Ship of Fools: Should the North American Anglican and Lutheran churches join the Provoo Communion?

Thread: Should the North American Anglican and Lutheran churches join the Provoo Communion? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026096

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

Obviously, since I'm posing this, the answer I want to give is "yes". To me it makes no sense for TEC (a daughter church of the Church of England), and the ELCA (a daughter church of the Church of Denmark, among others), to be in full communion, and for each church to be in full communion with its mother church(es) in Europe (sorry UKIP, but England is part of Europe), and for the Church of England to be in communion with the Church of Denmark, but for the Church of Denmark to not be in communion with The Episcopal Church. It makes even less sense for the Church of Sweden to be out of communion with The Episcopal Church because there has always been a informal relationship of communion between our churches. In fact, instead of founding a new Lutheran synod, the Church of Sweden commended Swedish immigrants to the care of what was then PECUSA, and several bishops authorized the Swedish Mass for their use.* This is because the CoS was very keenly aware of the fact that they and PECUSA were both episcopal churches in the apostolic succession. Therefore, I think the addition of the North American mainline Lutheran churches (ELCA, ELCIC) and the mainline Anglican churches (TEC, ACC), would remedy this anomalous situation. But perhaps there are reasons why this should not happen that I haven't thought of?

*Some pietiests defied this and formed the Augustina synod.

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

I personally think it'd be nice if all the members of the Lutheran World Federation and Porvoo were amalgamated into one big episcopal family. The same goes for the ACNA, LCMS, and International Lutheran Council members forming into one big synodal/congregationalist group... and the various Reformed into one big Presbyterian party!

At least if these things happened, everyone would know who the progressives are and who the conservatives are. It would also allow all the Mainlines to be stuffed into one big ship, which would sink all the faster because their wacky policies would be fully amalgamated. One hopes that Bible-based Christianity could be resurrected much more quickly after this point.

Regardless of my dreams, this rejoining of twins is probably an inevitable thing. All the mainlines are losing members very quickly. They'll just have to band together sooner or later.

P.S. Sorry if it sounds like I'm trolling, but I am not. To be serious: I just have a huge beef with ELCIC and ELCA. Porvoo consists of many who share their beliefs (which I am against), as well as their polity (which I am for). Such a joinder would be advantageous.

[ 28. September 2013, 19:15: Message edited by: VDMA ]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Well VDMA, welcome and may I say further: what perfectly horrid sentiments to express.

Now as to the OP's question: Yes, by all means. Indeed we should form an international Evangelical Catholic Communion under the primacy of the Archbishop of Uppsala. But I think I'd leave the CofE out of it.

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

Thank you for the welcome!

I hope I do not express myself so strongly as to actually hurt anyone. We all believe what we believe. I respect your opinions, so please respect mine. [Smile]

Anyway, if I want the ELCA/ELCIC/TEC/PKN/SK to crumble, it is because I want their parishioners to join LCC/LCMS/ACNA/VGKN/whatever alternatives Sweden has.

This isn't about revenge. Perhaps I'm just too young and emotional to be rational about this. Strong feelings about theological liberalism.

Never mind. Have some positive, constructive dialog about the O.P. - I'm sorry.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I respect your opinions

You quite evidently don't. DO get over your bitter convert syndrome. It's quite unseemly.

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I respect your opinions
You quite evidently don't. DO get over your bitter convert syndrome. It's quite unseemly.

By "respect", I mean that I would not attempt to censor your opinions, or stop you from expressing them - nor would I call you a bitter anything.

ELCIC, ELCA, etc., need to reform or they will die, and the O.P. puts forward a good suggestion.

By the way, I'm not particularly bitter, nor am I a convert to/from any of these denominations. Please let's deal with the subject at hand, not each poster's sins.

[ 28. September 2013, 20:12: Message edited by: VDMA ]

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

I am perfectly okay with the ELCA joining Porvoo, and I'd be happy if TEC, ACoC, and ELCIC joined as well. That said, I do think all of Christendom needs to take a hearty look at its many, many appendages. The ELCA has largely managed to shed its insular ethnic biases over the past couple of decades, but there are certainly other denominations in Christendom who are perfectly all right with maintaining theirs.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
I respect your opinions
You quite evidently don't. DO get over your bitter convert syndrome. It's quite unseemly.
By "respect", I mean that I would not attempt to censor your opinions, or stop you from expressing them - nor would I call you a bitter anything.

ELCIC, ELCA, etc., need to reform or they will die, and the O.P. puts forward a good suggestion.

By the way, I'm not particularly bitter, nor am I a convert to/from any of these denominations. Please let's deal with the subject at hand, not each poster's sins.

Ah, I was using the more classical definition of respect- "Not being a jerk."

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

When whole denominations ordain women, tolerate & celebrate gay marriage, practice biblical higher criticism, and generally play around with the faith, they do not deserve the respect of others being "nice" to them. If my opinions about the North American LWF and Porvoo churches make me a jerk, then I'm a jerk. It doesn't change the fact that they sincerely need to change, or they will die.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

You dissin' Ma Preacher? My very ordained, very much a minister Ma Preacher? [Paranoid]

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
You dissin' Ma Preacher? My very ordained, very much a minister Ma Preacher?

If ELCA and all her sister-denominations want to join Porvoo, it'd certainly create one big united happy family.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
If ELCA and all her sister-denominations want to join Porvoo, it'd certainly create one big united happy family.

Oh, the horrors! Churches joining together instead of dividing? Churches happy?

[Olaf fans his Lutheran self; fan generously provided by Schmitz and Auerbach Funeral Home]

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

quote:
Oh, the horrors! Churches joining together instead of dividing? Churches happy?

Schism is fine when it's a riven over the truth...

Of course, an old latitudinarian Anglican might say that lies are fine, so long as they stop schism... [Razz]

Casuistry, ahoy!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
Schism is fine when it's a riven over the truth...

No it isn't. Schism is a sin.

Scripture does not say that if my brother or sister offends me or doesn't believe exactly what I think he or she ought to believe, I should cast him or her out. That view turns the heart to sin and beguiles us into it.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
Schism is fine when it's a riven over the truth...
No it isn't. Schism is a sin.

Scripture does not say that if my brother or sister offends me or doesn't believe exactly what I think he or she ought to believe, I should cast him or her out. That view turns the heart to sin and beguiles us into it.

We´re not casting anyone out. We (christians with an evangelical faith) are being cast out of mainline denominations since the last few decades. It´s fine that anyone believes what they want, but I´d rather these churches stopped hypocritically using the names "lutheran" and "evangelical" since they meticulously block anything that is remotely lutheran or evangelical in their teaching.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

Also, I find it quite disturbing that people who doubt the historicity of just about everything in the New Testament care so much about "apostolic sucession". I don´t actually believe they believe this. I think they use it just to guard themselves from "born again" types of christians or low church evangelicals.

I find it quite problematic specially for the ELCA, whose bishops have been re-ordained by TEC bishops in order to receive "apostolic sucession". Does that mean that all sacraments that have been celebrated in this denomination and its antecessors previous to the merger have been invalid? It only started to be a "real" church after its bishops have received the laying of the hands from apostate bishops? Quite problematic. What a way for a denomination to sell its soul and despise its own heritage.

Posted by VDMA (# 17846) on :

Gorpo,

Very nice posts.

Enoch,

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
Schism is fine when it's a riven over the truth...
No it isn't. Schism is a sin.

Scripture does not say that if my brother or sister offends me or doesn't believe exactly what I think he or she ought to believe, I should cast him or her out. That view turns the heart to sin and beguiles us into it.

You are right that Schism is a sin... but wouldn't you rather go into schism for the sake of the Gospel, if your mother church has abandoned the ancient faith of the Fathers? There's a breaking point at which a church has just become a pawn of the "W"orld.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
We´re not casting anyone out. We (christians with an evangelical faith) are being cast out of mainline denominations since the last few decades. ...

If that is the case, and with your hand on your heart, you can really say you haven't been party to provoking the split, it is the liberals that have cast you out that are the bigger sinners.

There's no one, by the way, more self righteous than a self righteous liberal. Their self belief that they are always liberal, tolerant and affirming seems to make it harder for them to see pharisaism in themselves.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I find it quite problematic specially for the ELCA, whose bishops have been re-ordained by TEC bishops in order to receive "apostolic sucession". Does that mean that all sacraments that have been celebrated in this denomination and its antecessors previous to the merger have been invalid? It only started to be a "real" church after its bishops have received the laying of the hands from apostate bishops? Quite problematic. What a way for a denomination to sell its soul and despise its own heritage.

This is nowhere near correct.

Absolutely no ELCA bishops were re-ordained. Absolutely nothing was redone for bishops who were already bishops before Called to Common Mission. Presiding Bishop Hanson was installed as bishop, not re-ordained, by the former Presiding Bishop of the ELCA, who was joined in the laying on of hands by the leaders of the full communion churches AND by several Lutheran bishops from around the world who were already in the apostolic succession.

Bishop Hanson, being in the succession, is the one who customarily installs synodical bishops who have been elected after Called to Common Mission.

Called to Common Mission clearly affirms the validity of all ELCA pastors, even those who were ordained by other pastors in years past.

I hate to break it to you, but the conservative Lutheranism you are championing dates all the way back to late-1970s St. Louis, and there have been Lutheran bishops in the apostolic succession since long before Walther was a glimmer in his father's eye.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
You are right that Schism is a sin... but wouldn't you rather go into schism for the sake of the Gospel, if your mother church has abandoned the ancient faith of the Fathers? There's a breaking point at which a church has just become a pawn of the "W"orld.

Many would have said that translating the Bible into German and letting people sing German songs during the liturgy would have been making the transcendent and unchanging church a "pawn of the 'W'orld." Luther didn't set out to create an unchanging church of the 1500s. He bucked against accepting the status quo of the hierarchy.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
You dissin' Ma Preacher? My very ordained, very much a minister Ma Preacher?

Yes.

And no.

This isn't about ad hominem. Principles override sentiment. Of course, we're not dealing with abstract ideology, but human beings. Were I to meet you mother, I would try to treat her with respect - but I wouldn't mind telling her that I believe she is a minister of nothing... except of the eternal word of God by virtue of her Baptism, of course, as with all of us.

If ELCA and all her sister-denominations want to join Porvoo, it'd certainly create one big united happy family. [/QUOTE

Since you are a Canadian, the United Church of Canada says your position is wrong, and has said so since 1936.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

As I've mentioned in the past, I have taken communion in an LC-C church where the pastor was both a rostered pastor of the LC-C and the archbishop of the (Porvoo and LWF-linked) Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church Abroad. If it had not been for this dual affiliation, I would (as a gay man who believes in the necessity of episcopacy) probably not have felt comfortable communicating. When I mentioned to him that I was an Anglican he explicitly cited Porvoo in his rationale for welcoming me to the altar.

Sweden and Latvia, as alluded to above, are special cases, in that they have never gone through the sort of communion-wide courtship that led to pan-Anglican relations with the Old Catholics or Mar Thoma, but both made overtures of Anglican intercommunion avant la lettre.

[ 29. September 2013, 01:20: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
If ELCA and all her sister-denominations want to join Porvoo, it'd certainly create one big united happy family.
Oh, the horrors! Churches joining together instead of dividing? Churches happy?

[Olaf fans his Lutheran self; fan generously provided by Schmitz and Auerbach Funeral Home]

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by VDMA:
... but I wouldn't mind telling her that I believe she is a minister of nothing... except of the eternal word of God by virtue of her Baptism, of course, as with all of us.
[/QB]

I have to point out that not all the Christians on the ship are baptized and not all the members of the ship are Christian (and some of us aren't baptized either). It doesn't matter much to me whether the TEC and ELCA (and the Canadian equivalents) join Porvoo or not (though joining does seem to make logical sense). I doubt going one way or another would weaken or strengthen them in the long run (though since I prefer denominations that don't seek to restrict the human rights of others over those that do, I don't want to see them weakened relative to some other denominations).

Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :

Provoo. Could the name be changed to something that doesn't look like a typing error?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Peter Spence:
Provoo. Could the name be changed to something that doesn't look like a typing error?

Well if it was spelt correctly it might help.

Yes I really mean that. By the way Lutherans have ordained women since 1926.

Jengie

[ 29. September 2013, 21:10: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jengie Jon: Well if it was spelt correctly it might help.

Ah, I tried to look it up, but Google (which to me is more attuned to Brazilian sites) kept coming up with a Brazilian company called Provôo.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
By the way Lutherans have ordained women since 1926.
Jengie

Have they? Missouri Synod doesn't. Wisconsin Synod doesn't even allow them to be voting laity. ELCA's previous churches seem to have first ordained women in the 1970s. In Europe the Danish church first ordained women in 1948, the Swedish church in 1960,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg13.htm

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Dutch in 1926! I googled it first to make sure.

Jengie

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jengie Jon: Dutch in 1926! I googled it first to make sure.

Rev. Anne Zernike was ordained on November 5th, 1911.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Jengie Jon: Dutch in 1926! I googled it first to make sure.
Rev. Anne Zernike was ordained on November 5th, 1911.

But that was Mennonite not Lutheran. The Universalists and Unitarians both had female ministers before that. The Quakers had women ministers almost from their beginning in the mid-17th century (admittedly their definition of minister was a bit different; one of my ancestors Katherine Frost later Storrs became a Quaker minister in 1691 which for her, I think, meant missionary [one of many]).

However I'll agree on some Dutch Lutherans in 1926 as the earliest Lutherans.

Posted by Peter Spence (# 14085) on :

Porvoo. No, it still looks like a typing error.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Many Finnish placenames do!

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

To return to Try's OP -

I'm not quite sure why North American churches or communions or communities of the same, however defined, may want to join Porvoo. Perhaps you could explore that a little more?

My understanding was that Porvoo was a practical thing, focussing on Europe because of the rights of European citizens to move and settle freely across country boundaries. People moving around like that pose new questions about where to worship, where church communions do not exist universally. There exist no such rights between Europe and America - visas must be sought and granted, and rights of residence obtained.

N. America is different as compared to Europe. For historic reasons, you have most communions present in your countries. Granted that some are concentrated in certain areas, so some intercommunion arrangements are helpful, but that is a different thing. And has indeed been handled somewhat differently, albeit in a way that achieves what Porvoo seeks to do, but in the American context.

What exactly do you see as an advantage in making Porvoo a transatlantic thing? You already have full access to the benefits of Porvoo if you travel to Europe, and indeed settle here.

[ 30. September 2013, 14:36: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Net Spinster: But that was Mennonite not Lutheran.

Ah, I'm sorry, I hadn't understood that you were restricting it to Lutherans here.

quote:
Net Spinster: However I'll agree on some Dutch Lutherans in 1926 as the earliest Lutherans.

That would be Rev. Jantine Auguste Haumersen. Remarkable woman.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

For those who want first then since 1800 the first goes to American Congregationalist according to this list. They predate the Unitarians.

What is interesting is that in England the first woman was Unitarian and Christian Liberal Church in 1904. She was a German and a graduate of St Andrew's University. She trained at Manchester College Oxford. However,she shortly afterwards returned to Germany and lost contact with Unitarian and Liberal Christian Church, I think during the First World War. Having used that information there is slight more in this Guardian article. This makes the first two the same denominations in the US and UK but in the US the Congs did it first while in the UK the Unitarians did. The first Congregationalist in the UK was Constance Coltman.

Jengie

Posted by Pommie Mick (# 12794) on :

What wonderful examples of Christian orthodoxy churches should emulate [Roll Eyes]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Pommie Mick: What wonderful examples of Christian orthodoxy churches should emulate

Definitely!

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
To return to Try's OP -

I'm not quite sure why North American churches or communions or communities of the same, however defined, may want to join Porvoo. Perhaps you could explore that a little more?

My understanding was that Porvoo was a practical thing, focussing on Europe because of the rights of European citizens to move and settle freely across country boundaries. People moving around like that pose new questions about where to worship, where church communions do not exist universally. There exist no such rights between Europe and America - visas must be sought and granted, and rights of residence obtained.

N. America is different as compared to Europe. For historic reasons, you have most communions present in your countries. Granted that some are concentrated in certain areas, so some intercommunion arrangements are helpful, but that is a different thing. And has indeed been handled somewhat differently, albeit in a way that achieves what Porvoo seeks to do, but in the American context.

What exactly do you see as an advantage in making Porvoo a transatlantic thing? You already have full access to the benefits of Porvoo if you travel to Europe, and indeed settle here.

1. It appears that in the two days I was literally lost in the woods my thread on Anglican-Lutheran inter-communion was thoroughly derailed.

2. I'm not sure that North Americans who've settled in Europe get the benefits of Porvoo. For instance, the requirements for baptism in the International Congregation of Turku Cathedral (Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland) say

quote:
A general requirement is that some of the persons concerned are residents in Finland (have permission of residence) or Finnish citizens, and another one that some of them are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, or one of the following:

another Lutheran church,
the Church of England or another Anglican church in the British Islands
a member church of the Evangelic Church in Germany (EKD)

I take this to mean that if a family of American Episcopalians has settled in Finland and they had a new baby that they wanted baptized, they would need to officially join the ELCoF, which would involve breaking communion with TEC. This could have consequences if, for instance, mom was in the discernment process in her own diocese. Also, the family would have to be received by the bishop rather than simply rejoining TEC by letter of transfer when they returned to the 'states. That's the sort of awkward situation I would want to avoid.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I understand the situation you suggest may arise in Finland, Try. But it may arise from the way you seem to have parsed that Turku Cathedral wording.

If you were an Anglican in Finland, you would presumably be a member of the Anglican community there ( e.g. here). That would supply you with the rite of baptism. I'm not sure why you would want your baptism to be done in Turku Cathedral (cathedrals don't do baptisms so often in Europe), but if you did, presumably they would oblige due to your de facto membership of the CofE in Europe.

There is a sense of the catholic understanding of church being a real entity rooted in a real place to be addressed here. In our unfortunately divided state, it is inevitable that issues of denomination appear, but I don't think they should over-ride the former understanding.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

I believe that the relationahips between TEC and The Church of Sweden falls short of full communion - it is a relationship of intercommunion. The difference being, I think, that there is not a free interchange of clergy.
I also seem to recall reading - and was not able to quickly Google a verification - that the last General Convention authorized dialogue with the Church of Sweden that it is hoped will lead to a full communion relationship. I asked a friend why not just have TEC become a part of Porvoo, and he said the ordination of gay clergy would not be well received by all of the Porvoo churches. (Yes, the Church of Sweden ordains gay clergy, but I believe only since some time after the Porvoo agreement was signed).
Anyone with more accurate information - please correct me.

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

My understanding is that gay clergy are accepted in the Scandinavian (in the broader sense, including Finland and Iceland) churches; I imagine that the Baltic churches are lagging. (Latvia, under Missourian influence, has flip-flopped on whether it will even ordain women).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I've seen gay clergy in the Lutheran church in Brazil. I'm not sure how open they can be about it though.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
My understanding is that gay clergy are accepted in the Scandinavian (in the broader sense, including Finland and Iceland) churches; I imagine that the Baltic churches are lagging. (Latvia, under Missourian influence, has flip-flopped on whether it will even ordain women).

What about Church of England, Church of Ireland, and the Reformed Episcopal churches in Spain and Portugal? And wouldn't women in the episcopate be an issue should TEC seek membership in Porvoo (again, in spite of recent actions in the Church of Sweden)? In fact, isn't it the Anglican side of Porvoo that TEC would have the most difficulty with? Or, no?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

Erm, of course ... but that's not really germane to whether TEC joins Porvoo. The dispute within the Anglican Communion will (apparently) continue whether or not such a step is broached. We're talking about what obstacles could stand in the way of TEC joining the Porvoo Communion specifically, not which ones might jeopardise its already existing Communion relationships with other Anglican churches. No doubt some of the Anglican churches in Europe take issue with TEC's direction, but not as a barrier to Porvoo membership in particular.

[ 04. October 2013, 00:17: Message edited by: LQ ]

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
No doubt some of the Anglican churches in Europe take issue with TEC's direction, but not as a barrier to Porvoo membership in particular.

Then why would TEC seek full communion with the Church of Sweden, rather than membership in Porvoo?

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

Perhaps this will shed a bit more light on the question posed by the original post:

http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/79425_128343_ENG_HTM.htm

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

According to +David Hamid , the bishop of the Church of England's Diocese of Europe, the Porvoo Communion has officially said that:

quote:
The consultation concluded that differences over the introduction of same-sex marriage remain unresolved. The Churches hold a variety of views and pastoral practices along a theological spectrum. Some believe same sex marriage to be a legitimate development in the Christian tradition, whilst others see the potential for a serious departure from the received tradition. Nevertheless the consultation affirmed the benefits of "belonging to one another" and the value of honest encounter. The strong relationship of the Porvoo Communion, provides a “platform of sustained communication in the face of issues which raise difficulties for [the Churches]”

I take this to mean that dead horse issues are not considered barriers to membership in the Porvoo communion.

I'd also note that the Latvian Lutheran church is only an observer in Porvoo, and that Estonia seems to be much more "western" in its culture and outlook than the other former SSRs. Also, the Churches of Norway had been blessing same-sex unions since 1989, well before they joind Porvoo in 2010. The churches of Iceland and Denmark also allow same-sex unions and out clergy. The Church of Finland takes a much more traditional position- not all of the nordic* churches are liberal. However, it's clear that the dead horse issues would not in and of themselves be a barrier to TEC , the ELCA, the ELCIC, and the ACC joining the Porvoo communion. The main issue is one of geography.

*Finland is considered nordic but not Scandinavian IIRC. Finns are ethnically quite different from the other inhabitants of the peninsula.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

Thank you for the clarification; I was wrong.
Still wondering why TEC is pursuing full communion with the Swedish Church alone of the Lutheran Porvoo churches.
And although it may not be a high priority, isn't it true that ELCIC and TEC, and ACC and ELCA, are not actually in communion?

Posted by LQ (# 11596) on :

That is being worked on as next steps, as I understand it. The tetra-denominational decennial celebrations of full communion at the Ontario/NY border signalled a shift to that continental vision, I think. It is probably not a "priority" but it would avoid some clergy exchange headaches of the kind that's been seen when congregations have imported clergy from the other country and denomination.

The other piece is bringing the Moravian Church in Canada to the party. This is complicated by their geographically scattered presence. Apart from a single congregation in Toronto, they are clustered in the Prairies and Labrador. West Indians in Central Canada who come from Moravian families tend to worship in Anglican Churches, IME.

[ 04. October 2013, 15:37: Message edited by: LQ ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0