The jurisdictional approach to the integration of the Anglican Mission (a missionary outreach of Rwanda) into the Anglican Church in North America has been found to be “a bridge too far” and this meeting sees the petition of the Anglican Mission to be a Ministry Partner as a more appropriate approach to our life together in this season. At the same time this meeting heralds the ending of many important oversight relationships with foreign partners. Not least among these is the conclusion of Recife’s episcopal role. We are delighted that Bp. Robinson Cavalcanti is with us to mark this change. Here as elsewhere, oversight may end but our deep partnership in the gospel continues.
As archbishop I have articulated four areas that I believe need to become our distinctives:
1) that we know ourselves to be the beloved of Jesus;
2) that we become a people committed to personal holiness
3) that we understand our work as fore-runners of Jesus; and
4) that we are those who sacrifice for the sake of others.
Among other things, such distinctives would form us into a different people than we presently are. They would direct us in everything from our engagement with Islam to our embrace of the tithe. Seeing these distinctives is a great beginning. Embrace must follow.
I like the four areas Archbishop Duncan addressed. They all seem to point to being “Grownups” in Christ. Without being rooted in Christ the top growth will not happen. I hope the WO issue is resolved or it will be an ever present fault line. There was no mention of Canterbury. I think God has provided this leader to us. May he remain strong in the Lord.
Can someone fill me in on why the Anglican Mission chooses not to be integrated into the ACNA?
Anastasios,
Here’s my take (and I’ve just been in the AM about two months now – ACNA before that, and just out of TEC a year at Easter).
The AM sees itself and its mission fundamentally as a missionary movement. The ACNA is moving toward a structure which is very similar in shape/ethos to a formal ecclesiastical structure not too dissimilar from TEC (there are IMPORTANT differences, notably the way bishops are selected, representation at provincial council, etc.). This is a structure which is very different from the AM “Network” model, which has been working well for a decade now.
The Ministry Partner alternative in ACNA from the beginning was designed at least with the AM in mind, I think. And I have heard the AM described in terms along the lines of the Jesuit order in the Roman Catholic church. Knowing someone who is a Jesuit priest, I think there are some reasonable comparisons here – a separate Provincial structure within the church, yet the clergy are all under authority.
Anyway – it’s messy, and I’m not completely comfortable yet with this “Ministry Partner” status for myself and the congregation. Yet – I am convinced we (the AM and ACNA) are all working toward the same goal – forming disciples of Jesus Christ in the Biblical, traditional, and mission-focused Anglican Way.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John’s Anglican
Park City, Utah
Which means we are on the same side, but different teams using different playbooks, and aimed at the same goal.
No one is talking #2.
#3 I have heard the comparison to the Jesuit order many times and see some marked differences as well; the two most important: 1) all Jesuits are full members of the Roman Catholic Church, they are “all in” and submissive to her; 2) they also must submit to the authority of the diocesan bishop in which they reside – they do not have their own bishops.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong on these two points, which I view as significant.
As a committed member of ACNA, I see this as a good development. We need missionary sodalities that are institutionally and structurally enabled to live out their charism. I think that is what both Archbishop Duncan and Bishop Murphy are trying to achieve: a structural way for AMiA to be an Anglican Church Planting Order. This is a good, faithful step that merits our prayers and support. I trust both men and both ecclesiastical structures.
Tory Baucum
#6,
Correct on both points. However – we are not the Roman Catholic Church. So the analogy is acknowledged to be weak from the start. There is, however, a level of autonomy within the Jesuit Order that mirrors what the AM and ACNA are trying to negotiate, I think.
Clearly, the issue of diocesan “boundaries” is in flux now, and that complicates any attempt to analogize.
Darin+
Best wishes, Fr. Darin. Utah is certainly a mission field, as is all of North America, but your Mormon environment is an added challenge.
I have lots of friends in AMiA and, like the rector of Truro (#7), I think the AM move into Ministry Partner status is probably a good and necessary thing. I was the interim priest at an AMiA parish for almost a year, and it’s very clear to me that the AM does indeed have a unique DNA and style all its own.
Certainly there is much to celebrate. In its first year of existence over 100 new churches have been added. The [b]Anglican 1000[/b] movement is exciting and indeed catalytic, as ++Duncan proudly noted. Acceptance of our new province in formation continues to grow among Anglicans around the world, as was clearly demonstrated in Singapore.
And yes, the very location of this Provincial Council meeting in Amesbury, at +Murdoch’s new cathedral, is another very positive sign of the growth, vitality, and increasing consolidation of this fledgling new form of Anglicanism. Though All Saints, Amesbury was forced to leave its old home, the thriving congregation has landed on its feet in a much bigger new home, with far more potential as a diocesan and regional center. I’m reminded of what Joseph said to his brothers in Gen. 50:20, “What you meant for evil, God meant for good.”
There is far more that ++Duncan could have said in celebrating the positive developements of the past year. But I particularly liked how he kept on coming back to the truth of Psalm 127:1, that “Unless the LORD builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.” And yes, he rightly gave the LORD credit for all the good things that have happened. The Master promised us, “I will build my church…” and that’s what we are witnessing, before our wondering eyes.
Yes, there are growing pains, and the move of the AMiA into a lesser Ministry Partner status is one of them. But on the whole, I’m very, very encouraged. And yes, the ACNA can’t begin to compare with our old church home in TEC in terms of all the outward trappings. But it brings to mind a further Scripture that seems quite relevant to me, i.e., Zech. 4:10 and the admonition not to despise the day of small beginnings. Just as the Second Temple couldn’t initially begin to compare with the grandeur of Solomon’s Temple, and so many oldtimers wept when its relatively small foundations were laid (see Ezra 3), it was a work that the LORD was behind and accomplishing. And so it is with the ACNA. Though we’re small now, like the mustard seed, we may yet grow into something much, much bigger. That is the way the Kingdom of God works.
David Handy+
David+,
You said it well. I think all parties involved in the Reformation at work in North America do well both to deal with each other gently and to depend on the Spirit’s guidance. I trust (and believe) that the leadership both of the AM and ACNA are doing both. I am convinced that the leadership of TEC is doing neither.
Thanks,
Darin+
Daivd Handy+ at #9,
Thanks for a very encouraging post.