Greetings in the wonderful name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am writing to you celebrating the official launch of the Anglican Church in North America. You are to be congratulated for your faithfulness in the Gospel and in your cooperation with the organization of the new Province. It is likely that it will take some time before the institutional structures catch up to the realities of the present day situation in the Communion. Until that time, you can be sure of your dual status with us in the Southern Cone. This is true not only for Bishop Iker, but also all of the priests and deacons who received licenses through him under my authority when your diocese came to us.
At the last Primates’ Meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, there was clear agreement that you and your bishop are fully members of the Anglican Communion. Any other assertions are, in our view, completely unfounded.
More half-truths to quiet the masses. What about the last ACC meeting? Many of those same Primates issued a statement saying that their status was unclear. These kind of statements foster the kinds of statements by +Iker below which make no sense.
Brian, you know very well that the results of that meeting were engineered by your own Presiding Bishop, who has made it clear that she won’t tolerate any competition. And ++Rowan Williams went along with it. Dr Williams has made a statement saying that my own bishop, +John-David Schofield, for example, is a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, as are Bishop Iker and several others, and since they are our diocesan bishops, this, then, amounts to a de facto recognition of our membership in that Communion.
Brian,
The Bishop of the Episcopal Doicese of Fort Worth, Bp Jack Leo Iker, is also recognized by ++Rowan. He was at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and has since not been renounced by the ABoC even after Mrs. Schorie’s fantasized renounciation of Holy Orders. Bp Iker has been and will be a Bishop of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (ACNA/ACOSC) is still part of the Anglican Communion.
We understand the FUD you spread and recognize it as such.
And Bishop Iker’s statement makes a LOT of sense.
Come on now Brian. The train has left the station. Now the facts on the ground will play out. If played properly – the ACNA should grow through 1) more TEC defections either as whole or segments of Parishes (if GC2009 is a train wreck a couple more dioceses may splinter); 2) Church planting by existing ACNA Parishes (in many cases utilizing disaffected factions in TEC Parishes; and 3) more other Anglican parishes ie APA/Continuing/FACA joining.
The +++ABC is probably clever enought to “ride the clutch” and hold onto TEC but not close the door on the ACNA and the global south.
The British are famous at divide and rule.
Unlike the 1970’s continuing churches the ACNA is not composed of the older generation fighting a rear guard action but includes elements of the vibrant and growing parts of TEC – those who create new Christians by evanglical efforts or breeding. Thus, TEC’s trend line will continue downward through defections and, alas, the grave – while ACNA’s should continue upward through defections to and its growth oriented mission. Assuming the Anglican Communion survives it will want and need a viable American presence. TEC will in 10 years only be viable in the Northeast and urban centers (not enough openly gay folk and wealthy leftwingers in small southern and midwestern towns).
I think the departing dioceses will remain in dual membership until there is a vote on admitting ACNA as Province 39. So as a member of ACNA one is not in the AC but as a member of the SC, one is in the AC. The REC folk are in ACNA but are not in the AC yet.
It’s called “membership via the back door,” and therefore TEC’s leaders can’t do a thing about it, unless they can find some way to kick the Southern Cone out of the Communion. That will never be allowed to happen, so they’re stuck with us……like it or not.
Well, while CANA, AMiA, and Southern Cone are talking about dual membership, it’s striking that the Uganda-affiliated churches aren’t. ++Henry Orombi moved quickly to transfer the over 50 congregations under Ugandan oversight to the ACNA, and thus it appears that we are NOT in that dual membership position.
And since I just transferred from TEC to the new Diocese of the Holy Spirit, under +John Guernsey’s care, I think that means that I’m on the fringes of the AC now (just off the green, to use a golfing analogy). And I’m OK with that.
It’s only a matter of time before the whole AC probably breaks up. And FWIW, I care [b] FAR more [/b] about whether I’m in communion with Abuja, Kampala, Nairobi, Singapore, and Juba than with Canterbury or York. And I mean that quite literally.
David Handy+
David+
Ditto – my allegiance is first to Jesus Christ. In temporal terms, right now, that means
happy fingers…
In temporal terms, that means for me a connection to biblically faithful and classical Anglicanism – found in the GAFCON movement and ACNA. Whether that’s formally connected to the increasingly irrelevant Instruments of Communion in their entirety means very little to me.
Darin+
LOL Brian – you are a hoot. Btw have you seen the latest poll in the Church of England Newspaper: “..which do you think is most authentically Anglican?” So far the results are running: ACNA 66.7% and TEC and ACC 33.3%
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=4624
Well said Archbishop Gregory. Bravo.
Dr Williams has made a statement saying that my own bishop, +John-David Schofield, for example, is a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion, as are Bishop Iker and several others, and since they are our diocesan bishops, this, then, amounts to a de facto recognition of our membership in that Communion.
Cennyd, again more half-truths. Your Archbishop claims that ++Rowan told him that +Schofield is a bishop in good standing. +Schofield had an opportunity to prove this exceptionally questionable claim by attending Lambeth, but he chose not to. No actions or statements on the part of ++Rowan have ever been proven to be made. No proof has been offered other than a second hand report that has been unverified. In addition, the fact that “++Rowan Williams went along with it” at the ACC proves that he ne does not consider any of the schismatic bishops to be “in good standing.”
To Brian–the Anglican Communion has clearly shown itself incapable (or at least unwilling) of imposing discipline on provinces that have chosen to ignore the clear majority determination against border-crossing. Those of us who find the practice a violation of Catholic ecclesiology are just going to have to live with that. If we can’t, we are free to form our own denomination outside the Anglican Communion that reflects our values. There are many reappraiser Episcopalians who would like to do just that by distancing themselves from the Communion at the upcoming General Convention. I am not one of them.
To Brian’s critics–The Anglican Communion has clearly shown itself incapable (or at least unwilling) of imposing discipline on provinces that have chosen to ignore the clear majority determination against other practices that you find unacceptable. Those of you who find those practices a violation of Christian truth are just going to have to live with that. If you can’t, you are free to form your own denomination outside the Anglican Communion that reflects your values. There are many reasserter Anglicans who would like to do just that by distancing themselves from the See of Canterbury. I am not one of them, either.
No, I am one of the poor sods who felt that loyalty to the Anglican expression of Christian principles required the submission of my private judgment to the collective discernment of the community as a whole on both sets of issues. I still feel that way, but it is getting harder every day to determine exactly where that community—the Body of Christ—concretely subsists. We are confronted with the reality that there are multiple bodies of Christians in our midst, each of which is convinced that it is the faithful remnant of Anglicanism doing the Lord’s bidding and that the others are not.
It was hard enough to “think with the Church” when my parish could disagree with my diocese which could disagree with its province which could disagree with the Communion. Now, I may have ties to (at least) two separating parishes in two dioceses of two provinces in two increasingly separate sub-Communions. Each of those separate bodies defines itself in much more exclusive terms than historical Anglicanism has ever done. I am being told that I must choose between theological positions that I find equally unacceptable, some because they reject historic Christian positions on (for example) the Incarnation and others because they reject historic Christian positions on (for example) social justice.
It may be better for everyone if the separation is recognized as reality, the fighting just stops, and everybody goes back to trying to do the Lord’s work according to their best lights in the community where God has placed them. That may require both sides having enough charity to let their opponents do the same thing. Seeking blessings for TEC may not require cursing ACNA; wishing well to ACNA may not require calling doom down on TEC.
The posturing that is going on in places like Fort Worth, with two bishops and primates blasting one another with anathemas that neither has the jurisdiction to enforce, represents an incredible waste of energy in the face of the real threat to Christian faith represented by militant secularism. It reminds me of the situation in the Near East and North Africa during the seventh century, when quarreling within the Christian community set it up as a pushover for the Muslim invasions.
As for me, I will just keep trying to follow my path onward through the fog that will never completely clear this side of the Judgment.
He was at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and has since not been renounced by the ABoC even after Mrs. Schorie’s fantasized renounciation of Holy Orders. Bp Iker has been and will be a Bishop of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (ACNA/ACOSC) is still part of the Anglican Communion.
When +Iker attended, he was a bishop in the Anglican Communion. He has since renounced that. ++Rowan does not need to make any statement or renunciation. He will simply go on not recognizing these bishops.
Now the facts on the ground will play out. If played properly…The +++ABC is probably clever enought to “ride the clutch†and hold onto TEC but not close the door on the ACNA and the global south…Thus, TEC’s trend line will continue downward through defections and, alas, the grave – while ACNA’s should continue upward through defections to and its growth oriented mission. Assuming the Anglican Communion survives it will want and need a viable American presence.
I don’t know about the accuracy of your predictions, but I do note that they are all in the future.
Dale (#13)
[i]I am being told that I must choose between theological positions that I find equally unacceptable, some because they reject historic Christian positions on (for example) the Incarnation and others because they reject historic Christian positions on (for example) social justice.[/i]
I’m curious as to how you’re defining “social justice.” I agree there are a fair number of reasserters who hold views of the market to which I don’t subscribe (either partly or at all), but I’ve yet to hear any ACNA bishop suggest that these are matters of faith. It’s an area where discernment has to be at an individual’s discretion (as opposed, say, to issues surrounding life).
[i]The posturing that is going on in places like Fort Worth, with two bishops and primates blasting one another with anathemas that neither has the jurisdiction to enforce, represents an incredible waste of energy in the face of the real threat to Christian faith represented by militant secularism. It reminds me of the situation in the Near East and North Africa during the seventh century, when quarreling within the Christian community set it up as a pushover for the Muslim invasions.[/i]
One of the most cogent statements to be made on this subject of late. Thank you.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
#14-
You have a link to that renunciation? In Bp. Iker’s own words? Please forward cause I think I may have missed it…or not….if you say he renounced then I’ll await the link.
BigTex AC
May I remind you that border crossings only took place after TEC refused to abide by AC discipline and the AC refused to enforce that discipline. The issue was forced by the ABC who acted by not acting.
God does good things! My post did not make it; it was quite an ad hominen attack. #14, You are wrong. Bp Iker did not renounce his Orders per TEC Canon law. Mrs. Schori made it up to suit her whims.
Re: Jeremy Bonner post above
—Note to Elves: I believe that this is relevant to the posted article because it continues the discussion of why I think that the current conflict between two parties each claiming exclusive title to right and truth (to say nothing of diocesan and parish properties) is wasting our energies and putting those of us in the middle in an untenable position between two equally unappetizing alternatives—
Social Justice was just an example of an area where my theology and the theology of many in the ACNA fail to mesh. There are others, including ecclesiology (I do not believe that an Anglican or Catholic parish or diocese can be regarded as an independent entity directed by majority vote of its members, for example). In soteriology, the one ACNA bishop that I have regularly heard preaching is a Johnny-One-Note on a particularly narrow Calvinistic version of the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement. He even made it the central theme of a Christmas sermon that barely mentioned the Incarnation and completely ignored the Resurrection. That theology is not only incompatible with mine, but with the beliefs of most ACNA members in the Anglo-Catholic dioceses.
Almost all of the ACNA clergy are products of the same seminaries as the TEC clergy, and (in my experience) have no greater grasp on historical Christian and Anglican orthodoxy than their opponents. The difference is that the reasserters verbally support doctrines that many clearly do not really understand, while the reappraisers verbally reject notions that they do not grasp, either. I once endured a sermon on the importance of orthodoxy by a priest who quite clearly rejected the orthodox dogma that Jesus had a human will, thinking it somehow denied the fullness of the Incarnation. How is that different from the reappraisers who equally clearly think that they cannot teach the truth of God Incarnate because they believe Jesus had a human will?
As for social justice: I think we have all noted that in North America there is a very strong correlation between self-identified theological and political conservatism. The correlation itself isn’t a problem. The difficulty comes when the two become identified with one another. As you note, there is sometimes a tendency to confuse “the God of the free market” with “the free market as God.” Here in Texas, I regularly encounter believers who regard the Second Commandment and the Second Amendment as equal Gospel imperatives, or believe that those who warn of global warming must be Gaia-worshipers headed to a rather warmer eternal rest.
It has been my experience with many of the folk now moving from TEC to ACNA that they suspect the religious orthodoxy of those who do not share their political values. They assume that those who oppose the death penalty, for example, must be godless liberals… notwithstanding the “consistently pro-life” stance of the U.S. Catholic Conference. As a lifelong Moderate Republican, I find it difficult to consider membership in a denomination where some would judge me as much by my political views as by my Christian devotion.
Yes, I understand that many conservatives have received the same treatment from liberals in TEC. That doesn’t make it right. I also understand that this is not the formal teaching of the ACNA bishops, but they aren’t the ones I will have to coexist with in a parish.
(This identification of political and theological conservatism isn’t true elsewhere. In England, Bishop Tom Wright astonishes Americans with his ability to reconcile doctrinal orthodoxy with membership in the Labour Party. The Global South churches have been among the strongest supporters of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, I don’t live in any of those countries, but in Texas.)
Worse, in terms of my personal commitment to justice, has been the tendency of some in the ACNA camp to minimize the faults of their Global South sponsors. Who spoke out when the Rwandan government used the Anglican authorities to dictate whether a AMiA parish could invite the hero of “Hotel Rwanda” as a speaker? I fear it was rather fewer on this blog than those who defended the complicity of the former Bishop of Harare in various Zimbabwean massacres. How much opposition did we see from CANA when the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) sponsored secular legislation that did not criminalize homosexual conduct (that is already a felony), but rather any exercise of free speech, assembly, press, or worship that a government official regarded as pro-homosexual? I cannot see it as an improvement to move from a denomination that is captive to North American cultural values to one that is captive to the values of a completely foreign culture.
So, I will have a problem if the current TEC majority ever manages to force out all who refuse to embrace their various heterodoxies. What I have seen of the ACNA is equally uncongenial to my core values.
Thanks Dale.
Dale, the following line is brilliant: “The difference is that the reasserters verbally support doctrines that many clearly do not really understand, while the reappraisers verbally reject notions that they do not grasp, either.” Lots of smiles.
However, the smiles fade when I ponder the possibility that you may be right. As a curious layman, I’ve often been frustrated by the utter lack of intellectual wattage among the clergy to whom I have been exposed. I’ve had no theological education, and done little reading in philosophy. So when I start seeing the holes in what a cleric professes, I start to have serious doubts about the value of the discerment, development and education that goes on. After all, if I can spot it . . .
Still, my exposure to RC priests has not led be to believe that things are necessarily better on the other side of the Tiber (at least at the parish level).
Big Tex AC
#14-
You have a link to that renunciation? In Bp. Iker’s own words? Please forward cause I think I may have missed it…or not….if you say he renounced then I’ll await the link.
Here is a link documenting the renunciation of +Iker’s orders
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_103480_ENG_HTM.htm
Unlike the other indefensible assertions of status listed above, here we have the head of an organization taking documented action. Of course reasserters will pretend it is uncanonical or unconstitutional or whatever to justify their position-but here are the cold hard facts ‘on the ground.’
#23
I apologize…perhaps my previous request wasn’t clear. I asked for a link to a statement…please keep your eye on the ball here…in Bishop Iker’s own words…that he has renounced his holy orders.
BigTex AC
Actions speak louder than words Big Tex 😉
Well Brian- at least the ACNA has the hope of a brighter tomorrow. TEC’s trend lines appear terminal or at least a long agonizing retreat from Empire. It was prescience that was the fury that did not get out of Pandora’s box – for with prescience man would not have hope.
I am eagerly awaiting the results of the upcoming General Convention……should be quite a circus!
BigTex your request was clear. Brian just didn’t want to answer because he couldn’t. Brian is just being himself.
27, me too.
I read it, and it seems that +Iker indeed said he was moving to the Southern Cone, but I fail to see where he supposedly renounced his orders. Do Kate and Dave have their own Piskie Babblefish to run all correspondence through so it sounds like what they want to hear?
12 Brian from T19: Then perhaps you’d care to call out Archbishops Venables and Williams on this. Ask them to state verbatim what they told our bishops.
Brian is making a valiant effort to call black white, but of course he is now in a position where ACNA is recognised not only by GAFCON provinces but by South East Asia and Jerusalem and the Middle East.
Brian knows perfectly well that most in the CofE and the rest of the Communion recognise Bishop Iker and Archbishop Duncan as part of the Communion and such utterances as there have been by the ABC have recognised this.
Meanwhile TEC who 22 of the 38 Anglican provinces do not recognise think that they are going to get back in by locking Dr Williams in a room with 8 gay and lesbian Episcopalians to whine at him until he gives up. It won’t do him or TEC any good any more than TEC priests shoving money into Dr Williams’ bogus indaba listening process.
Such is the mad mad world of Brian from T19’s TEC.
BTW Brian is the joke church still going to give the Anglican Communion its first Buddhist bishop?
Dale Rye, thank you for your posts on this thread.
RE: “. . . with two bishops and primates blasting one another with anathemas that neither has the jurisdiction to enforce . . . ”
Not sure what this is talking about — both bishops are making [i]legal pronouncements[/i] and there is certainly a “jurisdiction” that will enforce one or the other, called the courts.
RE: “In England, Bishop Tom Wright astonishes Americans with his ability to reconcile doctrinal orthodoxy with membership in the Labour Party.”
Actually Bishop Wright regularly astonishes Americans with his vast swamps of ignorance concerning both economics and political/military history and foreign policy [after all, if someone like me can happily skirmish with him on those topics, then he’s clearly lacking], which is parallel to his eagerness to share that lack of knowledge with the world — and inversely proportional to his vast seas of knowledge concerning Christology.
RE: “They assume that those who oppose the death penalty, for example, must be godless liberals . . . ”
Really? I oppose the death penalty and nobody has assumed I’m a “godless liberal,” Dale.
“In England, Bishop Tom Wright astonishes Americans with his ability to reconcile doctrinal orthodoxy with membership in the Labour Party.”
You make it sound like an act of prestigidation. Who says he ‘reconciles’ anything? Maybe his mind is a hodgepodge of ideas, many far from reconciled. Wright is on record as calling the Holy Spirit ‘she’ – not very orthodox, I think.
Tom Wright in 1992 on feminine language for the Holy Spirit (comment at 08:25):
http://ugleyvicar.blogspot.com/2009/06/lets-call-spirit-she-for-change-bishop.html