Steve Wood Elected ACNA Bishop

Ahead of Assembly 2012, members of the Anglican Church in North America College of Bishops gathered in Ridgecrest, N.C. The meeting began with Morning Prayer and a time of Bible study and was undergirded by the theme of spreading the transforming love of Jesus Christ.

The bishops in attendance prayerfully considered and approved the election of a new bishop, The Rev. Stephen Wood, rector of St. Andrew’s Church-Mount Pleasant, S.C. Wood has been serving as vicar general for the Diocese of the Carolinas, a diocese in-formation within the Anglican Church in North America.

Read it all.


Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * South Carolina, Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)

19 comments on “Steve Wood Elected ACNA Bishop

  1. Ryan Danker says:

    This is difficult, and I write from outside of the Diocese of South Caorlina. By naming a bishop within earshot of the Bishop of South Carolina, a bishop who obviously presides over a diocese which loudly and clearly proclaims the gospel of Jesus Christ, the ACNA is doing a disservice to Anglicanism. An evangelical orthodox bishop is being named within an Anglican diocese which is also evangelical and orthodox? How does this necessitate unity, one of the principle functions of the episcopacy? In the morass of the North American Anglican situation where many within the Church are not preaching a gospel of transformation, there may be need for an evangelical witness, but why in the heart of an orthodox diocese? I honestly do not understand this move. It smacks of competition and makes me honestly wonder if the ACNA really wants to be in communion with the Anglican Communion of which the Diocese of South Carolina is a part.

  2. Don C says:

    I can understand parishes leaving EC(USA) out of conscience sake but, ACNA needs to have a non competition policy with the orthodox dioceses that remain. This is beyond disappointing.

    The cynic in me wonders if the Network idea was abandoned because some wanted purple shirts.

  3. Sarah says:

    RE: “ACNA needs to have a non competition policy with the orthodox dioceses that remain.”

    I think the problem with that would be that how does one decide which ones are orthodox enough? By some counts it would be only three. By other counts it might be 6 or so. Then there would be all the “moderate bishops” screeching and carrying on about how they were “orthodox.”

    To me, there shouldn’t be a non-compete because that ship sailed from harbor long ago, back when the AM left, or of course, earlier with the Continuers, or earlier with the REC [only frankly, the latter two weren’t considered real competition].

    Besides which, I think the *actual* orthodox dioceses in TEC are more than capable of handling having some competition. Fact is, the more distinctive — and *public* about its distinctives — ACNA becomes, the more those in TEC can decide for themselves if they want to be a part of such a thing — and if they do, then they *certainly* don’t want to be a part of the Diocese of South Carolina because, despite the propaganda, the two entities are poles apart on so much that is substantive. I don’t think that the diocese of South Carolina needs to be concerned, and I don’t think that whatever they name the ACNA diocese will need to be concerned either; from a marketing standpoint they won’t be fishing from the same ponds.

    RE: “This is beyond disappointing.”

    I honestly don’t find it disappointing at all. The instant Steve Wood was announced as a thingamajiggy [I don’t recall the title] I said to several friends “and . . . ACNA has another bishop in the works.” ; > ) It was a foregone conclusion he would be a bishop and this is no surprise to anyone watching ACNA and how it makes decisions.

    The only *negative* feeling that I have is the general principle and not about Steve Wood specifically or his geographic region — and that is . . . the abundance of bishops for a small number of parishes. I would never have believed that ACNA would so imitate the Continuers as they have done.

  4. grubstreeter says:

    Then there would be all the “moderate bishops” screeching and carrying on about how they were “orthodox.”

    Actually, Sarah, if this were a result of a non-compete policy, that would be a good thing. The policy would be giving on-the-fence TEC dioceses a valuable incentive to hew towards orthodoxy. There aren’t many incentives ACNA can give to encourage these dioceses, but this would be one. (And in saying this I recognize that some dioceses need no such incentives.)

  5. Frances Scott says:

    God is too smart to try to save the world through one denomination. When there are no more people who have not heard the gospel, God will stop raising up new church bodies to deal with the problem.

  6. this is not my name says:

    “the two entities are poles apart on so much that is substantive.”

    Forgive me but could you please elaborate on this? Specifically, what are the substantive differences?

  7. Sarah says:

    Hi this is not my name . . . I’d rather not discuss that on this thread since it veers it off topic and my larger point was that I don’t think either side — whether the orthodox in TEC or out of TEC — needs a non-compete or that there is a problem with a separate entity — like the REC [since the late 1800s], the Continuers [since the 1970s], the AMiA [since 2000] or everybody else [since 2005] setting up shop and consecrating bishops in “orthodox TEC territory” — I think the ship is long sailed.

    However, the topic of your questions has been droningly covered quite a lot on T19 over the years — the latest thread that I can recall is here and could answer your questions, though perhaps, yet again, not to your satisfaction:

    And here’s a slightly earlier thread:

  8. Hosanna says:

    In addition to Bishop Lawrence being located across the Cooper River in Charleston, Mt. Pleasant, SC now has two ACNA-connected bishops as residents- Steve Wood and Bishop T J Johnston of St Peter’s who affiliated with the AM originally, but now is in a “temporary” agreement to serve as an assisting bishop in ACNA. Must be something in the water-

  9. Sarah says:

    Hey Hosanna — the Lowcountry is a mighty attractive place to live and work!

    I myself often feel “called” to “mission” right over in Charleston. ; > )

  10. recchip says:

    To those who are interested, there are two more ACNA bishops in South Carolina. Bishops Gadsden and White of the REC diocese of the Southeast which has 31 parishes in South Carolina. The new Diocese of the Carolinas has 13 churches of which 5 are in South Carolina. (But we in the REC are used to being forgotten-GRIN).

  11. Karen B. says:

    #10, I’m thinking the number of churches will be growing by at least 3-5 as parishes in the Carolinas leave AMiA. I know of several who have voted to leave but who are not yet listed on the Diocese of the Carolinas website…

  12. c.r.seitz says:

    Don’t forget Alec Dickson. He’s AMiA or ACNA or both.

  13. NewTrollObserver says:

    How many people will “swim the Cooper”?

  14. flaanglican says:

    Let me get this straight. Many Anglicans have gone to all the trouble to leave TEC through a lot of heartache and angst. New ACNA plants are established and they need diocesan oversight but they’re not allowed to be part of a diocese in the same territory of the TEC Diocese of South Carolina? Huh? By that logic, ACNA is not allowed to exist either because it’s in the same territory of TEC. What am I not getting here?

  15. Don C says:

    Prof Seitz, I think Bishop Dickson is bishop-in-residence at St. Michael’s, Charleston.

    flaanglican, Sarah, etc., what makes (or was supposed to make) the ACNA different from the Continuing churches is that they were canonically resident in foreign provinces and in communion with orthodox provinces and dioceses. It’s my contention that with the exception of those parishes who can no longer remain in EC(USA) out of conscience, the ACNA should not exist with those orthodox dioceses. If St. Andrews can no longer remain in DioSC, at the very least the ACNA bishop should not be there. It makes a mockery of catholic order and thus Anglicanism.

  16. c.r.seitz says:

    #15 — My own view–which was roundly hooted on various blogs–was that an arrangement should have been made that in regions where the TEC diocese was taking a stand (Dallas, W-LA, CFL, et al) ACNA and the TEC Ordinary would find a way forward/a protocol acceptable to them both. Should there be an ACNA Bishop in the Diocese of SC or in the Diocese of Dallas or CFL? Only if this is publically justified, agreed upon, and all Bishops in prayerful agreement. Without this public and justified dimension, it simply looks like consumerist Anglicanism. If ACNA and TEC conservatives must co-exist, given the Book of Judges season we are in, then minimally let both describe an agreed protocol regarding ‘common’ life in a time of judgment.

  17. Sarah says:

    RE: “It’s my contention that with the exception of those parishes who can no longer remain in EC(USA) out of conscience, the ACNA should not exist with those orthodox dioceses. If St. Andrews can no longer remain in DioSC, at the very least the ACNA bishop should not be there. It makes a mockery of catholic order and thus Anglicanism.”

    What on earth, then, should those parishes who leave TEC do? Sit on the fringes? Not have a bishop? Travel to another ACNA diocese in order to have confirmation?

    To be concerned about “a mockery of catholic order and thus Anglicanism” . . . I mean — the mockery occurred with TEC, and we’re in Mockery-Land for many many many more decades now. I see no prospect whatsoever of getting out of Mockery-Land in the US for my lifetime.

    Crossposting from one of my comments from elsewhere: [blockquote]A bishop of a diocese in TEC simply isn’t the same as a bishop in a diocese of another Anglican entity and pretending as if that’s true is only so much propaganda, either way.

    The leaders of ACNA started another denomination, as is their right. They think—quite understandably—that their denomination is better than TEC [or else they’d be in TEC!] They have the right to grow and plant churches wherever they wish—and that includes South Carolina—so that they can offer their superior [in their eyes] denomination to Anglicans in South Carolina who might decide that ACNA is a better choice than TEC. It seems a bit precious to pretend as if the Diocese of South Carolina and ACNA are not “in competition” for converts [though as I explain later, I don’t think they’ll ultimately be fishing from the same pond anyway]. Both claim to be better Anglican products than the other, no matter how graciously it’s all worded.[/blockquote]

  18. Blyles3 says:

    Nos. 12 & 15. Bishop Dickson is bishop-in-residence at St. Michael’s, Charleston. He is not a ACNA or AMiA.

  19. SC blu cat lady says:

    AS I mentioned elsewhere, Bishop Lawrence mentioned at Mere Anglicanism back in Jan 2012, that there were six other Anglican bishops in the same geographic region as the Diocese of SC. It seems the problem only gets worse not better. I wonder what would happen IF the Diocese of SC ever leaves TEC and becomes part of ACNA? Sorry, Bishop Lawrence, bishop no longer. Really it is a very odd.