(Church of Uganda News)
A CORRECTION on the Church of Uganda position regarding the Anglican Communion and the Lambeth Conference
“The Church of Uganda is not seceding from the Anglican Communion,” said Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye, church spokesperson. “Some press stories have misrepresented our position.”
“The plain fact is that we are simply not attending the Lambeth Conference in July 2008, but we are still very much a part of the Anglican Communion.”
The Church of Uganda broke communion with the Episcopal Church in the United States of America in 2003 after they elected and consecrated as Bishop Gene Robinson, a divorced man living in a same-sex relationship. But, the Church of Uganda has remained a consistently active member of the Anglican Communion.
“It is the Americans who have seceded from the Anglican Communion because of their decisions and their teaching,” Mwesigye said. “They have departed dramatically from the historic faith, teaching, and practice of the Bible and the Anglican Church.”
“How can they still be Anglican when they don’t believe what Anglicans believe?”
The Church of Uganda, along with many other Provinces in the Anglican Communion, urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to see that this crisis was resolved before convening Bishops of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference.
Since, however, the crisis has not been resolved, and since those who precipitated the crisis ”“ the Americans ”“ have been invited to the Lambeth Conference, the Church of Uganda has upheld its decision not to attend.
“The crisis in the Anglican Communion is very serious,” Mwesigye concluded. “It is not good stewardship of our limited resources to spend more than US$5,000 (8,500,000/=) per person for our Bishops and their wives to attend a three-week meeting which seems, in practice, to have no authority and is blatantly and persistently ignored by some of its wealthier member churches.”
Exactly so–a very helpful statement. And responsibility is placed where it belongs–ECUSA for its shamefulness and ABC for failing to deal with ECUSA’s shamefulness. It is telling that so many so-called Anglicans are surprised that some say what they mean and mean what they say–as in the case of Uganda’s clear and constant stand. ECUSA and ABC–what part of “not in communion with TEC” don’t you understand?
Someone might want to inform Stand Firm in Faith about this. They are running a news story titled “Uganda’s Anglicans Threaten To Secede From Global Church”
$5000 is a fortune in Ugandan terms – hard to justify that on a three week prayer meeting + scones with the Queen.
#2 – SFIF just used the title from the article in the International Herald Tribune – http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/18/africa/AF-REL-Uganda-Anglicans.php
I find it disheartening that the press spends so little time researching stories. Any ‘fact checker’ could have found this info ou=t in less than 5 minutes, yet misinfornation becomes so widespread that it takes a press release to correct it. Sad.
In the run upto the last Lambeth, i remember a conserted effort by TEC to offer assistance to any and all Bishops of the communion to help make sure that $ was not something that would prevent them from coming. If fact, I beleive I wrote a check to help the primate of Jeruselem and the Middle East to make it. I don’t think it was a bribe- but a recognition of the relative cost to others.
This time around there has been no effort, that I am aware of, to raise the funds. Probably because many would refuse. But then they get to blame TEC- like some comments above- that somehow it’s all there fault.
If people wanted to go- the money could be made availble to cover the cost.
Kenya has announced it’s boycotting Lambeth:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/02/19/kenyas-bishops-join-boycott-of-anglican-meeting/#more-2865
The International Herald Tribune needs to get their facts straight before publishing such unsubstantiated trash.
worldpeas…the issue is that most cannot afford to go and neither do we want to be beholden to any Anglican group for the money. There is no confidence in any organization at this point to assist in the travel and not be thought of as someone’s pet project. The community aspect of this has been totally screwed. That is the present reality.
francis and Gordian
And yet they have ample funds for GAFCON. It’s all about agendas.
Dear Brian, there are not ample funds for Gafcon.
4. SFIF just used the title and has not yet mentioned the rebuttal.
Regardless of the fact that this latest press release from Kampala shouldn’t have been necessary, it is nonetheless a welcome and very clear and emphatic statment. Yes, the International Herald Tribune messed up big time and grossly distorted the facts. But just note how promptly and decisively the Anglican Church of Uganda officially set the record straight. Now if only the Archbishop of Canterbury would be half so clear and decisive…
David Handy+
It’s not just agendas having anything to do with it. You can see from Mwesigye’s own quote….“[b]It is not good stewardship[/b] (my emphasis) of our limited resources to spend more than US$5,000 (8,500,000/=) per person for our Bishops and their wives to attend a three-week meeting which seems, in practice, to have no authority and is blatantly and persistently ignored by some of its wealthier member churches.â€
Could someone explain why it has been asserted that +Jerusalem is in the pocket of 815 and so is being led by the nose to oppose a Gafcon meeting in their region? This puzzles. Why would TEC-815-PB not genuinely WANT a meeting of Gafcon? That would get pressure against TEC out of the way at Lambeth. I should think that the PB would be thrilled to death to find that certain GS conservative forces against TEC had left the field of play–it matters not where.
I cannot track the logic that says +Jerusalem owes 815 and so acts to thwart actions that are demonstrably good news for TEC: select GS Primates absenting themselves from Lambeth.
Jerusalem is a Potemkin diocese, with a war raging between the current bishop and the ex-bishop, Riah. It has a lot of employees but not many congregants. Most of its money seems to come from LA.
Leaving aside the Anglican diocese of Jerusalem, a pilgrimage by African bishops to the Mother City of Christianity has a resonance that far exceeds a resonance to a provincial English city.
I’m sure Schori is glad they’re not coming to Lambeth, it takes a lot of the heat off Tec. The Diocese of Jerusalem isn’t going to ignore the Africans. But their presence will discomfit.
The horrible politics inside Jerusalem are more familiar than I feel at liberty to concur/speak about. Riah was clearly/is clearly a friend of Palestinian causes (massively at the other end of Christ Church). Then we can add to that a client system, plugged into Riah’s family, etc. +Jerusalem is having a confrontation with all this. Would +Riah be a fan of Gafcon? NOTHING could be further from the truth. He would be interested because it destabilised +Jerusalem.
But the previous point had to do with the logic of 815-TEC thinking Gafcon siphoning off of select African Primates a bad thing. I assume they would be thrilled. All deterioration of a meaningful Communion aids two groups at least: TEC autonomy investments in revisionism, and conservatives who want a new way to be confessional and local Christians, and happy to be free of a catholic anglican Communion.
Dr. Seitz: Well, I don’t know if the Diocese of Jerusalem is being led about the nose by TEC, but the logic certainly would be there, contrary to your puzzlement.
Let’s consider what TEC’s goals are out of this mess. Pretty simple, it seems to me. (1) Continue pressing on with their sexuality agenda while (2) remaining fully connected with Canterbury, and (3) making the conservatives look like a small group of bigoted bullies.
Rowan Williams’ lack of action has made TEC relatively confident of goals 1 and 2. I think that TEC knows, like everyone else does, that neither the Lambeth Conference nor the Covenant holds any threat to TEC with regard to these 2 goals. TEC’s major goals with regard to Lambeth is to be invited, and they have largely accomplished this goal, and their main offensive is likely to be to have Robinson involved at Lambeth in some way.
TEC also, most certainly, has the goal of ensuring that no Anglican Covenant ever passes. The Second Draft Covenant, undoubtedly gives TEC added confidence in this regard, as they know that such a Covenant will never be accepted by the Anglican Communion (no disrespect intended to the CDG). TEC also knows that little of any consequence will be accomplished at Lambeth as regards the Covenant.
Still, I think it could be argued that it suits TEC to have a GAFCON conference somewhere, because it will take the GS away from Lambeth and so divide the Communion’s conservatives. It will also serve as a propaganda victory as it can be spun that TEC is commited to the AC, while the GS is not.
But, what you miss, Dr. Seitz, is that while TEC does surely like the idea of a GAFCON, it also angers them. These are the primates who they think are causing the problems within TEC. Remember also that the third goal of TEC is to make the GAFCON primates look like bigoted bullies. So to this extent, the Jerusalem set-up would be(was???) perceived by TEC as a gift from heaven. Call in your chips with Dawani, and suddenly TEC has GAFCON with a controversy, and a controversy that makes the GAFCON primates look like insensitive bullies. Perfect set-up, and one the GAFCON organizers should have forseen.
So from my analysis of the circumstantial evidence, I would say that it actually supports a suspicision of TEC involvement in the Jerusalem situation rather then the opposite.
Thank you for this:
Still, I think it could be argued that it suits TEC to have a GAFCON conference somewhere, because it will take the GS away from Lambeth and so divide the Communion’s conservatives. It will also serve as a propaganda victory as it can be spun that TEC is commited to the AC, while the GS is not.
You can see from Mwesigye’s own quote….“It is not good stewardship of our limited resources to spend more than US$5,000 (8,500,000/=) per person for our Bishops and their wives to attend a three-week meeting which seems, in practice, to have no authority and is blatantly and persistently ignored by some of its wealthier member churches.â€
So it is good stewardship to attend GAFCON which excludes many Provinces, has no authority and will be blatantly and persistently ignored by the AC wealthier member churches? It’s all about agenda. Nothing wrong with that. Lambeth is all about agenda too. But the GAFCON people will always claim it’s about God or holiness or whatever.
RE: “Still, I think it could be argued that it suits TEC to have a GAFCON conference somewhere, because it will take the GS away from Lambeth and so divide the Communion’s conservatives.”
Gafcon is a [i]consequence[/i] of a part of the GS not going to Lambeth, not a [i]cause[/i].
If there were no Gafcon, a part of the GS would [i]still[/i] not be going to Lambeth. I expect that the second draft of the Covenant sort of put the seal on any lingering doubts that some might have had about not attending.
Since a part of the GS is not going to Lambeth, I’m happy that they will be able to get together and have a meeting and fellowship together.
There will be an increasing number of these sorts of international metings, as the Communion continues to fail — as it has for the past four years — to deal with the rank heresy in its midst. I would expect — [based solely on my intuition and looking at past trends, of course, and certainly based on no inside knowledge] — that such alternative gatherings will most likely occur around Primates meetings and ACC meetings soon.
The more the boulder travels down the mountain, the faster it will roll. The more the boulder travels down the moutain, and the faster it rolls, the more violent the action required to stop the boulder.
Dr. Seitz,
Perhaps you are aware that I have argued strenuously in the past on both SF and T19 regarding the desirability of the GS attending Lambeth in force, not least so as to deprive TEC of that apparent propaganda victory you mention: where it at least LOOKS like TEC is committed to the AC and the GS is not, when the opposite is in fact the case. But I’ve had a change of heart and mind.
I recognize that short-term propaganda gains or losses aren’t what matters. What matters is reality, not appearances. And the sad reality is that Lambeth 2008 simply isn’t worth attending. The old Instruments of Unity have failed. Totally failed. There is no help in them. Kiss them goodbye.
A New Anglicanism is already starting to rise from the ashes of the old, fallen one. The proposed Covenant is a broken reed that can bear no weight. GAFCon represents the only real future Anglicanism has. Or so I firmly believe. You are free to disagree, of course, as I expect you will. We all have different callings.
This does NOT mean rejecting catholic eccesiology. Far from it. I hope and pray that we will see the New Anglicanism embrace a more patristic-style, confessionally-based conciliarism than was ever true under the old, obsolete model that privileged provincial autonomy over theological coherence and real accountability and interdependence.
David Handy+
Sarah Hey (#21),
Well said. I agree wholeheartedly.
Only I suggest a different analogy than a rock rolling downhill (which suggests the start of a rockslide or avalanche to me). I propose the image of a train beginning to pull away from a railway station. It may start slowly, but once it builds up speed, it is likewise virtually unstoppable. The time to get on board the train is while it’s still moving slowly.
David Handy+
The quote in #19 is not my own, and with it I do not concur, with GS leaders-ACI thinking through another way forward…I thought that was clear.
Au contraire, NRA. ; > )
I’ll stick with the rock metaphor. And I have no intention or desire to get “on board” the rock. In fact, to add to the metaphor, it’s not one large boulder, but dozens of big chunks hurtling down the mountain. And those “driving” or conducting the big chunks which are hurtling down the mountain [to mix metaphors] I have zero trust in at all. In short, once the mountain dissolves, let me assure you that I will be a part of an entirely different mountain, and certainly not some chunk of chunks driven by madcap conductors in a way that — after the past two years — I heartily despise.
Let me say it clearly — I, and many many others, thanks to our observations over the past several years — won’t be aboard your kind of “train”, although I’m confident some will. So the desolution of the mountain, NRA, will involve multiple deep and profound fractures.
I think the history will show, and the storytellers will shake their heads over, just how profoundly off those riding the mountain chunks down the mountain were in their predictions of the numbers of fellow conservatives who will join them. Less than I think they can even comprehend. The gains to non-Anglican entities will continue to be immense.
Dr. Seitz,
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. I was, of course, aware that your post #19 was just quoting something that you found helped to clarify the thinking of one of the people you’ve been interacting with (i.e., jamesw in #18). But you were so terse that alas, I failed to catch how you meant the citation to be taken.
May I be so bold as to say that while you have indeed been very prolific and regular (along with the rest of the noble ACI team) in setting forth your views on so many matters related to this crisis on the ACI website, that not all your comments posted here at T19 are equally clear? Your #17 is a fairly good example. The last line left me scratching my head trying to exegete it. You wrote:
“All deterioration of a meaningful Communion aids two groups at least: TEC autonomy investments in revisionism (all clear so far), and conservatives who want a new way to be confessional and local Christians, and happy to be free of a catholic, anglican Communion.”
Huh? That last part is far from clear to me (at least). By the punctuation and the earlier reference to “two groups,” I suppose that you are speaking of everything after the reference to TEC revisionists as a single group of conservatives. Only I fail to recognize exactly what kind of conservatives you are talking about. Certainly I don’t see myself in that group. For while I do indeed “want a new way to be confessional” as an Anglican, I am by no means “happy to be free of a catholic anglican Communion.” That sounds to me like a gross caricature of most “Fed Cons” or New Reformation Anglicans. We want a restoration of BOTH Doctrine and Discipline within Anglicanism. We just see the current Instruments as completely INCAPABLE of providing a restoration of either one.
So I suppose that I probably have misunderstood you, despite your many, many words written on the subject in general over the last few years. I’m sorry. I guess what I’m trying to say, however feebly, is that we all probably aren’t as clear at times as we may think that we are (myself included). And I hope that doesn’t come across disrespectfully, for it wasn’t so intended.
David Handy+
#25, Sarah,
Well, I’m hardly surprised. You’ve expressed such sentiments many times. My guess is that you’ll align yourself with some evangelical Protestant group that is more theologically coherent than Anglicanism has ever been. I would be far more inclined to go over to Rome myself, as my dear mentor +Dan Herzog did last year.
I’m not blaming you, or anyone else, for failing to jump on board the CCP/New Reformation train. There are hard choices to be made. And we won’t all make the same choices. That has been very clear for a very long time.
But I remain optimistic. I firmly believe that the best days of Anglicanism are yet to come. But it will indeed be a whole new KIND of Anglicanism than we have previously known. And the exact contours of that new style Prayerbook religion are known only to God. The rest of us are making it up as we go.
Meanwhile, you are doing a FANTASTIC job defending some little stone bridges with a skill and tenacity that I can only admire.
David Handy+
Well, I will say that it is somewhat of an honor to have my writings thought to have come from the calibre of Dr. Seitz.
I too am one who had until recently called for all GS primates to attend Lambeth, but like the NRA I have also changed my mind. My reasons for changing my mind have to do with my belief that we must no longer enable Rowan Williams to evade the consequences of his inaction. I really see no positive outcome to all the GS primates showing up at Lambeth and playing nice. Contrary to what the ACI folks say, I think that, thanks to Rowan Williams, the whole Anglican Communion right now is “free of a catholic anglican Communion”. Far better to make it clear to Rowan NOW that the Communion is divided and that only serious action on his part will undo the damage.
I do not think we should despair of a FUTURE “catholic anglican Communion”. We must, however, be realistic about it and how we get there. I really don’t see either trend (i.e. neither the ACI/CommCons NOR the GAFCON/FedCons) as leading to a future catholic Anglican Communion. The one side wants us to continue enabling a failed system that has set a precedent for ecclesiastical anarchy. The other side wants to to establish a new system to provide for ecclesiastical anarchy.
For what it’s worth, I think that the Global South primates (and perhaps widen the base beyond GAFCON) should look to a realistic strategy for taking back the Anglican Communion based on a 15-20 year plan. I think that the GS needs to establish a covenant amongst themselves first, modeling their vision of a future global Church. Let a broad coaliton of conservatives draw up their own “inside track” and “outside track” for Anglicanism. Let the GS show that it knows how to model a new global Anglicanism.
Then let the liberal Northern provinces die off. Eventually the Anglican Communion will be won over.
Brian from T19, it’s all about the Faith of Christ crucified. It’s about being true to Christ, and just as importantly, it’s about preaching and teaching His Gospel. It’s about remaining true to 2,000 years of Church teaching and not going off on a tangent as The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have done.
It’s also a whole LOT more affordable financially for those attending from third-world provinces.
NRA- re no. 22 et al – you speak of a hope for a return to a patristic, conciliar, and catholic church coming out of the ruins of Anglicanism that so many on this site and SF wish for. Well, in your own words, Kiss Goodbye any hope of such an organization being patristic and catholic. It will be maybe a conciliar structure, but for Protestants only. Sorry.
Sarah,
I agree whole heartedly with your comment that:
“I think the history will show, and the storytellers will shake their heads over, just how profoundly off those riding the mountain chunks down the mountain were in their predictions of the numbers of fellow conservatives who will join them. Less than I think they can even comprehend. The gains to non-Anglican entities will continue to be immense.”
I am in Pittsburgh and I believe its in play re the vote to realign. Bishop Duncan has said that he is concerned about the lay vote to realign at the second reading. The Pittsburgh 12 have jolted the notion of a monolithic conservative coalition. When push comes to shove, many Pittsburghers will not want to risk their buildings and shudder at the legal fees to be incurred. When Bishop Duncan asked my big upper middle class and strongly evangelical parish for money to support the Network, the vestry voted to give him only about 10% of what he asked for. Its easy to talk realigmnet, its more difficult to raise money to make it happen.
Hi Morningside, let me be clear.
I am fine with those who wish to realign and attempt to create an Anglican entity with their values and goals and theology. I understand very much their desire to do so. I hope that they are successful at what they wish to achieve. And I hold no ill will against them for departing TEC.
But keep in mind that I said this as my closing line in that paragraph: “The gains to non-Anglican entities will continue to be immense.”
In other words, I actually don’t think that most of the traditional/reasserting non-departers for-an-Alternate-Anglican-Entity are afraid of legal fees or losing their property. I think that there are plenty who “don’t want to go to Option FedCon A,” but who will go to Rome/Geneva/Constantinople/etc.
Those who do so sort of put the lie to the idea that they were worried about losing their property.
I think that there are swathes of people who are in TEC and who do not at all see the Common Cause idea as something that they wish to be a part of. And yet . . .those swathes of people, many of them, may very well leave TEC a year from now, or two, or six months from now.
No one will be more pleased at the prospect of Lambeth without several key provinces attending than the PB of TEC. That may not be a reason for them to attend, but it is a fact.
No one will be more pleased at the prospect of Lambeth without several key provinces attending than the PB of TEC. That may not be a reason for them to attend, but it is a fact.
Dr. Seitz, it seems that ‘fact’ is in dispute. From an article in ELO:
After hearing about the five primates’ intentions to boycott Lambeth, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said February 15 that the conference “will be diminished by their absence, and I imagine that they themselves will miss a gift they might have otherwise received.
“None of us is called to ‘feel at home’ except in the full and immediate presence of God,” she added. “It is our searching, especially with those we find most ‘other,’ that is likely to lead us into the fuller experience of the body of Christ. Fear of the other is an invitation to seek the face of God, not a threat to be avoided.”
Huh? Brian quotes from the News Organ of the Dear Leader and thinks that “disproves†Seitz’s observation? LOL.
It was just a little back-handed swipe at those who don’t wish to take Eucharist with her anyway. Sort of a “that’s okay, you’re ugly†comment that someone says when they recognize that they’ve been rejected. Only it was “that’s okay, you’re fearful anyway†comment. ; > )
Whatever.
Back to Seitz’s comment. I agree. The PB is very pleased about five Primates not attending, would that it were a good 12 or so along with their bishops. The only bad thing about their not attending is that it’s a public dissing, and nobody wants to be publicly dissed—hence the “that’s okay, you’re ugly†comment.
But then, the PB has had much to be pleased over. From the Joint Standing Committee appointed to take dictation from the ACO about the response of the New Orleans HOB, to the refusal to call a Primates meeting, to Rowan’s refusal to appoint the chair of the Pastoral Council called for in Dar—to about a dozen other things over the past year, the PB is pleased.
The fact that it is NOT ’12 or so’ is also important; it signals some divisions within the GS at a time when it is important to be able to work for discipline of TEC. Not all of us believe that TEC is (a) going to survive as a liberal church bereft of a conservative wing, (b) innoculated from further divisons, including major dioceses who which wish to stay in full compliance with Instruments, Windsor, Covenant, and so forth. I tend to agree that the kind of massive coming-together of breakaways–a la a New Anglican Reformation–is probably a bloated and exotic claim (leaving aside, with one commentator, what kind of Communion anglicanism it could be anyway). At issue for many of us is seeing classical anglicanism in NA find its own way with breakaway on the right, and discipline or extinction on the left. It is striking how many people in the US have an instinct that ‘change’ must be good (Obama juggernaut). It could just as easily presage total chaos and meltdown. SC, Dallas, TN, CFL, W-TX, W-LA, Albany, ND — it strikes me that dioceses like this are not ever going to jump on a breakway bandwagon, but neither are they likely to simply ride along with SSBs and a church in freefall. TEC polity does not really require very much of them, as people like +Salmon and +Dallas said all along.
RE: “it signals some divisions within the GS at a time when it is important to be able to work for discipline of TEC.”
There are definitely some divisions within the GS — the next clause in the sentence above reveals them. From my outside observation, it seems apparent that those Primates whom I would describe as the FedCons do not believe any more that “it is important to be able to work for discipline of TEC.”
They tried for four years, but then realized that such discipline of TEC was not desired by the ABC as well as the ACO. And so they are moving on.
My observations, of course, but I expect most reasserting laypeople in TEC are seeing what I’m seeing. I also expect that sight of the second draft of the Covenant — as well as the revelation that there would be a fourth draft after the third draft coming from Lambeth — pretty much put to ease any doubts that those Primates had about not attending Lambeth.
RE: “Not all of us believe that TEC is (a) going to survive as a liberal church bereft of a conservative wing . . .”
I agree. I don’t think that it will survive as anything meaningful. But who said that the progressive activist leadership in TEC need anything “meaningful.” The shell or the facade — the former host of the parasitic ideas — will be up for a good long time, I should think, with the various mouthpieces like the HOB, Executive Council, and the PB speaking for the hollowed out host, and that’s really all that is needed for their purposes. And the ABC and Anglican Communion should be well-satisfied with having that facade as the thing with which they are “in communion.”
Huh? Brian quotes from the News Organ of the Dear Leader and thinks that “disproves†Seitz’s observation? LOL.
It was just a little back-handed swipe at those who don’t wish to take Eucharist with her anyway. Sort of a “that’s okay, you’re ugly†comment that someone says when they recognize that they’ve been rejected. Only it was “that’s okay, you’re fearful anyway†comment. ; > )
As you know Sarah, I’m not a big believer in any person’s veracity, but I think the PB has convinced herself that she is being kind and caring and trying to get along. So not so much of a backhand as a possible delusion.
Apart from registering some discrete points, I am unsure where #37 leaves us. Looking at things as discrete points to register is not something I have had the luxury to undertake, so I often find comments puzzling. Does this mean that, e.g., the ‘fedcon’ Primates will be in their own allignment, and that all the others in the GS will continue working at the various things the Communion is undertaking (Primates Meetings, Lambeth, Covenant) with those others inside and outside TEC who agree that an Anglican Communion is worth saving in its historic sense (See of Canterbury; Instruments)? I don’t tend to see things from the standpoint of TEC laity, as you indicate one point of view, so I would be curious. I gather that your view about them is that they will not join Common Cause type things, but will leech out into other denominated realities. That may be true in the contexts you know best. For the various dioceses I mentioned, I think the leavers have for the most part left, and the sense of independence from 815 is relatively strong. I don’t think these dioceses will experience that much of what you intimate. So there remains a critical mass in the Communion at large, and in places like SC, CFL, TN, Texas, W-TX, ND, W-LA, that do not seem to line up at all with New Reformations or leeching into other denominated bodies. The same is true of a good deal of parish life in Canada.
RE: “Does this mean that, e.g., the ‘fedcon’ Primates will be in their own allignment, and that all the others in the GS will continue working at the various things the Communion is undertaking (Primates Meetings, Lambeth, Covenant) with those others inside and outside TEC who agree that an Anglican Communion is worth saving in its historic sense (See of Canterbury; Instruments)?â€
It appears highly likely to me. As I said above, as an observer, I would expect the divide between the two camps to be further demonstrated eventually by other means too, for example: [blockquote]”There will be an increasing number of these sorts of international meetings [like Gafcon], as the Communion continues to fail—as it has for the past four years—to deal with the rank heresy in its midst. I would expect—[based solely on my intuition and looking at past trends, of course, and certainly based on no inside knowledge]—that such alternative gatherings will most likely occur around Primates meetings and ACC meetings soon.
The more the boulder travels down the mountain, the faster it will roll. The more the boulder travels down the moutain, and the faster it rolls, the more violent the action required to stop the boulder.[/blockquote]
RE: “I gather that your view about them is that they will not join Common Cause type things, but will leech out into other denominated realities.”
That is what I have observed — in rather radical fashion too — here on the ground in my diocese, at my parish, as well as in multiple other dioceses. There are some good-sized chunks leaving for alternate Anglican entities, but the majority of “leavers” have actually left for Rome, Geneva, Constantinople, etc. etc. I actually keep an email file of those who send me letters and statements about their departures, so I have a nice supply of qualitative [but certainly not quantitative] evidence for that theory of mine.
It’s interesting . . . you mention dioceses that are basically “strongly” orthodox — SC, CFL, TN, Texas, W-TX, ND, W-LA, Dallas, Albany — not experiencing too much more “leaving” and you could be right. It depends on how some things go in each of those dioceses, but I would expect that most of those “leaving” have already made up their mind to leave. The exception would be the times surrounding bishop elections. If Texas should make the mistake of electing someone left of Wimberly or [heaven help them] someone weaker than Wimberly or more institutional, then expect many departures. The same, though, would be true for the other dioceses listed above if they were to go through a bishop election any time soon.
My theory is that where those laity feel secure in BOTH their parishes and dioceses, there will be few departures of ComCons like me, for instance.
It’s in the dioceses that have 1) a good number of orthodox laypeople and 2) have little sense of stability or security or renewal or strength from their bishop where I see vast hordes of departures for Rome, Geneva, and elsewhere.
Just to name a few off the top of my head: GA, Louisiana, NW Texas, Alabama, Central Gulf Coast, and on and on it goes. I also foresee a rather largish departure in SOVA.
Of course, it’s possible that a group of determined laypeople in those dioceses might connect, gather, form a plan of action and work together for reform and renewal. But I think far more likely that they will simply leave at the next blow, which in these days in TEC arrives about every six months.
Much of this seems accurate to me, given work with conservative diocesans and dioceses. Much turns on whether the strong dioceses find good Communion linkage. There have not been good models to observe. But that could change. I am encouraged by the WCG.
I think a great deal hangs on the outcome of the lawsuits over church property. For example, to speak of the cases I know best, in the Dioceses of VA and So. VA, there are still LOTS of churches that would bolt from TEC if they felt confident that they could keep their property. I can easily think of a dozen churches I know (between the two dioceses put together) that would leave in a heart beat IF they had that assurance. Many are biding their time until the legal situation clarifies itself.
David Handy+
VA churches lie outside the conservative dioceses involved in prior work (SC, TX, W-TX, W-LA, Albany, RG, ND, CFL, TN, etc). I know one Richmond parish concerned about links to Communion, and not new reformations, etc.
Church historians agree that what we call “The Reformation” was in many ways more of a whole series of local and regional reformations. It wasn’t just that the German, Swiss, and English Reformations were highly independent of each other, but that it was far more complicated than that. The Reformation in Zurich proceeded in different fashion and on a different schedule from that in Geneva, or Basel, or Berne, much less Strasburg. The Danish and Swedish Reformations, while Lutheran, were quite different from that in Germany etc.
What I’m suggesting is that it’s only reasonable to expect that the 21st century Reformation will resemble the 16th century one in that it will almost certainly represent a broad movement or coalition of local and regional reforming movements. That makes for lots of confusion and potential trouble. It also gives plenty of scope for creativity and local initiative.
Although I’m a priest of the Diocese of Albany, I haven’t lived within the diocese in many years and so am less well qualified to speak about it than some others who occasionally post on T19. But I can say with some confidence that there is very deep dissatisfaction in Albany with remaining part of TEC. Bishop Love chose to attend the initial meeting of the Common Cause bishops as an observer. He is widely (and rightly) respected and trusted. But he has said repeatedly that he is committed to remaining in BOTH the AC and TEC as long as it’s possible to be part of both. But the day of reckoning is coming. And I have little doubt which he’ll choose in the end. And he won’t waffle like +Howe.
David Handy+
I think that Sarah is largely correct. In my diocese of Northern California, between 2002 and 2006 (latest available stats) there has been a 14% drop in ASA and a 20% drop in membership. Those numbers might reflect the loss of half a parish (which left in early 2006 I believe) but would not yet reflect the loss of St. John’s, Petaluma. So where did these 20% go? There has been no Anglican start-up church locally.
I have heard of many, many anecdotal stories of former Episcopalians leaving for other denominations. They don’t have the time or commitment to “Anglicanism” to fight. And so they leave and find a church where “they can invite their unchurched friends to” (to quote an oft-heard comment).
Sietz and Sarah – the future of my diocese looks very bleak. Many observers believe that one of the last remaining conservative parishes will collapse when its popular conservative rector retires soon (expected in the next few years). It is expected that the diocese will push a moderate liberal on the parish and the remaining conservatives will leave. Extremist liberals have been gaining strength here for years, despite the steep declines in membership. The diocese is running a big deficit from year to year.
So, from the perspective of a lay person who cares about the survival of Anglicansim, Dr. Seitz, continuing the status-quo is simply not an option. I really don’t see how TEC can maintain any sort of meaningful presence in this region for very much longer.
So the choice is not TEC Anglicanism or CC Anglicanism, it is CC Anglicanism or no Anglicanism. I personally, like Sarah, find much about CC Anglicansim that I don’t like. I really wish I could believe Drs. Radner and Seitz, that the salvation of the Communion is just around the corner. But the facts just say otherwise. I really, really do wish that we could combine the thoughtfulness and calibre of Seitz and Radner, with the reality-acceptance of David Anderson.
I believe that there is no one solution for North American Anglicans. I believe the future calls for different strategies for different situations. I would agree that parishes in strong conservative dioceses should remain where they are, and strong conservative dioceses should remain where they are unless there is a good reason for them to leave (e.g. not be able to replace their bishop). I believe that it is best to stay and work within TEC whenever possible. But I also believe that in dying liberal dioceses, there needs to be another Anglican option, especially for starting new churches.
Thanks, jamesw (#45). I’m sympathetic to your viewpoint. But I think it still understates the desperate need for a LOT more “differentiation” (as Kendall would say) between the orthodox and the heretics in TEC. The fact remains that TEC is generating, and will increasingly generate, more and more bad PR that will make it harder and harder for orthodox churches to attract new members and to reach their community for Christ.
The fact is that it’s BAD STEWARDSHIP to give a single penny to a TEC church that’s going to end up in the coffers of 815 Second Ave., NYC. And not least, the fact remains that TEC is a highly infectious carrier of deadly spiritual disease; it’s terminally ill with a deadly malignant cancer. To mix metaphors, when an epidemic is raging, a rigorous quarrantine is in order. More accurately, many limbs of TEC are now totally corrupted by gangrene; they must be amputated. To stay in TEC is a huge waste of time, energy, and money. I say: the sooner Dallas, SC, W-LA etc. leave the better. But each diocese, like each parish, has its own unique circumstances (including applicable state laws) that influence the decision to stay or leave, and when. I fully expect there to continue to be lots of confusing diversity in those choices for the forseeable future.
David Handy+