Dear Dr. Harmon:
……
I know that I greatly understate myself when I say that Anglicanism on this continent is currently quite complex and confusing, especially when it comes to predicting the future direction of our great tradition. I personally am strongly committed to ministering within the Anglican tradition in a way that upholds the orthodox faith, both in theology and polity. For this reason I am both encouraged and troubled by the recent formation of the ACNA. As has been expressed by many, most notably the Communion Partners and the Anglican Communion Institute, the ACNA does seem to be significantly compromising its ecclesiology in order to move beyond the tensions that have for so long plagued our Communion. As a current parishioner at an ACNA church and as someone looking towards ordination, I find this deeply troubling. At the same time, recent decisions in TEC provide little comfort or hope, reinforcing my belief that the possibility of finding in TEC a place to minister in faithfulness and integrity all but impossible.
As a faithful leader of our communion and someone who I know to be committed to the orthodox faith, both in belief and practice, I am writing to ask for your input into this complex situation. Do you still see the Communion Partners remaining in TEC long term, and therefore is there still hope for young ordinands to pursue Holy Orders through the traditional means? On the other hand, do you believe that as the ACNA develops there is hope for a strengthening of its ecclesiological foundation? To this end I am comforted by the involvement of the Rt. Rev. Jack Iker and the Rev. Dr. Robert Munday, as well as the ecumenical voice of Metropolitan Jonah.
With these two “tracks” (to employ recent Anglican terminology) to orthodoxy, is there any hope that the two might eventually partner together and become a unified voice? Closer to home, I think of the presence of the AMiA within the Diocese of South Carolina. I know very little of the relationship between the two, but do you see any hope for partnership in ministry and mission between the two?
I know I have asked more than can possibly be answered, so I would appreciate any thoughts or remarks that you may have on any part of the aforementioned topics.
I think the two groups should partner, including the example given – AMiA and DioSC. The 2 or 3 remaining faithful dioceses within ECUSA should regard ACNA as a friendly body and work together, even though the national structure looks at ACNA as a mortal enemy. That alone would be a good way to upset all the right people and show a positive Christian witness at the same time. Win-win.
I think that this letter speaks for a very large number of conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians in North America…including me.
Kendall,
You tease us with posts such as this. Many of us would truly love to know your response to such questions as well!
All traditional Anglicans are now wondering in a desert and the author is asking us where the next oasis is. The truth is that no one knows. Therefore what we have is hope that God will provide a way. It isn’t easy to rely on hope but it is the life of faith. If the author is called to the priesthood he should choose his path, take up his staff and go. Live on faith and rely on God. Its a big plunge but if your called you must go. Oh, and go to Nashotah House!!! Its cold but you won’t find a better education anywhere.
“the ACNA does seem to be significantly compromising its ecclesiology in order to move beyond the tensions that have for so long plagued our Communion.” I understand this concern, but I don’t see it as ACNA compromising its ecclesiology in any long-term sense. We are living in extraordinary times, and extraordinary times often call for unusual, novel, messy, and usually temporary arrangements. When you’re pulling together various threads of Anglicanism — one of which has existed on its own for over a century, you’re bound to sort things out. It will take time, but I see no reason for pessimism at this early stage. I know others are predicting that ACNA will go the way of the Continuum, but I don’t see it that way. The difference between ACNA and the Continuum is episcopal leadership. In 1977 there was NOTHING like the extent or quality of established episcopal leadership leading the movement. What you mainly had was lots of clergy — many with purple fever — leading the way. I see ACNA as exactly the opposite of the experience of the Continuum — the movement is centripetal with ACNA, not centrifugal as it was with the Continuum. I can’t prove that anymore than anyone can prove the opposite, but the indications lead me to this conclusion. The ACNA bishops I’ve spoken with don’t indicate that they see the current arrangements as permanent, rather as transitional. They are acting with grace towards each other and cooperatively. To expect the ecclesiology of ACNA to be all neat and tidy at this moment, I feel, is unrealistic. Time will tell. What does seem completely clear is the unlikelihood that TEC will be reformed.
RE: “With these two “tracks” (to employ recent Anglican terminology) to orthodoxy, is there any hope that the two might eventually partner together and become a unified voice?”
That line somewhat disturbs me. It suggests that the two “tracks” did not work together. They did. It was called the Network.
But as we recognized, the two tracks did not share the same values and goals and took different paths. Clearly the two tracks did not share a “unified voice” though they certainly tried hard for a while.
So I’m not certain why the author of such an email would wish to try that again, other than the kind of “unified voice” that all Christian churches share.
Isn’t that marvelous mystery and gift enough? It certainly is for me.
#4 I think you meant wandering in a desert but wondering is a lovely slip, if you see what I mean.
I don’t know them all, but the several members of Communion Partners whom I do know are certainly ‘remaining in TEC long term’. The term ‘orthodox’ as used in the current Anglican debate includes both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals, and if the writer of the letter is an Evangelical he may be interested in those Evangelicals who are committed to staying in TEC–‘No Plan B’ is the watchword, suggested by Jerry Smith of Communion Partners–and their meeting at VTS in September. Check out http://canterburytrail.wordpress.com/episcopal-evangelical-assembly-september-2009/ for more information.
Kendall,
The comment was unintentional which makes it all that more funny. I suppose we are wondering while we are wandering. But truly I think the best thing that we can all do at this point is focus on our own relationships with Christ. All I can do is simply be the best priest I can, stay as honest to scripture as I can, and try to lead my parishioners into a deeper relationship with our Lord. If I can do that then I can be the type of priest I am called to be and hope that people will see me and know that there are still some traditional priests left in TEC. May God bless the faithful remnant and help us grow.