“In 2004, the standing committee had expressed support for the work of the Anglican Communion Network in providing a place within The Episcopal Church were those of a more conservative outlook could find a place of encouragement for their mission and ministry within the church,” the standing committee said. “As the Diocese of the Rio Grande looks toward the future, and particularly as it works toward electing its next bishop, the standing committee felt increasingly that the work of the Anglican Communion Network no longer served the constructive purposes hoped for in the 2004 resolution.
“The support of the Anglican Communion Network for the creation of a separate Anglican church in North America, announced on Dec. 3, served as the catalyst for the action of the standing committee at its meeting this week.”
It’s a little hard to take seriously any statement with a typographical error in the first sentence of the press release.
It’s interesting to learn, as the time comes to actually put something on the line, who the pretenders are; who all along put Katharine Jefferts Schori first.
Yep, I’m ‘behind you’ in this battle, about five miles behind you.
Let me know when its safe enough for me to stand up in plain sight without any chance of being harmed.
To me, the most valuable part of this TLC story was in the final paragraph, where it’s noted that the four remaining dioceses that are still in TEC and affiliated with the ACN, i.e., Albany, Dallas, South Carolina, and Springfield, are in a holding pattern. Unlike Bp. Howe of C.FL or the Diocese of the Rio Grande, they aren’t withdrawing, but neither are they following the four dioceses that have left TEC so far.
My guess, or perhaps I should say my HOPE, is that at least three of the four will eventually leave TEC too and throw in their lot with the ACNA. I’d say there’s a good chance of that happening in my home diocese of Albany, and likewise in SC and Springfield. (Of course, Kendall could speak to the case of SC much better than I can). Unfortunately, Dallas has suffered enough of an exodus already that with its slim 60 to 40 conservative majority, it probably lacks the degree of overwhelming support necessary to take the diocese out of TEC as a block. Let that be a warning to Albany, SC, and Springfield not to dilly dally and wait too long, or a similar fate could easily befall them.
David Handy+
I think that it is highly unlikely that Dallas would leave TEC. Like as has occurred in DRG, those parishes most anxious to do so have already left. Our bishop also has consistently said very clearly that he has no intention of leaving the Episcopal church.
Readers should be aware that, with the departures of St. Clement’s, El Paso, and St. Francis-on-the-Hill, El Paso, the complexion of the Rio Grande Diocese has changed significantly.
I understand their position: originally the ACN was to work within TEC. Somehow a minority of Bishops (4) changed the course and followed the realignment route. It goes without saying that evryone in the conservative camp does not have to follow the leader out of TEC.
What?! A diocese of ECUSA has changed it’s mind on a theological issue?
Eugene, I agree; however, it also goes without saying (at least to me) that “stayers” in the conservative camp should understand the dire conditions that cause some to leave, and refrain from taking snarky shots at the same – and, still less, to imply they are happy to be marching into the glorious future with ECUSA.
I don’t see any snarky shots or happy marching. Not all of us remaining in TEC are doing so for the “glorious” leadership of +KJS. Some of us are doing so in spite of her. Why not view DRG with charity and wish them well?
Dan Tuton only tells part of the story; he should have told the rest. Remember, as Bp. Steenson was deserting his flock, one very large Orthodox congregation in Rio Grande left TEC – St. Clements. Since then three smaller ones have left, including St. Francis on the Hill. (One left before Steenson.) As a consequence, the TEC-directed forces have effectively taken over the levers of power in the Diocese, despite the fact that they are theoretically outnumbered. The Standing Committee, for example, has no Orthodox members. The remaining Orthodox find life more difficult and have become increasingly disorganized and apathetic. Pray for the Diocese.
[15] Posted by GeneB on 12-12-2008 at 01:51 PM • top
Add your comment here:
Formatting help:
bold italic link
Please note the difference between “open” tags and “close” tags.
Smileys
Before you post, please remember Matthew 5:43-45:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”
Notify me of follow-up comments? Yes
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users’ accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.
I’m afraid I agree with David Handy+ in his assessment.
I would say things are far from what they were when + Terence Kelshaw was bishop. They should have elected Felix Orji bishop, and he could have led the whole diocese into ACNA.
I hope it will be possible for people to reserve judgment about a new province, or even speak critically/analytically about it. At points it sounds like people assume joining ACNA is a sort of default position. Many will not wish to join it, and will find it presumptive to have it be heralded as the obvious/only way forward. This strikes me as very true, for example, when it comes to Dallas. #5 above is correct. Dallas, RG, and CFL and others have consistently held the view upon which the original Network was formed. To my mind there is no obvious reason to assume anything else about SC or Albany. That said, of course new decisions could be made to change course and leave for a new province though TLC concludes rightly that this is not under consideration at present. Sarah Hey has tried to remind people that a new province is not a principled way forward for many conservatives, no matter what happens. That is not grounds for some major criticism; it is simply that a new province does not mark a way forward. One ought to be able to hold this view as a matter of principle without it amounting to departure from the perceived wisdom of Gafcon and their supporters. It is not a departure. It was never seen as a way forward to begin with. The new province appeals to many as a good way forward and that is fine. It is not the way forward for others. That ought to be equally OK.