But the true test of the Anglican Church in North America’s status and stature will come with time, said Peter Williams, a religious scholar who teaches at Miami University in Ohio.
“Technically, it’s a new denomination,” he said, citing its size and ties to other religious groups inside and outside of the Communion.
Whether it blossoms as one depends on full recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury – and if it can keep growing during the next couple of decades.
New religious movements usually rely on charismatic leadership. It’s when those leaders retire, like Duncan, that they often face deeper challenges.
“Whether they can keep the momentum going to rebuild and retain membership remains to be seen,” Williams said. “It depends if they develop leadership that is sustainable.”
RE: “Whether it blossoms as one depends on full recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury – and if it can keep growing during the next couple of decades.”
You know, I think ACNA has lots of issues and challenges that might prevent it from growing and blossoming.
But I don’t think one of those is whether or not it gains “full recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
I think it is *possible* that 10 years from now the Anglican Communion has further *fissured* and moved farther apart, such that recognition by the ABC matters less and less, because the Anglican Communion itself matters less and less. Gradually, by evolution, two “communions” arise, one or the other or neither with the ABC as its leader. Or three — one with, and two without.
I’m not saying that’s probable — but I definitely think it’s possible, given the actions by various Primates and apparatchiks and this particular ABC.
Every move that Rowan Williams makes — every decision Not or decision To moves the Communion one direction or the other. My personal opinion is that those decisions are moving the Communion to the Further Fissure status, so it’s anybody’s guess as to if the Communion survives Rowan Williams’ tenure or a new ABC pulls the various Provinces back towards the Center That Holds.
“Both groups claim to be the sole, legitimate airs of Anglicanism in America.”
That’s my favorite part. Wouldn’t want any of these Anglican groups putting on airs, legitimate or otherwise.
Peter Williams is a first-rate scholar of American religion and is always worth paying attention to. (His history of American religoin is first-rate and probably the best of all the massive intro texts in its treatment of the Anglican/Episcopal tradition, which he’s an expert on; he’s also a practicing Episcopalian.) Peter’s comment about ACNA depending for its long-term success on charismatic leadership is a fairly fresh point and well worth considering. Any new group needs a clear identity, and, rightly or wrongly, that identity is typically focused on one leader who can embody and articulate the group’s purpose and mission.
The point about recognition by the abp of Canterbury is also worth pondering. Lack of recognition as a denomination unequivocally linked to the see of Canterbury undoubtedly does keep some people away from ACNA parishes (as well as the extremely conservative stances of many ACNA congregations).
It’s a shame that something doesn’t exist that is between ACNA and CP–and on a widespread, accessible basis. Right now mainstream Anglicans continue to be, after years of drift, in need of a good harbor.
I too have been an admirer of Peter Williams over the years. I am somewhat surprised by his linkage of ACNA success to Canterbury, but I suspect that is based more on the symbolic value of Canterbury than any particular exercise (or exerciser) of that office.
It certainly makes sense to consider the charisma of leadership, but I would be just as concerned with the age and demographics of leadership. Here there may be some ACNA handicaps– the dominant personalities in leadership are Boomer in age, some may be licking too many wounds from their TEC pasts, others may be caught-up in the tribalism of the alphabet soup pastiche that constitutes the ACNA.
Even so, ACNA is an amazingly diverse work in progress–with enough disorder and de-centered activity to allow room for a younger charism to emerge. And there are some very godly leaders who are smart and humble enough to recognize this.
At the beginning of a new movement, it pays to compare with other ‘beginnings’ in the history of the Church. Anyone seriously engaged, historically, with the formative years of Anglicanism, in particular, will see similar contingencies at work: factions, generational differences, volatile political surroundings in the wider church world, etc. There is always a baffling mix of charism, order, and fallen humanity… and it more often seems that things are about to fall apart.
I wish Peter Williams would have taken a little more of that into account… but, still, his points are important and illuminating.
RE: “Lack of recognition as a denomination unequivocally linked to the see of Canterbury undoubtedly does keep some people away from ACNA parishes (as well as the extremely conservative stances of many ACNA congregations).”
I agree with that. But I think a bunch of other things do the same damage — for just two instances, the Marvelous Expanding Bishop Quantities and the incredible clericalism of the canons & Constitution. Most of the informed conservative TECans I talk with marvel over those two things, among others.
But *long term* — given the meltdown that is going on in the Anglican Communion — I’m not confident that the Canterbury connection is going to be a big deal.
Ironically, were the Anglican Communion to, by the sheer miraculous grace of God, turn the corner and reform itself and redraw the boundaries of its identity, I *do* think that ACNA’s growth would slow.
[blockquote]”At one level, it’s true we are having to start over. At another level, all we’re doing is gathering the people who stood where the people always stood,” said the Most Rev. Robert Duncan, archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America.”[/blockquote] I think this is what attracts many Christians to the ACNA.
Thanks for publishing this. Its always good to see what is happening “on the ground” with ACNA. Formation and expansion of new dioceses is what we should expect to see in an Anglican church in formative stage.
The web-site of the new Gulf Atlantic Diocese makes interesting reading: “The Gulf Atlantic Diocese is now twenty two member congregations in North Florida and South Georgia ranging in size from about six hundred congregants to fewer than twenty five congregants. There are over fifty clergy members, both active and retired, and a combined average Sunday attendance of over three thousand”.
There was one strange things in the article: “The worldwide Anglican Communion reports 80 million members in more than 160 countries. Each of those nations has one Anglican church, or province.”
A bit difficult since there are only 38 provinces!
It is hard perhaps sometimes to remember that in many ways ours is an ethnic church and ACNA is a disenfranchised and disposessed ethnic people. That alone should be enough to secure cohesion. In some ways too they are a people defined by a common “enemy,” their persecutors. As for Canterbury, it is generally acknowledged that ACNA bishops are from the Apostolic Succession so there is no question among most of their legitimacy. Indeed wasn’t that legitimacy historically the reason England spent such a long time before ordaining a bishop for the colonies/U.S., as a sort of control over things? Once a bishop was ordained, the gifts he possessed were indelible.
No. 4: “… I think a bunch of other things do the same damage—for just two instances, the Marvelous Expanding Bishop Quantities and the incredible clericalism of the canons & Constitution…. But ‘long term’—given the meltdown that is going on in the Anglican Communion—I’m not confident that the Canterbury connection is going to be a big deal. Ironically, were the Anglican Communion to … turn the corner and reform itself and redraw the boundaries of its identity, I *do* think that ACNA’s growth would slow.”
Good points. I agree. Particularly interesting comment about ACNA’s clericalism, which would turn off most people. TEC itself is infamously clergy-dominated, despite its blather about the ministry of all the &c.; I had that point made clear to me by a former member–a laywoman–of a prominent international commission.
It’s a shame that nothing yet exists between CP and ACNA for ordinary, mainstream Anglicans in, or recently departed from, or currently not bothering with, TEC. Hard for ordinary folk to see if the Covenant is receding in front of our eyes, moving closer to us, or, in any case, what it will be and what effect it will have when it finally does show up.
Indeed, TEC will continue to pay a heavy price for its own clericalism, not to mention its lurch toward an aggressive hierarchicalism. There is also the gritty realism offered in its CP-Covenant prospects, which will sustain some of its orthodox constituents, but not attract many newcomers–this despite the attraction of some fabulous Gothic spaces. ACNA offers a more complicated pastiche, institutionally, and a dizzying vision for church plants in highschool gymnasiums or storefronts. Meanwhile, where will the new Canterbury trail amongst younger evangelicals lead?