02/02/2026
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CB79LbEty/
πΎπππ πππ ππππππππππππ ππ πππ πππππππππππππ ππππππ ππππππππ πππ ππππ πππππππ ππ πππ ππππ ππ πππ ππππ
πππ, πππ ππππππ ππ ππππππ
π πππππππππππ
.
Why did the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) shift towards liberalism? The reason is straightforward: they prioritized the wrong mission.
Here's a breakdown of this phenomenon. Every church has a specific purpose for which it was established, and naturally, it tends to conserve and uphold this purpose. However, alongside this stated purpose, every church also operates with an unstated, implicit objective: to preserve the institution itself.
This secondary purpose is rooted in the fact that church leaders derive tangible benefits, such as employment, relationships, influence, and reputation, from the church's continued existence. As protecting these benefits becomes paramount, the focus on the original mission gradually diminishes, causing the church to drift away from its foundational objectives.
When loyal members notice this deviation and urge church leaders to refocus on biblical priorities, they are often perceived as adversaries by these leaders, primarily because such refocusing might necessitate unpopular decisions that could impede the church's growth.
Growth becomes essential for maintaining jobs, respect, resources, and power within the institution. Consequently, the church's activities become driven by the imperative to grow, and any potential threats to this growth are vigorously opposed.
Since the church's core mission can be unpopular, especially given its call to serve as a prophetic witness in a challenging environment, church leaders often pivot towards more palatable and popular initiatives, such as community service projects, which can create an illusion of faithfulness while sidestepping the central, yet riskier, priorities.
Emphasizing the main priority involves preaching about sin, calling for repentance, and practicing church discipline, actions that might lead to a decline in membership and jeopardize the institutional benefits.
This pattern is not novel and has historical precedents. In biblical times, the institutional structures of ancient Israel created a power elite who wielded authority in God's name.
The arrival of Christ, with his radical message and growing popularity, posed a threat to their institutional power and wealth, leading them to use their authority to eliminate Jesus, as illustrated in the parable of the tenants (Matt 21:33-45). Institutions, including churches, have consistently operated in this manner.
Those employed by these institutions prioritize their continuation over the fulfillment of their mission. For instance, employees of pro-life organizations would theoretically face job loss if their mission were accomplished and abortion were abolished.
Politicians often employ similar logic, prioritizing job creation as an end in itself, despite the fact that job creation is merely a means to an end, not the ultimate purpose of governance.
Similarly, in churches, clergy must remain focused on the church's primary purpose. While the church may provide them with employment, job provision is not its fundamental objective.
When the preservation of the institutional church eclipses its true mission in the eyes of its leaders, the church is already compromised. Once decision-making based on personal impact becomes ingrained, it is challenging to alter. Anyone questioning these dynamics poses a threat to the job security of church leaders.
In contemporary times, accommodating prevailing cultural trends seems like a safer strategy than prophetic witness. However, this approach ultimately leads to the departure of the Spirit.
The justification often given for this accommodation is framed in terms of mission, such as reaching the lost or serving the community, which, while important, should not supplant the church's core purpose.
Anglicanism has suffered greatly because they forgot this core purpose.
