Conservative Anglicans in the United States and Canada said Friday that they intended to proceed immediately with plans to create their own branch of the Anglican Communion, separate from the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, despite warnings from the archbishop of Canterbury that winning official recognition could take years.
“This is not being put on hold while we wait for a committee in England to tell us which form to fill out,” said the Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesman for Bishop Robert Duncan, who led a majority of churches in the Diocese of Pittsburgh out of the Episcopal Church this year and is to become the archbishop and primate of the new province.
Theological conservatives representing a collection of breakaway dioceses, parishes and church networks announced Wednesday in Wheaton, Ill., the creation of a new province called the Anglican Church in North America. Despite serious differences among them, they are united in their condemnation of what they call the Episcopal Church’s drift to the left, most significantly its decision five years ago to consecrate an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire.
Read it all. Please note: be very careful with this story and its coverage this week. The New York Times article incorrectly states “on Thursday, the archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, warned the conservatives to slow down.” He did no such thing. As in many recent situations, the Archbishop of Canterbury has said nothing (indeed his silence has been deafening on numerous recent North American developments including this one). I defy you to go to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s website and find anything he has said on this matter.
Ah, but there’s more. Where did the New York Times get the impression that the Archbishop of Canterbury had said anything? From the Episcopal News Service, most probably. And why?
On Friday, ENS ran a story which claimed that “A statement from Lambeth Palace” had been issued. What are we to make of this? Well, said statement is not on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s website nor (that I can find) on the Anglican Communion Service website. Hmm. Is it actually a statement from Lambeth Palace. Well, actually, er, no.
Why do I say this? First, because the Church Times blog, which certainly knows the Church of England situation in some depth, in response to the ENS story says (read this very carefully please): It would be good to hear directly from Lambeth Palace before reading too much into this. Got that? There is more. What is the real original source of this idea? Why, another ENS story (and why, one has to ask, are all these stories about the Church of England running on ENS but not English sources?). And if you read it carefully, what does this story say? Well, in spite of its misleading headline, actually it is a statement from “a spokesperson for Archbishop of Canterbury” Got that? It is a person at Lambeth Palace, and, wonder of wonders, we do not even know his or her name (I wonder why).
If you find all this a bit confusing, welcome to the world of English bureacracy, where what is said and who says it and how it is interpreted are all in play to send various signals, and where all these signals are sought to be played by many various parties involved. If I were preparing someone to understand this world, multiple episodes of “Yes Minister” would be required viewing–KSH.
I wish there were some place in the NYT to comment on this article.
Punish me if you must Kendall, but cannot resist.
Is it possible that the kat has his tongue?
That’s what my grandmother used to ask me?
Grandmother in SC
Gee, Kendall … that’s what I heard him say. Maybe it’s one of those ear-of-the-beholder-things! I thought it was Archbishopese for “Get over yourselves.”
[i] This is not being put on hold while we wait for a committee in England to tell us which form to fill out [/i]
Amen!
What the ABC says or does not say means and matters very little in the present circumstances. I understand his official “position” in the Anglican Communion, and I respect that. BUT I also understand the “official” position of Christ as the Head and Cornerstone of His Church, which includes the Anglican Communion, and I respect, honor, and rejoice in that knowledge.
Bottom line, with or without the ABC, the creation and functioning of the ACNA continues full-speed-ahead, by God’s grace and the faith of a few who are not not selling out to the god of the institution.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX
[i] It would be good to hear directly from Lambeth Palace before reading too much into this [/i]
Fair enough. Yet the statement quoted by ENS is more than plausible: it is fully consistent with the Lambeth-815 relationship that gave us the 2007 New Orleans Whitewash and the 2008 Indabalated Lambeth Conference.
Lambeth Palace and 815 are bedmates. Why would 815 jeopardize that relationship by concocting the quotation?
Susan, you didn’t hear him (i.e. Archbishop Williams) say anything, because he didn’t. And Lambeth Palace didn’t. An anonymous spokesperson at Lambeth palace, however, did. That’s the point.
And Irenaeus it is not being argued that the statement is concocted, only that its source is being misconstrued.
[i] I thought it was Archbishopese for “Get over yourselves.” [/i] —Susan Russell [#3]
“Get over it!” is inherently insulting. It represents a complete dismissal of whatever someone else has to say (and whatever wrongs that person may have suffered). It is like insinuating that someone’s political or theological ideas result from neurosis, lack of sleep, or menstruation.
“Get over yourselves!” is worse.
RE: ““Get over it!†is inherently insulting.”
Not for me, it isn’t. It’s an [i]attempt [/i] at insult — an attempt that’s not particularly rational, since obviously Russell didn’t “hear” anything from the ABC who didn’t say anything, as Kendall accurately points out.
But all such attempts from people such as SR whose opinions I am indifferent to I take as compliments and good fun.
Kendall [#7]: Given the close relationship we’ve seen between Lambeth Palace and 815 [#6], it would be reasonable to expect Lambeth Palace to disavow or clarify the statement quoted by the ENS—if that statement misrepresents the views of Abp. Williams. I hope such a clarification will be forthcoming.
RE: “. . . it would be reasonable to expect Lambeth Palace to disavow or clarify the statement quoted by the ENS—if that statement misrepresents the views of Abp. Williams.”
We wouldn’t, however, expect that to happen if the ABC was merely using an anonymous lackey to placate 815, while standing aloof from it all.
That’s basically what I think he was doing.
Getting someone else at Lambeth to do his communication, while standing away from it and not being directly associated with it. Sort of a having cake while eating it posture.
It’s good that Kendall has pointed out the discontinuity of the anonymous “spokesperson” with either “Lambeth Palace” or “the ABC” such that it points out to the world the silly rhetorical games that both the ABC and 815 are playing.
Well, this probably wouldn’t do any good, but I do wish, Kendall, you would explain why you are staying with TEC. This doesn’t compute.
You are one clear voice for the conservative Anglican. Yet you are still in the house with the – well, the bad guys. Why? Why not step out and lead in fact, not merely in print.. This SHOULD be your proper role.
Does anyone else understand this? Larry
[Comments exhorting individuals to leave a particular church or to join another church or denomination are not permitted on T19. Please observe this rule – Elf]
Why not step out and lead in fact, not merely in print.. This SHOULD be your proper role.
Larry
It’s not for us to say where God is calling someone to be. However, we can (somewhat) objectively say what leadership is and I would say that regardless of your personal expectations, Kendall+ has demonstrated the qualities of a leader in TEC and in the AC.
I think number #3 is happy as she is seeing the day when she has a pure leftist/gay church. It will of course be much smaller and may not be part of the AC (or it will have caused the AC to become much smaller). Anyway the 2nd Province will further her agenda – if it succeeds more traditional Christians will depart TEC and accelerate her “victory”. The fact that hundreds of thousands of souls have been lost to TEC/Anglicanism and perhaps christianity in the process appears to be of little consequence to the GLTB militants.
Hopper:
Not snide–there is nothing derogatory or insulting intended here. Just an example of a little in-house satire. Anglicans understand immediately. As Kendall wrote, “welcome to the world of English bureaucracy.” The reference to Yes, Minister hit the nail on the head. My favorite Appleby line: “It’s like the Church of England. No one actually goes to church, but we like knowing it’s around.”
The fact is that The Anglican Church in North America [i]does[/i] want Canterbury’s blessing (not its money). But, like the couple madly in love seeking Daddy’s blessing on their marriage, the move will proceed with or without it.
This is not simply because, to quote the article, “the need to provide a home for disaffected conservatives is too urgent to wait.” So-called “disaffected conservatives” want to be a part of church where we can bring others to be nurtured in the faith. Are there “serious differences” among us? We’ll see, but in the meantime, I’m banking on what unites us–our one Lord. As stated in the gathering in Wheaton on Dec. 3rd, this movement is about mission above the institution. Much mission has been lost over the last five years, and it’s time for that to stop.
William Shontz
[url=http://theleca.org]The Lake Erie Confessing Anglican[/url]