Joining the archbishops in the three-day meeting are the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh in the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone and the archbishop-designate of the ACNA; the Rt. Rev. Jack L. Iker, Bishop of Fort Worth in the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone; the Rt. Rev. Charles Murphy; the leader of the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA); the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns, Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America and one of his bishops suffragan, the Rt. Rev. David Anderson; the Rt. Rev. John Guernsey, Provincial Bishop Suffragan for the Anglican Church of Uganda; the Rt. Rev. Bill Atwood, Bishop of All Saints Diocese in the Anglican Church of Kenya; and the Rt. Rev. Don Harvey, leader of the Anglican Network in Canada.
[blockquote]the group….. will discuss the formation and strengthening of the Fellowship of Confession Anglicans (FCA), the formation of the ACNA, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s proposed Anglican Covenant, and the on-going divisions within the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote] I am glad to see they have the time to discuss the Anglican Covenant. ACNA is probably more prepared to sign on than the CofE or TEC. I am anxiously and enthusiastically awaiting their communique on the 16th and guardedly optimistic. I am sad that my Bishop will not be there but know that his (and our) prayers for them will help hold them in harmony with God’s Sovereign will.
As an aside, I would note that one of the weaknesses of the AngloCatholic continuing Church movement has been the propensity for have rooms full of larger than life figures all with mitres and pectoral crosses and all having different affliations after their names. This further fracturing into smaller bits around new bishops has diminished the witness for the AngloCatholic expression of the faith in the USA. I pray that reading the selection of names and various alphabet soup affiliations this does not befall this movement.
One of the biggest problems with the “lifeboat” theory is that the lifeboats (AMiA, CANA, ACNA, Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone, etc.) seem to be moving apart, not getting together. Even in the draft ACNA C&C;, I see people lashing the lifeboats together, but not getting out of their lifeboats into one regular boat.
While I do not doubt that these are men of God and of a sincere faith, I do wonder why they cannot submit to each other or to one of them and have one Bishop Ordinary per geographical region (with the rest of the Bishops being Bishops Suffragan). That would give let many people know that there really is one flock, one shepherd.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#3, I don’t claim any insider insight, but I wonder if the reticence is not just about mutual submission among the bishops, but also a pastoral concern? I think most, perhaps all, of the congregations under these ‘provisional’ oversight arrangements are still in a certain state of distress or healing from distress of recent years. They have established relationships with their bishops; in many cases these are recent relationships but forged in adversity. There are ‘bonds of affection’ in place. I think that many rectors, vestries, and pewsitters would not look favorably at being “assigned” to a well-ordered ACNA bishop just yet; it might feel a bit like they are mere trading cards being swapped around for the sake of institutional order rather than out of a sense of pastoral relationships and mission purposes.
I’m not saying these are the best or most important arguments, just that there are real people that have to be dealt with. A gradual approach has some merit in that regard.
And I say that as one who abhors chaos and craves structure, order, and symmetry! 😉
#3. Phil Snyder,
[blockquote]One of the biggest problems with the “lifeboat†theory…[/blockquote] And just who’s theory is this? Yours? How would you describe the CP Bishops? Is this the island theory? Patience my good man, patience. “I love it when a plan comes together” Hannibal Smith
Deacon Dale,
The “lifeboat” theory is what I’ve heard the process of multiple orthodox Anglican Jurisdictions among former TEC dioceses and parishes. The idea is that the people are moving from a sinking ship to a temporary lifeboat to save themselves and their families. I confess a certain affinity for this image.
But in the last few years in Dallas alone, we have had congregations or large parts of congegations leave for CANA, AMiA, Uganda, and Southern Cone – each to where they thought best.
Like I said, I have affinity for this idea because I think the leadership of TEC is stearing the ship into dangerous waters.
But I don’t see the lifeboats coming together. I seem them taking steps to remain as lifeboats. What I see happening today is a repeat of the 1976 creation of the Anglican Continuum. ITSM that we are simply adding more acronyms to the alphabet-soup that is the Continuing Anglican church movement. For me to see this as a movement of the Holy Spirit, I need to see unity or a plan for unity, not more divisiveness. I need to see more submission to each other (Ephesians 5) not more party spirit (Gal 5).
Perhaps a plan where the ACNA groups (AMiA, CANA, Southern Cone, etc.) would agree to have a diocesan convention for each geographical area within 5 years and to elect as Ordinary one of the current bishops from each affinity group and let the other bishops keep their orders, but act as bishops suffragan or as simple rectors until the Ordinary retires and a new election is held.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Uh, Phil, you say: “Like I said, I have affinity for this idea because I think the leadership of TEC is stearing the ship into dangerous waters.” Here’s a news flash for you, TEC leadership isn’t just steering for dangerous waters, you’re already there! When you’re on the mighty Titanic, the lifeboats may look very puny and small, but history suggests it’s far better to be in the lifeboat than on the deck of the great ship as she heads down! I don’t see any comparison between the Continuum and ACNA whatsoever, so I don’t know what you base that claim on. I also don’t see the various Common Cause partners moving further apart, it looks just the opposite to me. I suppose things may look different from where you sit, but I’m struck by the number of good folk still in TEC, and you’re sure one of them, who seem to be trying to convince themselves that ACNA is a mistake and it’s better to stay on the Titanic — despite the fact that we all know how that movie ends! I respect the decision to “bear witness” by staying onboard, but I personally think there are more positive ways to bear witness than to go down with the ship. In the meantime, it might help not to project your ideas about the ACNA lifeboats drifting apart, unless you can point to some VERY SPECIFIC facts that you think back up that position. I don’t know of any ACNA leaders who see the current divisions in ACNA a anything other than temporary and artifacts of necessity — the lifeboat analogy is good here. We can’t all get in the same lifeboat as the ship goes down, can we? God bless you in your decision to stay on the deck, but I do hope you’ll reconsider and not end up at the end of the movie like Leonardo!
While I am a “Ugandan” and will, God willing, be a member of ACNA, I think Phil Snyder’s assessment certainly marks the great risk of ACNA. We are all recovering from our various situations and we do all require some patience to get through those things, but mutual submission and personal sacrifice never come easily and failure to be willing to become uncomfortable (again) is a huge risk – one I pray the Holy Spirit will keep us from actualizing. An example is that I am so very thrilled w/my current bishop (+Guernsey). Our church will become a part of Western Anglicans – and we’ll have some other bishop (as yet unknown) – it is tempting to stay “Ugandan” so we can stay with our amazing current bishop. However, that is not the path of submission and sacrifice and so we instead wait obediently and expectantly for the bishop God will raise up for us in our (soon-to-be) diocese.
I think the lifeboat idea can be looked at this way. Many are now in the lifeboat but the sea is currently claim. It is a time to thank God that you are safe and in many cases reflected upon losses caused by the ship you left distress.
It is a fact, lifeboats were never designed to get you to the shore, but rather to another ship. But do you boat another ship which is overloaded and heading toward more ice?
You can trace the history of the current problems with the Episcopal Church in the USA back into the 1970s or before. Issues of the late 1970s may not seem as important today, but remember people of good will left ECUSA leaving property and friends over those issues. Boarding a ship with these issues not fully addressed is, to my mind, like boarding an overloaded ship heading for more ice. You are weakened from you current condition and fear you might not make it through another ship wreck.
The sea is claim, there are several ships to board, each is flying the flag of its own country. You do have a choice toward which ship you row.
I contend that ECUSA was never as unified as some want to project. I read a book some time ago which talked about the high/low conflicts within ECUSA. It was written in the 1950s and the author saw the liberal movement as the answer to the high/low conflict. He was right it created a degree of unity which might otherwise never existed (between high and low churchmen), but the differences still remain and need to be addressed.
I try never to spend too much time on comments. That is why my comments are often long and contain spelling and grammar errors. I did in mine above miss one important point. I am not suggesting unity is not a goal, but that it is a goal which will take time.
One Continuing Church Bishop I know, has offer the idea that while many parishes in my jurisdiction which is more or less high church, would not want him as their Bishop, there is no reason that he cannot cover for our Bishop for things like confirmations.
There are already a good deal many youth activities within the continuing movement which have attendance from many a jurisdiction. While I understand the desire for greater unity, for the time being I favor a more federalist approach.
Prayers for their meeting. Very necessary to secure provision for ACNA, now more than ever.
I, for one, have been anxiously waiting and praying for this meeting to take place. It is a positive step forward for many of us.
RE: “I don’t see any comparison between the Continuum and ACNA whatsoever . . . ”
Man, I sure do. Scads of new bishops. Many many teensy congregations. Many alphabet soups of jurisdictions. But . . . there are some good comparisons as well. I haven’t counted out the ACNA, but the similarities are eery.
RE: “I’m struck by the number of good folk still in TEC, and you’re sure one of them, who seem to be trying to convince themselves that ACNA is a mistake . . . ”
Oh — I haven’t had to try to convince myself that it was a mistake at all — I’ve always thoughts it was and believe me, once I decide I need to leave TEC, I’ll be attending a non-Anglican church because the ACNA is simply not an option for me. I’m happy for those for whom it is — and I hope God’s blessings on them and their organizations.
RE: “I don’t know of any ACNA leaders who see the current divisions in ACNA a anything other than temporary and artifacts of necessity . . . ”
Whoa — did you read the AMiA’s announcement, Chris Taylor? It was crystal clear that it would be staying its own jurisdiction as it has a “special charism” of being on its own and planting churches.
Chris,
I don’t know that the lifeboats are “drifting apart.” The problem is (as Sarah pointed out), they are lashing themselves together and calling it a ship. ISTM that the released provisional constitution of ACNA (which, I thought, was to be a ship) shows that each jurisdiction will stay in its own jurisdiction. So, in Dallas, we will have an AMiA bishop, a CANA bishop, a Southern Cone bishop, and a Kenyan Bishop. All each having a handful of congregations in the Dallas area.
Lifeboats are meant for emergencies – to keep people out of the waters until a ship comes along for rescue. Lashing the boats together and giving the “boat captain” authority over his boat does not make the boats a ship. There needs to be one ship, one captain.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
14. Philip Snyder,
I can now see why folks like Sarah and you get a little testy when leavers question what you are doing as stayers. I think this is kind of the shoe being on the other foot. Maybe we aren’t talking about “lifeboats”. Maybe we are currently talking about a “raft” with logs lashed together.
I agree with the “one captain” and hopefully He is Jesus Christ.
Blessings
If you look at how most federal states were created: the US, Australia etc, it is a gradual process, sometimes taking 50-100 years; Australia for instance only really became a country in the first world war when the individual states voted to allow the federal government budget-setting and tax-raising authority to support the war effort. In our internet age we want instant solutions rather than seeing what is a process. We confuse static with dynamic processes. Who knows if they will all get it together? Much will depend on what they do, the effort they put in, and how closely they listen to God’s will for His church in doing so. The other factor will be the attitude of the Communion instruments. I suspect there will not be much support from Canterbury, until it is made clear that its position and authority will be on the line if it continues to obstruct and oppose. Again that is very much in God and Canterbury’s hands.
I don’t know what the answer is but will pray for them and watch, as Gamaliel did, for what God is doing here.
As for the number of bishops, yes there are a great many, but this is unsurprising given that we are an apostolic succession church and bishops are necessary for ordinations and consecrations. You need a certain number in each group to provide for continuity of succession. One would hope that the more bishops you have the incrementally greater the growth of the church, but as TEC shows us the relationship is sometimes apparently inverse.
btw having read through the draft covenant at length I wonder if our Archbishop has not been too much of a clever clogs for his own benefit and managed to nobble his own covenant? But what do I know?
From an outsider perspective, I see Pittsburg, Quincy, Fort Worth, and San Jochim being geographic Dioceses fairly quickly once the ACNA is up and running. I would also think that the convocations that exist ie Mid-South and North Florida and the ADofV being dioceses fairly quickly. I think several of the African Bishops have gone on the record as saying that their missionary efforts are only temporary. The only ones that I suspect will or should exist after a relatively short interval is the AMiA and the REC. I suspect that the members of those churches may be more attached to the entities (and somewhat different doctrine) than those who are more or less ex-Episcopalians affiliated with an overseas Bishop. Am I missing something?
RE: “I can now see why folks like Sarah and you get a little testy when leavers question what you are doing as stayers.”
Please note, Dcn Dale, that contrary to some leavers, I have not said anything at all about “people shouldn’t be leaving” or “you guys shouldn’t be a part of the ACNA.”
I’ve merely explained my own decisions and a bit of why I have made my decisions. I have not at all engaged in the endless chants of “don’t leave” and “it’s a sin to leave” and “cowards all” or “institutionalists all.”
So I’m not questioning your decisions in the least. I have many many friends who have 1) left for the ACNA, and many many more who have 2) left for non-Anglican churches. I have encouraged both of those groups of friends in as honest a way as I can.
#19. Sarah,
I meant Sarah Hey not you Sarah. I should have been more specific.
Sorry for the confusion. I was just saying that as a leaver, I was known (before I was “gently” shown the error of my ways by S.H.) to question the thinking of the stayers. When my brother Deacon “Stay and Witness” Phil Snyder questions the possible success of ACNA it is my turn to get a little testy.
Dcn Dale,
I guess my point is this:
RE: “When my brother Deacon “Stay and Witness†Phil Snyder questions the possible success of ACNA it is my turn to get a little testy.”
Questioning the possible success of ACNA is not the same as “you wicked people for staying,” or “you wicked or stupid people for leaving and joining ACNA.”
I get questioned all the time about “success” — and I generally agree with the Leavers on some of those details! It’s when they say “and because you cannot be successful by our own standards, you must leave, otherwise you will be wicked or stupid” that I disagree with.
Beyond that, the criticizing leavers [as opposed to the nice leavers] always assume that my notion of “success” is the same as theirs in every detail.
In summary, if a Leaver says: “oh, look, the Covenant is a ruination, it seems to me” than I can understand that.
But when the Leaver says “oh look, the Covenant is a ruination, and thus you cannot be successful because TECUSA has not been cast into outer darkness, and therefore if you were a really holy and faithful person, you would leave, and join us in this wonderful boat over here that is truly marvelous with no flaws, and why you should think otherwise proves your sinfulness” — that’s what gets me to rolling my eyes.
I hope that distinction is fairly clear.