In a two-and-a-half hour in-depth debate the Church of England Synod has decided to recognise the Anglican Church in North America. The original motion wanted the Synod to “express a desire that the Church of England be in communion” with the break-away group. However, following a long deliberation of several amendments (held up by a series of technical glitches with the electronic voting system that saw the tradition division doors used), the motion finally passed reduced this to an awareness of the distress caused by the divisions, but also recognised (and affirmed) the desire of the ACNA to be “part of the Anglican family”.
As amended, this does nothing to advance our recognition as a new province of the Anglican Communion. After all, the ABC had confirmed ages ago that he considered those departing TEC to be “faithful Anglicans” if I recall the term he used correctly. Being “Anglicans” is not the issue at had. Being recognized as full members of the Anglican Communion is. The large degree of support is nice, however, it doesn’t put any pressure on the instruments of communion to do the right thing.
[i]”..but also recognised (and affirmed) the desire of the ACNA to be “part of the Anglican familyâ€.[/i]
Is this equivalent to some couples’ notion of their relationship as “pre-engaged”?
“Despite fears from others that passing the motion would be an insult to TEC, or would appear to be a lack of support for traditionalists who have remained in TEC, the motion was eventually carried with a significant majority.”
First if all it’s ECUSA not TEC, the Americans do not own the word Episcopal. But more importantly, if a “significant majority” of C of E wants to recognize ACNA, how does ECUSA put the brakes on all this? I am wary of reading too much into a single development, but this would appear to be a serious blow (the dearth knell?) to ECUSA’s ownership claim of Anglicanism in the US.
This is really excellent news. The Synod could not be expected to fully recognize the ACNA, it is not in their power, but it has expressed its overwhelming intention to do so and asks the Archbishops to report on how to make that happen.
It also acknowledges the trauma ACNA members have had to suffer in the Americas and their desire to ‘remain’ Anglican.
A good day
Glendermott
Church of the Word
i don’t know what debate this author was watching, but what i saw was the church of england decide not to avow “the desire … [to] be in communion with the anglican church of north america,” but instead say a) some acna folks want to remain anglican, b) this is fairly problematic, and c) let’s talk next year. from this, one could hardly say that the “c of e recognize[s a] new group of american anglicans.”
whoops of course I meant death not dearth.
the amended motion is clearly weaker than the original, effectively saying that some people desire to remain, this is problematic, maybe we’ll think about it next year.
I agree that this seems much ado about nothing. Good the C of E ” recognises (and affirms) the desire of the ACNA to be ‘part of the Anglican family.” So they know we exist. Not exactly anything to get excited about. I’m glad that they officially know we exist, and they recognize (and affirm) our desire to be “part of the Anglican family.” But here’s a news flash for them, we ARE part of the Anglican family — at least according to the vast majority of of the world’s Anglicans. Frankly, what about 2/3rds of the world’s Anglicans think is more important to me than what the C of E or Canterbury thinks. It’s a whole new world now and this ain’t your grandparents Anglicanism anymore. Of much greater concern to me is that ACNA begin to act like a real jurisdiction, and not a collection of jurisdictions. If we want ACNA to be accepted as a real jurisdiction of the global Communion, which is no longer defined only by Canterbury, then ACNA needs to start looking and acting like a jurisdiction. What’s important folks, the purple shirt or the Gospel?
Text of Motion:
PRIVATE MEMBER’S MOTION: ANGLICAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA (GS 1764A and GS 1764B)
Following debate, Mrs Lorna Ashworth moved the following amended motion, which was carried by the Synod:
‘That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.’
Say what you will, the ACNA has been affirmed and that is big news in North American geographic areas that are supposed to have only one official church.
It’s good news for everyone. It recognizes what can’t be ignored – that ACNA exists. But it avoids falling into the “in communion” trap that is potentially fraught with legal significance in property disputes. A skillful compromise.
Uh, oh. “Who dat”?
Thrilling and an answer to prayer. So much for those in the US who want to refer to ++Bob Duncan as Mr. Duncan.
[Comment deleted by Elf – please do not post unpleasant comments from other blogs]
Odd that many “reasserters” are pooh-poohing this development while the “reappraisers” are having a serious hissy fit in their online social halls. What strikes me about the Synod vote is how OVERWHELMINGLY in favor it is. What, 300-something in favor and several dozen against? That’s got to give the “reappraiser” movement in the West cause for distress.
Another significant point is the use of the word ‘Divisions’. So much of the Virgina lawsuit depends on the definition of this word. TEC lawyers maintain that a division never happened, The Judge said it was obvious to all that one had occurred. Even KJS said in her testimony that a division had happened. Now the C of E in all three houses used the ‘division’ word. This could be useful in the VA appeals process.
Chris Taylor, Adam 12, NoVaScout, and Ian Montgomery: BINGO!
Comment deleted by Elf – please do not argue with the Elves and take note of this post:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/28180/