Each new meeting of the Communion now reinforces this impression that the ”˜schism’ has taken place, because complete sacramental communion is demonstrably no longer possible. The most recent news, of course, is that an alternative province is being formed across North America bringing together the various acronyms and groupings we are coming used to: the Network, CANA, dioceses linked to the Southern Cone, and parishes under the oversight of Rwanda, Kenya, Uganda, together with traditionalist continuing churches which long ago broke away.
In the absence of any meaningful overtures from the official American and Canadian leadership, and no proposals for any effective alternative oversight, and amid a determination to press on with scandalous and acrimonious litigation, there is probably no option now other than a third North American province. Furthermore, the level of theological heterodoxy in the Episcopal Church is worryingly high. A number of dioceses have rejected the moratoria which were called for with impunity and it looks clear that at the next General Convention it will be business as usual in the liberal drift of the denomination.
Apart from the sexuality issue, relativism both morally and theologically is normal theology in TEC. Very few Episcopal leaders will say with any confidence that Jesus Christ is the only way to God; instead they apologise for missionary activity in the past, and proclaim a muted, stunted, deformed Gospel to the world.
Yet the formation of a third province is not universally favoured by those who otherwise reject North American innovation. The Gafcon route is an ”˜outside’ strategy that has given up on the ability of the Anglican Communion to discipline itself in accordance with Bible and tradition. There is however an insider’s strategy as well, which believes that the Windsor process is roughly the right direction for the Communion to go, that it will actually result in discipline.
The dictionary.com definition of “schism” is:
–noun
1. division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties.
2. the parties so formed.
3. Ecclesiastical.
a. a formal division within, or separation from, a church or religious body over some doctrinal difference.
b. the state of a sect or body formed by such division.
c. the offense of causing or seeking to cause such a division.
While I don’t see a 3rd province as particularly viable long term, I think it is helpful to call a spade a spade in terms of calling it what it is. It is a schism, plain and simple. I don’t think a lot of people are comfortable with calling it that, but really that’s what it is.
I see it more in terms of a realignment along theological lines(3a above). What keeps this realignment just shy of schismatic to me is the desire of ACNA to remain within the worldwide Anglican communion as a province, as opposed to forming a separate denomination. As a Presbyterian, I see Anglican/Episcopal polity with regards to dioceses/provinces more like loose beads in a drawer, as opposed to our polity which is more connectional, ie., beads on a string. If we presbys tried to form a two-synod model of governance(one synod being evangelical/orthodox, and the other being more liberal/progressive)within our denomination, then it would more closely fit the definition you gave of schism.
[blockquote] There is however an insider’s strategy as well, which believes that the Windsor process is roughly the right direction for the Communion to go, that it will actually result in discipline. The insiders admire and trust the Archbishop of Canterbury to guide the Communion through the current impasse. They do not believe, as do his critics, that his strategy is one of endless delay and obfuscation, preferring instead to believe that he is nudging the communion with great patience to a more mature unity based on Windsor principles and [i] founded on a covenant [b] which might prevent such divisions in the future[/b] [/i] . [/blockquote]
A process which by its own terms does nothing for the people the ACNA is designed to protect. What this tells me is that the “inside stratagy” is designed to save the AC at the expense of North American orthodox. Pardon us if we are not grateful and, I for one, do not see much use for such an AC.
Andrew Carey writes:
To me this is the “money quote”, as people in the blogosphere sometimes say.
My problem with the Covenant/Windsor “let’s work with the ABC” crowd is that some of them are essentially saying this:
“See, ACNA is bad, because it will make schism certain, but if we operate with the Covenant process, we may be able to avert it.”
But that is not so. Schism is CERTAIN, and the reason is because of that money quote. TEC is NEVER going to back down, but rather is going to go further in the direction she is going. In 2004, that would have been uncharitable to say and a violation of our Christian duty to hope; now it is manifestly certain. While TEC does that, many Global South provinces will be in completely broken sacramental communion with her.
Put it very simply. TEC is a major player inside the Anglican Communion. So is Nigeria. Any solution that ends with one of them in broken sacramental communion with the other is de facto schismatic. If we were talking about one tiny liberal province or one tiny conservative province that had differed with the general body of the Communion, then it might be fair to say that no substantial schism is occuring, just one tiny body being disciplined. But TEC/ECUSA is not tiny, certainly in terms of money and influence and history; furthermore “TEC” is just shorthand for the American church, the Canadian church, New Zealand, a major chunk of the CofE, and so on. Likewise Nigeria in this argument is just shorthand for the vast numerical majority of Anglicans worldwide.
So it is time to simply admit that there are now two churches inside the Anglican family, and find a way to lovingly and gently permit them to disentangle themselves from each other. The end result will be two global communions. This hysteria over the prospect of two communions serving the same geographical region is absurd. We have been doing it with Rome now for centuries. I could respect an honest Anglican defender of Windsor/Covenant who is scandalized by the prospect of overlapping communions if one of the two things happened:
(1) He admitted that he and his forbears were wicked to depart from Rome, and therefore he promptly crossed the Tiber; or…
(2) There was still some rational hope of a solution wherein the Global South would in ten years be able to sit down with TEC and share the bread and wine together.
But since (2) is NOT going to happen, and these Anglican defenders of geographic borders as such don’t do the philosphically consistent thing and return to Rome, then I see no alternative to facing the reality of two communions and abandoning all criticism of ACNA based on arguments of geography.
That said, I see no problem with the Covenant process as such! ACNA supporters can certainly support it as well. It just needs to clarify its goal — not to prevent schism (impossible) but to work toward aiding the process of schism, helping it be as simple and clear and charitable as possible. This view actually helps matters quite a bit for Covenant folks. They no longer have the impossible task of creating a vital meaningful document that all can agree to, nor the humiliating prospect of creating a document that is so ambiguous and toothless that they achieve nothing. Instead they have the much more workable task of creating a document that characterizes the simple majority of the present Communion and is in keeping with the historic witness of Christendom. TEC and Canada and New Zealand (etc.) will refuse to sign, and we will see them form their own global entity with missions in England and Europe and Australia and so on.
fine let us have two communions but PLEASE can one be truly orthodox (ie no WO and no lay celebration) otherwise the reality becomes truly bizaare. Choose your heresy – ‘gay hating innovators to the left’ and ‘gay loving innovators to the right’..
…I would choose neither
I think that the +ABC could advance a strategy that allows for the ACNA to get into the communion citing bad TEC/Canadian behavior – avance the Windsor Covenant in order to prevent any future need for division within other provinces – be a deterent for any future bad TEC behavior.
6, he could, if he wanted to. And he does not.
If you are right Br. Michael – then it is because he knows that such an action would be a soft way of preventing TEC’s theology from one day prevailing communion wide – and that by not going my suggested route the center right of the communion would hold onto at least what it currently holds. Leting the ACNA in would provide the Communion with two American honey pots our naturally competitive nature as Americans would be an added bonus – if only Pooh Bear was the +ABC then the deal could be done instantly. 🙂