Bishop Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, one of the few leaders of real stature left in The Episcopal Church of the USA, plays his cards close to his chest in a recent interview with Anglican TV . After General Convention’s decisions to rescind the so-called moratoria and press ahead with same-sex blessings he indicates that his diocese will be looking in the coming months at how they are going to strategically place themselves both in The Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion.
What this really means is that conservative Episcopalians who remain in the American Church will need to find some way of distancing themselves from their own Church without placing themselves in the sort of anomalous position in which the recently formed breakaway Anglican Church in North America finds itself. The point for Bishop Mark Lawrence is that dioceses like his need to be part of the solution as far as Anglican renewal and reformation is concerned rather than outsiders to the discussion. He acknowledges though that this is going to take a long time to clear up with the Anglican Instruments of Unity meeting so infrequently. He says, “I suppose what many people are waiting for is the Archbishop of Canterbury to weigh in. Waiting … waiting …
–This article appears in the Church of England Newspaper, July 24, 2009, edition, on page 15 (emphasis mine)
What we need is not another way to “network” with each other for mutual support through nice seminars and mission projects.
What we need to be able to function as faithful Anglican Christians is an Anglican Covenant with some teeth in it and [b]a way for dioceses to sign on to it independently of TEC[/b]
If we think we can live in a private bubble, ignoring TEC while still being complicit within it, we are fooling ourselves.
#1, this cannot only be about dioceses, although they matter. This is about parishes and also about parishioners. Some of these are in increasingly pressure-filled situations without much support.
You are so right about this being beyond another network, or another statement, or some project or other.
This is actually a very good article by Andrew Carey. I am especially intrigued by this:
Clearly South Carolina is going to end up in an awkward and anomalous position, but not in the same one as ACNA. Is there another way forward here? South Carolina has a real opportunity I think.
I am very much afraid that faithful parishes and/or parishioners in the dioceses whose bishops and deputations went wholeheartedly for D025 and C056 [which covers nearly 70% of the church)will not have much of an alternative but to walk out of the buildings and under the wings of some faithful Anglican bishop — somehow.
We in faithful dioceses who resisted are in another kind of bind. Our only function in the minds of the other deputations and bishops seems to have been to provide them with whipping boys and folks to stomp down and celebrate victory over.
Now instead of referring to us as, “schismatics” or resistors, they just called us: [b]”The Losers.”[/b]
Steve #3
Please — What possible opportunity??? I would love a clue.
5, as would I.
I haven’t read the whole article, since Kendall didn’t supply a link and I haven’t bothered yet to find another way to get a look at Andrew Carey’s entire piece, but as someone now within the ACNA, I find his language about it objectionable. He clearly implies that the ACNA is now part of the problem, instead of being part of the solution/answer.
I vigorously disagree. Despite complicating relationships within the AC, the formation of the ACNA is very much part of the only real way to solve the root problems plaguing Anglicanism. We need to face the harsh reality that the old wineskins of the AC simply aren’t going to survive this vexed crisis.
But they had outlived their usefulness anyway. New international structures will have to be developed that will enable Anglicanism to not only survive but thrive in our new global, post-colonial, and above all, post-Constantinian era. Orthodoxy can’t be optional, it must be mandatory, and strictly enforced in the New Anglicanism.
But like others above, I eagerly await the “bold response” +Lawrence has rightly said it’s necessary for SC to make in the wake of the heretical and schismatic actions of GenCon.
David Handy+
There was $1 million set aside for Title IV costs plus a easing of the canons to make it easier to prosecute. They have their cross hairs on Bp Lawrence.
RE: “He clearly implies that the ACNA is now part of the problem, instead of being part of the solution/answer.”
I don’t think I see that implication.
What I see is that conservatives who are remaining within TEC wish to 1) not place themselves in an anomalous position and 2) be a part of the solution and 3) not be outsiders to the discussion.
I see nothing objectionable to those assertions.
Sarah1,
Because ACNA has the support of the primates of Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, West Africa, the Southern Cone (Gafcon), Mr Carey’s arguments seems to suggest that FCA’s solution is some type of second tier solution at best. I think as long as the situation in North America is viewed as as a Northern Hemisphere problem (TEC & COE), there will be no solution. We are witnessing a significant development in the Anglican Communion’s self understanding. If you remember, the primates of the FCA encouraged the development of the ACNA, because the primates broke fellowship with an unrepentant TEC after the consecration of a practicing homosexual. That has not changed.
RE: “Mr Carey’s arguments seems to suggest that FCA’s solution is some type of second tier solution at best.”
Well it is for those of us who do not wish to be a part of ACNA. That’s one reason why we’re over here in TEC.
I understand that it’s not a “second tier solution” for those who are in ACNA. But I don’t get the feeling that Carey is writing for ACNA people but for people who are still in TEC.
Sarah,
I think that is my point. By focusing on a TEC solution. It ignores the fact that this is a communion wide problem. I believe that is why Canterbury is so concerned. Because ultimately the Church of England (and members in it) may have to decide between the Anglican Communion or the TEC. The ACNA “may” eventually represent the will of the Anglican Communion as “a” way forward for North American Anglicans. If you follow the trajectory of GAFCON this seems to be their answer to the situation in North America. How that impacts those orrthodox brothers and sisters still in TEC. I don’t know. But I don’t think one can simply ignore the support and encouragement the GAFON primates have showned to the ANCA as a province. It simply reinforces their impression that what’s going on in the TEC vis a vis the Anglican Communion is tainted by the vestiges of colonialism.
Boniface, I recognize that you yourself don’t see ACNA as some sort of a “second tier solution.”
But focusing on a TEC solution does not at all “ignore the fact that this is a communion wide problem” any more than focusing on an Anglican entity that has the support of six Primates is ignoring “the fact that this is a communion wide problem.”
Certainly “The ACNA “may†eventually represent the will of the Anglican Communion as “a†way forward for North American Anglicans.”
But I doubt it. For one thing, that leaves out folks who won’t be a part of ACNA.
RE: “If you follow the trajectory of GAFCON this seems to be their answer to the situation in North America. . . . But I don’t think one can simply ignore the support and encouragement the GAFON primates have showned to the ANCA as a province. ”
I am quite confident that you are right. ACNA seems to be the six Primates’ “answer to the situation in North America.” But how is moving on and discussing the remaining folks in TEC somehow ignoring “the support and encouragement the GAFON primates have showned to the ANCA as a province”?
Again — Carey wasn’t writing about ACNA. He was writing to folks in TEC who aren’t going to be a part of ACNA.
Maybe soon he will write about ACNA. Then you could have an article about ACNA.
But I find it intriguing now that anytime anyone writes an article about, you know, us over here in TEC, people always have to insert ACNA. Why must ACNA be the center of attention at all times in articles and blog posts?
[blockquote]“I suppose what many people are waiting for is the Archbishop of Canterbury to weigh in. Waiting … waiting …[/blockquote]
It might be better to wait to hear a statement directly from the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than to hear a hurried and bewildering statement crafted by the ACC or the ACO.
[i] Comment deleted by elf. [/i]
[blockquote]There was $1 million set aside for Title IV costs plus a easing of the canons to make it easier to prosecute. They have their cross hairs on Bp Lawrence. [/blockquote]
Don’t changes to the canons have to be made via resolutions passed at two consecutive GCs? That would make this “crosshairs” a little late to scourge +Lawrence, I think. And anyway, what could possibly be easier than running that kangaroo court of Schori’s that ousted +Duncan, +Schofield, et alia? Those made a lynch mob look like a model of due process.
Jeffersonian: I thought Bishops Duncan, Schofield et al. had left TEC of their own volition.