Nice. Very helpful. It’s good to see ACNA’s commitment to good record keeping and transparency, and it’s nice to have an updated list of Provincial membership too. Thanks for posting this Kendall.
Very interesting. The African churches are much larger than anyone else. If we go with TEC’s ASA, which is a lot lower than its reported membership totals, the loss to ACNA goes from 5% to about 12.5%, and this will accelerate this year, if reports about possible changes at the General Convention are correct.
It would be nice to know whether all the bodies listed employ the same criteria for determining membership (since most are former Episcopal parishes one imagines they do but the report doesn’t say so). Developing a consistent – and statistically valid – method of record-keeping may be one of the more unglamorous tasks of the new era, but it ought to be done soon (and administered from one location).
On the same note, the new ACNA bodies should already be thinking about preserving existing records and archiving future ones. Here in Pittsburgh, very little time or money has been devoted to record-keeping (though we’re fortunate in having a paid diocesan archivist, she still has to work with an organization that doesn’t devote much time to thinking about preservation). It’s going to be very difficult for someone to write a successor volume to the one I’ve just completed without a commitment to documenting the past (instead of a prevailing attitude that archives are an unfortunate necessity or even an optional extra).
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
One thought came to mind as I was reading about the different American groups currently under the jurisdiction of various members of the Communion. My understanding is that currently most of the American groups have membership in the Anglican Communion through their links to these various Communion members providing alternative oversight. ACNA does not have, nor (according to the Primates’ Communique), is it likely soon to become a member of the Communion.
Since I’m not in the US it is hard to determine what exactly is happening on the ground floor. Does it seem that most Americans in these individuals groups are going to wait to see what happens with ACNA and its membership with the Communion before joining it? Or are people going to join ACNA, give up their membership in the Communion (at least temporarily) by letting go of their ties to it through the current groups they are in and try to build ACNA up while awaiting membership?
IMNSHO, membership in the revisionism tainted/damaged/slanted/diseased Western Anglican Communion is not important to those in ACNA. Membership in that particular historic, classic, mission oriented, Jesus-led, Holy Spirit-driven Anglican expression of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church is what ACNA membership is all about.
The churches in the ACNA have retained their Anglican ties – they are under bishops which are bishops in those African (and other) provinces, who are in turn under the authority of the archbishops of those provinces. In other words, to date, ACNA churches are Anglican, in the sense of being under Anglican bishops. I believe this was confirmed at Alexandria. It is ACNA as a separate province that is not yet recognized. It is still a “province-in-formation”, as the Windsor Continuation Group Report refers to it. Thus, the ACNA churches have left TEC, but not the Anglican Communion. For canonical purposes, TEC does not consider itself in communion with Nigeria, Uganda, et al, which is why it deposes TEC priests and bishops going to ACNA for abandonment of communion.
#6 I’m not worried about the ‘Western AC;’ there isn’t such a thing. There is simply the AC. One can claim to express Anglicanism, that does not necessarily indicate actual membership and that is the question I am asking.
#7 Thank you so much for the clarification. Just one more point to clarify. So currently then, Churches that are members of ACNA are also still members of their particular group i.e. AMiA? A second question I guess as well. If one were to want to leave TEC but remain within the Communion, they would need to join one of these other groups, i.e. AMiA which would also then give them access to ACNA? Thanks again.
#8
Ref the “Western AC” vs some other “AC,” I agree with you. There is only one Anglican Communion.
I believe your response to #7 is correct. I guess the real question is, when will the individual groupings cease (REC, AMIA, Uganda-linked, etc) and a genuine church, the Anglican Church in North America, come into being? I’m assuming at the point where it is recognized by the Anglican Communion, unless the powers that be decide that’s no longer important and give up on the communion entirely, which would be tragic, in my opinion.
The western segment of the AC does exist and is the reason for Kolini, Orombi, Akinola, and even Duncan and Minns et al speaking eloquently of western revisionism being a disease that must be healed.
What you are advocating is two mutually exclusive religions living under one roof.
Institutionally, I must grant that there is only one AC headed by the heavily revisionist west. But [b]institutionalism is NOT what the gates of hell will not prevail against[/b].
Reports of the growing strength of evangelicals and evangelically trained priests within the CofE is the first glimmer of hope that I have heard of from this year’s Synod. That being the case, there is hope for the AC as a body. this must be causing some dismay to the revisionists in England and the revisionist leadership in TEC. I believe that evan as the ACNA grows and matures, the individual components will continue to maintain their connections to the varies provinces that support them, thus maintaining their membership within the AC.
I can only see the numbers within the ACNA to show continuing growth which will do nothing but strengthen its position within the communion.
Thanks for the table, Kendall.
#9
Yes, this is exactly my question. The trouble is, that it would appear, according to the Primates’ Communique, that the Communion is a long way from accepting ACNA as a new province/parallel jurisdiction. They cite complications in practical matters of structure and associated concerns with how parallel jurisdictions have played out in the past (Sri Lanka), and fundamental theological and ecclesiological concerns about the formation, existence and membership of such a structure as reasons that it will likely take a long time to figure out how best to move forward with such an entity.
So the question becomes, how do those who are waiting proceed knowing that their hopes for ACNA’s entrance to the Communion may take 10-20 years, if in fact it does happen at all? This requires answering basic questions like how old are most of the people who are trying to build ACNA going to be at that time? Will there be enough energy and momentum from a ‘next generation’ to continue with their vigor when most of them haven’t grown up with the years and years of frustration with TEC? Where does one focus one’s efforts given the ‘split nature’ of one’s membership (i.e. in both one of the groups and in ACNA); is the focus on building the group of which one is a member, or on building ACNA. In the former, more time could be spent on proclaiming the gospel because there is already an established structure in which to do that; in the latter, a lot of time is going to need to be spent internally dealing with issues of developing structure, governance, vision, mitigating challenges to any new entities development. Again, this ties back into who is going to have the time, energy and money to do this.
It is really vital that we proclaim the gospel as it has been received, which quite obviously stands in contrast to what is going on within TEC and the ACoC. That is our goal no doubt; it is our calling. But we can be continually moving toward that goal in different ways. Forgive me for the analogy but I am a rock climber (boulderer) and this struck me as I was thinking about a problem (how to get to the top of a particular rock). I could get to the top of the rock by putting a latter up, by taking an easy route, by anchoring a rope off the top. But in fact there is a fitting way of proceeding to climb the rock given the purpose set before climbers. The true way of proceeding then, is not simply to get to the goal by whatever means possible; but rather to proceed with patience, endurance, perseverance, along the route that fits the purpose set before a given climber. Depending upon how tall, muscular, dynamic, etc you are, the exact route will not be uniform, but it will maintain a common path. So too with our Church. We are to proclaim the gospel to all nations. But there is a fitting way of doing this that bears good fruit according to the purpose set before us by God. I just hope that as we proceed, we will think about how our actions are viewed by a world (particularly in North America) that does not yet know God but watches us as a sign of who he is.
#12…. I can only speak as a lay person, but the points you bring up seem to be important to some of the clergy I have spoken with (many of whom are still in TEC), but they are non-essential to the laity I know that have either left, are leaving, are thinking about leaving. Their goal is to get themselves and their children (I am in my 40’s with two children) out from under the “intolerable burden” of the apostacy of TEC. Staying in, even under an orthodox priest, still gives your children the message that it’s ok to be part of the diseased doctrine of the church. I use the word “church” with a small letter c when I refer to TEC. It is not the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ….and being a “member” of the AC church, which itself is a mess, is not a goal for almost everyone I know. Being part of the Body of Christ is. Millions of orthodox AC members have declared themselves to be out of communion with TEC. Those millions, through the GAFCON/Global South Bishops ARE in communion with ACNA in that they will take Communion with them, and recognize them as believers. As far as TEC goers, they still hold their AC membership card, but as millions of other Anglicans members are publically “out of communion” with them, so how meaningful is the “membership?” To paraphrase Groucho Marx, “I don’t want to be a member of any club that would have [TEC] for a member.”
#14 I do understand your frustration and I share it entirely. One of the things about the Church though, is that it has always had ‘unorthodox’ groups within it; what we experience with TEC is not a new thing. Practical questions of formation aside, the question becomes what path is most fruitful (not for our own preservation, God takes care of that), but for our overall witness to the world. One of the challenges of post-Reformation (even beginning preReformation) is that we have lost a sense of God’s providence (God’s work in conforming the world to himself through time). In losing this sense of His providence, we have taken it upon ourselves to resolve the issues before us through political means. This has often resulted in Churches splitting from one another most often because they believe one group has fallen into great error. But is this really the path God asks us to walk? Christ’s witness to the world alone would tell us that this is not so, let alone the various witnesses from within Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures.
I think that staying within an apostate Church and proclaiming the gospel as it has been handed down to us might seem an intolerable burden; but no moreso than what any of the OT figures were called to do in an apostate Israel, than what Christ was called to do in an apostate world, than what Peter was called to do, etc. This is what it means to carry our crosses. This is the life that has been set out for us as Christians and we are often called to go where we do not wish to go, including to witness from within what we believe to be intolerable circumstances. This is what it means to have faith in God’s providential ordering of the world; to not rely upon our own will and our own means of political wrangling; but to say here I am God, I am not seeking my own comfort, I give my life to you so that you can work through me to gather your people.
The challenge I see ahead with the way things are proceeding are practical, but they have larger theological implications. As the Church continues to fracture, it becomes increasingly less convincing of its proclamation of the gospel. To be quite honest, most of my friends (30 and under) don’t think of the Anglican Church as a viable option not because of their theology (and I’m talking about conservative, people generally with an evangelical background), but because it is populated by (and I am quoting here these are not my words) “old Curmudgeonly people who would rather fight with one another over table scraps than preach the gospel of Christ.” I say this not from my own heart because this is not what I believe at all and I make attempts to correct my friends who say this. However, this is the perception that at least several younger Christians who pay attention to what is going on, have of the AC (but to be quite honest, most younger Christians don’t pay any attention to what is going on). And this is why I bring up the practical concerns about how ACNA goes forward. You might leave because it is unsustainable, but who is going to follow in your footsteps? Why not teach your children to stand from within the corrupted Episcopal Church around them? They are going to find that the whole world is full of corruption and impurity; what a great opportunity to teach them how to be faithful stewards of God’s Word.
[i]Why not teach your children to stand from within the corrupted Episcopal Church around them? They are going to find that the whole world is full of corruption and impurity; what a great opportunity to teach them how to be faithful stewards of God’s Word. [/i]
We have been that route…..Left a “moderate” (read liberal) TEC parish and moved to the only orthodox TEC parish left in our area, that had not pulled out. I even served on the Vestry of that church. There is a great deal of “talk” about being that gospel witness, but we have seen no fruit….just clergy who are wanting to be less and less and less involved in the church’s (TEC’s) heresies. They, too, say the church has “always had this.” As far as my children, they are way to young to not get really nourishing spiritual food….they will not grow to be really healthy if their diet is supplemented by junk. If we lived in a neighborhood that little by little became a drug infested, violent place to be, I would stay and be a voice as long as I could…praying to make a difference. If, however, that was completely brushed aside, and there was no opening for it, I would get us out of there and to a safe place. That is the same way I see the situation with TEC. If we go to ACNA, yes, there will be disagreements, and concerns over what should be and what should not be…. (WO, etc.)….but the basics are solid, and I can’t say that for TEC.
#17 I understand. I do hope the best for you and will keep you and those who are heading this route in my prayers. This will be a tough one on all accounts. Thanks for your insight as well … it helps to have an understanding of what is going on in all corners of the Communion from laity, priests, bishops, primates etc. God Bless.
There was a similar discussion over at Chris Johnson’s. Dr. Tighe had this to say about “staying and providing witness”:
[blockquote] Wherever, in terms of historical Christianity, does the very notion that one can have a “call†to remain in an heretical and apostate denomination, and that others should “respect†such a “call†come from? I know of no “orthodox Christian†that declared a “calling†to remain among the Arians, the Donatists, any of the Gnostic sects, the Marcionites, the Montanists or any of the organized heretical groups or counter-churches of the early centuries.[/blockquote]
The whole response is [url=http://themcj.com/?p=2750 ]here[/url]. (See the fourth comment.)
The number in the origional article is a few short. I consider myself and my family “Anglican” but there is no congregation within 100 miles of my location.
Optimus, here’s a rehash of my initial response to the Alexandria communique, which might shed light on how some of us ACNA laity frame it…
I’m not terribly surprised [by the tepid statement re: ACNA], and I don’t particularly care much. My hunch is that this is just another signpost along the way of the institutional decline of the Anglican Communion. It could have been different, it may yet turn around, but each meeting makes that less likely.
HOWEVER… what really changes for those of us in ACNA? We can continue to coalesce, and we will certainly have mission partners throughout the institutional Anglican Communion, even though we may not be recognized as officially “Anglicans†ourselves. So be it. The Kingdom is advancing forcefully, and neither the gates of hell nor the ACO will prevail against it.
Sure, it would be great to have a little enthusiastic support from the ABC and the Primates as a whole. But that’s not the source of our hope, and it’s not the heart of our mission.
Years ago, I had a rector who when in a dilemma, was fond of saying “When in doubt, I go with those who want more of Jesus.†Sad that the AC as an institution doesn’t consider that praxis.
In other words, while we value the institutional AC, we recognize that it’s not synonymous with “the Kingdom”. And while there may be an official “Anglican Communion”, it can not control who is in koinonia with whom.
Since then, I have learned that the various Common Cause partners will be affected in different ways, but the overarching vision is that the constituents will gradually be subsumed into the ACNA, sort of a melting pot approach. AMiA and REC, for example, will be fully ACNA, but will also be able to continue with most or all of their current polity; they may carry dual identity for a time. It still sounds fuzzy, and the leadership seems to acknowledge that mutual trust among the constituents is a critical factor, more so than structural clarity.
At this point, we seem to be witnessing a coalscing rather than a further splintering, which is remarkable in itself.
#19 as stated above, the prophets of Israel and Christ would be my first stop for those who stayed in communion with heretics. The Church, up through the Reformation would be my second stop, as arguments from individuals such as Augustine would support.
But Dr. Tighe is correct, post-Reformation, it has not at all been characteristic of anyone to stay in the same denomination as ‘heretics,’ hence the thousands of denominations we have. Unfortunately I think that this has contributed to the individualism and indifference that has infiltrated the Church. New denominations have very often been formed in pursuit of greater truth or a better way of living the truth … and maybe they do have a greater truth … but we’ve got thousands of denominations so who is it whose got ‘enough’ truth for us to live in? How much time should we spend trying to discern that? How much time and energy does that take away from serving God where we are? See these are all questions that point us to individualism that often results in autonomous action. If you’ve got some time (not too much I promise!), there is a really interesting and short piece you might look at that deals with this very idea of pursuing truth by a 15th century theologian called Nicholas of Cusa. The work is “A Letter to the Bohemians” and you can find it in the book “Writings on Church and Reform” by Thomas Izbicki (the whole book is awesome actually and if you’ve got the time or interest it is well worth the read given some of its parallels to our current ecclesial situation).
Because of course the next question to ask is, how does continued division look to the world outside the Church? The problem is that our divisions obscure witness to the gospel because what people end up seeing is our very human political action with everyone claiming that they’re doing God’s work. When I was planting a church this summer, I was talking to a lot of people who had various denominational backgrounds. We talked quite a bit about why people didn’t go to church and the most common answer I got back was, “I’m a good person, I treat others as I would expect to be treated and that is more than I can say for x church I belonged to. I can read Scripture too, why would I need a church to tell me what to do … every church says something different anyway.” Our own divisions are in great part responsible for people’s indifference to the Church and for atheism in general.
Finally, there was most certainly a kind of division in the Church prior to the Reformation. There was no such thing as uniformity, there were divisions due to liturgical practice, theological understanding. I would go so far as to say that limited division is absolutely necessary for the reform of the Church and so is intrinsic to God’s plan for his people. Have a look at Genesis or Leviticus to see this division and distinctiveness play out. The key however, is that if division (and diversity) is to be a mechanism of reform, it must be contained within an ‘arena’ that provides limits that are set by the common discernment of the Church (obviously broken by TEC but this doesn’t mean we should continue down that path). This is what the Church prior to the Reformation understood. And they understood it because their political and Scriptural discernment were founded on an understanding of God’s providential ordering of history. This is what conciliarists such as Nicholas of Cusa were attempting to argue as the Hussites began to make the same argument as both conservatives and liberal make today prior to breaking away from a given body. As I said above, post-Reformation we lost an understanding of God’s providential ordering of the world. We seek to replace his providence with our own political response that refuses to engage in patient waiting on God’s quickening.
We live with the reality of ecclesial division; thus we obviously cannot simply apply Church models of the past to the present. But there are key elements from the past that we must transpose into the present if we are going to move in fruitful directions as a Church. I would argue that the first thing we need to ask ourselves is what does it mean to live in a world which is providentially ordered by God? What does that imply about truth and our pursuit of it? Because the answer to these questions make us answer the question of how we live faithfully in a different way than we often seem to think in our post-modern world. The truth is God’s and it will prevail regardless of our efforts and our failures. Given that reality, we can allow ourselves to rely on God’s grace in whatever ‘impossible circumstance’ we find ourselves. Then we can ask, even in seemingly impossible human circumstance, how can God use us where we are and how do I open myself to receiving his grace so I can proclaim it to the world?
Thanks very much for this. I do hope it is moving toward a coalescing; it is really important that the group not splinter (at least IMHO). It sounds promising that things are moving in the direction of establishing mutual trust rather than simply structural forms; of course having these in place is vital, but more critical and foundational must be trust. Again, I hope and pray for those taking this step, that it might be fruitful. This is going to be a challenging next several decades I think. God bless your time and efforts.
I just wanted to thank everyone here very much for their feedback and insights. It is our ‘spring break’ so I am off to go snowboarding … come on snowstorm! Don’t know if I’ll be able to get online anytime soon but wanted to make sure I thanked everyone who contributed to the discussion.
A comment on the New Zealand numbers:
The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia – 584,793 (AC website)
This number is the the number of people who said Anglican in the census. As the Anglican church has a big historical overhang — ie many people who have a historic background but never darken the doors even at easter and Christmas, I would have thought that was a very spurious number to be using — even more so than the membership number of the TEC.
My best guess is that the actual ASA for the Anglican Church in New Zealand is somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 and probably at the lower end of that range. With the approximately 1/3 attendance to membership ratio that probably applies it would mean a membership of about 100,000.
Hey Rob Roy — I dunno. I found it fairly easy to respond to.
RE: ” . . . and that others should “respect†such a “call†. . . ”
I have no need for anyone to “respect” what I’m doing. I’m indifferent to whether people “respect” it or not. In fact, were some people I can think of to “respect” what I was doing, I’d be nervous and concerned. ; > )
RE: ” . . . remain among the Arians, the Donatists, any of the Gnostic sects, the Marcionites, the Montanists . . . ”
All of whom are mathematically congruent to — no more and no less — with a heretical idea. But members of TEC are not mathematically congruent to a heretical idea, much as some desire that to be believed or thought true.
To be “an Arian” is to be heretical personally. Protestants don’t believe that to be a member of TEC is also to be heretical personally. Others may. But that’s not Protestant theology.
So a couple of other questions came to mind that I wanted to ask folks here. So as I understand the history and ecclesiology of Anglicanism, maintaining a Communion polity requires common decision-making, common teaching and common actions. This was obviously broken by TEC and the ACoC which has caused groups of conservatives (those forming the ACNA group I guess) to seek alternative oversight and ultimately to seek a parallel province I suppose.
So question 1: what will you do if ACNA doesn’t obtain recognition as a member of the Communion?
Question 2: Why do you wish to remain Anglican vs going to another Church or denomination that already has a federal, confessional, or Catholic polity? (I ask this question because many of the arguments I have seen people make would fit really well with the arguments for polity made by various other Churches, so I’ve wondered why people don’t just go to those Churches? Ties to something, family, friends, etc). It does seem by a lot of comments here that people believe the Communion a lost cause. So why stick around and worry about it when there are options that would fit one’s theological convictions better and one could have their children better educated theologically and biblically and could have their own sense of ‘othodoxy’ put at ease?
3. I’ve thought many times as I’ve struggled to figure out my calling and battled to determine how I could faithfully serve in the Anglican Church given its Communion polity whether the Communion polity is tenable. But as I’ve read the last 500 years of history, its pretty evident that groups that push beyond a given limit to attempt reform ultimately end up leaving a Church and then end up dividing again and again. Since Anglicanism in North America has such a small number of people to begin with, and since those pushing for the new province are my parents’ and grandparents’ age I’ve really wondered whether there will be much left of a ‘renewal effort’ in 20 years. Sure, in the past there were big groups that formed from Anglicanism like the Methodists, but that split occurred when there were still a lot of people attending churches; that is not a historical reality that we live in anymore so using that as a model for present won’t work. So finally I thought, well that sort of leaves two choices given that I’m more inclined toward Catholic ecclesiology than Protestant ecclesiology: 1. stay where I am, or 2. go to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. But as I’ve read Scripture and Church history it has become evident that me attempting to define where I should serve seems like I’m trying to ‘build the Church with my own hands’ rather than accepting my place in God’s providential ordering of history and asking for wisdom and strength to serve where I am. So that is how I’ve gotten to the place I’m at in discernment (oh that and realizing that the problems within the EO and RCC are just as bad as those in Anglicanism); but I wonder how others have discerned their place using Scripture and history, to discern their place under God’s providence? Thanks again.
Nice. Very helpful. It’s good to see ACNA’s commitment to good record keeping and transparency, and it’s nice to have an updated list of Provincial membership too. Thanks for posting this Kendall.
Very interesting. The African churches are much larger than anyone else. If we go with TEC’s ASA, which is a lot lower than its reported membership totals, the loss to ACNA goes from 5% to about 12.5%, and this will accelerate this year, if reports about possible changes at the General Convention are correct.
It would be nice to know whether all the bodies listed employ the same criteria for determining membership (since most are former Episcopal parishes one imagines they do but the report doesn’t say so). Developing a consistent – and statistically valid – method of record-keeping may be one of the more unglamorous tasks of the new era, but it ought to be done soon (and administered from one location).
On the same note, the new ACNA bodies should already be thinking about preserving existing records and archiving future ones. Here in Pittsburgh, very little time or money has been devoted to record-keeping (though we’re fortunate in having a paid diocesan archivist, she still has to work with an organization that doesn’t devote much time to thinking about preservation). It’s going to be very difficult for someone to write a successor volume to the one I’ve just completed without a commitment to documenting the past (instead of a prevailing attitude that archives are an unfortunate necessity or even an optional extra).
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
One thought came to mind as I was reading about the different American groups currently under the jurisdiction of various members of the Communion. My understanding is that currently most of the American groups have membership in the Anglican Communion through their links to these various Communion members providing alternative oversight. ACNA does not have, nor (according to the Primates’ Communique), is it likely soon to become a member of the Communion.
Since I’m not in the US it is hard to determine what exactly is happening on the ground floor. Does it seem that most Americans in these individuals groups are going to wait to see what happens with ACNA and its membership with the Communion before joining it? Or are people going to join ACNA, give up their membership in the Communion (at least temporarily) by letting go of their ties to it through the current groups they are in and try to build ACNA up while awaiting membership?
Good question Optimus Prime. I’ve heard and read lots of discussion about this, but am still not clear on this point.
optimus prime (#4),
IMNSHO, membership in the revisionism tainted/damaged/slanted/diseased Western Anglican Communion is not important to those in ACNA. Membership in that particular historic, classic, mission oriented, Jesus-led, Holy Spirit-driven Anglican expression of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church is what ACNA membership is all about.
The churches in the ACNA have retained their Anglican ties – they are under bishops which are bishops in those African (and other) provinces, who are in turn under the authority of the archbishops of those provinces. In other words, to date, ACNA churches are Anglican, in the sense of being under Anglican bishops. I believe this was confirmed at Alexandria. It is ACNA as a separate province that is not yet recognized. It is still a “province-in-formation”, as the Windsor Continuation Group Report refers to it. Thus, the ACNA churches have left TEC, but not the Anglican Communion. For canonical purposes, TEC does not consider itself in communion with Nigeria, Uganda, et al, which is why it deposes TEC priests and bishops going to ACNA for abandonment of communion.
#6 I’m not worried about the ‘Western AC;’ there isn’t such a thing. There is simply the AC. One can claim to express Anglicanism, that does not necessarily indicate actual membership and that is the question I am asking.
#7 Thank you so much for the clarification. Just one more point to clarify. So currently then, Churches that are members of ACNA are also still members of their particular group i.e. AMiA? A second question I guess as well. If one were to want to leave TEC but remain within the Communion, they would need to join one of these other groups, i.e. AMiA which would also then give them access to ACNA? Thanks again.
#8
Ref the “Western AC” vs some other “AC,” I agree with you. There is only one Anglican Communion.
I believe your response to #7 is correct. I guess the real question is, when will the individual groupings cease (REC, AMIA, Uganda-linked, etc) and a genuine church, the Anglican Church in North America, come into being? I’m assuming at the point where it is recognized by the Anglican Communion, unless the powers that be decide that’s no longer important and give up on the communion entirely, which would be tragic, in my opinion.
8 & 9,
A few brief observations:
The western segment of the AC does exist and is the reason for Kolini, Orombi, Akinola, and even Duncan and Minns et al speaking eloquently of western revisionism being a disease that must be healed.
What you are advocating is two mutually exclusive religions living under one roof.
Institutionally, I must grant that there is only one AC headed by the heavily revisionist west. But [b]institutionalism is NOT what the gates of hell will not prevail against[/b].
Reports of the growing strength of evangelicals and evangelically trained priests within the CofE is the first glimmer of hope that I have heard of from this year’s Synod. That being the case, there is hope for the AC as a body. this must be causing some dismay to the revisionists in England and the revisionist leadership in TEC. I believe that evan as the ACNA grows and matures, the individual components will continue to maintain their connections to the varies provinces that support them, thus maintaining their membership within the AC.
I can only see the numbers within the ACNA to show continuing growth which will do nothing but strengthen its position within the communion.
Thanks for the table, Kendall.
#9
Yes, this is exactly my question. The trouble is, that it would appear, according to the Primates’ Communique, that the Communion is a long way from accepting ACNA as a new province/parallel jurisdiction. They cite complications in practical matters of structure and associated concerns with how parallel jurisdictions have played out in the past (Sri Lanka), and fundamental theological and ecclesiological concerns about the formation, existence and membership of such a structure as reasons that it will likely take a long time to figure out how best to move forward with such an entity.
So the question becomes, how do those who are waiting proceed knowing that their hopes for ACNA’s entrance to the Communion may take 10-20 years, if in fact it does happen at all? This requires answering basic questions like how old are most of the people who are trying to build ACNA going to be at that time? Will there be enough energy and momentum from a ‘next generation’ to continue with their vigor when most of them haven’t grown up with the years and years of frustration with TEC? Where does one focus one’s efforts given the ‘split nature’ of one’s membership (i.e. in both one of the groups and in ACNA); is the focus on building the group of which one is a member, or on building ACNA. In the former, more time could be spent on proclaiming the gospel because there is already an established structure in which to do that; in the latter, a lot of time is going to need to be spent internally dealing with issues of developing structure, governance, vision, mitigating challenges to any new entities development. Again, this ties back into who is going to have the time, energy and money to do this.
It is really vital that we proclaim the gospel as it has been received, which quite obviously stands in contrast to what is going on within TEC and the ACoC. That is our goal no doubt; it is our calling. But we can be continually moving toward that goal in different ways. Forgive me for the analogy but I am a rock climber (boulderer) and this struck me as I was thinking about a problem (how to get to the top of a particular rock). I could get to the top of the rock by putting a latter up, by taking an easy route, by anchoring a rope off the top. But in fact there is a fitting way of proceeding to climb the rock given the purpose set before climbers. The true way of proceeding then, is not simply to get to the goal by whatever means possible; but rather to proceed with patience, endurance, perseverance, along the route that fits the purpose set before a given climber. Depending upon how tall, muscular, dynamic, etc you are, the exact route will not be uniform, but it will maintain a common path. So too with our Church. We are to proclaim the gospel to all nations. But there is a fitting way of doing this that bears good fruit according to the purpose set before us by God. I just hope that as we proceed, we will think about how our actions are viewed by a world (particularly in North America) that does not yet know God but watches us as a sign of who he is.
Bill C,
Re: the newly trained priests … this is excellent! Where are they being trained?
#12…. I can only speak as a lay person, but the points you bring up seem to be important to some of the clergy I have spoken with (many of whom are still in TEC), but they are non-essential to the laity I know that have either left, are leaving, are thinking about leaving. Their goal is to get themselves and their children (I am in my 40’s with two children) out from under the “intolerable burden” of the apostacy of TEC. Staying in, even under an orthodox priest, still gives your children the message that it’s ok to be part of the diseased doctrine of the church. I use the word “church” with a small letter c when I refer to TEC. It is not the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ….and being a “member” of the AC church, which itself is a mess, is not a goal for almost everyone I know. Being part of the Body of Christ is. Millions of orthodox AC members have declared themselves to be out of communion with TEC. Those millions, through the GAFCON/Global South Bishops ARE in communion with ACNA in that they will take Communion with them, and recognize them as believers. As far as TEC goers, they still hold their AC membership card, but as millions of other Anglicans members are publically “out of communion” with them, so how meaningful is the “membership?” To paraphrase Groucho Marx, “I don’t want to be a member of any club that would have [TEC] for a member.”
That should be “TEC goes” not “goers” in the second to last sentence. Sorry….
#14 I do understand your frustration and I share it entirely. One of the things about the Church though, is that it has always had ‘unorthodox’ groups within it; what we experience with TEC is not a new thing. Practical questions of formation aside, the question becomes what path is most fruitful (not for our own preservation, God takes care of that), but for our overall witness to the world. One of the challenges of post-Reformation (even beginning preReformation) is that we have lost a sense of God’s providence (God’s work in conforming the world to himself through time). In losing this sense of His providence, we have taken it upon ourselves to resolve the issues before us through political means. This has often resulted in Churches splitting from one another most often because they believe one group has fallen into great error. But is this really the path God asks us to walk? Christ’s witness to the world alone would tell us that this is not so, let alone the various witnesses from within Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures.
I think that staying within an apostate Church and proclaiming the gospel as it has been handed down to us might seem an intolerable burden; but no moreso than what any of the OT figures were called to do in an apostate Israel, than what Christ was called to do in an apostate world, than what Peter was called to do, etc. This is what it means to carry our crosses. This is the life that has been set out for us as Christians and we are often called to go where we do not wish to go, including to witness from within what we believe to be intolerable circumstances. This is what it means to have faith in God’s providential ordering of the world; to not rely upon our own will and our own means of political wrangling; but to say here I am God, I am not seeking my own comfort, I give my life to you so that you can work through me to gather your people.
The challenge I see ahead with the way things are proceeding are practical, but they have larger theological implications. As the Church continues to fracture, it becomes increasingly less convincing of its proclamation of the gospel. To be quite honest, most of my friends (30 and under) don’t think of the Anglican Church as a viable option not because of their theology (and I’m talking about conservative, people generally with an evangelical background), but because it is populated by (and I am quoting here these are not my words) “old Curmudgeonly people who would rather fight with one another over table scraps than preach the gospel of Christ.” I say this not from my own heart because this is not what I believe at all and I make attempts to correct my friends who say this. However, this is the perception that at least several younger Christians who pay attention to what is going on, have of the AC (but to be quite honest, most younger Christians don’t pay any attention to what is going on). And this is why I bring up the practical concerns about how ACNA goes forward. You might leave because it is unsustainable, but who is going to follow in your footsteps? Why not teach your children to stand from within the corrupted Episcopal Church around them? They are going to find that the whole world is full of corruption and impurity; what a great opportunity to teach them how to be faithful stewards of God’s Word.
[i]Why not teach your children to stand from within the corrupted Episcopal Church around them? They are going to find that the whole world is full of corruption and impurity; what a great opportunity to teach them how to be faithful stewards of God’s Word. [/i]
We have been that route…..Left a “moderate” (read liberal) TEC parish and moved to the only orthodox TEC parish left in our area, that had not pulled out. I even served on the Vestry of that church. There is a great deal of “talk” about being that gospel witness, but we have seen no fruit….just clergy who are wanting to be less and less and less involved in the church’s (TEC’s) heresies. They, too, say the church has “always had this.” As far as my children, they are way to young to not get really nourishing spiritual food….they will not grow to be really healthy if their diet is supplemented by junk. If we lived in a neighborhood that little by little became a drug infested, violent place to be, I would stay and be a voice as long as I could…praying to make a difference. If, however, that was completely brushed aside, and there was no opening for it, I would get us out of there and to a safe place. That is the same way I see the situation with TEC. If we go to ACNA, yes, there will be disagreements, and concerns over what should be and what should not be…. (WO, etc.)….but the basics are solid, and I can’t say that for TEC.
Enjoyed reading this thread! Thanks, all!
#17 I understand. I do hope the best for you and will keep you and those who are heading this route in my prayers. This will be a tough one on all accounts. Thanks for your insight as well … it helps to have an understanding of what is going on in all corners of the Communion from laity, priests, bishops, primates etc. God Bless.
Throwing this out for thought to optimus prime:
There was a similar discussion over at Chris Johnson’s. Dr. Tighe had this to say about “staying and providing witness”:
[blockquote] Wherever, in terms of historical Christianity, does the very notion that one can have a “call†to remain in an heretical and apostate denomination, and that others should “respect†such a “call†come from? I know of no “orthodox Christian†that declared a “calling†to remain among the Arians, the Donatists, any of the Gnostic sects, the Marcionites, the Montanists or any of the organized heretical groups or counter-churches of the early centuries.[/blockquote]
The whole response is [url=http://themcj.com/?p=2750 ]here[/url]. (See the fourth comment.)
The number in the origional article is a few short. I consider myself and my family “Anglican” but there is no congregation within 100 miles of my location.
Don
Optimus, here’s a rehash of my initial response to the Alexandria communique, which might shed light on how some of us ACNA laity frame it…
In other words, while we value the institutional AC, we recognize that it’s not synonymous with “the Kingdom”. And while there may be an official “Anglican Communion”, it can not control who is in koinonia with whom.
Since then, I have learned that the various Common Cause partners will be affected in different ways, but the overarching vision is that the constituents will gradually be subsumed into the ACNA, sort of a melting pot approach. AMiA and REC, for example, will be fully ACNA, but will also be able to continue with most or all of their current polity; they may carry dual identity for a time. It still sounds fuzzy, and the leadership seems to acknowledge that mutual trust among the constituents is a critical factor, more so than structural clarity.
At this point, we seem to be witnessing a coalscing rather than a further splintering, which is remarkable in itself.
#19 as stated above, the prophets of Israel and Christ would be my first stop for those who stayed in communion with heretics. The Church, up through the Reformation would be my second stop, as arguments from individuals such as Augustine would support.
But Dr. Tighe is correct, post-Reformation, it has not at all been characteristic of anyone to stay in the same denomination as ‘heretics,’ hence the thousands of denominations we have. Unfortunately I think that this has contributed to the individualism and indifference that has infiltrated the Church. New denominations have very often been formed in pursuit of greater truth or a better way of living the truth … and maybe they do have a greater truth … but we’ve got thousands of denominations so who is it whose got ‘enough’ truth for us to live in? How much time should we spend trying to discern that? How much time and energy does that take away from serving God where we are? See these are all questions that point us to individualism that often results in autonomous action. If you’ve got some time (not too much I promise!), there is a really interesting and short piece you might look at that deals with this very idea of pursuing truth by a 15th century theologian called Nicholas of Cusa. The work is “A Letter to the Bohemians” and you can find it in the book “Writings on Church and Reform” by Thomas Izbicki (the whole book is awesome actually and if you’ve got the time or interest it is well worth the read given some of its parallels to our current ecclesial situation).
Because of course the next question to ask is, how does continued division look to the world outside the Church? The problem is that our divisions obscure witness to the gospel because what people end up seeing is our very human political action with everyone claiming that they’re doing God’s work. When I was planting a church this summer, I was talking to a lot of people who had various denominational backgrounds. We talked quite a bit about why people didn’t go to church and the most common answer I got back was, “I’m a good person, I treat others as I would expect to be treated and that is more than I can say for x church I belonged to. I can read Scripture too, why would I need a church to tell me what to do … every church says something different anyway.” Our own divisions are in great part responsible for people’s indifference to the Church and for atheism in general.
Finally, there was most certainly a kind of division in the Church prior to the Reformation. There was no such thing as uniformity, there were divisions due to liturgical practice, theological understanding. I would go so far as to say that limited division is absolutely necessary for the reform of the Church and so is intrinsic to God’s plan for his people. Have a look at Genesis or Leviticus to see this division and distinctiveness play out. The key however, is that if division (and diversity) is to be a mechanism of reform, it must be contained within an ‘arena’ that provides limits that are set by the common discernment of the Church (obviously broken by TEC but this doesn’t mean we should continue down that path). This is what the Church prior to the Reformation understood. And they understood it because their political and Scriptural discernment were founded on an understanding of God’s providential ordering of history. This is what conciliarists such as Nicholas of Cusa were attempting to argue as the Hussites began to make the same argument as both conservatives and liberal make today prior to breaking away from a given body. As I said above, post-Reformation we lost an understanding of God’s providential ordering of the world. We seek to replace his providence with our own political response that refuses to engage in patient waiting on God’s quickening.
We live with the reality of ecclesial division; thus we obviously cannot simply apply Church models of the past to the present. But there are key elements from the past that we must transpose into the present if we are going to move in fruitful directions as a Church. I would argue that the first thing we need to ask ourselves is what does it mean to live in a world which is providentially ordered by God? What does that imply about truth and our pursuit of it? Because the answer to these questions make us answer the question of how we live faithfully in a different way than we often seem to think in our post-modern world. The truth is God’s and it will prevail regardless of our efforts and our failures. Given that reality, we can allow ourselves to rely on God’s grace in whatever ‘impossible circumstance’ we find ourselves. Then we can ask, even in seemingly impossible human circumstance, how can God use us where we are and how do I open myself to receiving his grace so I can proclaim it to the world?
Connecticutian
Thanks very much for this. I do hope it is moving toward a coalescing; it is really important that the group not splinter (at least IMHO). It sounds promising that things are moving in the direction of establishing mutual trust rather than simply structural forms; of course having these in place is vital, but more critical and foundational must be trust. Again, I hope and pray for those taking this step, that it might be fruitful. This is going to be a challenging next several decades I think. God bless your time and efforts.
I just wanted to thank everyone here very much for their feedback and insights. It is our ‘spring break’ so I am off to go snowboarding … come on snowstorm! Don’t know if I’ll be able to get online anytime soon but wanted to make sure I thanked everyone who contributed to the discussion.
A comment on the New Zealand numbers:
The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia – 584,793 (AC website)
This number is the the number of people who said Anglican in the census. As the Anglican church has a big historical overhang — ie many people who have a historic background but never darken the doors even at easter and Christmas, I would have thought that was a very spurious number to be using — even more so than the membership number of the TEC.
My best guess is that the actual ASA for the Anglican Church in New Zealand is somewhere between 30,000 and 40,000 and probably at the lower end of that range. With the approximately 1/3 attendance to membership ratio that probably applies it would mean a membership of about 100,000.
Hey Rob Roy — I dunno. I found it fairly easy to respond to.
RE: ” . . . and that others should “respect†such a “call†. . . ”
I have no need for anyone to “respect” what I’m doing. I’m indifferent to whether people “respect” it or not. In fact, were some people I can think of to “respect” what I was doing, I’d be nervous and concerned. ; > )
RE: ” . . . remain among the Arians, the Donatists, any of the Gnostic sects, the Marcionites, the Montanists . . . ”
All of whom are mathematically congruent to — no more and no less — with a heretical idea. But members of TEC are not mathematically congruent to a heretical idea, much as some desire that to be believed or thought true.
To be “an Arian” is to be heretical personally. Protestants don’t believe that to be a member of TEC is also to be heretical personally. Others may. But that’s not Protestant theology.
So a couple of other questions came to mind that I wanted to ask folks here. So as I understand the history and ecclesiology of Anglicanism, maintaining a Communion polity requires common decision-making, common teaching and common actions. This was obviously broken by TEC and the ACoC which has caused groups of conservatives (those forming the ACNA group I guess) to seek alternative oversight and ultimately to seek a parallel province I suppose.
So question 1: what will you do if ACNA doesn’t obtain recognition as a member of the Communion?
Question 2: Why do you wish to remain Anglican vs going to another Church or denomination that already has a federal, confessional, or Catholic polity? (I ask this question because many of the arguments I have seen people make would fit really well with the arguments for polity made by various other Churches, so I’ve wondered why people don’t just go to those Churches? Ties to something, family, friends, etc). It does seem by a lot of comments here that people believe the Communion a lost cause. So why stick around and worry about it when there are options that would fit one’s theological convictions better and one could have their children better educated theologically and biblically and could have their own sense of ‘othodoxy’ put at ease?
3. I’ve thought many times as I’ve struggled to figure out my calling and battled to determine how I could faithfully serve in the Anglican Church given its Communion polity whether the Communion polity is tenable. But as I’ve read the last 500 years of history, its pretty evident that groups that push beyond a given limit to attempt reform ultimately end up leaving a Church and then end up dividing again and again. Since Anglicanism in North America has such a small number of people to begin with, and since those pushing for the new province are my parents’ and grandparents’ age I’ve really wondered whether there will be much left of a ‘renewal effort’ in 20 years. Sure, in the past there were big groups that formed from Anglicanism like the Methodists, but that split occurred when there were still a lot of people attending churches; that is not a historical reality that we live in anymore so using that as a model for present won’t work. So finally I thought, well that sort of leaves two choices given that I’m more inclined toward Catholic ecclesiology than Protestant ecclesiology: 1. stay where I am, or 2. go to the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. But as I’ve read Scripture and Church history it has become evident that me attempting to define where I should serve seems like I’m trying to ‘build the Church with my own hands’ rather than accepting my place in God’s providential ordering of history and asking for wisdom and strength to serve where I am. So that is how I’ve gotten to the place I’m at in discernment (oh that and realizing that the problems within the EO and RCC are just as bad as those in Anglicanism); but I wonder how others have discerned their place using Scripture and history, to discern their place under God’s providence? Thanks again.