Three main problems face the newly formed ACNA, and they are all formidable. All of them in a sense limit the ability of ACNA to break free of its emotional and psychological attachment to that which has brought them to this point. The first revolves around property disputes. I wrote to bishops and deputies to General Convention today suggesting that a trust or trusts be formed to administer disputed property and to enter into temporary agreements in cases in which a vast majority of parishioners in such properties wish no longer to be in TEC, negotiating leases, shared arrangements and creative solutions to take these disputes out of the secular courts. I was not encouraged by the responses I received, most of which accused those leaving us off stealing property or of being so bigoted against gay and lesbians that in justice they should be shunned. Justice, I am told, trumps charity.
The second problem revolves around the language used to depose bishops and other clergy who have joined ACNA which, if language means anything at all, purports to laicise such clergy rather than merely to desprive them of the right to exercise ministry in Provinces in which they have no desire to exercise ministry.
The third is the problematic relationship between ACNA and the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion which has exported American problems worldwide and threatens to destroy the unity of the entire Communion. If indeed the Communion comes apart because of what has happened here, ACNA will, whether it deserves to be blamed or not, bear a good deal of responsibility for a tragic schism, a responsibility in which it will ironically, be accused of sharing responsibility with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, to what extent perhaps is a judgment differently assessed by people on differing sides of this tragedy.
Tony+, as usual, does an excellent job. I wonder, as he seems to, whether the prior “moderate traditionalists,” realize how close they are to being kicked out of TEC or whether they are now the extreme in TEC and what that means for TEC.
I just hope Fr. Clavier has a good time at GC 09.
I think he, Dan+, as well as others, recognize that they have a Jeremiah ministry within TEC. They will be limited to a few dioceses, but otherwise consigned to the cisterns that the liberals do not wish to serve or convert; until they are, one day, shown the door.
[blockquote]General Convention has an opportunity to reach out to those who have left and to those of us who remain by adopting a language of charity and forbearance, the language of the Cross rather than that of institutional self-justification and protection. We shall see.[/blockquote]
What is the point of “…adopting a language of charity and forbearance” if TEC continues to depose and litigate? Actions speak louder than words. Additionally, Fr. Clavier is pulling TEC’s Schism card out in reference to ACNA. It would have been nice to hear something…. anything positive about ACNA from him.
The focus by progressives on justice interests me. There are lots of calls for justice, but justice untempered by mercy and grace is a cruel and terrible thing and “the sword of justice” will eventually wound the one who wields it.
Talk of reconciliation coming from The Episcopal Church means that they are concerned about the loss in membership which they’ve sustained, and which is going to continue, since it costs them money and stature within the Communion. What they don’t bother to reveal is that this “reconciliation” which they offer us is reconciliation on [b]their terms.[/b] There is no mention of terms acceptable to both sides, because it’s [b]all or nothing[/b] as far as they’re concerned, and they know we won’t buy that. They have embarked on a departure from the Communion…..intended or not…..and I don’t think they’ll every reverse that course.
What exactly is the purpose of the irony quotes that punctuate the first paragraph of Fr Clavier’s essay? Does he, for example, suggest that the extra-territorial provincial initiatives like AMiA and CANA haven’t done mission during their existence, haven’t reached the unchurched with the good news of God in Jesus Christ, haven’t fed the hungry, visited the sick, or clothed the naked?
I understand that he perhaps disagrees with these initiatives also (and, in the first instance) serving as a home to disaffected Episcopalians, but to demark their mission work by what seem to be ironic inverted commas strikes a note of pettiness. I don’t minimize the effects of schism one bit – nor the effects of heresy and institutional maltreatment – but if the angels rejoice at the reclamation of even one sinner through the ministry of an AMiA or a CANA or a Southern Cone parish in the US, surely so can Fr Clavier?
I’m certain that a majority of the Communion is not panicked by ACNA. I believe that a new Communion will emerge around Jerusalem if the future ABC doesn’t hold any more significance than the current occupant of that chair. The loss of TEC and ACC will be borne nobly by the 50 million + that find no great comfort in their expressions of Anglicanism.
I am a supporter of ACNA, but I do not think that it is a model for a healthy worldwide anglicanism. Two of the founding partners AMIA & CANA have stated publicly in the last few days that they will remain distinct entities. I am sure that this dual membership and overlapping jurisdictions will inevitably lead to competition.
There’s a lot to come to terms with, whichever side of the argument one is on. I am reminded of a line in the BBC miniseries [b]I, Claudius[/b]. If memory serves, the Sibyl says to Claudius at one point in the story: “Let all the poisons in the mud hatch out.” I think we may find out what that means fairly soon.
“…including rump former Episcopal dioceses.” He’s got it wrong who represents the rump.
Innocence and purity are virtuous. Naivete and foolishness are just that. Which qualities are represented by this:
[blockquote] General Convention has an opportunity to reach out to those who have left and to those of us who remain by adopting a language of charity and forbearance, the language of the Cross rather than that of institutional self-justification and protection. We shall see.[/blockquote]
Boy, I can certainly see a number of challenging problems for the ACNA — but I don’t consider at least two of the “problems” that Father Clavier mentions as problems at all.
RE: “The second problem revolves around the language used to depose bishops and other clergy who have joined ACNA which, if language means anything at all, purports to laicise such clergy . . . ”
How is this a problem for the ACNA? Nobody — other than TEC and Canada — believes what TEC has purported to do, and nobody accepts, acknowledges, or even pays any heed to it.
So why should the ACNA? Their clergy and bishops will go on ministering in some 20 or so Provinces when invited — and their orders nicely accepted.
RE: “If indeed the Communion comes apart because of what has happened here, ACNA will, whether it deserves to be blamed or not, bear a good deal of responsibility for a tragic schism . . . ”
No.
A “good deal of the responsibility for a tragic schism” in the Anglican Communion will be born by 1) TEC, 2) Canada, and 3) the current holder of the see of Canterbury. The rest will fall into hazy insignificance.
The fact is — 1) certain groups wished to leave TEC, 2) those certain groups wished to retain a connection to certain Provinces within the Anglican Communion, 3) and those certain groups also wished to attempt to remain together as a cohesive group and attempt to establish themselves as an Anglican group in North America.
How they are somehow responsible for the fracture of the Anglican Communion — led by such sterling exemplars of focused, principled, strong and courageous, wise, and honest persons as the members of the ACC, the ACO, the Joint Standing Committee, and the ABC one cannot imagine. Who, after all, can stand against such a bulwark of integrity and honor?
No, any responsibility for a future schism rests squarely on the instigators of the heresy, and the erstwhile leaders of the Anglican Communion. The people in the ACNA are neither.
ACNApriest, membership in both the ACNA, and AMiA and CANA….even though they’re distinct entities….shouldn’t prevent our Province from functioning as it’s intended to function.
#13
And yet I thought the whole point of the exercise was the submission of identities formed as an emergency response to critical conditions within TEC to the common identity of a single province.
If people are still thinking of themselves as CANA or AMiA members at least as much as they are thinking in terms of belonging to an Anglican province with a consecrated archbishop, the odds of a repetition of the debacle that followed St. Louis increase.
RE: “Two of the founding partners AMIA & CANA have stated publicly in the last few days that they will remain distinct entities.”
ACNApriest — I did not see that statement by CANA. Do you have a link to that statement?
I agree with Sarah (#12), I don’t get his points at all. ACNA faces many challenges (and I support it), but I wouldn’t count property, language used to depose clergy by TEC or relationships to the instruments of Communion among them. Fr. Clavier certainly knows the Continuum from his role as a bishop in it, but I frankly don’t think the analogy is a good one. How many bishops left TEC in 1977? How many dioceses left? How many provinces of the Anglican Communion supported those who left? How many observers did the ABC send to St. Louis (did the ABC even think about what happened in St. Louis)? To what extent was what happened in St. Louis in 1977 an exclusively Anglo-Catholic phenomenon? Was the REC there? Let’s be honest here, there’s NOTHING in the history of Anglicanism quite like what happened last week in Texas. Lots of folks have left the Anglican fold and have done quite well for themselves, the Methodists come to mind as a good example, but I can’t think of any body of Anglicans who have left their former jurisdiction yet worked so hard to maintain their bond to the larger Anglican world. And, fortunately, the larger Anglican world has largely reciprocated. As of now other Anglican provinces representing well over half of all Anglicans globally have made it quite clear that they have more in common with ACNA than with TEC. Let’s not kid ourselves, and I don’t think that the leaders of ACNA seriously anticipate “official” recognition from the historic instruments of Communion anytime soon. However. if things continue on their current trajectory the instruments of Communion will either have to catch-up to reality or become totally irrelevant. My bet is that they’ll catch-up.
Fr. Clavier sees the ACNA as an impossible mixture to survive — although the banner on his blog declares his own “love for Anglicanism in all its bewildering breadth and depth and its glorious untidiness.” That glorious untidiness is truly characteristic of historic Anglicanism, and it does mark ACNA too. However, rather than seeing those ancient tensions and untidiness as a fatal flaw, I think they represent the greatest hope for ACNA — as they have for Anglicanism as a whole. The movement in 1977 was NOT characterized by this kind of breadth and diversity, and it shows. The Continuum quickly became an Anglo-Catholic ghetto where competing egos became the unspoken substance of endless disputes. The diversity of ACNA, which Fr. Clavier and others see as problematic, is actually a sign for me that ACNA has the correct genetic code of Anglicanism at its core.
ACNA has MANY challenges, but not the ones Fr. Clavier points to. The greatest threat in any human institution of course is ego. But that was certainly a challenge to the new Episcopal Church in 1789 as it still is today. Another challenge for ACNA is to genuinely blend all the current jurisdictions into a single province that acts like one church rather than a federation of churches. How they’re going to pull that off I don’t think even they can imagine yet. There will also be fights over all the sorts of things Anglicans always fight over.
And let’s not forget, TEC also faces enormous challenges too! What do you do when you hold the official franchise but most members of the global club don’t want to have anything to do with you? What happens when you get most of the property and you haven’t got the money to support it? What happens when every appeal you make to the contemporary culture only results in demographic decline? What happens when you lose the diversity you pride yourself on? What if those who have left are right and you have indeed embraced heresy? I certainly wouldn’t trade the challenges TEC has for the challenges that ACNA surely faces.
I understand the need particularly for CANA to remain a distinct entity for a season – and for some of the other entities to remain – but I agree 100% w/Jeremy Bonner (#14 above) – if we remain a federation of distinct entities overlapping and bumping into one another, there is little point in (or hope of) being a province. Ultimately we need to form geographic dioceses (understanding it may take 5 or more years to do so) with only one, or maybe two, affinity based dioceses (such as Forward in Faith).
SARAH HERE ARE THE LINKS
http://www.canaconvocation.org/
Here is the quote:
Will CANA congregations have two Archbishops: Archbishop Bob Duncan of ACNA and Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria?
CANA congregations will continue to be under my leadership as Missionary Bishop. I will continue to be a missionary bishop in the Church of Nigeria, however I will be working closely with Archbishop Duncan in the work that takes place in North America. For a period of time, CANA congregations will have a ‘dual citizenship’. They will be members of the Church in Nigeria and as a result of that relationship, full members of the global Anglican Communion. CANA congregations are also members of the Anglican Church in North America. CANA is a founding member and full participant in ACNA and will participate fully in the life of the new province.
From which, it would seem, we must conclude that CANA’s leaders do not yet consider ACNA a member of the Anglican Communion. Not very reassuring for their non-CANA partners.
Here is another quote showing what I am talking about:
[blockquote] he Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) amended its constitution to include CANA. Will CANA continue to have an official relationship with the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)?
Yes we will. Part of the work this summer is to meet with the canonical lawyers in the Church of Nigeria to work on this process. CANA has a significant number of Nigerian clergy and congregations. For many in CANA – both Nigerian and non-Nigerian – our link with the Anglican Church of Nigeria is important. We are also reminded through this link that the body of Christ is larger than North America and that we are members of the global family of believers. [/blockquote]
In my opinion this is just silly. We now have a province in North America that has two jurisdictions that are permanent parts of the constitution of other provinces. Each keeps talking about its distinctives. CANA is about four years old. AMIA is 8 years old. What distinictives does CANA have that prevents it from merging fully with ACNA? What about CANA’s distinctives requires non geographic dioceses? Why did geographic diocese work so well in their home provinces if they hinder ministry here?
Numbers 17-20 above, of course ACNA is not yet an official part of the Anglican Communion — it just formed this week! It hasn’t even applied for membership in the Communion and probably won’t for years. We are in a period of transition folks, relax and give it some time. Until such time as ACNA is officially part of the Anglican Communion I think it’s reasonable to assume that parts of ACNA will continue to be linked more directly to the historic Communion through other provinces that are part of the historic Communion. I see nothing in Bishop Minns’ comments that suggest he views the current arrangement as permanent. See for example his response to this question: “Will any CANA districts such as the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV) or the Anglican District of the Great Lakes (ADGL) apply to become a new diocese in ACNA?” His response is: “In time, it is expected that several clusters will be formed and will apply for recognition.” Later on he says: ” For a period of time, CANA congregations will have a ‘dual citizenship’. They will be members of the Church in Nigeria and as a result of that relationship, full members of the global Anglican Communion. CANA congregations are also members of the Anglican Church in North America.” He doesn’t say CANA congregations will be ‘dual citizens’ forever, he says “for a period of time.” The institutional issues you raise are valid one, but they’re not where the main focus needs to be right now. Where the focus should be right now is precisely where Bishop Minns has put it in response to this question: “What is the vision for the future?” He responds: “The challenge is to keep our eyes firmly fixed upon the Lord himself and to keep the main thing as the main thing. The future involves radical inclusion, profound transformation, and inspired service. The vision has not changed. Jesus Christ is the same and the gospel remains unchanged! The new province has given us a way to do this work more effectively and more collaboratively.” The institutional issues will be resolved in time, and the ways in which they are resolved may be different than the ways these issues were resolved in the past. As Archbishop Duncan said, “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing!” The issues you are raising are NOT the main thing (which is certainly not to say they’re insignificant).
ACNApriest and Jeremy Bonner, while the former lawyer in me finds the “dual citizenship” angle a bit messy, I think pretty much all of the entities that had connections with overseas provinces before the Bedford Assembly will keep them for some time to come (except the ex-Ugandans). The Canons adopted specifically provided for this (Canon 5, sec. 4–” Section 4 – Concerning Oversight by Other Anglican Provinces: Dioceses gathered under the jurisdiction and oversight of another Province of the Anglican Communion at the time of the organization of the Anglican Church in North America may continue under the constitution and canons of the parent Province to the extent provided by specific protocols between all of the parties, periodically reviewed.”
For many clergy and laymen now within ACNA it is still important to have an indisputable link to Canterbury. Clearly ACNA is not today an official province of the Anglican Communion. We are recognized by many individual provinces as authentic Anglicans, but not as a province by the Instruments of Unity yet. There are formal procedures for becoming a full, constituent member of the Communion by vote of the ACC, but at present this body and the Anglican Communion Office that runs it seem to be hopelessly compromised by TEC influences (TEC pays a large share of the budget). It is therefore unwise to us to apply for full membership in the Communion right now, for fear of the consequences of the likely “no” vote TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada could orchestrate. Perhaps a few years down the line the situation will change. Perhaps the pro-TEC predilections of the ACC will change, or perhaps the Communion as we know it will come unglued and something new will take its place (my money is on the later). But as of today, in the eyes of many in order for our bishops to have clear title to being bishops of the Anglican Communion in full communion with the ABC they need to maintain links with the Southern Cone, Nigeria, Kenya, etc. (Though admittedly Uganda doesn’t seem to think so, since it handed over its bishops and parishes to ACNA in toto last week, I think.) For the moment many of the elements of ACNA will have on-going links to overseas provinces. I am sure Fort Worth will keep our link with Southern Cone for a while yet. Hopefully this dual citizenship won’t have to last more than a few years.
Jeremy,
Just wondering: will Pittsburgh and San Joaquin continue in Southern Cone?
Bruce Robison
BMR+, I believe Canon Fenton implied Pitt would keep its Southern Cone link during a Q & A session on day two of the Assembly.
All this makes Rome seem like the best place to go.
Chris (#21),
Perhaps it’s just just me, but if the formula you lay out is the correct one, then I see no reason for the dissolution of ACN.
CANA’s Anglican standing may depend upon its relationship with Nigeria, yet for many provinces that doesn’t make it part of the Anglican Communion. By the same token, recognition of [b]all[/b] ACNA’s bishops by the provinces that are willing to accord such recognition ought to have the same effect.
If it doesn’t, then we might just as well have continued with extra-territorial parishes under foreign oversight in heterodox areas and existing TEC dioceses in orthodox areas at least until the Covenant process had finally exhausted itself (maybe that occurred in Jamaica, but one can’t say that definitively). Ecclesiologically, the only justification for Bedford that I can see is the formation of a successor province that eliminated all alternative hierarchical (not missional) relationships, at least for jurisdictions that have been formed since 2000 (the Continuing Church bodies and the REC may need a little transition time).
Bruce (#23)
I always hoped that Pittsburgh might be able to get the West Indies to take us under our wing. No reflection on Gregory Venables, but the Southern Cone wouldn’t have been my choice. I must confess I did not anticipate such a turn of events, but if that’s what Daryl said he must know what he’s talking about.
And obviously I meant “their wing” not “our wing” in that last paragraph.
If God’s will is that ACNA succeed, it will. All our efforts to connect the dots and to figure who is out and who is in are simply blather.
Ralph (#28)
And the Communion Partners would say the same about their efforts and find few takers here.
I think some of us want to see more of an ecclesiological rationale than we have yet witnessed and as members (or potential members) of a church in formation we have an obligation to express our reservations. For some that may be “blather,” but not for everyone.
23 BMR+, my sense is that yes, we will remain with the Province of the Southern Cone until the ACNA is recognized by Canterbury. I believe that Bishop Schofield has said that he will remain in the House of Bishops under Archbishop Venables, as well as in the College of Bishops under Archbishop Duncan…..thus guaranteeing our membership in the Communion via the Southern Cone.
All of the talk about remaining connected assuring a connection to Canterbury is silly. There has not been one official meeting were an realigned bishop as has been invited or been allowed to attend. Jamaica and the Phil Ashey event made that clear. Also the TWO lambeths that have occurred since the formation of AMIA and their lack of invitations point to this as well. The provinces that will recognize ACNA bishops as Anglican is the same regardless of their relationship for foreign provinces. The churches that will not recognize ACNA bishops do not care that they are connected to foreign provinces.
Jeremy, I don’t think we’re going to resolve this and ultimately Ralph is right — it’s in the Lord’s hands. You’re bothered by the current institutional messiness of ACNA, I’m not. I think the “Communion Partners” are essentially a fiction created by ACI, and their “efforts” have proven futile. You obviously disagree. I see absolutely no hope of reforming TEC, you apparently do (although perhaps not as many orthodox still in TEC don’t have any hope and have declared the battle for orthodoxy in TEC as lost). In any case, the die are now cast. ACNA does exist and time will reveal if the Communion Partner strategy (whatever that is) or the ACNA strategy is best. Perhaps neither will succeed and there simply are no viable options (in which case we are essentially witnessing the end of Anglicanism — which I personally don’t think is the case). From my perspective ACNA became essential once it became absolutely clear that the Windsor process had failed. For me that moment came in late September, 2007 when the ABC attended the HOB meeting in New Orleans. From that moment it was painfully obvious that the historic instruments could not or would not function to restore orthodoxy to Anglicanism. The recent travesty in Jamaica over the Covenant was thus foreshadowed long ago. The current occupant of the See of Canterbury clearly understands his role in this crisis as holding everyone together for as long as he possibly can. To achieve that limited objective he will go to great lengths to keep everyone at the table in the hope, I suppose, that another time may present solutions that no one sees now. This explains why he sometimes veers one way and other times he veers the other way. The problem, unfortunately for him, is that two ultimately antithetical theologies now define the Communion. Anglicanism has tremendous capacity to hold together in dynamic tension very different understandings of Christianity in a post-Reformation world. What the present crisis reveals, however, is that there are limits to that capacity, and those limits have now been breached. Because the historic instruments of Communion have failed, they have, at least for the time being, made themselves largely irrelevant. Historic transformation of the Communion is underway, with or without the instruments of Communion. I don’t think anyone but God knows what the Communion will look like in ten or twenty years, but I doubt it will look like it does today. The transformation of the Communion now underway has outstripped the capacity of the historic structures of the Communion to control it. I personally anticipate that they will adapt to new circumstances and survive, but they are likely to be significantly transformed themselves in the process of adaptation. From my perspective the current institutional messiness of ACNA is simply a temporary function of the massive transformation now underway in the Communion as a whole.
It is possible that the 2009 ACNA will split as the ACNA of the 1970’s did into at least five parts – the REC, AMiA, CANA, a group of dioceses that ordain women and a group of former Episcopal Anglo-Catholics that do not. It will take some effort to prevent that.
But at some time it will be necessary for both ACNA and TEC to come to some agreement with each other. The inherited Catholic ecclesiological structures in the Anglican Communion will make that difficult. We can learn from the Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians. They have been able to be part of international bodies with more than one national expression of a common heritage. The differences between, e.g., the ELCA, LCMS, and WELS the differences between the PCUSA, PCA, EPC, etc., and some of the differences between the UMC and the AME, AMEZ, and CME are both theological and cultural. The differences between TEC and ACNA are also both theological and cultural.
The time has come for TEC to recognize that (1) there are a number of expressions of the Anglican heritage in North America, and (2) not all of them are represented in or giverned by General Convention.
I suggest TEC offer to sponsor ACNA for membership in the ACC, recognize that its actions in purporting to depose bishops and other clergy and go to law over property was an error, and offer an agreement to transfer people and property on mutually agreeable terms. If such an offer is made I suggest the ACNA accept it, recognize that TEC is an authentic expression of the Anglican heritage, negotiate issues of property and clergy status, and offer to do such common ministry as mutually agreed. Such an agreement will eventually have to be made. Let’s do it sooner rather than later.
It is a transition. I am not bothered by the “untidiness”. I was around in ’77 (and did not even think about leaving TEC at the time). This ain’t ’77. The Episcopalians who are leaving now are not the same groups that did so in ’77 – it is not the old guard fighting a delaying action, it is the next generation. It is far more laity led (thanks in large part to the internet, I think) and younger. More young families. The moderates in the pews who take the great commission and stewardship most seriously. The people who show up every Sunday. The numbers and the interest in uniting are many times greater, both here and abroad.
And TEC isn’t what it was in ’77, either – TEC is not the comfortable club for the upper middle class it was then (I am not saying that was good, only being reflective). Those folks have died off or left already. TEC ia now smaller and if anything resembles a UU church of ’77 without the usonian architecture.
If there is a schism, it will not be because the ACNA and global south leave. It will be because the “Instruments of Unity” and ABC kick them out. We shall see if that happens; TEC is working for that every day, and they were quite successful in destroying the ACC. Until that time, ACNA is a “province in formation”, to use the Archbishop’s own term.
Tom Rightmyer:
RE: “Such an agreement will eventually have to be made.”
Why?
No such agreement has been made, in fact, between the ELCA and LCMS, or between the PCUSA and the PCA.
Why should it occur between the TEC and the ACNA? I see no motivation or impetus on either side for that.
BTW, Fr. Texanglican, wasn’t that you at the altar on the news?
🙂
I find it interesting that Kendall has drawn attention to a book about self-deception in Christian life and discipleship, because everyone on every side of this divide is deceiving themselves if they think it can be accomplished without further agony and pain. Tony Clavier has drawn attention to three significant issues, and this conversation has raised others, that cannot be buried.
I do not see any kind of reconciliation possible at the moment between TEC and ACNA, and neither side seems to want it — but without genuine attempts to live into the values of the Sermon on the Mount, loving both neighbors and enemies as ourselves and working out what the implications might be, there will be a perversion of the gospel. Tony is right that the two entities will become mirror images of each other, each unattractive in its own way, and often reduced to snarling at each other and measuring themselves against the actions of their alternative approach to Anglicanism.
While the future of the Episcopal Church is hardly a healthy one, it also has to be said that the one that faces ACNA is equally challenging, but in different ways. The issue that is facing all of us, Episcopal and Anglican, is to ask and answer how we lay at the foot of the cross our past history and move forward in a manner that glorifies the risen Lord. This HAS to be part of the agenda, and perhaps we shy from it because it is so incredibly difficult.
#37. RichardKew,
[blockquote]Tony is right that the two entities will become mirror images of each other, each unattractive in its own way, and often reduced to snarling at each other and measuring themselves against the actions of their alternative approach to Anglicanism.[/blockquote]
I am weary of the moderates within TEC who find it necessary to point out the shortcomings of those on either side as if your position was the detached, righteous and sensible approach. What I said earlier about Fr. Clavier and will also address to you is a simple request that you find something good in what ACNA has accomplished. The best I’ve heard so far is on Fr. Dan’s blog is his mixed feeling about ACNA. I would like to hear some exhortation rather than a continual prophetic scolding.
Dualism rears its head. Mirror images? Hardly. Darkness is not the mirror image of light, it is the absence of light. In fifty years, people will look back at the demise of the Episcopal denomination as a good thing. They will say that it was the only way to excise the cancer of Bruno-Schori-Robinson, etc.
Tom, #33, it’s a beautiful thought, but I have to agree with Sarah, #35, not likely in this world. What is possible, in fact critical, I feel, is that orthodox Anglicans in North America recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to be divided into three distinct provinces (TEC, ACofC and ACNA). For me it’s critical that we learn to respect the integrity of individual decisions. It may be hard at times to avoid judgment, but Christian charity is what we need now most. This doesn’t mean we can’t debate issues passionately, but, at the end of the day we need to respect genuinely those who have chosen another path.
Over the past half year I’ve been attending gatherings of orthodox Anglicans that are equally divided between those in ACNA and those in TEC. This has been a healthy thing for all of us, I think, and I have not once heard anyone try to “convert” anyone on the other side. We pray together, we talk together, we share concerns and talk about mission. Some of us have known each other for years, and others have not. We all recognize that we live in a time of uncertainty and flux, and our exchanges have been devoid of judgment. I hope that informal gatherings such as this are going on in other places, as I think they are a great antidote to barriers that can arise over institutional differences. Above all, let us pray for humility. It also might help to think for a moment how what we’re about to say may be heard on the other side of the Anglican divide before we say it — or press “Submit”!
I agree Dcn Dale.
Nicodemus too thought he could stay above the fray between the official Jewish leadership and Jesus and his proclamation. However, there are those times when maybe is not good enough and the answer must be Yea or Nea.
RE: “Tony Clavier has drawn attention to three significant issues, and this conversation has raised others, that cannot be buried.”
I disagree. Tony Clavier has stated that he believes that the ACNA has three problems, one of which is no problem at all, and another of which is a problem, but not theirs at all. In fact, the last problem is a problem for the Anglican Communion itself, most particularly its purported leaders.
RE: “Tony is right that the two entities will become mirror images of each other, each unattractive in its own way, and often reduced to snarling at each other and measuring themselves against the actions of their alternative approach to Anglicanism.”
Although I’ve been the first [and the last and the middle] to acknowledge the unattractive elements of the ACNA, so far I have seen no evidence or reason whatsoever why the ACNA must become “mirror images” of TEC, or “reduced to snarling” at TEC at all.
Of course, they *might* be reduced to snarling at TEC — but that does not necessarily have to happen.
So far, I’m seeing snarling and “measuring themselves against the actions of their alternative approach to Anglicanism” from other key people, however.
Chris (#32)
Don’t misunderstand me; I don’t think reform of TEC is ultimately possible (I wish it could be otherwise). The issue is whether or not ACNA is going to be the right fit for us; hence the questions. Apparently, I’m not the only one with qualms (thank you ACNApriest).
Human nature is one thing both ACNA and TEC have in common.
Who can assign blame? One side blames heretics (I LOVE when that word gets used – it makes me feel like I’m in the 16th century). Will ACNA demand say that other provinces NOT meet with TEC? I imagine if I were a small diocese in some country, I’d take money from anywhere that will let me do my mission.
The only thing they ALL have in common is, really, a hatred of TEC. This will last them for a while. Do I think they will compete? Who knows? TEC will now become much more theologically liberal; ACNA will be non-denominational free standing churches, hanging out with some other Anglicans, but uninvited to Lambeth or the instruments of unity.
What has changed, however, is geography and “urgency.”
Not sure if any agreement has to be made. After all, I’d treat any ACNA person the way I’d treat, say, a congregationalist pastor. I think more Anglican style congregationalists is a good thing, and I’m sure they will bring people to Jesus, especially those who’s main conviction about Him is that he’s not supportive of the gay “agenda.” Jesus welcomes sinners, after all.
RE: “The only thing they ALL have in common is, really, a hatred of TEC.”
Well — there’s the whole belief in the Gospel thing — but that’s pretty trivial from a revisionist point of view.
Love JW’s comment though — redolent as it is the emotions that the ACNA evoke in him.
Words Matter, no. 36, yes, indeed that was me at the altar at St. Vincent’s on the news last Sunday. But Fr. JJ got that magnificent close up chanting the Gospel. It went straight to his head. 🙂 The Fox 4 news crew showed up just as we were leaving the packed 9AM Eucharist last Sunday. About 35 bishops had been there for that service, with more than 350 communicants. They conducted interviews with ++Duncan and +Iker, then wanted some “worship” shoots. Unfortunately, since so many parishioners came to the 9AM service that morning the 11:30 Eucharist they taped looked virtually empty! I am sure that many of our worthy opponents, seeing that sparsely populated church, assumed it was proof that ACNA wouldn’t amount to much. Its a shame the packed-out 9AM service didn’t make it on the news! Oh well.
#33 TomRightmyer says:
Like Sarah, I see no compelling reason why this must happen. There are basically two areas in which TEC and ACNA are compelled to interact to some degree: one is property disputes, and the other is membership in the Anglican Communion.
The amicable property settlement boat has, unfortunately, sailed. But the property disputes will eventually be settled, as all of the respective court cases and appeals grind through, and in a few years it will be over. Most likely both sides will have won some and lost some, but at least it will be done.
Membership in the Anglican Communion is a knotty issue. There are several ways that could potentially play out, but I think the GS provinces have set the tone: they’re not going to depart from the Anglican Communion and its Instruments as such, they’re just going to ignore them and focus on their own structures. For that reason, it would not surprise me too much if ACNA eventually abandoned its attempt to become a full-fledged province, recognized by the ACC and the ABC, as being an irrelevant effort.
In any event, other than these two areas, I fully expect that TEC and ACNA will thoroughly ignore each other.
The provincial or official status of the ACNA won’t be really addressed till Lambeth ’18. If my calculations are correct, the attendance in the TEClub will be more than cut in half. Why do I say this? Just by linear extrapolation, by my calculations, the attendance would be half in 2018. However, with the average median parish Sunday attendance being about 70, many parishes are teetering on the edge of closure. Thus, attendance at these churches will drop, drop, then go to zero.
It is really silly to expect that the new ACNA would have all ecclesiastical structures rigidly worked out. Is it a good foundation to grow and tweak these structures? You bet.
Ross, we often disagree, but this time I agree with your analysis.
In scope and time the “schism” doesn’t really have that much of an impact. The liberal-side is in a tragic, downward “death-spiral” and won’t survive many more generations as anything more than a curious, quasi-religious sect (people in funny hats).
They do have some trust fund money to keep them alive for awhile and sell the remains of churches they can no longer sustain with clergy they don’t have and worshipers that will never come all in “trust for future generations of the church”.
TEC, with its rampant litigation and deposition regime is ensuring that no parish or diocese will ever think about church planting or even becoming an active member of the laity for the foreseeable future for fear of being sent to the Gulag.
sarah – emotions? you’ve got to be kidding me. I wish ACNA all the best, and I sincerely believe God has a plan for them. Any hostility you read is your own projection. It is more amusement on my part.
Well, Sarah, they also have the gospel in common with other denominations and churches, like TEC.
Here’s the logic Sarah – I’ve never doubted they have the gospel – or at least parts of it. They love their own kind. But, TEC with its pastoral concern of gay people was distracting conservatives. I believe now ACNA can really do what it wants without gay people in its churches, and fewer women wearing pointy hats. Its getting in the way of them serving Jesus.
I’m sure other reappraisers find ACNA upsetting. Not this one. I think clarity is a good thing.
RE: “It is more amusement on my part.”
Of course, of course. We can all see that . . .
; > )
John Wilkins wrote: [i]The only thing they ALL have in common is, really, a hatred of TEC.[/i] then he said,later: [i]Any hostility you read is your own projection.[/i]
I think that describes his perception of ‘hatred’, when all most of us feel is sadness that TEc has abandoned the faith handed down, and forced us to choose ‘whom we will serve’. There is no ‘hatred’. It’s all ‘perception’ from TEc supporters that they cannot run roughshod over the communion.
libraryjim, he gave his emotions away with several rhetorical instances of bile, including that one. It just wells up in them . . .
Heh – sarah dearest… “it just wells up in them.” You are such an expert in studying my emotional life (giggle).
😉
That said, I’m glad there are a few who have pity for TEC rather than hatred. given the hostility toward TEC I read, pardon me for the… misinterpretation. See you all in the end times, with our Lord and Savior.