The Bishop and a member of the Clergy of the Diocese of South Carolina are with us as observers. Will they find us the kind of Church they believe they are being called into union with? I surely hope so. Whether we keep the main thing the main thing will affect their assessment, I am sure. An observer from the Jubilee Pentecostal Fellowship of Churches is also here. That Fellowship is on the Nairobi (Canterbury) trail. Will the Anglican Church in North America be found to be the body with whom they can journey forward? Can we keep the main thing the main thing in order to find a godly, creative and Anglican way for such a union to take place? As with South Carolina, I hope so. Imagine what these two unions would say ”“ in very different ways ”“ about 21st century Anglicanism and about the place the Anglican Church in North America might have in the effort to re-evangelize this continent. “A biblical, missionary, and united Anglicanism.” “Reaching North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.”
In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus instructs the twelve that they are to:
Preach as you go, saying, ”˜The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Take no gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts”¦
[Matthew 10:7-9]
As it turned out, few of us got to take any gold or silver or copper”¦ But our whole story has been that “freely [we] have received.” That’s our story as a Province.
Given the recent statements of both Canterbury and York with regard to women bishops and same sex civil partnerships, I see no reason why we should be in a hurry to be in communion with Canterbury. Yes, it’s good that they may tell us that they will recognize our orders in perhaps a year’s time, but since we are already recognized by the Global South primates, is recognition by Canterbury really necessary? I’m glad ++Duncan met with ++Welby, but I do wish they’d tell us about what transpired during that meeting. Quite frankly, I see the Global South pulling completely away from Canterbury, and I believe we’ll go with them.
Perhaps, Cennydd13, but I was struck by other features of this annual State of the Church address.
First, I rejoice that +Lawrence and a delegation from DSC are present as observers. Great.
Second, and relevant to the whole Canterbury connection theme, I chuckled over ++Duncan’s rephrasing of “the Canterbury Trail” as “the Nairobi Trail” when he mentioned the Pentecostal group that’s exploring the possibility of becoming Anglican.
Third, I’m delighted that the new Catechism seems to be close to being publicly released at last, and will be published by the new venture, Anglican House Publishers.
Last, but not least, when it comes to the daunting challenge (“Mission impossible”) of starting 1000 Anglican churches in just five years, I think ++Duncan is right that with some 300 new churches started already, regardless of whether that ambitious goal is reached or not, we can certainly rejoice that a passion for church planting seems to have taken hold and now is embedded within the DNA of the ACNA. There is a dramatic contrast here with the utter failure of TEC to achieve much of anything when ti came to church planting during the “Decade of Evangelism” in the 1990’s. Back then, some of us gospel-driven visionaries dreamed of starting 1000 new Episcopal churches in ten years, but that unrealistic dream faded very quickly, for manifold reasons.
The ACNA has come a long way in four short years. Praise God. But we still have a very long way to go, especially in terms of “reaching North America with the transforming love of Jesus Christ.” But the commitment to building a “biblical, missionary, and united Anglicanism” on this continent remains strong and clear. And that cause is as compelling as ever.
David Handy+
I agree with all that you’ve said, but I want to know what happened at the meeting. Is there a reason for the secrecy?
There are so very often quite valid reasons for not making conversations public, as, of course, you would be quite aware.
Thoughts freely exchanged between any two persons are always subject to different interpretations when viewed out-of-context by non-participants.