We do not know how the proposal for a new province will be received nor are we entirely clear what its proponents are proposing; that is probably unavoidable given the hardships all around. We understand that many see the situation as demanding this option. For our part, we accept the promise of those associated with this movement that they will honor our own commitments. Communion Partners will pray for the Common Cause proponents and will assume that promise of cooperation entails a charitable acceptance that another way forward is to be honored and that we can move forward on parallel tracks and not ”˜recruit’ from each others’ daily purpose, honoring the jurisdictional integrities of respective bishops. God will be in charge of the next season, as He has always been.
When the Primates meet in February we anticipate that our separate ways of moving forward will be acknowledged and honored. We pledge our prayers for all involved and ask God’s blessing on all of us in a very difficult time. With gratitude for his grace and mercy, again this 2009 Epiphany we remain, yours in Christ, on behalf of Communion Partners,
I really see a warming between Communion Partners, ACI and ACNA. I believe there is a willingness, now that all have articulated their reasons for the stance they have taken, to accept the possibility that God could be moving along more than one path. They are Godly reasonable individuals and see the usefulness of cooperation, the destructiveness of continued criticism and are drawn together by the power of the Spirit. There are individuals of enormous talents and gifts of God in all of these groups.
This is a welcome piece; but the authors must know that Bishop Duncan was not in Charleston but was overseas in consultation with primates preparing to make the case for a new province. Oops. Was this written before the conference?
Disappointing in the ACI/Communion Partners pieces is the stylistic look down the nose that comes from putting things in quotation marks. This is a long and familiar feature of press released from of the official mouthpieces of the Episcopal Church. Truly respectful and sincere communication in the future should leave off the editorial touches.
I would be good to have a place to go if TEC decides to revise the Book of Common Prayer. I hope that that the Communion Partners and the Common Cause Partners will be able to work together.
Correction: I meant to say “It would be good” instead of “I would be good”.
#2 Brien,
“This is a long and familiar feature of press released from of the official mouthpieces of the Episcopal Church” The official mouthpiece of TEC is the Episcopal News Service (ENS). I sometimes have my disagreements with the folks at ACI/CP as an ACNA person but respect their scholarship and faithfulness to the call of our Lord. I would never refer to them as “official mouthpieces” and if you were familiar with their writings, you wouldn’t either.
“Together with ACI, we have been concerned that failure to attend to the integrity of Dioceses which see women’s ordination a matter still in reception, is creating unnecessary stress and strain.”
Perhaps I am misreading this, but I don’t see how. Anyway, if I am not mistaking its meaning, then this sentence alone reveals the serpent’s tongue in the Communion Partners’ mouth. So, is it the case that those dioceses which have opposed WO on the basis of the Catholic Consensus are now characterized as dioceses which “see WO as a matter still in receptionâ€, while for those that accept WO on the basis of their New Thangology and confusion of the Zeitgeist with the Helige Geist, it is a done deal, received, finito? If this is the case, it doesn’t seem to offer much to those FIF/NA, who would be well-advised to hasten away as fast as possible from such “friends.â€
On the other hand, let’s look on the bright side: I can now consider those dioceses which have raised a ruckus about +VGR but have no desire to leave TEâ€C†as “dioceses which see sanctified sodomy (SS) a matter still in reception,†and respect their “integrity†accordingly.
#5==Of course they aren’t official mouthpieces. I’ve been involved in the politics of the church for over thirty years; for almost a decade I earned my salary involved in church politics with ESA and related movements. I know the good guys from the others. ACI/CP has perhaps inadvertently adopted the patronizing (or matronizing) style of the ENS, Episcopal Life, and others of the same mold.
Dr. Tighe, (off topic: hello!), you may wish to read Bishop Iker’s address recently delivered in Charleston, where he makes reference to the whole matter of the open reception of WO. I believe it has been posted here on T19.
Hi Dr. Tighe,
I think I have a sense of what you are saying here but I am not entirely sure. I think I got a bit lost at the ‘thangology.’ Could you clarify the argument(s) you are making so I can make sure my response fits with what you have actually said? Thanks.
[i] This is not a thread on WO. Any additional off topic comments will be deleted. [/i]
-Elf Lady
#3 Betty See,
Hasn’t TEc aready revisd the BCP once already? Another revision of it would b what it would take for you to move out of TEc? I would have thought that denying the authority of Scripture would be more weighty than another revision of the BCP?
Scratching my head over that one!
The money quote is the following:
[blockquote]…not ‘recruit’ from each others’ daily purpose, honoring the jurisdictional integrities of respective bishops. [/blockquote]
This brings up a previously unspoken area of concern of the Communion Partners. If laity are tired of Schori, Robinson, Bruno, etc., but are in Central Florida or Western Lousiana, Texas or Dallas etc., then the laity should still be free to organize an ACNA church. There shouldn’t be any deals of no “border crossing” in Communion Partners dioceses. The Communion Partners leaders simply need to do a better job differentiation and of articulating reasons for staying in the increasingly heretical organization. Besides #1, I thought the Communion Partners believed that most of those who were going to leave actually have already left? Besides #2, most of these dioceses already have parishes that will be part of the ACNA. Are these parishes supposed to cease evangelization for fear that they might attract disaffected Episcopalians and thereby not “respect jurisdictional integrities”?
I think the Communion Partners need to realize: “We must decrease and the ACNA must increase.”
The Gene Robinson saga just keeps going and going. Now, HBO promises to air the insipid prayer to a generic deity. The kerfuffle further seals the idea that the denomination is the gay church. This is how the liberals will defeat the orthodox, and nothing the Communion partners have proposed can counter the strategy.
The “concern” has not been “unspoken”, but has been voiced on numerous occasions. But if what you say, Mr. Roy, is true,and the concern is off the mark, hope for mutual support is pointless. Of course, people can do what they want and go where they want. It’s a free country. But ACNA’s future lies in disentanglement and moving forward, and CP’s future lies in maintaining the strength of its witness where it is, in numbers and evident missionary energies. Where neither of those things happen — as, say in Colorado Springs — you get a mess. Why in the world should CP bishops and rectors and vestries assume that they must “decrease” for the sake of ACNA? So we can become conflicted congregations engaged in lawsuits? You’re way off the mark. That may not be “strategy”, but is seems rather obvious common sense. Nobody wins on the side of traditional Anglicanism when traditionalists become conflicted within themselves, whereever they are located.
For RobRoy to be so blunt helps clarify the matter. Would you say that the comments of Iker and Duncan are therefore cosmetic in character? Parish X is CP diocese wishes to join ACNA (whatever that means exactly one can leave to the side). The leaders of ANCA do not say, we are supporting Bishop MacPherson or Stanton or whomever, and encourage you to stay for the strength of the conservative challenge; we have agreed to support one another’s commitments. Instead they say, ‘we must increase, they must decrease’. Yes, of course the mentality will always be there that one has lots of choices and needs to be able to maximise them. At issue is whether the support of these two groups for one another might mean anything substantive in the first instance. Your remarks clearly say No. Do you further believe your view is that of the ACNA leaders? There is no point is supporting a position that is not your own, in Christian charity and sacrifice, only to find the effort is just a ruse anyway and that ‘support’ is just kind public talk. But again, it is useful to have the matter stated so forthrightly.
(Elf Lacy: No mention of WO here.)
Re: #9, My point was, that it is a strange skewing of language to write that those (bishops and, by extension, dioceses) who oppose an innovation as a matter of principle can be described nevertheless as seeing that innovation as “still in reception” while those who support it are not so characterized, and so (one supposes) have “received” it (Diocesis X locuta, causa finita?) rather than “receiving” it. If one were to apply such terminology to one innovation, why not also (by a parity of reasoning) to another.
My impression (derived from some years of observation, and from some personal contact, in one case, as well) is that +Ackerman, +Iker and +Schofield do not view one of the innovations which I mentioned in my comment above as any more “receivable” (actually or potentially) than the other.
There; have I managed to stay on topic?
RE: “The money quote is the following:
…not ‘recruit’ from each others’ daily purpose, honoring the jurisdictional integrities of respective bishops.”
RobRoy — in all the muddle of the original statement, that’s the one I picked as well. The rest is sort of window dressing to get to the [i]real issue[/i] which is “we know that certain laypeople and clergy and parishes are very very unhappy in our dioceses — and we want you to commit to not allowing the unhappy people to form any ACNA churches in those dioceses, even though everyone who was going to leave has already left anyway.”
Then you couple that hope with “and you’re not cooperating or ‘honoring our commitments’ if you do allow it.”
The reverse has also been asserted by the “other side” which is: “everybody knows that we all need a new province constructed by us — that is the Grand Solution for which everyone is secretly longing — and if the Communion Partners doesn’t support the recognition of us in the Anglican Communion — that is, the thing we have brilliantly constructed — as the ‘new province’ then they’re not being charitable or ‘supporting us'”.
I hear it from both sides all the time.
Truth is — on the one side, people and clergy and parishes leave TEC in large part because they [i]hate and detest being in an organization that is led by such corrupt heretical leaders at the national level[/i]. So you’ve got orthodox bishops shocked and surprised when, despite a great diocese, people want to leave — those bishops and many clergy have never grasped the marketing challenge, which is that the brand has been so badly badly tainted for knowledgeable traditional laypeople and clergy that it’s incredibly difficult to get them to “look over here at the bright shiny red ball” when they can hardly keep their eyes off of the frankly Amazing Tawdry Spectacle of Gene Robinson and his turgid, florid prose at the non-open microphone.
I’ve compared it in the past to the Tylenol/cyanide issue of so many years ago. Had the company not done what it did — which was to take all the Tylenol off the shelves, take a huge hit financially, and institute cutting edge — at the time — safety efforts to prevent such a thing ever happening again — then the brand would have been absolutely demolished in the public eye, rather than merely taking a hard blow. Had Tylenol said “hey — we think the problem is just a localized one in these few states, carry on everyone” and not dealt with the issue then each state of the union, indeed each pharmacy, would have had to institute the same draconian measures as the corporation ought to have done, verifying that their particular Tylenol in their particular store was “safe and not poisoned.” And each pharmacy would have had to explain loudly to its customers just how different its Tylenol was from the national brand corporation’s Tylenol.
A diocese and parish have got to work especially and vigorously hard to construct a huge differentiation from that national church such that those in it will look out of the walls and say “wow — what a sick church we are in — thank God we are in this diocese led by this bishop and in my parish.”
The only diocese I can see out there that has done such a thing — and in a masterful way — is the Diocese of South Carolina. And it’s just frightfully hard to do all around.
So — the fact is that most dioceses, even Communion/Former Network dioceses — just aren’t going to be able to construct the edifice necessary to make [i]traditional people who are not congregationalists[/i] say “who cares about The Episcopal Church’s buffoonish and heretical leaders in the HOB, the HOD, the Executive Council, 815, and at other areas on the national level!”
And, that being the case, the only alternative is to try to convince other realities that are forming with alternate brands to commit to not allowing any unhappy laypeople, clergy, or parishes to form ACNA parishes.
I don’t think that commitment is going to happen, personally. So the fallback position will be “you’re not cooperating, honoring our commitments, or offering charitable acceptance.”
To again note the opposing side’s challenge — it wants to be a recognized Anglican Communion province, although certainly it will go on forming and organizing without that. But its leaders recognize full well that becoming recognized by the Anglican Communion as a whole as a province is a huge step towards establishing itself as a real viable long-term option.
On the other hand, it has finally dimly dawned on its leaders that many conservatives in TEC are not at all taken with the ACNA — its theology, its practices, its leaders, and numerous other issues — and that no matter what, the ACNA is not an option for those many conservatives, nor do those conservatives hope for acceptance of the ACNA as a new province since that would gum up the situation in the US even more than it already is, from an Anglican Communion perspective, leaving three different groupings.
Again, the cry goes up: “you’re not offering charitable acceptance and acknowledgement of our differing path if you don’t wish us to gain AC recognition!”
Both sides are defining “charitable acceptance” and “support of our differing path” as “you must help us accomplish what we want to accomplish in all respects and you must not do anything at all in your own path that might hinder ours.”
Both sides have for so long seemed to deny the oft-stated, nay even shouted, reality — on the one side that people are leaving because they are repelled by [i]the national TEC leaders and the brand that they have created[/i], and on the other that many conservatives will reject the CCP/ACNA wholeheartedly and completely as a non-option and [i]do not wish under any circumstances to move into the “solution” that those who left have created[/i] — that it is frankly impossible for me to imagine at this point that either side will suddenly “see the light” and recognize reality.
Just two days ago I literally read a Fort Worth priest’s comments saying “we are going to create the thing that all of you secretly really want but don’t have the guts to lead or create — stand back everyone and watch the courageous ones work” — and just a month ago I heard about yet another priest — this time in TEC — claiming that the departure of a parish “had nothing to do with theology or TEC but was solely about the personal issues.”
On both occasions, I smile.
Robroy #12,
“I thought the Communion Partners believed that most of those who were going to leave actually have already left?”
If the life is in the blood then the hemorrhaging may be over with the departure of perhaps the final diocese but the bleeding continues and eventually the patient may die. There is an inadequate transfusion via births and evangelism to offset deaths and departures.
Seitz-ACI #14,
“Would you say that the comments of Iker and Duncan are therefore cosmetic in character?” My response to this would be, “No” however I would address this question to Bps. Iker and Duncan. I believe their “yes” is a yes and “no” is a no. Do you believe their comments are cosmetic? I continue to pray that the turf and mistrust issues will diminish and the rhetoric will be dialed down.
“So we can become conflicted congregations engaged in lawsuits?”
Dear Dr. Radner,
It would seem to this old grannie, that by staying in TEC, one automatically becomes a “conflicted congregation” engaged in all manner of things.
Do you really believe that 815 will leave all of you alone? Are the dioceses who stay, still engaged in sending $’s to 815? So long as one is a member of a “minority” but continues to support the leaders, one is by definition an active member of a particular group, no matter what they say.
Like someone said, its not what one says, it what one does.
Gloria in SC
Amen Granny.
For those of us trapped in CP dioceses this means give up your hope of ever being unyoked from TEO. Stripped to its bones, the CP folks would force us in to remain in league with arguably one of the most evil and determined women in American history, a creature surrounded by an astounding collection of appallingly non Christian activists, who have brought down on the Body of Christ a catastrophe of singular virulence. No matter. They own the buildings, and thus the allegiance, of the ACI/CP.
We are to foreswear any attempt to cleanse our selves and our parishes of this wretched association so dithering old men can “craft” a covenant over the next decade or so, a futile exercise which will bring forth a vapid neo Congregationalist Statement Of Position More Or Less.
Lord have mercy.
There is a substantive degree of accuracy to Sarah’s description of dyanimcs at work here, alas. But the conclusion — a kind of, “well, there you are, what you going to do anyway?” — goes beyond the facts. There is the conflict and struggle that simply goes with the territory of being in the world (and having much of our own selves “of” the world at the same time). But there is also a more focused kind of agitation. I have been within congregations long enough to know the difference, and I have seen it come form all kinds of peoples and viewpoints and theological stances. It isn’t usually very constructive and ultimately edifying in a Christian way. And hence, there is a Christian calling and gift to deal with it. That is the issue, in part, that I think it important for traditional Anglicans in North America (and in th Communion) to sort out, resolve, and get beyond. It can be done, and we should pray and yearn for it to be done, in the power of Christ through His Spirit.
[i] Off topic comment deleted by elf. [/i]
I think that Sarah is spot on. Unfortunately the CP and the ACNA cannot but help hurt each other. The CP, by staying in, will help fund TEC’s perssecution of the orthodox. There is simply no way you can redirect funds so long as you pay one cent to your diocese and that diocese pays one cent to 815. This is a consequence of staying in. As an aside I question staying in an instution that you feel you cannot support with your money.
On the other hand those who leave deprive those who stay of the numerical ability to resist. Numbers count and as orthodox leave the field is left open to the revisionists thereby depriving the CP of the means of resistance.
Thus each side cannot help but consider that the position of the other side is inherently harmful to its position. Sarah recognizes this fact.
#20, Dr. Radner, I understand what you are saying about a “more focused kind of agitation.” In truth, we reasserters have been told since before 2003, but especially since 2003, to wait, pray, and let God sort this out. And that seems to be what you are saying … we are too much “of” instead of being just “in” the world. So what is the difference between what you are saying and what Sarah is saying. Seems to me, you both are saying the same … she’s saying there are these two forces at work within the reasserting movement (seemly trying to occupy the same space at the same time), that they may work against each other, it simply is what it is, and God will work it out in His time. And you are saying the two forces shouldn’t work against each other, let God sort it out. Not sure there is much difference for us pewsitters, but there may be a distinction.
RE: “There is simply no way you can redirect funds so long as you pay one cent to your diocese and that diocese pays one cent to 815. This is a consequence of staying in.”
Brother Michael thanks for the kind words. But as has been explained over and over and over — many of the CP dioceses do not pay “one cent” to 815, so that particular example is, I think, not at all a consequence of staying in.
[blockquote]”…the CP folks would force us in to remain in league with arguably one of the most evil and determined women in American history,..”[/blockquote]
No one can really force anyone to do anything unless of course you are chained or tied to a pew 24/7 and being tortured! You all have a mind to think with, a mouth to talk with, and feet to walk with…..it’s is your choice to exercise them in a right a fitting way that would best fit your personal future, your walk with God and your salvation. If you choose to stay and be subjected to the heresies, and empty theology, continue to fund law suits against other Christians, watch while men & women are being blessed in your church by your rector for their sinful living in a same sex manner, etc…etc…etc…that is your choice and you own it…..no one is forcing you to acquiesce to it. Please!!!!
Sarah, I know what they say, and I stand ready to be corrected, but how can they not pay any thing into their diocese? (I am fully aware of using designated fnds etc. and other subtrifuges. But money is fungable.) Does their diocese not pay anything into 815? And finally how can they and/or the diocese stay in TEC in good faith and not support it?
I have a tendancy to agree with Br. Michael on the issue of funds from the diocese to 815. If the diocese is not paying it’s assessments to 815 there has to be a consequence that they are paying, i.e their bishop and delegates cannot be seated at GC or something. If this is the case how can they be making any kind of difference where it would really count by not being able to be seated and vote at GC? Not too mention the threats that might be coming at the bishop from 815 to pay or be replaced…..not sure if they can do that but then again KJS has shown she can do anything she wants to and has carte blanche to redefine the Canons & Constitution of TEc to make enroads as she deems fit to do.
Perhaps I should have said the CP-ers need to realize that “We must decrease (or come up with a new strategy which, to this point, we have been entirely incapable of doing for even South Carolina is showing signs of peaking with decline to follow), and the ACNA [i]may[/i] increase.” Each day Gene Robinson gets to mug in front of more cameras is a disaster for the CP-ers and he seems very proficient at weaseling himself into the news. The bleeding of the orthodox remnant will continue as Dcn Dale points out (#17) and evangelization will become more and more problematic.
What I am against and I think that it is wrong for the CP-ers to ask for is a formalization which states, “The ACNA will keep out of CP dioceses.” Orthodox dioceses will ineluctably become revisionist. That is reality. Look at Florida. Look at San Diego. Texas is next, I predict. If there was such a formalization and Texas began SSU blessings in a couple of years, the laity would shut out. And again, there are already (pre-) ACNA presence in most of the CP dioceses. One can’t simply tell them to stop what they are doing which is evangelization as well as giving refuge to the Episcopalian diaspora.
That is not to say I don’t support (or support supporting) those that are trying to stay. My question would be, how can the ACNA-ers support the CP-ers [i]short[/i] of making an agreement against “border crossing.”
I don’t believe this is a zero sum game. Supposedly 93% of Americans aren’t in church on a given Sunday. The harvest is indeed plenty. I do believe the CP-ers are playing the rigged slot machines where the house take is exorbitant and they will eventually be broke. In contrast, the ACNA-ers are playing at the poker tables and they have some very skilled players.
P.S. Ephraim+, I am going to Haiti in two days to do surgeries and will give my regards to Father Max.
Dr. Radner writes in 13 “and CP’s future lies in maintaining the strength of its witness where it is, in numbers and evident missionary energies.” I wonder at what point does the cloud of TEC’s heresies prevent the faithful in TEC from having any witness at all. For example, when an TEC priest tells Oprah’s audience that being gay is a “gift from God” that he calls “good,” Episcopals of all persuasions are linked to this point of view along with the pluralism that goes with it. At some point, it does become next to impossible to maintain any Christian witness while being under the same umbrella as such leaders, especially when that is the point of view publicly proclaimed from the Episcopal rooftops. I would be interested to hear if there is a line that the Communion Partner leaders have in mind when any association with TEC prevents the witness of the faithful, so that leaving will be the only viable option in mission and witness.
I hope this letter means that the Communion Partners consider themselves allies of the Common Cause Partners and that they will support each other in their common mission as Christians.
I thought that was the point of this letter but after reading it again I began to have my doubts and I wonder if the Church is being influenced, by our culture, to follow a business model where employees are assigned to locations and groups according to the wishes of management in order to compete successfully.
Christians are not so easily managed and they will follow where Jesus leads, so regardless of recruiting policies, it seems to me that a better alternative would be to cooperate with fellow believers, (inside and outside of the church) who wish to be led by Apostles of Christ who proclaim the Faith as it has been handed down to us through Scripture.
RE: “but how can they not pay any thing into their diocese? . . . ”
Br Michael — this is what I said [ital added]: “many of the CP [i]dioceses[/i] do not pay “one cent†to 815, so that particular example is, I think, not at all a consequence of staying in.”
The dioceses, Br. Michael, give not one cent to the National Church. The diocese of South Carolina stands as a sterling example of this and has since I believe 2004. Throughout the past almost five years now, this has been [i]repeatedly, repeatedly[/i]discussed on blog after blog after blog, including this one.
Likewise, ODC, RE: “If the diocese is not paying it’s assessments to 815 there has to be a consequence that they are paying, i.e their bishop and delegates cannot be seated at GC or something.”
There are no, repeat [i]no[/i], canonical requirements to give money to 815. None. Zip. Nada.
Whole diocese give [i]nothing [/i] to 815 — and there are no consequences from the national church whatsoever.
This also has been repeatedly, openly, publicly, loudly discussed on this very blog for years now.
It’s saddening that now, almost five years later, people still don’t know how TEC works, and what dioceses have done to resist the authorities — even the most public and outspoken dioceses.
I guess it really doesn’t matter what dioceses communicate in writing over and over and over again — people who don’t want to hear it just won’t hear it.
I fully expect the exact same claims to be made again no later than one month from now on this very blog. I’m going to time it.
Finally, RE: ” . . . how can they and/or the diocese stay in TEC in good faith and not support it?”
Easily. The same way that people can stay in the AMA and not support it. Or the APA. Or the ABA. Or an alumni association of a college and not support it. Literally thousands of Americans are members of organizations that are under attack by the leaders who are progressive activists, and caving in to the culture wars, and not supporting those organizations.
I am left cold by this piece (and I’m really not sure what it is so I can only use the word “piece”). Communion Partners/ACI is essentially offering the orthodox faithful who will remain in most parts of TEC, outside of CP dioceses, a drop of good but very stale wine to mix with the spiritual hemlock they are being served daily. What else is there when they promise no effort that involves “strategies or tactics” that ensure that light reaches the dark places? And now with this piece, they are offering the Common Cause folks and those who want to join them a bit of trickle-down ecclesiastics. They will “acknowledge” certain remarks of ACNA bishops and “note with interest” the possibilities of the unclear thing that ACNA “proponents are proposing”, and condescend to accept a “promise of cooperation” where they will be “honored” and their undisclosed “daily purposes” will be treated as sacrosanct by those connected with CCP/ANCA. They “pledge prayers for all involved” in something at a Communion-wide level, but there is nothing that indicates that these prayers will actually be for the CCP/ANCA folks or for those fruitful ministries that have been going for many years in the ANCA constituent bodies. They are certainly not going to offer any encouragement. From my perspective as an old school Anglo-catholic, this is 1833 “high and dry party” stuff all over again. Please someone, explain to me how it’s something more – maybe, I pray, something will a little more nuance that I just don’t get and much less establishmentarianism.
I have commented extensively about my concerns with Communion Partners/ACI (maybe far too extensively) on previous threads, and had wrongly attributed Communion Partners/Covenant commentary about Common Cause to ACI (see on this blog ‘The Anglican Communion Institute: Patient Endurance – On Living Faithfully in a Time of Troubles’, posted Jan. 3, 2009). Now however, it is clear that my errant attribution was merely subconscious foresight. This piece is all about Communion Partners/ACI letting the upstarts know that they will continue to stand in place like good soldiers in front of Buckingham Palace, and that they better be treated just as if they were the Queen’s good and faithful Prince Phillip himself. They provide us with no patristic or Anglican tradition or scriptural text authorities to substantiate their positions, or even English Reformation or early church canonical authority (see 1928 BCP office for the consecration of bishops – “as the ancient canons command…” referencing the binding nature of the principles of the 1559 Act of Supremacy regarding the authority of ecumenical councils and other widely received councils) to justify what they are going to not do or to explain why they expect us to behave as they wish – they just expect that we will behave. I suppose it must be something like the Ritz-Carlton employee motto – “we are ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and gentlemen”.
I have to say, sadly, that the only comment on this thread that really hits the mark for me is from Dr. Tighe, a non-Anglican. I find his remarks a bit snooty and snarky, but what he writes demonstrates extremely well how the slippery slope is the only ground that the theologically orthodox in TEC stand/slide on. And even though I rarely agree with Sarah on any major issue, I must acknowledge my appreciation for her breakdown of what the lack of strategic thinking that is being offered will get us.
Again, and specifically to Rev. Seitz and Dr. Radner, why is it that Communion Partners/Covenant/ACI, as biblically-orthodox Anglicans, can function generally as a critic and not an ally of CCP/ACNA (Dr. Radner, I hope your recent analysis of the ACNA Constitution vis a vis the Draft Covenant signals changing attitudes on your side) while not addressing specific heresies being taught in TEC (clearly in contravention of Colossians 3 and Ephesians 4, among other NT passages), but hold CCP/ACNA to account for failing to uphold what is yet your undelineated pattern of the life of Our Lord when they are publicly gracious to those in your camp?
Correction –
Corrected last sentence of the first paragraph in #32 above –
“Please someone, explain to me how it’s something more – maybe, I pray, something with a little more nuance that I just don’t get and with much less establishmentarianism.”
Sorry
Sarah, I do know how TEC works. You name just one diocese. In addition many dioceses can reduce parishes to mission status if they don’t pay their assessment to the diocese and use that to collect. But if you say that some parishes and some dioceses can get away with it then I believe you. And if you say that all the CP parishes and dioceses are doing that then I stand corrected.
And, of course, the lay person always has the option of not paying one cent into their parish.
Yes, Br. Michael — I name just one diocese, because I do not have time to specifically go through the other former Network dioceses who do NOT pay to 815 and what their policies are — South Carolina was close to hand and I grabbed that one as an example. I know who they are — but I don’t have time to go make certain with their canonical/resolution changes at conventions so I chose not to name them. They’re out there, and the specifics have come across this very blog time and time again about a number of them.
RE: “In addition many dioceses can reduce parishes to mission status if they don’t pay their assessment to the diocese and use that to collect.”
You are right. What I said would only apply to those dioceses which allow such things which I believe are most of the old Network dioceses as well as even some dioceses which are not Network dioceses.
But we were talking about the Communion Partner dioceses and your assertion that they could not stay in TEC without financially supporting 815. They can. And I know that at least some of them do.
Thank you Sarah. I stand corrected. I really would like to see a list of those dioceses that do not pay anything to 815. But that’s just my curiosity. Of course if, as you say, some do support 815, they will take steps to stop.
One place to look for information on Diocesan commitments to TEC is “2007 Diocesan Covenant Commitments” at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2007DiocesanCovenantCommitments.pdf. This shows the domestic dioceses with zero commitments included in the 2007 budget to be Dallas, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy, San Joaquin and Springfield (a small amount is shown as received from Springfield notwithstanding). South Carolina is shown here as making a small but non-zero commitment. In general,the percentages of the commitments in relation to the 21% asking vary significantly among contributing dioceses.
Let’s see how long the organization (Schori & Co.) is going to let the diocese/s continue to NOT send money to 815.
I am taking bets. 1, 2, 3 years?
Fr. Kingsley+
Ephraim Radner writes (#13):
I take it that for CP, “where it is†means, or at least includes, not becoming canonically disentangled from TEC. If CP holds out that to be the status to be maintained, with no element of provisionality, I think the appeal of CP, in numbers and missionary energy, is going to be limited. My reasons for thinking this include some that are well stated by Dr. Radner (if I understand him correctly) in his [url=http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=262]“Truthful Language and Orderly Separation.â€[/url]
There, Radner maintains that
Further, he says,
If Radner is right here, and I believe that he is, it seems to me that an unqualified commitment to stay in TEC does not bode well. Radner proceeds in “Truthful Language and Orderly Separation†to cite +Michael Scott-Joynt’s belief that a negotiated ‘orderly separation’ is the best and most fruitful way forward for the Communion. With reluctance, Radner says,
In the final two paragraphs of “Truthful Language and Orderly Separation,†Dr. Radner considers whether the means by which an orderly separation might take place would be the Anglican Covenant and its process or some other means. In his address at the Mere Anglicanism conference, Dr. Stephen Noll expresses the view that “Truthful Language and Orderly Separation†“might form a basis for a convergence of the so-called ‘communion conservatives’ and ‘federal conservatives,’ represented today by the ‘Communion Partners’ and the ‘Common Cause Partners.’†This possibility occurred to me as well, but from reading the above entry and some of the comments I gather I am perhaps mistaken.
Nearly five years ago, ACI made a pre-Windsor Report Submission to the Lambeth Commission entitled “Communion and Discipline.†It discussed discipline that would be appropriate for TEC. On an element of timing, the ACI offered a suggestion that the 2008 Lambeth Conference be considered a terminus ad quem after which, if the discipline imposed failed to achieve its purpose of reconciliation, the Primates would request the Archbishop of Canterbury to initiate a process within the Church of England that would bring about a formal break in communion with TEC while other Primates would pursue a similar course of action. At the time, I remember many folks reeling at the thought of a process that would take so long. It is now months after Lambeth 2008 and there has not even been imposed the kind of effective discipline as was proposed in 2004 by ACI, much less a terminus ad quem signaling time for enforcement. The forces identified by Dr. Radner in his paper continue to have their destructive and cumulative effect, moving, it seems to me, in the direction of what Radner termed in the last paragraph of his paper “profound Christian incoherence.†For these reasons, I find it difficult to understand why CP does not seem to want to associate some elements of contingency with their emphasis on staying put.
[blockquote]Nearly five years ago, ACI made a pre-Windsor Report Submission to the Lambeth Commission entitled “Communion and Discipline.†It discussed discipline that would be appropriate for TEC. On an element of timing, the ACI offered a suggestion that the 2008 Lambeth Conference be considered a terminus ad quem after which, if the discipline imposed failed to achieve its purpose of reconciliation, the Primates would request the Archbishop of Canterbury to initiate a process within the Church of England that would bring about a formal break in communion with TEC while other Primates would pursue a similar course of action. At the time, I remember many folks reeling at the thought of a process that would take so long. It is now months after Lambeth 2008 and there has not even been imposed the kind of effective discipline as was proposed in 2004 by ACI, much less a terminus ad quem signaling time for enforcement.[/blockquote]
A well thought through and perceptive post Mike Watson.