was the only decision I could make. I miss holy communion but not the constant harping on extraneous politics and obsession with human sexuality. Concentration on a spiritual life is difficult enough and it demands constant attention. The church makes things not central to a relationship with Jesus Christ most important and neglects the true calling of all churches, help people become mystics by being a nursery of souls. Walk quietly and live a simple life. Our world has gone insane and lost its way, it is a shame the Churches have followed the secular world into a wilderness from which there can be no return.
Nearly all of the mainline Protestant churches in North America and Europe are in decline, regardless of how they view same-sex marriage. And, they were in decline decades before Gene Robinson was elected Bishop. The trend is even more pronounced among Millenial Americans and those younger, a majority of whom are quite supportive of same-sex marriage.
The churches that ordain practicing homosexuals are in terminal decline. All most all of churches that ordain practicing homosexuals are also promoting transgenderism . No wonder God has abandoned these apostate churches.
Wait til they get older and ask why society is all screwed up. I was for same-sex marriage in my youth. But changed. Though if a homosexual couple want to live together, fine. Married by the State, sure. But not in the church.
I used to view marriage just another process of life. But I now view it as sacred.
USA Pew Research reported ~
52% of Children raised Catholic
are now Adult EX-Catholics.
There is also a large division among the Anglican churches in the degree to which they are political, connected to the state, or an institution of the state. In England the Anglican church has a very different history and position in society institutionally than the the Anglican church does in, say Nigeria. Anglicanism sowed the seeds for its split the first time it became a purely religious institution in countries that were neither English politically nor culturally nor ethnically. That created an underlying difference in the relationship of the church to its members and the wider society and culture. The non-English churches are, in a way, more religious and less secular, not only in practice but in structure. That makes them more independent. As long as the underlying cultures were in relative agreement and in step, or at least following one another (following English culture in particular), they held together. But as the cultures and countries moved in different directions, those underlying structural differences pulled the parts of the church in different directions. In the more English and institutionally secular and cultural countries like the UK, Canada, and Australia, things move with the culture and politics, while countries not sharing those politics or culture feel no need to move with the English.
Long term, it raises the question of what exactly the basis of the Anglican church is, as a distinct religious entity. Is it political, is it scriptural, is it cultural? In England the foundation of the church seems to be far more political and cultural and traditional (as in based on tradition). In other countries the basis is very different, the church lacks the historical and cultural and traditional grounding. It tends to be more scriptural, by necessity. And that basis has been proving to be more fruitful than the traditional, political, cultural anglicanism (small A) of the English countries, which is rapidly shrinking and becoming a minority within its own faith community.
👆 Right. People are to conform to
The Word of God. Without TRUTH, Unity isn’t the way to Salvation.
⚔️TRUTH v DECEPTION ⚔️
= Spiritual War
Splitting happened recently in Sydney, Australia with the set up of the Diocese of the Southern Cross. It is very sad.
The Southern Cross will remain a light 💡 in the darkness.
It's not Sydney which as split...get your facts straight. Sydney has had a calvinist leaning for many years. In 1970 Pope Paul VI visited Australia and the Anglican Abp of Sydney refused to attend an inter-faith service in Sydney........ooooh no we can't associate with the Pope of Rome...say no more !!!
Not it Sydney...I wish people would get their facts corrrect and I'm not even an Anglican!!!!. So I don't really care!
I think it's the opposite of sad. If you have a splinter in your arm you get it out and disinfect the wound. So the apostates must be expelled.
1️⃣5️⃣1️⃣ Anathemas were written by RCC’s Council of Trent in 1500s
part of The Counter Reformation.
151 Curses against Gospel Truth
Believers remain “on the books”UN-changed for the 4+ centuries
as official RCC dogma.
The Jesuit Army was established and employed via same Council.
Jesuits took an Oath with a Goal~
Bring Europe under Papal authority
Reading the Oath of the Jesuits
is finding a vital historical fact. IF one thinks “Come Home to Rome” is a benevolent plea for holy unity, Think Again.
The appointment of Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury was an utter disaster for the Church of England.
"Is Anglicanism splitting?"
I left ECUSA in 1980, and have encountered several 'splits' in the past 40 years, finally landing in the Anglican Catholic Church, which was formed in 1980. I would say that, yes, it is VERY split. Fortunately, several of the bodies that formed are now in full communion with each other, and don't care one iota what Canterbury thinks, so the turmoil, which began with women's ordination, is settling down.
News from Australia, there's some Anglican diocese in the Australian provenance that split from the Australian provenance and joined GAFCON.
It's mentioned in this video.
@@convertedsinner9536 I wrote this comment before he got to this part.
It is not a diocese of the Anglican Church of Australia that's creating a fuss, but rather a new body calling itself Anglican but which has no connection at all with the Anglican Church of Australia.
As far as I'm aware as a RC there are no dioceses that have actually split from the Anglican Church of Australia. This move has been led the the very protestant (and wealthy) Diocese of Sydney. There has been a new diocese created the Diocese of The Southern Cross. Sydney Anglicans are more like Presbyterians. Anglicans are on the decline in Australia.
@@colinlavelle7806 Either way there's been a split within Australian Anglicans over homosexuality.
To me, a Roman Catholic (with "orthodox" views), I wonder why the ordination of women was not mentioned. Is this a "done deal" withing the Anglican Community?
Even many conservative Anglican churches are fine with women priests, but not women bishops.
@@intergalactichumanempire9759 Many fine with women priests?
It's controversial.
Kinda. 1976 For the Episcopalians, and 1991 for Chruch of England.
It's not a done deal by any stretch of the imagination, that was the issue that led to the continuing churches in the US, and it's an issue that divides people within and outside of the communion. But the issue of homosexual marriage is just far more pressing at the moment.
ACNA allowed individual dioceses to to decide on that topic with varying results
Nice foreshadowing.
Subscribed.
Brother, do you have a video planned to talk about the significance of King Charles III's day one decision on his majesty's approach to the Church of Scotland?
excellent overview, as always.
For any Anglicans in America looking for a different traditional, conservative, and liturgical church, I recommend the LCMS.
Thank you for doing a video on this. I also am a ACNA member.
God Bless the African bishops for standing up to the likes of the spineless Welby!
You are wise and insightful well beyond your years.
Sad what's happening to the Anglican communion - I can see this happening where I'm from Northern Ireland with the Church of Ireland. Some wanting Same-sex marriage and many not. It's dividing the Christian community.
Unfortunately to be expected
And what is most bizarre is, the scriptures are very clear on these types of relationships yet people dismiss it.
@@HypervoxelRBX wish they left established religions alone. Go start your wacky disobedient cult elsewhere
@HyperVoxel, Yeah, you can't really get around Romans 1. The sometimes clever arguments that are made to explain away other passages (such as arguing over which translation for certain Greek words is most accurate) just doesn't work for Paul's diatribe in Romans 1. It seems that in response liberals/progressives just want to dismiss Paul altogether.
@@HypervoxelRBX What's your opinion on men having long hair or shaving?
Anglicanism as an institution can split. The True Church of Jesus doesn't. Apostatizing is not splitting, it is falling away, departing from the Truth.
I went to an Anglican Church (ACNA) near my home and quickly learned that the individuals (clergy) there were part of the NAR/Vineyard/Toronto Blessing/IHOPKC movements. It was very bizarre and they had some weird ministry affiliations
That diocese is Church 4 The Sake of Others and is a very problematic diocese as many clergy came from evangelical denominations and were not properly vetted and trained. Look for a different parish as not all C4SO churches are like that or look for a church affiliated with AMIA (Anglican Mission in America). Look for an old fashioned traditional service and you will be amazed.
@@janetsmiley6778 I appreciate that insight. Thankfully I have found a spiritual home in a different denomination.
“Anyone who doesn’t gather with me, scatters”
Well said brother or sister. !
“Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name claiming ‘I am The Christ’ and will deceive many.”
Deceived people can be in unity.
As the Roman Catholic Church now has popes that are not Italian, so the Church of England should install an Archbishop of Canterbury who comes from another Anglican province,say, Nigeria, for example. Also the overlapping new conservative dioceses can be admitted as an alternative ordinariate, like the Eastern Rite churches within Roman Catholicism.
They did that: the previous archbishop of canterbury was from the church in wales.
If the institution is maintaining an anti-biblical posture, then what’s the point of having a church? If you don’t agree with what the Bible teaches and commands, then don’t have a church, as simple as that. Call it a social club or a secular organization. Don’t bother on having services, priesthood, etc. Let those who actually love God and believe what the Bible says have a church. I think that it is better to have real believers within a church (or a Christian organization) even if they are much less people.
Having these organizations under the mask of Christianity just creates confusion and perverts the word of God.
There are already non biblical churches that don't recieve such condemnation. Mostly pentecostal and baptist that practice a very unchristian method of speaking in toungues to momic those punished by go to build the tower. Such as the Assemblies of God, the Church of God, Foursquare churches, Apostolic churches, and Vineyard churches. So mostly pentecostal and baptist.
‘What the Bible says’ most of the time means exactly ‘what old men for hundreds of years have been interpreting the Bible as’. For example pastors like to say we are terrible sinful people quoting the apostle Paul. But if you’ve actually read the Bible most Christians aren’t as cruel and terrible as Paul had been pre his conversion to Christianity. How can you take what the Bible says exactly without looking at the realistic personality and character and circumstances of a particular person? As a human being I know how a lot of people are sheep, it is so easy to agree or like a person even if they are wrong, as long as they can word their arguments in a convincing way, or maybe they have some values you identify with. My point is just because something has been done and believed for a few thousand years doesn’t mean it’s right or true. If it were than there shouldn’t be equality for the different genders or races
Some exegetes believe that the inclusion of the Adam & Eve narrative at the beginning of the Hebrew scriptures was designed to established the heterosexual normative complementarity that essentially grounds a Hebrew understanding of human sexuality. The Hebrews lived in proximity to nations who had 'no problem' with bisexuality, promiscuity, child sacrifice, homosexuality, temple prostitution, bestiality, etc... and this Genesis creation account was YHWH's prescribed manner in which to establish an ordered sexuality amongst his people that embodied true basic human dignity and blessing.
The apostle Paul (as a formally trained Hellenistic Jew living in close proximity to a cosmopolitan Roman imperial ethos) would have also been familiar in his own era with the practices/behaviour of the Greco-Romans and their 'tolerance' of myriad sexual predilections. Paul in fact categorizes a 'list' of particular behaviours deemed wholly incompatible with the kingdom of God in his letter to the Corinthians. One has to think/presume that Paul either 'got it all wrong' or else one has to submit to the biblical instruction that some sexual/behavioural choices will result in exclusion from God's kingdom.
It's likely that Jesus of Nazareth's own inclusion of at least one woman who formerly participated in prostitution would have caused concern for some in his small group of followers from town to town. Responding to grace and repentance were critically vital in that specific regard. Forgiveness heals much. Mercy in the midst of suffering is extended to all who desire to follow Jesus Christ. Brokenness is brokenness and is not wholeness. All of us struggle with succumbing to sin and sinful practices... but we don't overcome sin by rebranding it grammatically/semantically to suit our subjective whims or proclivities. Attempting to sanctify that which is biblically referred to as abominable never works out well in the long term.
For over nineteen centuries the canonical teaching of orthodox christian communities was never in serious dispute as to the rejection of homosexual practices within churches. In the first century of the Common Era the apostle Paul reminded the Roman church community that acquiescence to the imperial Roman state in matters moral/ethical was to be soundly rejected. They were not to be "conformed to the world but rather to be transformed" in their very apprehension of kingdom values/priorities so as to honour their bodies and their Creator. My how the tables have turned. Now a sentimental and narcissistic fixation upon genitals/pleasure/orifices has often functionally replaced that which was understood scripturally as being 'the biblical standard' for over 1900 years. This hinges upon hermeneutical, ideological and exegetical decisions that impacted Christian ethics in the latter part of the 20th century. Apparently that which was formerly clear as a bell (i.e., Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9 ) was now as dissonate as a gong (or so some in the church community were leading us to believe).
👏👏
Thoughtful stuff, thanks.
Certainly St. Paul was not a fan of same-sex sexual relationships, but his understanding of them was mired by Greco-Roman excess. He clearly thought that all homosexual interactions were either an "overflow" of unchecked desire or the result of pagan worship. We know now that this is not strictly true: Some people are born with an exclusive, innate sexual desire for members of their own sex. St. Paul's sexual ethic was developed with the assumption that our Lord's return was almost immediately imminent. For that reason he told the Corinthians to stay in the situations they were in, for slaves to stay with their masters and for the unmarried to remain unmarried. Unless one is applying these same principles to the present day, we are already taking liberties with Paul's ethical approach. Paul thought it was foolish for Christians to marry when Jesus was coming so soon; yet he allowed them to so that their lust would not be their downfall. In a world that has given up any pretense of sexual moderation, which would have made the Greeks themselves blush, we are casting our gay and lesbian siblings to the wolves instead of leading them into an expression of the faithfulness and chastity that undergirded St. Paul's message.
It is interesting that, despite interpretive efforts the contrary, Paul never explicitly condemns what faithful Christians in the progressive camp are arguing for today: devoted, faithful and monogamous relationships between gay and lesbian couples. We can argue all day about what 'arsenokoitai' really means or how applicable Levitical law is to Christians today (I think Matthew Vines and David Bentley Hart's exegeses on the subject are good but not perfect), but for whatever reason the Holy Spirit allowed for a bit more wiggle room than Christians have historically acknowledged. While tradition is valuable, one can (and I would argue should) reexamine our forefathers in light of what has been revealed to us by the experiences of LGBT people who want nothing more than to reconcile their lives to Christ. As an Anglican in the Episcopal Church, our Articles of Religion acknowledge that even ecumenical councils can and have erred regarding matters of the faith (Article 21). Despite the early Church Fathers' exhaustive arguments against slavery, Christians for centuries founded and dealt in the most evil slave trade in human history. For nearly thousands of years, Christians believed that women were the wrong substance of person to preach the Gospel, handle the sacraments, or hold authority over Christian communities. It is possible for Christians to have been wrong then, and it's possible for them to be wrong now.
I agree with you that the Christian community should be fighting back against our oversexed, overstimulated culture. Perhaps there is, as Anglicans love to say, a middle way that avoids Pharisaical fundamentalism, which has lead to the persecution of many and has failed to win people to Christ, and the laissez-faire liberalism of our secular world, which only leads to destruction.
@@williamdonahue2422 Very well put!
@@williamdonahue2422 1.You only need to argue over arsenokotai if you're trying to justify and unjustifiable position.
2. So what if people are born with innate homosexual desire. We are all born with innate sinful desires.
3. Your argument about slavery and women works for anything: eg. "for centuries the church has argued against paedophilia but if the church was wrong then it could be wrong now"
4. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever explicitly condemn marrying your dog...so it must be okay ....It's only condemned in Leviticus, but one can still debate how applicable Levitical law is today...
One of the most insane things happening, happening in plain sight... is the entirety of modern Christianity splitting over an issue as random as homosexuality and gay marriage. Who would've guessed 2000 years ago that this would the issue to split the entire body of Christ in two? Madness I tell you, absolute madness. I can't believe it, as I watch it happening
What do you mean random. Romans is not a ”random” text of the Christian canon.
It's not random and to be honest it's expected, christianity has always been at odds with sexual practices that are not a heterosexual marriage, and they did it when the others were accepted, be it the platonic love of pederastry between the greeks (in some cities more than just platonic), the homosexual relationships that citizens of rome had with non-citizens, the poligamy that jews and gentiles saw as normal, the prostitution and ritual prostitution so common in the greek world (specially in Corinth) or the adultery, something really common between romans since only citizens could marry so it wasn't really seen as adultery and many of these relationships had everything that the bishop of the anglican church said he knew a relationship should have, stability, love, faithfulness etc... It's no wonder that after 2000 years of condeming these practices the church would split when someone started to accept it, besides, it creates a deeper problem in doctrines such as the divine inspiration of the scriptures (allowing people to create a canon inside the canon) and of God's attributes, if the law reveals gods sanctity as Paul wrote and God doesn't change, why would a moral rule of christianity change? It's almost the same as saying that God has changed
yet the Lord him self as "Shell I find faith in the world when I return?".
The misnomer of 'gay' for homosexuals is so wrong. A friend of mine was a deputy police officer in Los Angeles for 25 years ; he said that the most vicious crimes were committed by homosexuals against their lovers. In Ecuador, Cuenca,a 47 yo closet homosexual man was stabbed 32 times by his 15 yo lover. Nothing 'gay' about them ; most are miserable but have to hide it. Yet, I feel sad that so many dont accept Jesus who can help them.
Thank you for pronouncing 'Diocese' and 'Dioceses' correctly!
As far as I am aware, GAFCON is not part of the Anglican Communion as they are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury. So, in effect, there can be no split from an entity outside of this body.
GAFCON
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAFCON
Most of GAFCON are in the Communion.
Subscribed. Please make more videos on Christian contemporary politics/debate.
Planning on it! Not sure what you have seen, but here are some other videos of mine that are like this one (imo).
The Orthodox Church's Cold War over Ukraine ruclips.net/video/WxOgnERhs-c/видео.html
United Methodist Church Split - What's Going on in 2022? ruclips.net/video/G6fOEmQEfuc/видео.html
Denomination Considers Women Pastors, Removing Premillennial Requirement ruclips.net/video/6sko8Osyduc/видео.html
Just Announced: The Global Methodist Church ruclips.net/video/JNshvA_k3nc/видео.html
The Anglican Church lost the plot back in 1974 when it ordained its first female priest and then in 1989 when it ordained its first female bishop. To act like it is suddenly happening now is ridiculous. I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy years ago, any conservative with any sense should do the same.
I doubt it, the Church of England has always had an implicit tension that began with tensions between those more reformed and those more Catholic, the puritans and the Bishops, liberals and conservatives. So it is with global Anglicanism. Ever since the Elizabethan settlement this has been the real strength of worldwide Anglicanism, that it embodies the nature of the whole Church Catholic in living in communion with those tensions. But by the measure of any ecclesiology, especially as we have affirmed an episcopal ecclesiology, it is unacceptable for there to be overlapping dioceses especially under the authority of another bishop and province and still remain part of the Anglican communion. It is a basic principle of ecclesiology for there to be one bishop, one diocese. So this is why ANCA is not Anglican. However, the Church of England has allowed there to be 'flying Bishops'- that is Bishops who have episcopal permission by the diocesan Bishop to exercise oversight over those who cannot accept the pastoral ministry of the diocesan Bishop.
This is an insightful comment. I agree. I suspect a similar arrangement (with the flying bishop) would be instituted if GAFGON/ACNA gained official recognition inside the communion.
The Episcopal Church lost claim to possessing any territories over the US when it apostatized. They are interlopers.
I saw Reading Minster (UK) was flying the latest Intersex Progress Pride flag with the stripes, the chevrons and the circle. So it sounds like they are taking the result of the last Lambeth Conference seriously (NOT). There are actually a lot of Africans here (for reasons I don't understand) and many of them go to church.
Over the past few years I began seeking to leave the Baptist faith behind for an orthodox/liturgical church body. After a great deal of research, including nearly every one of your videos on the topic, I had narrowed my choice down to either Anglicanism or Lutheranism, but many of the things mentioned in this video solidified my move to become a confessional Lutheran. This video affirms to me that I made the right choice. Thank you for what you do.
So, why? Christians are always talking about love. That is, we love you if you are straight. I see this as hypocrisy, that's just me. But, enjoy your Lutheran Church. I left religion because of homophobia and misogynism. I feel free. I will never worship a god that would make me, to treat me as a second class person.
@@Lepewhi I didn't leave the Baptist tradition to join the confessional Lutheran church for any other reason than because it is the most closely aligned Christian denomination to what is taught in the Bible. I got no qualms or problems with anyone, I just want to follow Christ as best I can.
Sorry if you feel like a "second class person" and left the church. I hope you're able to reconcile those things one day.
@@cwstreeper Actually, I don't feel like a second class person, hence I left religion. But, you do you. And, it's ok to disagree.
@@Lepewhi yes, very much ok to disagree... however, I'm unsure how you came to the conclusion that I must feel like a "second class person?"
@@Lepewhi Love the sinner, not the sin. It's the action we have a problem with, not the person.
I long ago left the Anglican Church over the ordination of women and same sex marriage and the ordination of homosexuals. When I saw the 1979 Prayer Book, I knew all this coming and just a matter of time.
This is why I gravitate to orthodoxy even as westerner
It's great
They have their own special issues. At the present time Constantinople and Moscow no longer share eucharist unity and the Patriarch of Moscow is simply Putin's lapdog.
What is going on in the Anglican church is a mirror image of the entire west in losing its way. It is sad to see the destruction of Christianity in the west.
It IS broken and cannot be repaired!
Marriage isn't some civil document. It's a holy sacrament that binds man and women to share in the life of God. This really isn't subject to debate or change. It's following God's will and not doing your own will.
Couldn't be said better
Good summary.
In February The Church of England votes as to whether to allow same sex marriage and there is a fair chance it will pass. If it does the split, i think, will be unavoidable.
Very informative video! May I ask what denomination do you belong to?
I always laugh at Episcopalians who talk about scriptural authority when the entire reason for the church's existence was to get around the clear proscription of divorce set out by Jesus.
The American Episcopal church was created by the Scottish. The Scottish Episcopal church has a separate origin than the church of England, from conflicts in C17 Scotland over church government, bishops v congregation presbyteries. After it was settled that it was allowed to exist, it formed communion with Canterbury as a strength bond because they both believed in bishops.
No, divorce as set out by the Pope. Who in the eyes of Henry VIII, royalty especially European believed their births were divinely ordained, and the election of a Pope was that of a political appointment of a man of common birth.
That's not even close to being true. Try again.
@@conscienceaginBlackadder okay, but isn't Romans pretty clear about homosexuality? Didn't the Episcopal Church of Scotland give the okay for that?
@@reeferfranklin Yep, a freethinking church that does not hold itself tied to agree with a view written arbitrarily by one guy in the past who did not even argue it from evidence.
Though it's only a tenth the size of Scotland's Presbyterian established church, in Edinburgh they are practically equal. It supports several big central churches for each of the top 3 denominations, must be a religious city, including 4 Episcopal ones, each with different service styles. There is a conservative Evangelical Alliance faction, line a church within a church, who would agree with Paul, and their city church is Ps'n'Gs (St Paul's + St George's), a guitar-rock happy-clappy one. Double-named from a merger of 2 churches in the 1930s, the Paul in it comes from its Evangelical setting up in the Victorian era as a move from an older site in a back alley on the Royal Mile. But this older site, instead of abandoned, was taken by the Oxford Movement for High church Anglicanism, with incense and choral psalms and Latin and lots of saints' days. It was named Old St Paul's to distinguish from the new one, and they have been rivals ever since.
Old St Paul's is a radically pro-gay liberal congregation, a magnet for gay couples to join and feel accepted. Its straight members joke about being almost the minority, but are proud of it as an enlightened moral example. Retired famous bishop Richard Holloway, the early leading pro-gay bishop, belongs to it and was once its minister. A good number of its servers team are gay. Really ironic that its saint is Paul - just last week we had a procession and soup banquet there for the feast of his conversion. Curious historical accident too, that traditional high ceremonial liturgy now goes with modern pro-gay enlightenment, while modern happy-clappy style goes with traditional Bible literality.
Welby is what puts me off the CofE. I quite like my local vicar.
The Archbishop's comments are really quite sad. To me, the formula is simple a) sex outside of marriage is considered fornication and therefore sinful, and b) marriage is repeatedly affirmed as between a man and a woman. The desire to be kind to others cannot cause us to set aside clear textual instruction. One can set aside all manner of academic biblical theory and simply ask yourself, "If this was changed in the New Testament, wouldn't that have been made really clear by Jesus or the Apostles, and wouldn't the Church have figured that out a long time ago?"
Can you actually explain why you believe both of these premises?
@@soarel325 Both the Old and New Testament condemn fornication which is defined as sex outside of marriage. So the question becomes whether or not same-sex marriage is acceptable.
The most quoted New Testament passage against this is Romans Chapter 1 which references men and women leaving their natural ways. While many see this as clear, there are others who claim this is a reference to pederastic relationships. Yet, Jesus reaffirms that marriage is between a man and a woman in Matthew 19: "4 Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
This leaves the burden of proof on the progressive Christian to explain how it is that a clear teaching from the Old Testament was massively revised by Jesus in the New Testament without spelling it out clearly, as well as why it is that we have only recently received this revelation.
@@aaronjones8905 The term "fornication" is not used or defined in that way in the New Testament. The Greek word porneia referred to prostitution, which is what Paul condemns (you will sometimes see it translated as "sexual immorality" or "Illicit sex" instead of "prostitution", but "prostitution" is what it meant to his Greek-speaking audiences). Various sex and marriage arrangements are found in the Old Testament which aren't practiced today or even viewed as morally repugnant, so we'll ignore that for now.
Where in Matthew 19 is there a condemnation of homosexual marriage (which was not a social phenomenon in 1st-century Palestine)?
And yet, all is the creation of the Lord God. And, omnipotent, he is capable of all. (I'm not gay BTW, I'm married with 3 kids). If gay people are born, then they are born of God, and I don't know about you, but I'm pretty confident that being gay isn't a 'habit' or chosen lifestyle. Many gay people have certain physiological traits. Thus, the lord God is creating some people to be homosexual. Why? We can't know his way. Perhaps it is to test our love and foregiveness, as characters of the heart that sit above gripping and grabbing onto textual content in the Bible. Every person sins against the scriptures. You look clean shaven to me - check the scriptural content on that. Do you live according to the sciptures on fabrics and sea food, as per Leviticus? I'd bet you don't! So, as humans and as Christians, we have a problem or a challenge where living per the scriptures is concerned. No-one lives purely per the scriptures. Thus, choose your sin. We are all sinners. Matthew makes it pretty clear that it is not our job - but only God's - to judge our fellow brothers.
@@unkelartgarf3792 In order for these people’s beliefs to be coherent they either need to claim that God is casually and arbitrarily cruel to certain people in making them more prone to sin, or to deny the truth that sexual orientation is innate.
Time for a further split, ' the peoples front of the Anglican Communion.' following the 'Life of Brian motif.
Conceived in revolt; dispatched by revolt.
In the USA it happened mostly in the 1970s. But actually even before. The Reformed Episcopal Church back in the 1950s.
10:45 minutes. And that is where the Anglican Church goes off the rails. You can not be a member of the body of Christ if you are in rebellion against the word.
Absolutely right👍🙏🏻
Truth!
@@Delgen1951 exactly. Jesus said “ I am the Way the Truth and the life”.
There is fundy body of Christ + there is liberal body of Christ. There is corn on the Sabbath as a role model for just taking what you like from the word
@@conscienceaginBlackadder I’d keep taking the pills if I were you.
Thank you for this video!
The Anglican church in New Zealand also split in 2018
The inevitable result of the practice of Bible Alone. Continual disagreement over what the bible teaches and continual division into separate groups. Thankyou Luther, thankyou Calvin, etc
A PRICELESS JEWEL
The conjugial inclination of one man to one wife is the jewel of human life and the depository of the Christian religion.
- Emanuel Swedenborg, "Conjugial Love", 457
I don't think one denomination can withstand such divergent views on important issues.
The Southern Baptists are a lot closer together on issues, have congregational polity, and might still have a split within a couple of decades!
I think it would be easy to prove the thesis "All church schisms are over political divergence or unanswered theological questions". Where the former is a special case of the latter (unanswered theological questions on current political trends).
@@ttthttpd There are plenty of theological answers to the sodomy issue being bandied about.
@fluffysheap
I do not think that it will be a decade or two. The lines are already being drawn between men like Mohler, Greear, and Litton and more conservative members. That was partly what the Conservative Baptist meeting during the conference was about. Granted, they are not splitting yet, but when men like John MacArthur, who is not Southern Baptist, and Voddie Bauchum are in attendance along with a majority of the conservative attendees for the purposes of harmonious fellowship that they will not receive elsewhere at the conference, you are seeing the lines drawn.
Issues reaching critical mass in the organization are: the denominations choices regarding reports of sexual abuse that arose six years ago, the continuing fallout from their decision to embrace a social justice framework and Critical Race Theory as a framework to consider their history in particular and Biblical Truth in general, the growing acceptance and tolerance of homosexual marriage in the membership, the roles of women in the church, particularly as pastors, board chairs, and denominational leaders. All of these are beginning to hit a strident bubble. An indication of the size of a split will be the messages that are preached at conferences. If one side is preaching unity above all, and the others are preaching that the highest duty is to doctrine; then a split is near, and if you look at who occupies the various camps and who they associate with, you can even guess the size of the split.
Currently, I think that the SBC is on track to lose about one out of fifty to one hundred churches if they split. I say this because a great many of the "discontented" will die in the SBC no matter how bad things get because they love the denomination and its history more than they love God and his call for separation for doctrinal purity.
@@willscott4785 There are actually lots of questions on how to deal with the current situation.
What influence, if any, should the church have on civil marriage? Should the church dictate the kinds of relationships allowed by non-members?
In that vein, should American christianity continue to support non-sectarianism, or was that a mistake born of pragmatism to establish the country? Are (classical) liberalism and christianity actual anathema to each other? (Instead of supporting each other like the old "protestant work ethic" idea implies). If that is the case should we be moving towards a "post-liberal" era / "dark enlightenment" like some groups are currently advocating for?
Should homosexuality be criminalized (there blood will be upon them), be shunned, be tolerated outside the church (secular / nonsectarian), tolerated within the church as an infraction like premartial sex is, or are the verses condemming it interpreted wrong (as some progressive christian types argue)?
Some gay relationships are clearly loving (as in more than lust), and people know and love their gay friends and relatives. They dont feel it is moral to treat it as wrong and can't accept their loved ones as sick or broken. If morality is "written on ones heart" by god, who "is love", then why don't their moral intuitions on gay issues match scripture? How can love be ungodly?
If moral intutions dont match scripture and they construct some kind of work-around (say reinterpreting scripture), what's to stop it on 1000 other issues, whats the logical stopping point? Conversely, if they are right to object, then how much of scripture and tradition is faulty?
If they are mistaken, scripture isn't, they are pious, and moral intutions are supposed to be the work of god, then that clearly begs some questions.
Should the alleged hypocrisy of tolerating divorce and premartial sex while vocally denouncing homosexual marriage as degrading marriage cause introspection? Maybe some denominations will consider this a valid criticism and start reverting to more conservative sexual norms. Or perhaps the opposite will occur, and some denominations will soften on both gay issues and their other marriage related lapses.
What is to be done when a single church contains wildly different political views, and those views influence the theology of members? Should schism occur? Some kind of ecumenism? Should personal opinions on theology be discouraged or even personal study by laity banned (pre reformation catholic)? Should political engagement be discouraged to maintain peace and coherence (JWs)?
If some forms of love are diseased and should not be acted upon, yet god allows some people to be born inclined to that kind of love, isnt that unduly cruel? Some say they are supposed to be celibate, which means suffering is an exercise of their faith (if they chose it). Those who currently argue faith should have nothing to do with suffering, but call for lifelong celibacy, clearly are begging another set of questions that need resolving.
See, lots of questions. Many of them common to any big political / historical events affecting the church.
Another good example is the discovery of the new world, and the questions raised by generations of humans unable to hear the gospel. Some answered by switching to deistic or universalist beliefs, some argued they were deemed innocent due to their ignorance of the law, others that they go to heaven if they don't believe but don't sin (lenient/progressive sects), others declared a mission to convert (manifest destiny believing sects), and finally Mormons invented an entire new gospel supposedly preached to the natives.
ruclips.net/video/-ddKqjKAZew/видео.html
I hope you post an update on the last week's events!
Better yet, after this years GAFCON
I'm a gafcon Anglican who is part of ACNA. We split from Anglican Church of Canada due to their heretical practices. I couldn't be happier being away from them. Praise the Lord 🙏
Talk to your prelate about joining the Anglican Ordinariate. You will find orthodoxy and global support.
@@JohnFromAccounting exactly
@@JohnFromAccounting You do you but no thanks, more reforming is needed before ceding to your hippy Roman bishop
Come home to Rome
@@punishedgoy9131 lol no thanks
This was excellent.
Awesome content as always! Your video quality looks very sharp. Which camera are you using?
Thanks! I use a Canon T4i that I bought new in 2012 with an 18-135mm STM lens.
@@ReadyToHarvest Oh wow, thanks! :)
In August 2003 I was a confirmed Episcopalian. When they chose the New Hampshire "bishop" they left me. My brother who was a atheist was stunned because he knew that was wrong. I have been a Baptist for the last 20 years, currently at a large northern Conservative but independent church.
I can’t wait to see the Anglican church fully going back to following the Pope 🤍 catholicism is the truth and Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against his one and holy church
A Middle eastern Christian here 👋🏼God bless you all ✝️
AMEN TO THAT 🙏🙏🙏
The Anglican Church splitted in Brasil in 2005
The church of England, what a lesson in the sinfulness of schism !
A lesson in sinfulness that leads to schism.
Created on an abomination of marriage, and destroyed on an abomination of marriage.
My bet on what will happen is simple: Anglicanism keeps splitting and then splits totally. With the split there will be more and more overlap and thus the size of each churches' membership will grow smaller. I do think it is very possible that Africa in the future will be the only place with any notable Anglican churches
There is only one Church in my Bible (Word of God)
And He (Jesus Christ) is the head of the body (believers), the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
Colossians 1:18 NKJV
bible.com/bible/114/col.1.18.NKJV
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause DIVISIONS and offenses, contrary to the doctrine (singular) which you learned, and AVOID them.
Romans 16:17 NKJV
bible.com/bible/114/rom.16.17.NKJV
And do you think there might be splits over there eventually. It could happen, especially if certain countries there have a change of opinion on certain issues (although it might be a few decades)
@@krazykris9396 I mean it's prots, it will happen but will it be just one random rouge priest? or will it be a massive game changing movement. I can't say. It will depend on many things but also too it will depend on if the head of the Anglican communion's see is moved. And if so where.
Don’t worry they’ll split in Africa too eventually. There’s some big variation in African Christianity
I'm not sure about that last. Even in the West, conservative churches are growing; it's sometimes just that the provincial leadership hasn't quite caught up. In Australia, for instance, a motion against same-sex marriage was passed both by the laity and the clergy, and was only defeated by a narrow margin of bishops in the province's synod.
Liberalism and decline aren't inevitabilities.
The problem comes down to marketing. The more liberal branches chose to "keep the church relevant to modern society" by accepting homosexuality, as has larger society. The more conservative branches recognized that the church derives its relevance by standing up against practices in modern society that conflict with the gospel. And that is why people are leaving the more liberal churches-- because they simply have nothing of value to offer, just a vague direction to "love" and a self-congratulatory feeling for congregants that they are on-trend. Unfortunately, there is a market for that. Conservative churches offer values that are congruous with the gospel. For me, it's no contest.
The Episcopal Church in the Philippines (Cordilllerias) has been declining since the 80's with the emergence of Evangicalism.
Population is increasing but Anglicans going to church is getting fewer, if Jesus won't return in the next 100 years, the Episcopal Church here won't survive the stated time frame.
(It's cold because leaders are cold too)
Then come to catholic not to heresy
It is splitted since many years. There is the christian wing in Africa and there are the "liberal" non-christian modernists in Britain.
Speaking as a former Anglican, without repentance, reformation and revival, Anglicanism is doomed to destruction. That said, the same is true of Protestant Dissenting (Nonconformist) traditions. We are all in a mess. LORD, have mercy!
I love how honest and direct the British are. Even when they disagree, they state their views plainly and in a dignified way.
You're being sarcastic, right? You can be thrown in prison in the UK just for having an opinion.
@@kell_checks_in Oh I wasn't speaking about social consequences, I was talking about their *manner* of speech and the plainness with which they tend to state their positions.
@@kell_checks_in - As someone who has lived in the UK for 50 years, I'd love an example? I'm not aware of anyone "thrown in prison" here for an opinion? Compared to the US, the UK is a very liberal (small 'l'), tolerent country. Opinions espousing or supporting terrorist ideals may get one in some hot water, but still almost certainly not "thrown in prison".
@@unkelartgarf3792 During the two world wars a problem that soldiers from colonial armies had was that the people in the Uk had a habit of saying things in euphemisms and understating things. For example if an Englishman was a homosexual people would say that he was a confirmed bachelor. A colonial would say he was a faggot. Colonials had a hard time communicating with the people of the UK. Tories in Canada believe that our ties to Britain has saved Canada from being cursed with the violence that is so common in the USA.
@@unkelartgarf3792 Did you know #MichaelSavage, a conservative radio host in the US, isn't allowed to travel to the UK? 🤔 Free speech in the UK isn't what it was.
The Anglican Communion has been in disarray for years. There was the Reformed Episcopal Church which were basically Presbyterian in theology with an Anglican liturgy. There were Anglo-Catholics throughout the Communion and host of Continuing Anglicans such Episcopal Missionary Church, the ACA, the PCK and now the ACNA. There is even a Celtic Orthodox Church and other crosses of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy.
I'm no fan of this church but it is sad seeing how far they have fallen.
It was never a genuine church, as it was started by the unbeliever Henry who wanted his own way and agreement to his divorce.
@@wendymitchell8245 amen
@@wendymitchell8245
Actually, Henry Vlll died a Roman Catholic. Read Church history.
@@Apriluser Any reliable source for his deathbed reversion?
@@Apriluser I am English and I have never read or heard that .He was an evil man who used the fake church he started.
It says alot about modern anglicanism and the modern monarchy that any degree of influence from the queen was mentioned at any point here.
God and Her Majesty be with you.
Amen.
I admire the Anglican "big tent" idea, hard as it might be to realize. to think faithfulness requires one point-of-view on a few litmus test issues, seems impossible.
It would be 100% impossible with God's word thrown overboard
Yeah, crazy, huh?
They should have absolutely no standards. G.d's word, Shmod's word.
Who is he to tell people how to live according to biblical tradition.
@@BaronEvola123 the age-old same story, people thinking they can be the final authority. that position is taken already.
Well it did originate through a split so what else should be expected?
“A theology which denies the historicity of nearly everything in the Gospels to which Christian life and affections and thought have been fastened for nearly two millennia … can produce only one or other of two effects. It will make him a Roman Catholic or an atheist.” -C.S. Lewis, 1964
What rubbish. Where is that quotation found? I’ve read CS Lewis and I’ve never read .
Lewis was clueless .The only true Christians in the C of E. are the few evangelicals who are there thinking they can change a spiritually dead church. They should not be there, as God says do not unite yourselves with unbelievers.
@@wendymitchell8245 exactly right Wendy. They don’t have a clue, especially those who become romanists.
@@wendymitchell8245 Evangelicals are the ones who are clueless.
@@comicsans1689 I was brought up in an English village where traditionally all the locals were expected to be members of the local C. of E. They were 'hatch ,match and dispatch. 'members who were not real Christians ,it was all about tradition . My grandparents and mother were converted , after hearing an Evangelical from the local city preaching the true gospel of belief and repentance. They were clueless before ,listening to local vicars .It would appear you are not a Christian or you would not say that.
I've often wondered why the episcopal church was so anxious to adopt the philosophy of its enemies until I understood that it had been infiltrated.
Ugh 🤔😞
How will the resignation of Justin Welby change the future of the Anglican Communion?
The principal cause of the decline of the Anglican church is that it has departed from the fundamental teachings of the Holy Scriptures on many issues. It has ceased to be evangelical in its outreach contrary to the Great Commission of Jesus Christ and it has capitulated to the secular influences of the world around us. As far as the gay/homosexual issue is concerned it has allowed its ministers to fly in the face of the clear characterisation of that practice as sin in Romans Ch 1. In recent years same-sex relations have been glamorized by society, Jesus confirmed that God’s will for marriage has always been lifelong heterosexual monogamy (Matt. 19:4-6).Alternatives may be fashionable, but they are expressions of God’s abandoning people to the “lusts of their hearts” and to “impurity,” On this and other matters of morality the Anglican church under Welby, Robinson and their ilk is verging on apostate. So sad.
Evangelicals have plenty of fear-cult Evangelical churches, enough for their own needs. The whole modern point of Anglicanism is for there to be a freethinking liberal not Bible-dictated church. The church of William Temple, David Jenkins, Richard Holloway
Very well stated ; yet many dont want to hear it.
Just an observation from a Catholic perspective, when the Gospel is abandoned, heresy is tolerated, even entertained to the point that the faithful are confused and divided, how could any church survive?