Last Thursday a front page article appeared in the New York Times, and a smaller article in the Washington Post, about the proposed formation of a new non-geographical province within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Episcopal Church. The proposed archbishop of this envisioned province is Bob Duncan, deposed bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. First and foremost, let me assure you that the formation of a non-geographical province within an existing province is highly unlikely. Before the establishment of any such province, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church would have to give her consent, and it is difficult to imagine that she would do so. If consent was given, the Archbishop of Canterbury would then form a committee of primates to discuss the feasibility of forming the new province. If two thirds of the primates felt that such a new province would assist and strengthen the ministry of the Anglican Communion, then the primates would forward their recommendation to the Archbishop of Canterbury who in turn would forward his recommendation to the Anglican Consultative Council for final vote and action. At present, neither two-thirds of the primates, nor the Archbishop seem favorably disposed to this development.
The gathering in Wheaton, Illinois of Duncan, Martyn Minns and several hundred of their supporters who seek the formation of the non-geographical province came as no surprise to most of us in the House of Bishops. But the press it has received, especially in the New York Times, was well beyond what was warranted considering that the proposed province is, at most, about 5 percent of the size of the Episcopal Church and that its chances of recognition are dim. I realize, however, that this most recent installment in the media’s coverage of how the sky is allegedly falling on the Episcopal Church caught many members of our diocese by surprise, and I want to allay their anxieties. We face our share of problems in the Episcopal Church, but wholesale defections to a movement committed to denying gay and lesbian Christians the birthright of their baptism is not one of them.
This goes without saying, but in the present climate it needs to be said. Please keep the responses focused on the arguments and statements made by Bishop Chane and the question of the new proposed province.
That is the focus of this thread.
Thank you.
[blockquote]But the press it has received, especially in the New York Times, was well beyond what was warranted considering that the proposed province is, at most, about 5 percent of the size of the Episcopal Church and that its chances of recognition are dim.[/blockquote]
Might we wonder if the press the Episcopal Church receives is warranted considering that it is at most less than 1 percent of the American population… that the attention it expects and receives(?) is warranted considering that it is at most less than 1 percent of the entire Anglican communion.
Might one also wonder if the press… receives in those “reconstituted dioceses” is warranted…
Might one also wonder if the fragmentation of a venerable and overly-recognized American church warrants attention…
One can go on. +Chane is being petty and dismissive.
(That’s unfair. But then… perhaps that is the point.)
And while we are at it… speaking of the bishop’s arguments…
Why oh why does this new group need the Presiding Bishop’s permission?!? Especially when the whole dang point is to get away from her and/or the group she “leads”?
John? You’re irrelevant, buddy. Nobody cares what you and your pseudo-spiritual debating society say or do about anything anymore. One hopes that this happens whether or not recognition is granted by Pointless on the Thames.
Can anyone knowledgeable comment on his first claim? Namely:
Is that true? So far all I have heard is that the formal process involves getting a 2/3 approval from the Primates.
Obviously, of course, if Chane is correct, then there is no possibility whatsoever of the proposed province becoming a formal part of the AC. On the other hand, if Chane is correct, then why does Chane expend so much energy on something that has no chance whatsoever of succeeding?
NO. It is not true. It is an extravagant claim much like canon-interpretation. You make any claim you wish out of whole cloth and pretend to cite a canon. This is Chane reaction sequence. If repeated loud enough and long enough it becomes the same as truthiness, which is the best approximation of a lie to the truth that you can muster. Used to be known as propaganda, and there are obviously still ministers of it.
Jon
I can only assume that +Chane is referring to the fact that Anglican Dioceses are geographic areas. Historically, the only instances of overlapping authorities have been agreed to by the ecclesiastical authorities of each Diocese or Province.
In addition, +Chane’s point is well taken when he says:
It would be folly for the Archbishop to even consider recognizing a non-geographical province because it would unleash chaos in the Communion, with theological minorities in every jurisdiction seeking to affiliate with likeminded Anglicans in other provinces.
If this precedent is taken to its logical conclusion, TEC and ACoC could plant congregations and Dioceses in every orthodox Province, each with bishops able to attend Lambeth, represent the Anglican Communion in that area of the Province, etc.
[i]”..to a movement committed to denying gay and lesbian Christians the birthright of their baptism is not one of them.”[/i]
I am ignorant about TEC ecclesiology regarding baptismal birthrights but from my limited contact with ex-Episcopalians now under other Provinces this statement appears as uncharitable as it is inaccurate.
ACNA’s ASA is about 100K. That of TEC is about 700K (to be generous). That is 15%, not 5%, so it appears that the poor bishop is only a little better at his maths than he is at his theology.
I read it carefully and read it all. It belongs on Angsoc (1984-ish takeoff on TEC as Big Brother), but sadly, -Chane seems self-deluded to the point of psychosis and actually believes his own stuff. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and especially don’t leave with your pledges to see what all the fuss is about! You might discover the Lord and only Saviour Jesus Christ and never look back to TEO!
Lots of silly rhetoric here. E.g. as in refering to the proposed province as “a movement committed to denying gay and lesbian Christians the birthright of their baptism.”
For one thing, it suggests that gay marriage and ordination of gay bishops is a thing which the Church has widely and for some time viewed as a right — an established right which a dissident minority now wishes to take away from people. Of course, in reality the opposite is the case, which is that gay marriage and gay ordinations have never been seen by the Church as rights (but rather as manifest wrongs) and are still not seen so by the overwhelming majority of the Church Universal and specifically the Anglican Communion.
But let’s for a moment pass over the duplicity involved in the word “deny.” Let’s just reflect on the bishop’s strange fantasy regarding baptism. What could he be thinking here? That when a person is baptized he is necessarily pronounced suitable for ordination? Or that when he is baptized the church is obligated to pronounce formal blessings on any sexual relationships he enters into?
It is statements like these that evoke in many of us such tremendous pity and sadness for our former brothers and colleagues in TEC. C.S. Lewis, in a fond recollection of his atheist tutor when he was a teenager, writes:
I could respect Reappraising bishops if they had vigorous thoughtful minds and showed a learned awareness of church history and doctrine. But like Lewis, I am ashamed for them that their minds should have sunk so low, into what appears to be a senile fog of vague slogans purchased wholesale from Integrity and 815. It’s like having an aging brother or sister you love descend into total babbling dementia.
There’s only one token conservative church and staff in that diverse diocese of 140 churches; not really what we would call balanced.
I have been wondering where the idea that the new province is “non-geographical” comes from. There is no doubt that ACNA intends to minister in the United States and Canada; that certainly seems “geographical.” It is true that ACNA’s constitution refers to “networks” and “clusters” as well as traditional dioceses. But even if “networks and clusters” that cross diocesan lines are to be allowed in the new denomination, there is no suggestion that the dioceses of ACNA will be anything but traditional geographical entities.
In Bp Chane’s essay, “non-geographical” seems to be an attempt to portray ACNA as a different kind of province from TEC. The intended contrast is that TEC is the “geographical” province — the one that “belongs here” and is permanently associated with the territory — and ACNA is a “non-geographical” province, one that has no firm connection with the territory, and thus “doesn’t belong here.” Since there is (as far as I can see) no objective basis for describing ACNA as “non-geographical,” the bishop is attempting some rhetorical base-stealing.
John Chane says,
“It would be folly for the Archbishop to even consider recognizing a non-geographical province because it would unleash chaos in the Communion, with theological minorities in every jurisdiction seeking to affiliate with likeminded Anglicans in other provinces.”
But the Archbishop (and ACC etc) could act wisely rather than foolishly and frame their recognition in a manner designed to avoid chaos. They could specify, for example, that such recognition comes because more than three dioceses of another province are constituting the new province; and/or recognition and support are coming from X% of primates of the Communion; and/or the theological make up of the new province is not limited to only one theological stream.
And, from Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, may I remind readers that we have a non-geographic province down here, including three different bishops with responsibility for the city of Auckland (albeit united under one General Synod) … and a gracious relationship with dioceses of the Anglican Church in Australia which permits our Maori bishops to minister to Maori congregations in Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne.
Then there is the story of the non-chaotic dioceses of/in Europe to consider!
#5 Jon says:
Theoretically, the normal functioning of the Anglican Communion presumes goodwill between all its members, and in that situation creating a province that overlaps geographically with one or more other provinces would, as a matter of courtesy, only be done with the consent and blessing of all the affected Primates.
Obviously, we are now in a situation where the stock of goodwill between certain parties is nigh-exhausted, so things are being done differently. The tricky part is, to the extent that the Anglican Communion has formal procedures — which isn’t that great an extent — they weren’t intended to cover situations of provinces actively working at cross-purposes to each other. This is all uncharted territory.
All I can say is that the person commonly known as Bishop of Washington is scared, SCARED of reality (though we all know that when a bishop falls into serious heresy he loses the grace of ordination, so Mr C’s episcopal status is at best merely canonical).
Either Bishop Chane is uninformed or deliberately misleading when he writes:
“To learn in this context that Duncan, Minns and their allies think that the most important issue facing the church is the sexuality of the Bishop of New Hampshire suggests a level of self-absorption that is difficult to square with the teachings of Christ.”
The most important issue IS NOT Gene Robinson and what he does. Rather the important issues are: the NATURE OF CHRIST and the NATURE and AUTHORITY of SCRIPTURE.
On these two issues it is difficult to square Bishop Chane’s positions and those of TEC with the teachings of Christ.
#15… thanks Ross. Very helpful. I think everyone would agree that the spirit of the AC historically is based on bonds of affection and trust and so forth. And I think that those bonds of affection and trust and so forth have been horribly damaged — you are right again here.
So given that (well worth saying, but again something that all parties seem to be aware of) would you say that Bishop chane was uttering a falsehood when he said:
“Before the establishment of any such province, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church would have to give her consent….”
???
If I am understanding you right, the answer is “No, she doesn’t have to.”
Bart: Do you have any evidence that the new Province is made up of 100,000 people? (other than the claim of the leaders of the ACNA) Seems inflated.
I hope ACNA will post the numbers, but it sounds like a convenient round number to me
I presume a damage limitation exercise unless he is yet another spokesman for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
What’s he like as a musician?
#17, moheb, you are exactly right, and we must keep calling them back to that fact. It is not our refusal to accept gay this or gay that, it is their refusal to accept Jesus Christ as God the Son of God, and our Savior.
desertpadre
My best bet at what Bishop Chane is referring to here:
[blockquote]Before the establishment of any such province, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church would have to give her consent, and it is difficult to imagine that she would do so.[/blockquote]
I set out here
Of course the idea that Louie Crew’s chum Canon Kearon, who has already signalled his clear opposition, should be put in charge of the approval process for a new province, or the idea that the ABC would have insisted on it to the GS Primates is risible. Dr Williams would not have been so foolish I would imagine.
The ACC is purely advisory [along with its resolutions that new provinces are started by the metropolitan of an existing geographical province, to which I imagine Chane is referring]; the decision to approve a new province is that of the Primates, who are completely unconstrained by ACC internal resolutions on how the ACC should ‘advise’.
Whether the Primates will muster a majority in favor is another matter – it is pretty clear that some in the institutions may well try to block this to the best of their ability – which is of course why Dr Williams will not have suggested it knowing that Kearon is hopelessly compromised and that it would be like a red rag to a bull.
#18:
Well, as I say, it’s uncharted territory. The only written rule that I know of regarding new provinces is that in the ACC constitution, which is where the “2/3 of the Primates” idea comes from. Technically, that’s for adding a member to the ACC schedule of membership, but as I’ve said before, if both the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC agree on admitting a new province I don’t think the ABC will dissent.
Now, I think it would be accurate to say something like:
“Before the establishment of any such province in a way that is not fairly likely to lead directly to formal and explicit schism in the Anglican Communion, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church would have to give her consent….”
The problem with that scenario is that the situation of the GAFCON/FCA/ACNA leaders leads inexorably to the conclusion that they have to work not only for recognition of their new province, but also for TEC to be expelled. Even supposing that 2/3 of the Primates were on board and the ABC decided, OK, sure, ++Duncan gets an invite to the Primates’ Meeting and ACNA bishops get invited to Lambeth ’18 — even supposing that, ++Akinola and the other GAFCON leaders still have the problem of attending meetings where ++KJS and the consecrators of +Robinson are present. So long as some Primates are refusing table fellowship with others, or some provinces are refusing to send their bishops to Lambeth, then we’re still looking at schism-in-all-but-name. And recognized or not, ACNA will do nothing to fix that.
However, if ACNA is not recognized — and I suspect that it won’t be — then I think we’re teetering right on the brink of realio-trulio formal schism in the Anglican Communion, rather than just de facto schism. It will be difficult for the GAFCON Primates to justify attending Primates’ Meetings where ++KJS is present but ++Duncan is not; and if they set up their own, parallel Primates’ Meeting and Lambeth-like Conference which they attend instead of the ABC-led ones… well, then there’s really no sense in which they’re part of the same Communion as TEC. I would call that schism.
How about if we make just a few substitutions to this:
“I write this to you because our clergy and congregations need to know the current status of the irregularly [ordained women] within our church. I also need to share with you my disappointment in the behavior of men who [are] bishops in the Episcopal Church. Some of these men have been my friends, but they have now taken their own personal agendas for power and control beyond the limits of common Christian charity and decency.”
How many times have I heard that the irregular ordinations in the mid-seventies were “prophetic” and a great precedent-setter; how often have I heard that church leaders should just go ahead with whatever they feel called to do in the name of justice and force the hand of the larger Church? The shoe seems to pinch quite a lot when it’s on the other foot!
Hursley’s wife
“…but wholesale defections to a movement committed to denying gay and lesbian Christians the birthright of their baptism is not one of them”.
Sorry. The idea really is to not deny the MAJORITY of Christians their birthright to have a CHRISTIAN Church that understands marriage as has been taught, and adultery as has been taught.
Less rehearsals of the Chane Gang. More B-I-B-L-E study.
[i] If this precedent is taken to its logical conclusion, TEC and ACoC could plant congregations and Dioceses in every orthodox Province, each with bishops able to attend Lambeth, represent the Anglican Communion in that area of the Province, etc. [/i] —#7
Fine, let them try. They’ll find that lukewarm swill sells no better abroad than it does at home.
[blockquote]There’s only one token conservative church and staff in that diverse diocese of 140 churches[/blockquote]
Which parish would that be?
Does the validity and existence of the ACNA depend upon a single Archbishop in Canterbury? Hardly.
Lets make sure we put this fellow in our prayer circle. It seems that he is not going to change like the other liberals. But it wont hurt to try to pray for him.
I know it is obvious that he may not change after going after the homeless in the capital. But we can but try.
He is definately wrong about KJS. She does not need to be asked to give her consent on any new church, be it Catholic, Anglican, Methodist or otherwise that comes into existence within its borders.
She is just the mere secretary. She has no authority.
AndrewA [#27]: How about All Saints, Chevy Chase?
Surely, the best thing one can do with this missive us burst out laughing. What good does arguing over this, what is illuminated, what problem resolved, what debate terminated? The reader would need to be very slow witted indeed to read the message above and not see the hunger for revenge and the fear; the level of venom is quite astonishing.
CCP is in no way damaged, and to be cast in such a light may well make CCP look ever more rational, ever more desirable, ever more the sensible alternative. Frankly, the more we can see of such mean-spirited attacks, the better off CCP is. Larry
Good, tough letter.
He’s right that the common cause might ponder why they are so concerned with purity and sex at a time when the country seems to be concerned with other issues.
I don’t think it is mean spirited. It is saying to those of us in TEC that we have nothing to worry about from the new province.
Which we don’t.
[blockquote] “the birthright of their baptism” [/blockquote]
This is exactly where I and the Episcopal Church parted company. You are neither saved nor a Christian simply because you’re baptized. It’s not like getting a polio shot.
I see denial written all through this. As for legitimacy, it is derived from Christ crucified and nowhere else. As for recognition, it is God’s recognition that counts, not what the Presiding Bishop thinks or says, if anybody is really listening. But the mere fact that something like this has to be written, in my view, is an admission that the Episcopal Church has failed and is attempting to cover that failure up with “correct attitude” statements to those still in the pews. If TEC had nothing to worry about, Chane and others wouldn’t bother posting. But maybe Chane and TEC are worrying about the wrong things anyway…
In connection with “the birthright of their baptism” (Bp. Chane), see this entry from [i] The Revisionist Dictionary[/i]:
[blockquote] BAPTISMAL COVENANT
(1) Traditionally, the covenant made at baptism by which we repent, renounce “sin†(1), profess Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and become members of Christ, redeemed by his atoning sacrifice. “Obdurate sin grieves the Holy Spirit and violates our baptismal covenant.â€
(2) For Progressives, two related ideas: first, that baptism irrevocably confers good standing in the church so that neither “sinful†conduct nor heterodox belief disqualifies any baptized person from holding church office; and second, that baptized persons need not trouble themselves about “sin,†repentance, and amendment of life. “A moratorium on ordaining noncelibate homosexuals would betray our baptismal covenant.†[/blockquote]
“Baptismal covenant” is one of ECUSA’s gussied-up names for [i]CHEAP GRACE[/i], which Dietrich Bonhoeffer defined as “grace without repentance,” manifested in “the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance†and “baptism without church discipline.†Cheap grace “amounts to the justification of sin without the justification of the repentant sinner who departs from sin and from whom sin departs.â€
While most have focussed on the first line, my attention was captured by the last: [blockquote] Pray for the church, the body of Jesus Christ, that it might be a center of strength and a beacon of light and hope during these very tough economic times for those we serve here in the Diocese of Washington and in the global community. [/blockquote]
This from a Bishop who is suing -as in spending lots of money to go to court – to stop the expansion of a major (independent, nothing to do with the Episcopal Church) homeless ministry in DC. I have a word for it, which might not survive the elf’s review.
Richard Crocker
[i] Before the establishment of any such province, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church would have to give her consent [/i] —Bp. Chane
Who, if anyone, invested KJS with this power? If ECUSA has a veto (which I doubt), wouldn’t belong to the General Convention? But perhaps Chane is treading the PB-as-Popelette Road.
I don’t think it is mean spirited. It is saying to those of us in TEC that we have nothing to worry about from the new province.
That’s right John and you believe him — just like all of those who believe that since 2003 masses of people have been flooding into TEC ( a fact attested to by another Bishop, ie Robinson who himself saw them with his very own eyes) And as you know your own congregation is bursting at the seams as a result.
32. John,
Of course TEC has no worry. Why should they? This is not a competition. TEC needs either to cooperate with the AC or walk apart. The ACNA appears to have a mission quite different from that of TEC’s, so perhaps there will be room for both to minister. I think Dr. Chane is not at all worried that ACNA will try to grab away the MDGs, Imam priest, Wiccan priests, or Hindu, Buddest, clown, or Muslim services, revision of Scripture, or any of the other TEC innovations. Coexistence should be a piece of cake. We worship in entirely different “geographies”. The ABC is fully capable of muddling it along for a few years until it takes on a shape satisfactory to all people of good will. –Stan
RE: “It is saying to those of us in TEC that we have nothing to worry about from the new province.”
Right — saying it at great length, and with great energy and fervor — and over and over again — allaying his sheeples intense anxieties, which he of course does not feel at all. ; > )
I have the same feeling about this letter that I have about Naughton’s bitter rants about how tiny they’re gonna be and how it’s nothing but tininess-I-don’t-care-they-mean-nothing-they’re-tiny-did-I-say-they’re-tiny-and-we-don’t-care? — the feeling of a warmed heart and bright eyes. ; > )
They need to go to the Derek Zoolander School For Kids Who Can’t Act-Indifferent Good.
ACNA’s ASA is about 100K. That of TEC is about 700K (to be generous). That is 15%, not 5%, so it appears that the poor bishop is only a little better at his maths than he is at his theology.
++Duncan made no such claim on ASA. He stated that membership was at around 100,000. Thus comparing membership of TEC (2,000,000 in +Chane’s judgment) and membership of ACNA (100,000 in (+)+Duncan’s judgment), we arrive at 5%.
Sarah,
Look. It’s in the papers. We’re doing our work and then suddenly there is all this background noise. Most people, at least in my church, are not anxious. They are curious. We struggle along. Like others, we react to the papers. But Naughton and Chane aren’t wrong. The common cause partnerships are small. And they have a lot of bishops. God bless them.
What the common cause will realize is that the problem was not the liberalization of the church, but other issues. If they do grow, then good for them. Hating TEC is easy. Building churches is hard. I don’t think they translate one into the other very well.
Nobody has refuted Chane’s central points, which is interesting.
Can you remind us what the central points were, John?
No. 33 – To say that you must not be Anglican at all. I take it that you do not believe in the Grace imparted by infant baptism.
+Chane’s best argument is about how recognition of the new province “would unleash chaos in the Communion”. I find it hard to judge whether barriers like requiring a certain number of existing diocese to form a new province answers his warning. Most of the rest of +Chane’s letter sounds like a politician or lawyer. He often uses pejoratives and consistently represents uncharitably the complaints of the bishops and diocese with which he disagrees. His letter is more polemic than pastoral.
(1) [b]”[A] movement committed to denying gay and lesbian Christians the birthright of their baptism”.[/b] This misrepresents the best intentions and arguments of the bishops, priests, and congregations who are forming the new province. The birthright of baptism is that a person belongs to Jesus Christ and is sealed by the Holy Spirit. Whether a person has spiritual gifts and character that make them good candidates for ordination or marriage is another matter. The re-asserters, dissenters, whatever, do not raise questions about the latter and not the former. Those who +Chane criticizes would hold that many non-LGBTI people have impediments to marriage or holy orders but this does not result in being barred from the communion rail, prayer, confession, works of charity, etc.–the common life of people baptized into Christ.
(2) [b]”To learn in this context that Duncan, Minns and their allies think that the most important issue facing the church is the sexuality of the Bishop of New Hampshire suggests a level of self-absorption that is difficult to square with the teachings of Christ.”[/b] Would 4% unemployment and Dow 15,000 improve the prospects of a new province in +Chane’s mind? If not, it is disingenuous for him to take the moral high ground in this manner. If so, he take the moral high ground at the expense of thinking theologically. Also, the consecration of +Robinson triggered the crisis, but this fight has been a long time coming. It involves several other doctrinal disputes and considerations about the viability of more traditional diocese. +Chane may think that he is on the correct side of all of those other disputes, but ignoring those disputes in his pastoral letter while accusing clergy of “self-absorption” is a culpable failure of candor.
(3) [b]”[T]he complaints of these deposed, retired and irregularly consecrated bishops”.[/b] Irregularity is a problem depending on whose ox is gored. +Chane is silent about the arguably irregular process of deposing +Duncan. He is also silent about the irregular practice of SSB in many episcopal diocese. Ignoring canons and traditions is a problem for both sides, as far as I can tell, that people justify by appealing to some higher principle (scripture, justice, natural law). +Chane frames the debate in terms of whether his opponents have any legitimate position of authority from which to speak rather than the theological questions that demand our attention regardless of whether ++Duncan, +Iker, +Schofield, and +Ackerman, ask them. This approach is expedient but it does not bring credit on +Chane.
I’m having a brain cramp….
Who knew that sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman was a ‘baptismal birthright’?
Chane’s central point: If one is going to start a rival denomination that we all know is simply about being opposed to one homosexual bishop, one must only do it in good economic times (and we define good: No homeless, no unemployment, no uninsured, everyone making above average income and having above average quality of life).
You are right, John, the logic is irrefutable. I guess that ends the discussion.
Hey Brian from T19 . . . I think it was ASA. Minns here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081120/ts_nm/us_religion_episcopal;_ylt=Ass2xF5RnKiisHLc1jjz31A7Xs8F
I’ve read others that say “in the pews on Sunday” . . . so yes, they’re referring to ASA.
I am very pleased, as a side note, that the new entity chose to make a part of the requirements of a “parish” that of at least 50 ASA, and that they’re keeping that excellent measurement. It allows all of us to compare apples to apples over the coming fascinating decades, should we live long enough.
I do second Jon #43. What ARE his central points? I saw no compelling arguments there at all. What I saw was fear and spite. Apparently I am not alone in this.
but, you know, I understand TEC now better than I did. I asked, as others have, “How can they DO this,” whatever “this” happened to be. But I see know how clearly TEC has defined itself as normative, the standard by which all else is to be judged. Once this mind set is in place, all deviation from this norm is heresy, and heresy needs to be driven like hogs into the sea. TEC sees itself defending the chalice and the crown from outside attacks; they are the Defenders of the Faith. +_Chane’s remarks then become the angry response to apostates and enemies who are eroding the hill on which TEC city stands. He has said, as clearly as if he had said the actual words, “You are the enemy, and we will treat you that way, like carpenter ants in a sill, small, and yet through pernicious acts, capable of bringing down a noble edifice.” Larry
RobK
#44. Of course he’s not an Anglican. Look at his moniker.
The Bishop’s argument that the proposed province cannot be allowed to be created because it isn’t geographical is ludicrous. TEC goes out of its way these days to emphasize it’s not only in the United States but also Latin America, etc. Sounds like hypocricy to me.
Look at this ending quote from Bp Chane’s letter:
“I also need to share with you my disappointment in the behavior of men who were once bishops in the Episcopal Church. Some of these men have been my friends, but they have now taken their own personal agendas for power and control beyond the limits of common Christian charity and decency. As you may already know, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church has deposed Duncan and John-David Schofield as bishops and priests in the church, and the Presiding Bishop has recently inhibited Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth and determined that he has renounced his orders. The case of Keith Ackerman, the former Bishop of Quincy, remains to be reviewed.
During this season of Advent, please keep Rowan our Archbishop in your daily prayers, as I know you will continue to pray for Katharine our Presiding Bishop and primate. Pray for the church, the body of Jesus Christ, that it might be a center of strength and a beacon of light and hope during these very tough economic times for those we serve here in the Diocese of Washington and in the global community.”
Now, if he held those “men” as friends at one time, why would he not ask for prayers for them, also. Are we not to pray for our enemies. I, always try to do that (I’ve found it works pretty well, actually.) Bp Chane appears to have so much bitterness inside him that he is incapable of seeing that his prayers need to be for both CCP and TEC. One would certainly expect more from a Christian, but especially from one who holds himself out to be a bishop and “prince” of the church. I can only wonder at the paucity of his prayer life.
And if CCP has 100,000 ASA, compared to TEC’s very generous claim of 700,000 ASA, then I can definitely see why Chane is concerned. The numbers could even up much more quickly than anyone predicts and his chapter of Anglicanism could become even more irrelevant more quickly, and he could lose even more money for his National Cathedral and have to lay off even more folks than Sam Lloyd has already laid off (I believe it was 40% of their staff – whew!)
++ Duncan?! Oh, puhleeze.
Good luck on getting anyone but the already (and permanently) disgruntled 5% to salute this flag. The grandiose dreams of ACNA will not live long.
“To learn in this context that Duncan, Minns and their allies think that the most important issue facing the church is the sexuality of the Bishop of New Hampshire suggests a level of self-absorption that is difficult to square with the teachings of Christ.â€
It truly, deeply irritates me to have people – especially bishops – claim this is all about the sexuality of the bishop of New Hampshire. Number 17 of above can’t be said loudly or often enough, it seems. If we don’t protest these statements every time they are made, if we don’t state plainly what it *is* about for us every time we get the opportunity, +Chane will stick this slime to us, as he tries hard to do at every opportunity.
That said, given the context he describes – why is he even noticing that an insignificant, according to TEC, group of people is forming a separate province? Why is it so huge in his mind that he must write a pastoral letter, if it’s only about the “sexuality of the bishop of New Hampshire”?
John Chane’s tirade clearly shows that he is running scared; otherwise, why would he write such drivel?
I can’t urge everyone to reread NCG’s post #45. It is extraordinarily clear, well-organized, and thoughtful. A model for us all for sober, carefully reasoned responses to a T19 article.
I agree with NCG (#45):
I personally think an earlier poster’s argument about the four required dioceses is quite strong, if the scenario we have in mind is TEC promoting its own gospel inside say Nigeria or other provinces.
As Irenaeus said earlier in the thread, “Just try!” It’s a pretty funny image, TEC getting the same degree of defection inside Nigeria or other orthodox provinces as occured here.
But here’s the point that is worth considering. While it could not happen inside Nigeria, it could easily happen inside the Church of England. In other words, if a province is divided 50/50 or even 70/30 or 80/20 on the question of the New Theology being seen in TEC and Canada, then in principle the same thing could well happen there. England is the immediate example that comes to mind, but there are others as well.
I don’t think that is the end of the world. It may be just the necessary process of Anglicans separating into the two tiers that have been so often discussed in the last few years. Ultimately we end up with a creedal province and a revisionist province in a number of Western regions (England, Australia, North America, etc.) where the revisionist provinces refuse to covenant with most of the rest of the AC and the creedal ones do covenant (the two tiers).
But it would be a mistake not to agree with Chane that the new North American province establishes a precendent that will then be followed eventually in England and elsewhere. Chane of course feels that the better solution is not to permit it and drive traditionalists out of the Western provinces into their own unaffiliated independent congregations. But most of the rest of the Communion is (a) doctrinally aligned with the traditionalists and (b) feels great compassion for their plight, so Chane’s solution is not one that is workable either, from the point of view of the AC as a whole.
No. 56 – Jon, the Catholic/Protestant divide is still more fundamental, and until it is overcome, or recognized by schism along those lines, it will remain and reappear after the current issues have lost their import.
#57…. Can you expand more on what you mean?
No #56, it will not be followed elsewhere, because CCP is finally pursuing a course to create a truly American Catholic church, something we have never had. The new province is not the product of protestant fragmentation, but of reestablishment, as if a new Emerson had appeared and spoken to the real America to develop its native strain of Catholic Christianity. Larry
Jon – Hope to answer you soon. Thx.