Read it all.
The seemingly endless proliferation of bishops is a tad surprising. It seems to tug in the opposite direction from the professed desire to move away from affinity dioceses towards mainly geographical dioceses.
A Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others???
You’ve got me on this one, Terry Tee…..even [i]I’M[/i] confused!
I think a better name would be a ‘The Missionary Diocese.’
RE: “It seems to tug in the opposite direction from the professed desire to move away from affinity dioceses towards mainly geographical dioceses.”
You know . . . it’s not the existence of “affinity dioceses” that yields so many bishops. All they would need to do is increase the required ASA for the existence/creation of a diocese, and that would take care of it, regardless if the diocese were affinity or geography based.
I suspect the increased urgency for “geographical” dioceses is the realization that — now that parishioners/clergy are aware of which bishops are which and what they believe — there is an escalation of switching of dioceses. If you can force dioceses to be solely geographic you can then increase the pressure to eliminate congregations moving to another diocese that has congregational affinity and general agreement with one’s bishop.
This all too messy. We need Boticelli to be the archbishop.
Point of Information: “Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others” is the network of churches that Hunter oversees in Southern California. It gets it name from the book that Hunter wrote (“Christianity Beyond Belief: Following Jesus for the Sake of Others”) in which he argued that the church exists for those outside the church. Not a particularly original or profound thesis, admittedly. The book became the catalyst for a church planting initiative (C4SO) that became a diocese that has now apparently become a diocese again. I’m not familiar with the jurisdictions in California so I don’t know how he and his initiative work with the diocese(s) there. When Hunter switched over to ACNA, he was an Assisting Bishop directly under ABp Duncan, but I guess he’s a diocesan again…?
Also, to follow up on a previous thread concerning whether DofSC should affiliate with ACNA, in which several argued that ACNA is filled with folks who have little appreciation of and continuity with historical Anglicanism, Hunter would be a case in point. Coming from the Vineyard Church, through Alpha to AMIA and then ACNA, he has not been formed by or shown particular interest in the Anglican tradition. (For instance, at a church planting conference we were both at years ago, the newly minted bishop actually proposed “presiding” over the Eucharist by teleconference.) While I am not too parochial to appreciate that Anglicanism cannot learn from Christians of other streams (including the experientialists and charismatics), I share the concern others on this blog have expressed concerning the shallowness of the Anglican identity shown by many (though certainly not all) in ACNA. I certainly hope that the leadership pays due attention to the formation of new clergy and clergy converts and makes a point to introduce them to the richness of Anglican theological and spiritual tradition, and not let the organization devolve into assemblage of baptists (and charismatics) with prayerbooks…
[i]he has not been formed by or shown particular interest in the Anglican tradition[/i]
And that might be the real Achilles heal of ACNA. For whatever reason [and there are lots that are talked about], ACNA is drawing people from all protestant denominations in what seems like droves. On the one hand that ought to be good; but as #8 points out, a notable number of these folks still think the church started with Calvin and nothing of note pre-dates that. Some of what passes for Eucharistic Worship seems like a different melody for the sheet music of clown Eucharists that swept TEC a few years ago.
Just one more example: there seems to be a gathering head of steam in ACNA not to ordain women as priests. Okay, but some of the definitions I hear for what a priest is [from those with pointy hats no less] and for a new line of titles for the person who happens to be standing in front of a congregation [or also inclusively called “a gathering”] resembles nothing out of the historic Anglican Tradition.
It’s almost as if we are practicing multiculturalism rather than melting-pot assimilation. That will have repercussions on theology, worship, and spirituality.
All which we don’t need, nor are they at all desirable. Anglican worship should and must be the requirement.
Following a predictable course.
Sorry, I’m not following to which posting #10 or #11 are referring…Could you say more?
‘Diocese of Churches for the Sake of Others.’
It seems to me that the new ACNA Catechism is going to be a good start for educating new converts to Anglican Christianity, and it should be required of all converts prior to Confirmation.
Nothing such as ACNA has ever occurred at any time or place within the Anglican Communion.
Why would anyone expect that as steps are taken to manage this brand new, adventurous, and holy concept and group, that all are either going to be accepting, pleased, or understanding of decisions made by human beings struggling to cope with the aftermath of the ungodly disaster that has overtaken ECUSA?
Surely, it is possible for us to be patient, compassionate, and loving, as we prayerfully watch, or participate in, the extremely difficult process of working through the agonizing demands thrust upon us by the apostates of ECUSA.
As mentioned above, it is inconceivable, to me, at least, and surely to most of us, that any thinking Episcopalian, amongst whom are persons known to, and beloved by, each of us who has left ECUSA, can accept what has happened, is happening, or, most likely, will happen.
Nevertheless, it is so.
I suppose there is some remote possibility that Schori’s successor might fire Mr. Beers, cancel all lawsuits, and make an effort to behave as God would have us behave, but I don’t expect to see it.
RE: “I suppose there is some remote possibility that Schoriâ€™s successor might fire Mr. Beers, cancel all lawsuits, and make an effort to behave as God would have us behave, but I donâ€™t expect to see it.”
I’m not certain what TEC’s possibilities of reform have to do with the actions of ACNA. I don’t know of a single person who believes that TEC will be reformed.
And I’ve been happy for the existence of ACNA for those people who 1) believed they were required in conscience and by the will of God to leave TEC and 2) wanted to worship in an Anglican organization with their own common foundational values and theologies. For some members, ACNA is making just the right decisions and they are very happy with those decisions. ACNA is the perfect place for them.
RE: “Nothing such as ACNA has ever occurred at any time or place within the Anglican Communion.”
I disagree. Similar organizations to ACNA have been tried since the 1970s [and technically, since the 1870s, with the REC]. The ACC, the ACA, the APCK, the APA . . . The meeting in St. Louis, Missouri in 1977 gathered thousands [sound familiar?] and out of that came their master theological statement, the Affirmation of St. Louis. [i]In fact, the name of the new organization that sprang from that meeting was “Anglican Church in North America.”[/i]
Arguably, a higher percentage of losses came to The Episcopal Church from the decisions of the 1970s — some estimate TEC lost 1/3 of its membership — than came from the decisions of 2003 onward.
Learning from history helps — sometimes — new organizations learn what decisions *not* to make. That’s why it’s so richly ironic to some that the “pointy hats for all my friends” trend is being so vigorously observed today in ACNA — among other trends.
Apologies — it was “Anglican Church of North America,” not “in.”
16 and prior from Sarah, you may, of course, as you state in your repeated statements that make it plain to this viewer, if not others, that you do not think much of ACNA, how happy you are that some of us have ACNA, disagree with any points anyone posts.
I repeat my statement that â€œNothing such as ACNA has ever occurred at any time or place within the Anglican Communion,â€ and I believe that statement will stand up under all scrutiny.
The earlier instances you cite resulted from a far smaller magnitude of accumulated ECUSA offenses than the mile-high stack to which we ACNAns have responded; the earilier reactions in no way compare with the magnitude and scope of the responses that created ACNA, with its strength and vitality that does exist regardless of your efforts to denigrate or damn with faint praise; and in no way compare with the recognition of, and responses to, ACNA’s actions and existence that have come to us from some 80% of the world’s Anglicans.
Nor did those earlier events lead to many provinces and dioceses refusing to accept ECUSA dollars as has now occurred, one of the most recent being the Diocese of the West Indies.
Yes, there are some similarities, but they are the same type of similariity that exists between an ice cream cone and an iceberg.
RE: “your repeated statements that make it plain to this viewer, if not others, that you do not think much of ACNA, how happy you are that some of us have ACNA. . . ”
I should hope it would be plain to *any* viewer that I think ACNA to be deeply and intrinsically flawed and that a whole lot of Anglicans, including me, won’t be a part of it as a result, since I’ve been open and straightforward about that ever since I recognized the direction and decisions that ACNA was and would be making — so for years now. But nevertheless, ACNA fits the theologies and values of other Anglicans and I’m happy they have a place to go. I have supported many ACNA parishes and laypeople with publicity and encouragement, and am very glad to continue to do so.
RE: “The earlier instances you cite resulted from a far smaller magnitude of accumulated ECUSA offenses than the mile-high stack to which we ACNAns have responded; the earilier reactions in no way compare with the magnitude and scope of the responses that created ACNA, with its strength and vitality that does exist regardless of your efforts to denigrate or damn with faint praise. . .”
I hadn’t realized that you didn’t know TEC history.
Oh well. There’s not much to say, then. But there’s nobody informed whose kept up with the past 150 years of TEC history that can possibly say that. Again — just to address one bit of lack of knowledge — a significantly higher percentage of people left TEC in the 70s and 80s than have left in the past 13 years. The losses to TEC were far more catastrophic then than now — it lost nearly an entire wing of AngloCatholics, for one.
So there’s a lot of reading you have to catch up on if you decide you need to be better-informed. Or . . . you can continue on with “ignorance being your punishment.” ; > )
RE: “Nor did those earlier events lead to many provinces and dioceses refusing to accept ECUSA dollars as has now occurred, one of the most recent being the Diocese of the West Indies.”
But to the broader picture — there’s no need to be peevish that some people don’t appreciate ACNA’s decisions and foundational values. This is not a big deal — plenty of people won’t, and others will, and ACNA will continue on living out its chosen identity and values.
Ma’am, I am always willing to be instructed, even though the instruction might come with an air of slightly supercilious superiority.
After some small amount of research, I find some authorities that recognize perhaps as many as 70+ “Episcopal” split-offs. I do not find any data on the number of persons involved in the major events such as St. Louis, 1977, or others.
Perhaps you could assist our debate by roughly quantifying to the best of your ability, the number of members who left ECUSA as a result of St. Louis, and other major splits? It will be of interest to see how any such numbers compare with ACNA’s number of some 800,000 adherents and members.
Regardless of numbers, I still believe that the world-wide negative impact on the Anglican Communion created by Schori and her ilk is far greater than the sum total of all the 70+ splits that are now organized and functioning.
Since I am ignorant of prior efforts on the part of ECUSA to obtain the property of those who protested its apostasy as displayed from tme to time, as are now well underway, I should also like to be instructed on this.
And, lastly, and I truly mean lastly, as i see no point in pursuing this line of thought further once I have been instructed, how do you feel one should respond to the gross errors and apostasy embraced and promulgated by ECUSA in one’s efforts to follow the gospel brought to us by the saints?
My apologies for any typos; my vision seems even more dim than usual early this morning.