One running theme in recent comments here, but also for a long time now on many blogs, is the plea to see some real discipline of TEC. Something which did not occur with any substance after 2003 (the closest was the suspension of TEC for one ACC meeting at which its suspended members were observers), and something which should now happen with the Glasspool confirmation. So the argument goes, and it is an argument with merit because the Glasspool confirmation has a deeper significance than being the confirmation of a partnered lesbian person to be a bishop. That deeper significance is this: following Gene Robinson’s consecration a series of restrained decisions on the part of TEC’s GC meant that there was plausible argument in response to calls to discipline TEC that TEC might not actually be walking apart from the Communion, the Robinson consecration being a temporary diversion from the one path of Anglican polity; now however TEC has effectively announced that no temporary diversion has taken place, it is walking apart from the Communion.
Actually I want to suggest it is walking apart from the Communion in two ways. The first is walking apart from the common direction in the Communion, that Anglican bishops who are neither single nor married are living contradictory to Scripture and tradition. The second is walking apart from an emerging direction that the Anglican Communion cannot remain as it is, essentially a meeting point of Anglicans, but must move forward to becoming a worldwide church. To me it is inescapable that a consequence of the Glasspool confirmation is confirmation that TEC under no circumstances will be beholden to any authority larger than itself and thus is deeply opposed to any movement of the Communion towards becoming a worldwide church.
One problem with this is that it abandons those in TEC who want/wanted to remain in the AC. I agree that the AC cannot discipline TEC, but what they could do is say that TEC in not the official representative of the AC in the United States, but ACNA is.
But the AC will not do even this little bit.
There will not be any disciplining of the Episcopal Church by any of the currently existing Anglican entities. The Archbishop of Canterbury will deplore, but do nothing. The Standing Committee will do nothing.
As for the provinces or national churches, it is entirely possible that the Anglican Communion may break.
I’d love to be proven wrong on this.
If the Anglican Communion is going to exist it will have to come up with a more comprehensive model. I do not believe the EC will be discipline and certainly the leadership of the EC does not believe they will be discipline. The EC sees itself as its own communion. Yes, the leadership of the EC believes they are following God faithfully, and yes, they will either grow or die. Personally, I think the fruit of decline will continue.
In any case, the Anglican Communion will continue but the in what form it is hard to tell. A covenant is a beginning but where I once saw hope, I now do not. The actions of the Leadership of the EC show that it will sign first and reinterpret it later. They will argue that they are true to the language when it is obvious to the majority they are inherently dishonest.
The Anglican Communion is fracturing just as the EC for many years. The only question is what happens to the many faithful Anglican Christians in North America.
‘Anglican Christians in North America,’ you say? Well, it seems to me that the Anglican [b]Church[/b] in North America has been or will soon be recognized by a good many in the Communion, for starters. The number is quite likely to grow, in the opinion of many. It’s apparent that TEC is in deep trouble, and after the Glasspool ‘consecration’ later this Spring, it is quite likely that it’ll get worse. Time will tell.
MatthewA (#2),
Only a major miracle will prevent the formal, official breakup of the AC, which has (alas!) already broken up in reality. Now I’m a charismatic and I firmly believe in miracles, but I’d guess it’s about 95% likely, humanly speaking, that the AC will suffer a major institutional split. ‘Tis sad, but almost inevitable, since a false gospel has been embraced by large numbers of deceived Christians and ex-Christians within the AC. And as the Master warned, [i]”A house divided against itself cannot stand.”[/i]
There were several things I really, really liked in this frank article by what I think is an evangelical Kiwi (New Zealander).
First, he’s right that TEC is “walking apart” from the AC in a sense that’s not so obvious. That is, I hope he’s right that there is a growing recognition among many AC leaders that the status quo is unsustainable or undesirable in that the AC [i]”cannot remain as it is, essentially a meeting point of Anglicans, but must move forward to becoming a worldwide church.”[/i] Note that, not just “a Communion of Churches” but an actual, unified worldwide Church (singular). I heartily endorse that idea.
But the author notes that many provinces in the AC could join TEC in preferring autonomy to greater accountability. They could prove allies to TEC in resisting this move toward becoming a true Anglican Church (singular). That’s a very realistic fear.
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that withdrawing invitations to international meetings does NOT consitutute effective discipline. It’s not even close to exercising truly effective discipline. It’s just a minor slap on the wrist. Nothing more. It certainly won’t deter wayward provinces like TEC or the ACoC.
David Handy+
A worldwide Church? [b]Bring it on![/b]
Peter Carrell writes:
If Peter reads (and believes) his bible, he shouldn’t have any doubt about whether TEC is in rebellion against the Lord. The scriptures do not permit us to “see whether it is fruitful or not”, when the “it” is clearly contrary to scripture. I appreciate that Peter Carrell paraphrases Gamaliel in the book of Acts, but the whole point of that passage is that Gamaliel was speaking as an outsider – he wasn’t a member of God’s church.
To put it another way, TEC might prove to be very fruitful (although at present the opposite appears to be the case) yet that would not give it any credibility at all in the eyes of God’s church.