A Senior cleric of the Anglican Church of Canada has identified inaccuracies in Lorna Ashworth’s briefing paper for her private member’s motion, which will come before the General Synod next Wednesday. Similar concerns are coming from the Episcopal Church in the United States.
Mrs Ashworth’s motion will urge the Synod to “express the desire that the Church of England be in comÂmunion with the Anglican Church in North America [ACNA]”. Canon Alan Perry, a lecturer in ecclesiastical polity and former Prolocutor of the Province of Canada, rebuts allegations on clergy and property in her paper.
The Revd Brian Lewis, a Synod member from Chelmsford diocese, circulated the note to all members on Monday.
No surprise here……this is what we’ve all expected. This is a deliberate effort at torpedoing the ACNA’s chances of recognition as a province of the Anglican Communion. Let’s hope that the rest of Synod sees it for what it is…….a pack of outright propaganda.
okay, so then what objective, verifiable challenges do you present to rebut the rebuttal?
http://www.americananglican.org/rebutting-simon-sarmiento-and-tec-s-factual-inaccuracies
#2 I don’t know that the rebuttal needs a rebuttal. It is really a minor footnote to Ashworth’s paper — she got some of her numbers wrong. OK.
Ashworth lumped the US and Canada together in her paper. Perry wants everyone to know that there have been zero depositions in in Canada. If this is true, then Ashworth was sloppy. But it is certainly clear that the US church has deposed priests and bishops for their work with ACNA and the US is the larger country with more priests, bishops, parishes and people at issue. So the thrust of her argument still stands: that some bishops and priests have been deposed unfairly in North America (even if none of them were Canadian).
He also quibbles with some numbers: 52 instead of 69 priests and 3 rather than 6 bishops. OK…. So lets concede that the Canadian numbers are 52/3 instead of 69/6. Ashworth’s point still stands that there are quite a few people that need to be ministered to.
Even if you granted every point Perry was making, it doesn’t alter the substance of the motion: hey, there are a lot of people in the US and Canada who feel they have been treated unfairly and need our help.
Sure, there were some inaccuracies in Ms Ashworth’s motion, but that doesn’t change the fact that faithful Anglican Christians in both countries have been openly persecuted for their beliefs and for speaking out against the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church. The truth of the matter is that neither Church can stand having their dirty laundry exposed for all the world to see, so they’ve resorted to dirty, underhanded machinations against faithful Christians; something they claim to be, but aren’t.
[blockquote] “I am chiefly concerned at the unfairness of trying to create an impression of being excluded when they had chosen to leave.†[/blockquote]
Perhaps Mr Lewis in “fairness” should inform the members of Synod that, “the proper thing for these people in Canada to do, as good Anglicans and Christians, is to have stayed where they were and taught their children [i]in private[/i] not to believe everything they heard in the Church of Canada.”
That is the thing the Synod needs to consider in this vote.
And we all know how importanat numerical accuarcy is to Liberals-an $80 billion mistake in the amount of the stimulus bill was a rounding off error. But a miscount of a few preists in an otherwise fine paper is tanatmount to the apocalypse.
#7 If we’re going to talk about accuracy, we might also want to discuss spelling.
Those who have left can form a congregationalist denomination with all the Anglican bells and whistles! Nothing wrong with that!
No. 7 – what do political “Liberals” have to do with this? Is the CofE considering the US budget? If they are, I totally misapprehended the nature of the post.
9. NoVA Scout,
If it were to happen, in your estimation, what would result from the CoE recognizing the ACNA?
RE: “what do political “Liberals†have to do with this? . . . ”
I had thought that David Keller had made that clear in his comment — and that was only that the similarity between the two liberal groups — one secular and one religious — appears to be that they like numerical accuracy about some Very Important details but not numerical accuracy about some Not At All Important details.
David Keller was merely pointing out that odd similarity between two otherwise completely unconnected liberal groups — [as we all surely can tell by gazing long at the
MoveOn.org, er, General Convention 2009 resolutions, which were so eminently politically conservative.]Heh.
[blockquote] Those who have left can form a congregationalist denomination with all the Anglican bells and whistles! Nothing wrong with that! [/blockquote]
I have heard this bit of nonsense repeatedly on T19 for the last several years. I and several other faculty where I teach had lunch yesterday with the Archbishop of this new “congregationalist” denomination. Perhaps John Wilkens needs to look up the dictionary definition of “congregationalist.” [Hint! Congegationalists do not have archbishops.]
Perhaps he should also do some reading of standard theological and historical texts on the significance of bishops and apostolic succession in terms of the self-identification of the second century catholic church over against gnosticism. Repeatedly, the arguments used by second century apologists like Ireneaus is that the significance of episcopacy and apostolic succession is that bishops are supposed to teach and preserve the doctrine that has been handled down to them from the apostles. Ireneaus says nothing about whether such bishops are in communion with TEC, nor whether they own the property of individual parishes. Of course, some gnostics also had bishops, but Ireneaus is rather clear that any bishop who does not uphold or teach the same faith as the apostles is not a bishop of the catholic church.
Then perhaps Mr. Wilkens could read something about the Arian controversy, where he might discover that Athanasius was “deposed” numerous times. Athanasius did not thereby become a “congregationalist.” However, it is significant that Athanasius is on the church’s calendar, and Arius is not.
Finally, he might read about the Nestorian controversy, where he would find that Nestorius was archbishop of Constantinople. [At the time, this would have been rather more significant than being Presiding bishop of TEC, perhaps more like the Archbishop of Canterbury.] Despite Nestorius’s high ranking episcopal position, Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus did not hesitate to condemn him as a heretic, and to refuse communion with him. (And, indeed, just as with TEC’s recent talking points, Nestorius could have claimed that he believed the Nicene creed.) Of course, Cyril was not a congregationalist, either.
Sarah: I have found misreading, manipulation and distortion of numbers re public funding to be a bad habit of both conservatives and liberals in the political realm. However dissipated the semantic content of the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in modern American political parlance, I assume they have no valid correlation to the use of those terms in a religious context.
Dcn Dale: Since you asked, I’ll share my musings on the subject, but with the advance warning that they are only my speculation:
I find the initiative (to seek recognition from the CofE Synod) a little surprising and, after having considered a number of possibilities for why it is being undertaken at this point, I concluded that a significant motivation must be to cloud the property disputes that are going on here and there in the United States, particularly in Virginia. One of the reasons I find it a little surprising is that one often hears from the ACNA camp nearly the same level of opprobrium heaped on the Archbishop of Canterbury that is reflexively dispensed to the Presiding Bishop of TEC. If that kind of attitude even somewhat reflects the views of ACNA hierarchy, why would it be important to be formally recognized as being “in communion” with CofE? Another reason for my surprise is that one of the frequent arguments advanced by advocates of secession in the 2006 time frame when many parishes were wrestling with that decision was that the people, events, and theology of The Episcopal Church had come to such a sorry pass that it was impossible to be in communion with such reprobates. If the measure before the Synod included a provision to cast out TEC from Communion with the Church of England, I think it would be more consistent with sentiments I have frequently heard from within ACNA (but, of course, a much heavier lift in terms of getting it approved by the Synod). But it strikes me that, if the measure passes, ACNA and TEC, through communion with CofE, would also necessarily be in communion with each other, a repulsive condition that I thought was at the core of why ACNA worshippers sought to depart TEC. So that’s why I find the measure a bit dissonant with my perception of where peoples’ hearts and minds really are.
Nonetheless, I can see a valid and very useful tactical purpose to having some tangible degree of recognition from CofE that ACNA is “in communion” and co-equal with TEC in that regard. In Virginia, particularly, where there is a unique statute that has thus far protected departing parishioners’ claims to property formerly held by Episcopal parishes, the reasoning of the trial judge was that the departees were really just a branch of the same denomination, the Anglican Communion. Thus, the conditions of the Virginia division statute that permit majority vote to control title changes applied. I think the judge only very dimly understood the rather loose nature of The Anglican Communion and attributed to it more structure and cohesion that it factually merits, but the matter is being sorted out at appellate levels now. However, if ACNA is not clearly in communion with the “mother” Church, the CofE, it undermines the legal theory advanced by departing parishioners that they are not starting a new denomination and trying to get a head start by making off with the property of the old crowd. ACNA’s “disability” in regard to not being in communion also is, in my opinion, the reason that the seceding CANA parishes in Virginia have a less direct and more complicated relationship with ACNA than do other former Episcopalian groups (I haven’t stayed very current on what this relationship is,so my impression may be dated). ACNA, to reviewing secular courts, seems likely at this point in history to be perceived to be more distinct from the Church of England and the Anglican Communion than would, for example, the Anglican provinces of Nigeria and other African states. The use of the African structure to cover the secessions of 2006 and 2007 provides a superficial fit with some of the language of the Virginia division statute, particularly when reviewed by secular judges with no particular grounding in the history and structure of the Anglican church, and thus greatly enhanced the chances of taking control of church property. In other jurisdictions where there was no analog to the Virginia statute, different devices were more useful, particularly the idea that the Diocese as a whole could depart, leaving no Episcopalian structure behind to claim ownership.
So the expected result of recognition of ACNA by CofE, in my mind, is that the fact of recognition would start cropping up in legal briefs and arguments advanced by partisans of the “You Can Take it With You” school of schism and that the event would be cited to secular judges to indicate (ironically, given the drama with which these issues are discussed internally) that these changes are relatively minor internal adjustments to a larger church and that keeping property in the hands of those who departed is a relatively insignificant act.
What do you think the effect of recognition would be?
14. NoVA Scout,
Thanks for the response. I hadn’t thought much about the aspect that you have written about but concede that this could confuse things. I guess I thought recognition by CoE would jump start the acceptance process for ACNA in the WWAC. Your post was edifying. If CoE rejects fellowship with the ACNA or kicks the can further down the road, I see a possible schism in the WWAC between Canterbury and Jerusalem Anglicanism.
I think your views have merit, Dcn Dale. It’s unfortunate, but perhaps unavoidable, that our US spat has spilled over into a situation that puts our brothers and sisters in England (and elsewhere) in these no-win situations.
Dr. Witt, I’m fairly familiar with the controversies you discuss. I believe most of those controversies were about the nature of Jesus Christ, if I recall, and little about human sexuality. The word “gnostic” does get tossed around quite a bit, but the content of “gnostic” beliefs are rarely referred to. As are the consequences of the beliefs of various heretics.
Although I am of the opinion that yesterday’s heresy is today’s orthodoxy, as Schleiermacher once noted.
It’s an opinion, and not one I’m going to fall on the sword for, of course.
RE: “However dissipated the semantic content of the terms “liberal†and “conservative†in modern American political parlance, I assume they have no valid correlation to the use of those terms in a religious context.”
I’m sure that you do.
However, I was merely answering the question you asked about David Keller’s comment: “what do political “Liberals†have to do with this? . . . “
Obviously he doesn’t share your views about the correlation, which is certainly understandable.
RE: “If that kind of attitude even somewhat reflects the views of ACNA hierarchy, why would it be important to be formally recognized as being “in communion†with CofE? Another reason for my surprise is that one of the frequent arguments advanced by advocates of secession in the 2006 time frame when many parishes were wrestling with that decision was that the people, events, and theology of The Episcopal Church had come to such a sorry pass that it was impossible to be in communion with such reprobates.”
NoVA, I think you are understandably but seriously misunderstanding the stances of conservative Anglicans, whether in TEC or out. Let me help.
RE: “If that kind of attitude even somewhat reflects the views of ACNA hierarchy, why would it be important to be formally recognized as being “in communion†with CofE?”
People distinguish sharply between the office or seat of Canterbury and its current occupant. That one’s easy. As with the whole of the Anglican Communion, the COE is far more conservative than TEC and not even the match of the current ABC.
RE: “The Episcopal Church had come to such a sorry pass that it was impossible to be in communion with such reprobates.”
Let me sharpen that a bit for you, which will help. The Episcopal Church is corrupt and led by heretical leaders. Why be in such an organization when one may easily be in another that is less corrupt and led by people who believe the gospel?
On the other hand, “secondary separation” is not a need for the two organizations. It is not necessary for ACNA, for instance, to separate itself from all structures that may work with or be in communion with TEC. That would be ridiculous. No, it is considered adequate to not be in the corrupt organization, just as for physicians, for instance, it is considered adequate not to be in the AMA, in increasing numbers. Yet, physicians may still “be in communion with” organizations which are “in communion with” the AMA.
See how simply that works?
; > )
Note that I am still a happy and committed member of TEC. So obviously it is quite possible for many conservatives to be a member of a corrupt organization led by people who don’t believe the gospel and who are rank heretics. That in itself is a different topic.
You are indeed a very helpful person, Sarah. I’m glad you are a committed member of The Episcopal Church. Your happiness to be among us is at times obscured from the sight of bystanders in the blog world. That no doubt reflects our weakness of vision rather than any faltering of the incandescence of your joy.
Do you have a view on my notion that recognition of ACNA by the Synod would start showing up as support of legal positions taken by those seeking to claim properties in the US?
“Neither the Episcopal Church in the US nor Church of Canada is able to give a corporate response to a motion before another Synod.”
Not true. A corporate response can be delivered if there is time for the revelant body to meet, otherwise the Presiding Bishop or Archbishop can formulate a response on behalf of their church – that is what PB/Archbishops are for.
Rather, it is clear that TEC and ACoC hierarchies do not *want* to give an official response, since that would lock them into a public position (something liberals try to avoid). So instead they will respond unofficially by individuals who are not accountable, and whose statements they can deny later if they choose. Typical liberal tactics.
NoVA Scout,
At least part of the response to your last question would have to be directed to the various groups defending law suits by TEC (and from recollection not all of these are ACNA). Only they know if this is likely to make any difference. I doubt that it would – ACNA is already in communion with bishops representing a majority of the Anglican Commmunion – but in the final analysis that is a matter for American lawyers.
Also, you seem to be assuming *a priori* that Lorna Ashworth brought her motion at the behest of ACNA. Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that she has denied that. You may not be aware that millions of Anglicans all over the world want ACNA to be in fellowship with CofE, and this desire has nothing to do with lawsuits in the USA. This should hardly be surprising, since provinces and dioceses representing millions of Anglicans have already declared themselves in communion with ACNA.
Nor is there any paradox in ACNA being in communion with CofE which in turn is in communion with TEC: ACNA is *already* in this position. Why? Because all (or virtually all) of the provinces and dioceses with which it is already in communion are also in communion with TEC. Its just that in most cases they have declared themselves to be in “impaired” communion with TEC.
The majority of orthodox leaders have shown consistently by their actions in the last 20 years that their goal is the reunification of orthodox anglicans all over the world, and that includes those in TEC and ACoC as well as those in ACNA. Whether it is Forward in Faith back in 1994 who formulated the expression “impaired communion” in their communion statement, or Gafcon leaders at Jerusalem in 2008 who resolved to remain part of the Anglican Communion, or any of myriad declarations in between, the orthodox position has always been to seek the reformation and purification of the Anglican Communion, not its dissoution.
That said, if leaders in Canterbury or TEC continue to openly tolerate liberalism, they may yet force such a split. But it won’t be because the orthodox Anglicans sought it, in fact it will be in spite of every effort by the orthodox to prevent it. But in the end, truth is not negotiable.
Also, property is not the main issue, even for ACNA. It can lose all of its property law suits and still survive and rebuild. Orthodox Anglicans can do that, whereas liberals cannot.
William Witt at #12,
Excellent summary of the patristic church position!
RE: “Do you have a view on my notion that recognition of ACNA by the Synod would start showing up as support of legal positions taken by those seeking to claim properties in the US?”
I don’t follow the lawsuits that much. But I’m not concerned either way as I don’t think that the COE recognizing ACNA will have an effect any more than Nigeria recognizing ACNA. As I’ve pointed out before, it’s not recognition by the COE [a province of the AC] that will allow ACNA to claim [legitimately] that it is a part of the Anglican Communion, but rather recognition by the Instruments of Communion.
I personally think the original resolution was a mistake for the three reasons I touched on on another blog. But I’m not vested in either its defeat or acceptance.
RE: “Your happiness to be among us is at times obscured from the sight of bystanders in the blog world. That no doubt reflects our weakness of vision rather than any faltering of the incandescence of your joy.”
Well, I think it’s easy for people to mistake sharp and repeated disagreement with the leaders [sic] of TEC and their gospel with The Episcopal Church as a whole. Plus . . . for liberals . . . it’s so very vexing. ; > ) Much much better for the vociferous dissenters to “just leave now” rather than have them actually in the organization “causing trouble” and “being divisive” [which actually means, pointing out the divisions and causing trouble amongst the sheeples].
But keep in mind my constant thesis. A teensy minority of people have taken over the leadership of TEC. They in no way represent the beliefs of the vast majority of TEC laity [I should add that I think that teensy minority of leaders recognizes that as well and are at pains to hide it and pretend otherwise, but that’s another post]. It’s a part of my task to continually point out the nastiness and the foaming heresies and the corruption of that teensy minority of people and do all in my small power to put spokes in their wheels. I think I — and thousands of others in TEC — are doing just that, publicly revealing the deep division, lack of unity, conflict, and evil that is embroiling this organization through its leadership.
Good times.
Perhaps what you really meant to say is “The revisionists of TEC have little happiness that you are among us and would greatly appreciate your being obscured from the sight of bystanders in the blog world.” ; > )
And along the way my personal life and my work life and my spiritual life continues to grow and give me much joy, while I appreciate my parish and the many friends in TEC that I have made along the way. God has given me many gifts and I am thankful.
RE: “You are indeed a very helpful person, Sarah.”
Why thank you kindly, NOVA. Always happy to be of service. ; > )
Sarah wrote:
“I don’t follow the lawsuits that much. But I’m not concerned either way as I don’t think that the COE recognizing ACNA will have an effect any more than Nigeria recognizing ACNA. As I’ve pointed out before, it’s not recognition by the COE [a province of the AC] that will allow ACNA to claim [legitimately] that it is a part of the Anglican Communion, but rather recognition by the Instruments of Communion.”
ACNA already claims “legitimately” that it is part of the Anglican Communion. A majority of the Communion is in communion with ACNA and is in “impaired communion” with TEC – that surely gives ACNA a greater claim to membership than TEC.
The concept of “instruments of communion” has only a vague status at best: I think the phrase was first used in the Windsor report in 2004, and was then incorporated in the recent draft covenant – that is hardly “established by tradition or custom”. The draft covenant also attempted to define the ACC as one of the “instruments of communion”, but no-one has signed that covenant and it is looking increasingly less likely that anyone ever will, so the ACC remains what it always was: a consultative council.
Recognition by the Primates Council? – since the last Council in 2007 explicitly foreshadowed and approved the setting up of an alternative province in North America, there is no reason to believe that the next Primates Council will have a problem with ACNA.
ABC and Lambeth? What status do they have any more? Most Anglicans in the world would not care whether ABC recognises ACNA or not. And Lambeth is irrelevant for another 8 years.
As for Lorna Ashworth’s motion being a mistake – why? it has already generated a debate in England that otherwise would not have occurred. And if it is not passed (or is diverted) that will not stop the orthodox – the same motion will be brought again, and the same issue will be pursued by every avenue, until ACNA is recognised by every province in the Communion, and until TEC faces the same ultimatum recently expressed by ++Anis: renounce apostasy or walk alone.