Page 2 of the PDF has the statement, “Since 2008 the Primates of those Anglican Provinces who endorsed the Jerusalem Declaration have met regularly and recognized the Anglican Church in North America as a legitimate Province in the Anglican Communion.”
later on the same page is, “We note that The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are proceeding post-haste to approve same-sex blessing rites with total disregard for the conscience of their own members, for the moratoria mandated by the official Instruments of the Anglican Communion, and for the broken state of communion where more than half the world’s Anglicans are represented by the FCA.”
On page 3, there is the objective, “to invite Anglicans around the world to join FCA in order to serve Christ and his mission”
So, is membership in a TEC parish incompatible with membership in FCA? For TEC clergy, would joining FCA be seen as abandonment of TEC?
FCA is not an ecclesial organization so nothing prevents TEC individuals and parishes from joining.
This is what Phil Ashey had to say in the AAC Weekly Update that sheds some light on your question:
“On Wednesday evening, I accompanied Bishops John Guernsey of ACNA and Mark Lawrence of South Carolina to Holy Trinity Claygate in the Diocese of Guildford. The Evangelical Society there hosted a gathering on “How can Anglicans in TEC and ACNA work together?” The session was recorded and you can find the whole program here. http://www.holytrinityclaygate.org.uk/audio/DEF25April2012.mp3
“I encourage you to listen to it – you will be blessed. Both Bishops spoke well as one might expect, but they also spoke well of each other, of their decisions and ministries, and of their friendship and mutual support. There were some very good questions at the end. The AAC provided background briefing for everyone who attended through our “Tearing the Fabric 2012” document. http://www.americananglican.org/tec-tearing-the-fabric-2012-edition
“I believe this meeting was a milestone in encouraging Anglicans to come together and work for Gospel truth and Gospel mission in the days ahead, and a way forward together in the spiritual crisis that is currently besetting our Anglican Communion.”
“So, is membership in a TEC parish incompatible with membership in FCA? For TEC clergy, would joining FCA be seen as abandonment of TEC? ”
Ralph, my understanding is that anyone willing to sign the Jerusalem Declaration can join FCA. Certainly, at no time have the Gafcon Primates or anyone else suggested that TEC membership would prohibit one from joining FCA. However, I believe you do have to be willing to sign on the the Jerusalem Declaration. Which would, almost by definition, change your relationship with your bishop (with a few notable exceptions) or clergy (again, with a few notable exceptions) if you are to stay true to what you signed.
On the subject of what TEC might do, well, that would depend on who your bishop is. I have known priests deposed for less. And let us not forget that the charges leveled against +Mark Lawrence last year (although eventually dismissed) included a charge that he had attended conferences with GS and ACNA bishops, and had been mentioned in an ACNA video. I would have to suggest that you ask +Mark Lawrence whether he is a member of FCA, or signed the declaration, I really don’t know, although he is certainly respected internationally as a faithful Anglican. I daresay that being a known member of FCA will not make you popular with the average TEC purple shirt. Will KJS use it as a proof of abandonment by a bishop? I am guessing probably not, the HoB seems to have tired of show trials. More likely she would have her chancellor determine that signing the Declaration constitutes a renunciation of orders, which avoids any trial or involvement by the HoB.
Since there no longer is any law in TEC, there is no way to predict the reaction. With the Primates at the conference being quite clear that they are no longer in communion (note, they have stopped using nuances like “impaired”) with TEC as an organization (although they remain in communion with faithful individual clergy and laity who are in TEC) it will be interesting to see if there are canon revisions at GC in response.
“Since there no longer is any law in TEC, there is no way to predict the reaction.”
Indeed.
I found, and have been going through, “Being Faithful,” which explains the Jerusalem Declaration (and events leading up to it) in some detail.
It isn’t clear to me how GAFCON-FCA are allowing those with Anglo-Catholic tendencies to interpret the 39 Articles, particularly in areas of sacramental theology. While it would be interesting to know whether Bp Mark is officially a member of FCA, I’d wonder about Bps Jack Iker and Dan Martins.
We will see whether TEC takes any action against +Lawrence. The fact is that he and +Howe took communion with the Global South Primates in April 2010, and the celebrant was ++Duncan of ACNA. This was well publicised at the time and afterwards, yet he wasn’t dismissed, deposed etc. As tjmcmahon points out, the attempt was made by some in TEC, but it lacked support.
What +Lawrence has done now (apparently) is explain to British Anglicans how he can work within TEC, and at the same time have fellowship with +Guernsey of ACNA. In a sense there is nothing here that wasn’t already said and done in 2010.
[blockquote] “While it would be interesting to know whether Bp Mark is officially a member of FCA…” [/blockquote]
It probably doesn’t matter whether he is himself a member, because in November 2008 the standing committee of the diocese of South Carolina resolved to subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration, and to “affirm the reforming voice of the GAFCON movement within the Anglican Communion.”
Ralph wrote:
[blockquote] “It isn’t clear to me how GAFCON-FCA are allowing those with Anglo-Catholic tendencies to interpret the 39 Articles, particularly in areas of sacramental theology. While it would be interesting to know whether Bp Mark is officially a member of FCA, I’d wonder about Bps Jack Iker and Dan Martins.” [/blockquote]
This issue was raised in July 2008. +Iker was at Gafcon and signed the original declaration. He made it clear that he did not consider that anglo-catholics would have a problem with the JD, the Articles of Religion or ACNA:
[blockquote] “Griffith: This morning I had the opportunity to ask Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker a few questions.
Some Anglo-Catholics have deep misgivings about GAFCON, particularly its emphasis on the 39 Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book. They are wondering if there is going to be any place for them in this new coalition, and if it will be one where they are merely tolerated. What do you say to people who are suspicious of GAFCON’s accommodations of Anglo-Catholics?
Bishop Iker: GAFCON has a definite evangelical flavor about it, and this has been so from the very beginning with the selection of the planning group. However, the leadership of the movement is committed to being sensitive to the needs of Anglo-Catholics in the formation of the province in North America that is now underway. As a minority group in the Communion, Anglo-Catholics have often been ignored, ridiculed or criticized, and it is understandable that many of us have certain misgivings about the future of the GAFCON movement based upon past realities. That being said, while it is clear that there is no future in The Episcopal Church for traditional Anglo-Catholics, there will be a secure, respected place for us in the province being birthed. Our theological perspective and liturgical practices will be permitted, protected and honored. Our succession of catholic bishops will be secured.
It is important to remember that the direction of the province that is envisioned will be under the Common Cause Partnership, and for this reason, we must look primarily to the wording of Theological Statement agreed upon by Common Cause some time ago. There are some slight differences in wording and emphasis in that document from the final statement that came out of the Jerusalem meeting. Suffice it to say that Anglo-Catholics in the future will continue to regard the 1662 Prayer Book, the 39 Articles, liturgical practices, and the Councils of the patristic church just as the Oxford Movement did under Pusey, Keble, and Newman, our fathers in the faith.
Here are a few quotes from the Common Cause Partnership Theological Statement that deserve careful comparison with the relevant parallel parts of the final Statement on the Global Anglican Future.
5. Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
6. We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7. We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief. …” [/blockquote]
Page 2 of the PDF has the statement, “Since 2008 the Primates of those Anglican Provinces who endorsed the Jerusalem Declaration have met regularly and recognized the Anglican Church in North America as a legitimate Province in the Anglican Communion.”
later on the same page is, “We note that The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are proceeding post-haste to approve same-sex blessing rites with total disregard for the conscience of their own members, for the moratoria mandated by the official Instruments of the Anglican Communion, and for the broken state of communion where more than half the world’s Anglicans are represented by the FCA.”
On page 3, there is the objective, “to invite Anglicans around the world to join FCA in order to serve Christ and his mission”
So, is membership in a TEC parish incompatible with membership in FCA? For TEC clergy, would joining FCA be seen as abandonment of TEC?
FCA is not an ecclesial organization so nothing prevents TEC individuals and parishes from joining.
This is what Phil Ashey had to say in the AAC Weekly Update that sheds some light on your question:
“On Wednesday evening, I accompanied Bishops John Guernsey of ACNA and Mark Lawrence of South Carolina to Holy Trinity Claygate in the Diocese of Guildford. The Evangelical Society there hosted a gathering on “How can Anglicans in TEC and ACNA work together?” The session was recorded and you can find the whole program here.
http://www.holytrinityclaygate.org.uk/audio/DEF25April2012.mp3
“I encourage you to listen to it – you will be blessed. Both Bishops spoke well as one might expect, but they also spoke well of each other, of their decisions and ministries, and of their friendship and mutual support. There were some very good questions at the end. The AAC provided background briefing for everyone who attended through our “Tearing the Fabric 2012” document. http://www.americananglican.org/tec-tearing-the-fabric-2012-edition
“I believe this meeting was a milestone in encouraging Anglicans to come together and work for Gospel truth and Gospel mission in the days ahead, and a way forward together in the spiritual crisis that is currently besetting our Anglican Communion.”
“So, is membership in a TEC parish incompatible with membership in FCA? For TEC clergy, would joining FCA be seen as abandonment of TEC? ”
Ralph, my understanding is that anyone willing to sign the Jerusalem Declaration can join FCA. Certainly, at no time have the Gafcon Primates or anyone else suggested that TEC membership would prohibit one from joining FCA. However, I believe you do have to be willing to sign on the the Jerusalem Declaration. Which would, almost by definition, change your relationship with your bishop (with a few notable exceptions) or clergy (again, with a few notable exceptions) if you are to stay true to what you signed.
On the subject of what TEC might do, well, that would depend on who your bishop is. I have known priests deposed for less. And let us not forget that the charges leveled against +Mark Lawrence last year (although eventually dismissed) included a charge that he had attended conferences with GS and ACNA bishops, and had been mentioned in an ACNA video. I would have to suggest that you ask +Mark Lawrence whether he is a member of FCA, or signed the declaration, I really don’t know, although he is certainly respected internationally as a faithful Anglican. I daresay that being a known member of FCA will not make you popular with the average TEC purple shirt. Will KJS use it as a proof of abandonment by a bishop? I am guessing probably not, the HoB seems to have tired of show trials. More likely she would have her chancellor determine that signing the Declaration constitutes a renunciation of orders, which avoids any trial or involvement by the HoB.
Since there no longer is any law in TEC, there is no way to predict the reaction. With the Primates at the conference being quite clear that they are no longer in communion (note, they have stopped using nuances like “impaired”) with TEC as an organization (although they remain in communion with faithful individual clergy and laity who are in TEC) it will be interesting to see if there are canon revisions at GC in response.
“Since there no longer is any law in TEC, there is no way to predict the reaction.”
Indeed.
I found, and have been going through, “Being Faithful,” which explains the Jerusalem Declaration (and events leading up to it) in some detail.
It isn’t clear to me how GAFCON-FCA are allowing those with Anglo-Catholic tendencies to interpret the 39 Articles, particularly in areas of sacramental theology. While it would be interesting to know whether Bp Mark is officially a member of FCA, I’d wonder about Bps Jack Iker and Dan Martins.
We will see whether TEC takes any action against +Lawrence. The fact is that he and +Howe took communion with the Global South Primates in April 2010, and the celebrant was ++Duncan of ACNA. This was well publicised at the time and afterwards, yet he wasn’t dismissed, deposed etc. As tjmcmahon points out, the attempt was made by some in TEC, but it lacked support.
What +Lawrence has done now (apparently) is explain to British Anglicans how he can work within TEC, and at the same time have fellowship with +Guernsey of ACNA. In a sense there is nothing here that wasn’t already said and done in 2010.
[blockquote] “While it would be interesting to know whether Bp Mark is officially a member of FCA…” [/blockquote]
It probably doesn’t matter whether he is himself a member, because in November 2008 the standing committee of the diocese of South Carolina resolved to subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration, and to “affirm the reforming voice of the GAFCON movement within the Anglican Communion.”
Ralph wrote:
[blockquote] “It isn’t clear to me how GAFCON-FCA are allowing those with Anglo-Catholic tendencies to interpret the 39 Articles, particularly in areas of sacramental theology. While it would be interesting to know whether Bp Mark is officially a member of FCA, I’d wonder about Bps Jack Iker and Dan Martins.” [/blockquote]
This issue was raised in July 2008. +Iker was at Gafcon and signed the original declaration. He made it clear that he did not consider that anglo-catholics would have a problem with the JD, the Articles of Religion or ACNA:
[blockquote] “Griffith: This morning I had the opportunity to ask Fort Worth Bishop Jack Iker a few questions.
Some Anglo-Catholics have deep misgivings about GAFCON, particularly its emphasis on the 39 Articles and the 1662 Prayer Book. They are wondering if there is going to be any place for them in this new coalition, and if it will be one where they are merely tolerated. What do you say to people who are suspicious of GAFCON’s accommodations of Anglo-Catholics?
Bishop Iker: GAFCON has a definite evangelical flavor about it, and this has been so from the very beginning with the selection of the planning group. However, the leadership of the movement is committed to being sensitive to the needs of Anglo-Catholics in the formation of the province in North America that is now underway. As a minority group in the Communion, Anglo-Catholics have often been ignored, ridiculed or criticized, and it is understandable that many of us have certain misgivings about the future of the GAFCON movement based upon past realities. That being said, while it is clear that there is no future in The Episcopal Church for traditional Anglo-Catholics, there will be a secure, respected place for us in the province being birthed. Our theological perspective and liturgical practices will be permitted, protected and honored. Our succession of catholic bishops will be secured.
It is important to remember that the direction of the province that is envisioned will be under the Common Cause Partnership, and for this reason, we must look primarily to the wording of Theological Statement agreed upon by Common Cause some time ago. There are some slight differences in wording and emphasis in that document from the final statement that came out of the Jerusalem meeting. Suffice it to say that Anglo-Catholics in the future will continue to regard the 1662 Prayer Book, the 39 Articles, liturgical practices, and the Councils of the patristic church just as the Oxford Movement did under Pusey, Keble, and Newman, our fathers in the faith.
Here are a few quotes from the Common Cause Partnership Theological Statement that deserve careful comparison with the relevant parallel parts of the final Statement on the Global Anglican Future.
5. Concerning the seven Councils of the undivided Church, we affirm the teaching of the first four Councils and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh Councils, in so far as they are agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
6. We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.
7. We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief. …” [/blockquote]