The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican), is involved in “an unanticipated series of consultations with the primates who originated the call” for a new Anglican province in North America, participants in an Anglican theology conference have been told.
Bishop Duncan had been scheduled to address “North American Anglicanism After GAFCON and Lambeth” at the Mere Anglicanism conference in Charleston, S.C. Instead, the Very Rev. William McKeachie, dean of the Cathedral Church of St. Luke and St. Paul which is the conference location, read a letter from Bishop Duncan. He said that following consultations about the proposed new province between Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and members of the GAFCON primates’ steering committee in London last month, Archbishop Williams had asked that a paper be prepared setting out the situation and the hopes for a new structure. The Archbishop invited the primates to forward the case to the Anglican Consultative Council along with their comments.
And it’s a sure-fire bet that KJS will do her usual best (or is it worst?) to explain why they shouldn’t allow the new province to com into being alongside TEC.
The ABC is merely following Resolution 21 of ACC 1 (1971):
[blockquote]Resolution 21: Creating and Dividing Provinces
Although there is no official definition of a province of the Anglican Communion, it can be described as the smallest complete unit of the Anglican Church because it exists under a College of Bishops – each of whom with his clergy and laity is autonomous within a diocese. A
college requires to be more than a mere trio of bishops and is severely limited if it consists of less than four diocesan bishops. A province must have some common constitution, its geographical and political area must allow good communications, and, however much it transcends linguistic, national, or cultural boundaries, its peoples must have a community of concern which can unite them in a community of worship.
In the light of this outline, the Council makes the following recommendations:
a. It is expected that a new province should normally contain at least four dioceses.
b. It must be ensured that the remaining area of the former province is not unduly weakened in finance, personnel, or institutions.
c. The proposed province must have financial stability, adequate leadership, proper administration, and accessibility to and from each diocese.
d. There must be the good will of the existing province in order not to create difficulties of disunity after division.
[b]e. Before the creation of a new province there should be consultation with the Anglican Consultative Council or its Standing Committee for guidance and advice, especially in regard to the form of constitution most appropriate.[/b][/blockquote]
The ABC, the Primates and the ACC will insist on consultation with the ACC. I note that +Duncan appears to have misunderstood:
[blockquote]Bishop Duncan said the GAFCON primates will present the paper and make the case for an alternate province during the primates’ meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, next month.[/blockquote]
This is not what the ABC advised. But in any case the Primates can do nothing. There is no ACNA as of now, with any agreed Constitution. Any Primatial vote for acceptance could only take place in 2011 at the earliest, followed by submission to the ACC. And Primatial acceptance needs 26 Primates in support. However, it would most probably also require a similar vote by the Primates to remove TEC from ACC membership, followed by ACC approval of this.
A major stumbling block will be the ACNA set-up. A loose federation of overlapping (and competing) dioceses, networks and clusters, will be simply unacceptable to the Primates and ACC.
It should also be noted that the official formation of ACNA will require the withdrawal of the existing oversight of Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Southern Cone – as +Duncan has already intimated in his claim that this solution will solve ‘bordercrossing’. Any slim claim certain dioceses/networks/clusters currently make of belonging to the AC through them will be gone. They will simply be another denomination outside of the AC, in communion with certain AC Churches, and trying to get in.
Well now what are we to make of this?
On the basis that this is an accurate report:
[blockquote]Archbishop Williams had asked that a paper be prepared setting out the situation and the hopes for a new structure[/blockquote]
All well and good
[blockquote]The Archbishop invited the primates to forward the case to the Anglican Consultative Council along with their comments[/blockquote]
We have been through this all before and I have set out at length here the relevant provisions from the ACC constitution and resolutions. It is clear that the ACC only has an advisory role and the procedures it has laid out are not binding, save on itself in its role of offering ‘advice’. Involvement of the ACC and the ACO are not mandatory; they merely offer ‘advice’ and there appear to be many instances where they have not been involved at all.
What do we know of the ACO? Well we know that Canon Kearon is its general secretary and there is evidence that he has shared his frustrations in the past with his friend, the US gay activist Louis Crew. Kearon is on record as saying that any process will take ‘years and years’. We also know that the ACO is stuffed to the gunwhales with Episcocrats who have spent their time actively promoting the TEC case. Most recently they have taken it upon themselves to list the position of bishop of the Episcopal diocese of Fort Worth as ‘vacant’.
So the Archbishop would like the paper to be sent to them. Quite so Archbishop, quite so.
[blockquote]Bishop Duncan said the GAFCON primates will present the paper and make the case for an alternate province during the primates’ meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, next month[/blockquote]
Quite so Bishop Duncan, quite so.
#4 – Would you care to list the 26 Provinces who will approve the admission of ACNA to the AC?
I have no idea what will happen laud. Neither do you. I don’t actually have any stake in the outcome, other than an interest in the truth.
I think it would be too easy to read too much into this development. I don’t think it means that Williams’ is positively disposed towards a new Province. But I do think that Williams call for a paper is a significant and positive development for the ACNA, in that it lends a certain legitimacy to the efforts to recognize it.
Contrary to laud’s claim that the primates can “do nothing”, I think that there is actually a lot they can do. Do I think they will approve the ACNA as a Province next month? No. Will they in the future? Very possibly. Article 3(a) of the ACC constitution would appear to place the initiative of recognizing new Provinces in the hand of the Primates
Of course, the question still remains of whose recognition makes one truly a legitimate province of the Communion (e.g. approval by the primates, but the ACC declines to add the Province to the ACC’s membership).
There is also a myriad of other solutions that might be found instead of making the ACNA a province, at least not right away, and I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of some political maneuvering on the part of the GAFCON primates, the primates and the ABC to effect something like that. Possibilities could include the ACNA coming under the ABC’s special oversight under the delegated leadership of the GAFCON primates (not a Province, but very much part of the Anglican Communion).
I also think that everyone – both conservative and liberal – needs to realize that this will be long process. The title of Susan Russell’s blog is very apt here “An Inch at a Time”. I would score the ACNA/GAFCON group a victory if the concept of the ACNA as a province is seriously discussed and considered at the upcoming primates’ meeting, and if Williams is seen to seriously consider a paper making the ACNA argument.
This summer, General Convention 2009 might very well lurch TEC significantly leftward as there is great pressure in the HoD to repeal B0039 and implement SSM. Dan Martin thinks that the HoB will block both, but I don’t know (see Radner’s latest letter outlining why he thinks Rob O’Neall in Colorado has decided to scrap any restraint). If TEC goes off the deep end this summer, then I think there would be a very good chance that next year, the ACNA will find a much more receptive primates’ meeting and ABC to provide recognition.
Only time will tell. For now, I would call special attention to Bishop Duncan’s call to
I sincerely believe that BOTH of these approaches are critical to the successful longterm reform of the Anglican Communion. I urge members of both groups to stop sniping at each other, and begin to appreciate each other, even if you disagree with the others’ strategy. Each group contributes something important which the other group is incapable of contributing. To me they work together like a group of protesters outside putting pressure on the politicians on the one hand, and the common-sense legislators inside working to achieve the needed reforms, on the other hand. If there are no protestors on the outside, the legislators on the inside will be ignored. But if there are no inside legislators, then all the protests in the world won’t accomplish anything.
#7 jamesw
I do think there is an urgency to regularise the position of the departed Anglicans in North America; and it is the same urgency which gave rise to the intervention of Primates and churches from all around the world. That is the vicious campaign of intimidation, persecution and litigation undertaken against them by the Presiding Bishop of TEC and her supporters.
Jamesw, I personally don’t give a hoot whether or not the primates give their approval. We are organized, and we’ll have that formal launching ceremony in June, 2009. If this is over-optimism on my part, so be it. If it splits the Communion, then what will be will be! I would rather we be on our own than to be under an Archbishop of Canterbury who is not supportive of us or our efforts.
ARE YOU LESS IF I’M MORE?
Do you have less shade if I stand beneath the tree with you?
Is there less oxygen to breathe if I breathe the air too?
Are you less if I’m more?
Is your view of the landscape diminished if I view it at the same time?
Do you enjoy your space less because I enjoy mine ?
Are you less if I’m more?
Do the birds sound different because I listen to them at the same time?
Are your thoughts prevented because I have thoughts too?
Are you less if I’m more?
Are you less if I’m more?
As I said in another thread:
“God willing, eventually, there WILL be a province, other than TEc, of the Anglican Church in North America, with or without the ABC’s liking. How much kicking and screaming from the ABC this would take, I cannot say. But come, it shall.
A lot of North American Anglicans are watching, hoping and praying. There are far too many Episcopalians/Anglicans (lay and ordained) who are not courageous enough to make a lot of noise (and “troubleâ€), but they are simply waiting for the courageous ones (read Iker, and co.) to lead them to where they really want to be – which is definitely NOT where KJS and company are going and leading them.”
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington Texas
Cennydd: The ACNA has always been free to establish itself as an independent denomination. As I understand both the ACNA, and the GAFCON primates, however, that has never been its goal. Rather its goal has been to establish itself as an Anglican Province, meaning quite specifically, a Province of the Anglican Communion. Having said that, I think we need to distinguish two very distinct goals which the ACNA has:
1. To become a Province of the Anglican Communion. This is the issue which I address in post #7 above. You can’t just declare yourself a Province. You can declare yourself to be an independent denomination, but, again, that is not the end goal for the ACNA’s leadership. Accordingly, the ACNA will need to consider and engage the established procedure to become an Anglican Communion Province, and that will include – at some point – the agreement of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
2. An organized safe harbor for North American orthodox Anglicans who cannot exist in the structures of heretical TEC. This is currently being done and involves the ACNA creating the structures it is creating. In order to create a ecclesiastical structure for the long term, this needs to be done carefully and wisely. This process can occur before, during and after official Provincial status is sought.
The trick is to accomplish goal #2 in such a way that goal #1 is not impaired. Goal #2 does NOT require immediate and urgent Provincial status. The ONLY legal assistance that the Anglican Communion could give to beleagured conservatives in the USA would be for the Anglican Communion to de-recognize TEC bishops, and that is unlikely to happen. Granting immediate Provincial status to the ACNA would not assist any departing parishes or dioceses in their legal battles.
Having said that, then, there is no urgency for the ACNA to get Provincial status. More important is for the ACNA to get some sort of recognition from the Anglican Communion. From my perspective, it would be much wiser for the ACNA to seek some form of official recognition from the Anglican Communion in the short term, but not to insist on Provincial status right away. I say this because I think that a solid majority of the Primates will be sympathetic to granting some sort of official recognition to the ACNA, but that, at this point, there is not the 2/3 majority needed for Provincial status.
I would like to reiterate one thing – there is really VERY LITTLE which the Anglican Communion or the ABC can do to help the beleagured conservatives departing TEC in the USA, other then derecognizing TEC bishops. And even if the ABC and the Communion did that, it is not at all certain that it would actually help. We need to realize that we have to fight the legal fight on our own, and that very likely, we will lose a lot of property. For a perspective on this, I would encourage everyone to read Kendall’s comments and sermons on us ALL being a church under God’s judgement.
Episcopalians have for so long been the “proud” church, proud of their fine buildings and wonderful organs and nice robes and fancy altar silver. Episcopalians have for so long been the church which has tolerated heresy in its midst and avoided evangelism. Well think about what the recent Unpleasantness has done:
1) Woken up Episcopal conservatives and forced them to really consider and contend for their faith;
2) Ignited a fire of evangelism amongst these Episcopalians;
3) Stripped many of these Episcopalians of the things which had heretofor weighed them down, and took their minds off the Gospel;
4) Forced these Episcopalians to start anew – with nothing but the Gospel of Jesus Christ;
5) Forced these Episcopalians to not just act unilaterally and arbitrarily but rather to wait on the mind of the Communion.
We orthodox Anglicans in North America should be thanking God for disciplining us in this way. Discipline hurts, but I think it is what God intends for us.
Gee, Laud (2 & 3). For this story not being a big deal, you sure are exerting a lot of time and binary code trying to convince us that it’s not. What’s up with that??
Looks like classic whistling in the graveyard behavior to me. But you go right ahead and keep telling yourself, “It’s no big deal.” “It’s no big deal.” It’s no big deal.” If you say it enough, I’m quite sure you’ll eventually believe it! Psychological denial always works that way. 😉
Blessings.
Do try not to distress yourself too much, laud.
I am not inclined to reconcile with Schori and Company, nor will I accept an Anglican Covenant as long as TEC refuses to backtrack, repudiate everything they’ve said and done, and return to the fold. When I see some positive results, then and only then, I’ll consider it.
I agree with Cennydd. An Anglican Covenant that would IN ANY WAY or MANNER allows TEc some room to continually flush God and the teaching of Our Lord down the toilet is not worth the paper on which it is written. If the goal of the Covenant is “so that we may all get along”, the designers and promoters of the Covenant are simply wasting their time.
A Covenant without real teeth is a purposefully designed political instrument, not an instrument of Christian Unity in Truth and in the Bond of the Spirit. God should never be mocked. We either take Him seriously at His word, or we continue to lean on our own, following the devices and desires of our own heart – to our peril.
Please count me out of this silliness.
The current crisis in the Anglican Communion is helping us to state clearly and stand solidly on the faith once delivered. If at the end of the day, Anglican is reduced to a few millions of serious-minded Bible-believing Christians, so be it. God will be more honored than what is presently TEc, CAC, CoE and their minions across the globe. God is no respecter of persons. He will use the lowly and the meek from wherever He pleases for His work and glory.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington Texas
[Comment deleted – Please do not post comments inviting/instructing people to join other churches – this is in breach of comment policy – Elf]