This is perhaps one of the more provocative discussion starters Dr. Toon has posted in quite awhile. What think you all?
The Rev’d. Dr. Peter Toon writes:
A basic belief of Christians is “the providence of God;” that is, that God is ultimately the only ruler of the cosmos, that nothing happens without his knowledge and permission, and further that, as the Father of his adopted children (“the elect”), he both causes and allows things to happen to them and around them for their long-term true good.
Looking back over the last fifty years of Episcopalianism in the USA in terms of divine providence, I advance the following proposal or thesis””for others to reflect upon, accept, modify, improve, or reject. It provides an account of the lost possibilities offered by Divine Providence through the two major recent secessions from The Episcopal Church [TEC].
I begin with the schism of 1977 leading to the formation of the Continuing Anglican Church.
By this secession, God provided the opportunity and means for a committed group of Episcopalians to join together in orderly and godly ways to begin all over again””outside and away from TEC””The Anglican Way in America. And this is what they intended, even though in the Zeitgeist of the USA with its powerful centrifugal forces, they knew that their task would be very difficult. Further TEC intended that they should fail and worked to gain that end. Regrettably””as much by their own weaknesses and errors as by the machinations of others””the intended Unified Continuing Church lasted but a year or so, and then divided into what became small competitive jurisdictions””and from these have come more small groups since 1980.
I suggest that this opportunity provided by Divine Providence to recreate the Anglican Way in the USA was missed and not utilized and this was a most serious failure””indeed a tragedy; and, thirty years on, there are only a few signs of those who trace their roots to the original seceders of 1977 actually working together as one or even desiring to do so. If anything, they are in danger of getting more entrenched in their divisions, because of their having created elaborate separated, canonical machinery to govern each of their separated denominational units. Bureaucracies are easy to set up but difficult to dismantle!
Now I move on to the schism that is associated with the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as a Bishop in the TEC (but not in the catholic Church of God!) in the twenty-first century. In protest, parts of, and whole, congregations left TEC looking for temporary Episcopal oversight from some friendly bishop from overseas, in the hope that a new Anglican Province for America will be founded soon (arising particularly from the support and efforts of “the Global South” ) and that that they would have a rightful and natural home in this new Body.
It is very possible that by and through this secession Divine Providence was giving to Episcopalians in the USA a second major chance to reform themselves and to be renewed by the Gospel and the Spirit. However, what was also needed, due to the complexities of the Anglican Communion of Churches, was godly patience by all””i.e., those wishing to be orthodox in the USA and their supporters overseas””at least until the major get-together of Anglican bishops in England in July 2008. At this Lambeth Conference the negotiations could take place, it was hoped, to make it possible to gather together within the USA at a later time the various seceding congregations and groups into some orderly unit and then make this the beginnings of a new Province””blessed initially at least by the Global South and probably, later, by other Provinces as well. Meanwhile TEC would cease to be the American Anglican Province, because a majority of Anglican Provinces would not be in communion with it, and thus TEC would become an independent, liturgical Unitarian Church.
Most regrettably in the period of testing and waiting, patience recently ran out; Lambeth July 2008, it seemed, was too far away; righteous anger and holy indignation made their impact; Africans long held down by British colonialism flexed their new muscles and took (precipitous?) action! Here again the opportunity provided by Divine Providence for a path to reform and renewal appears to have been blown. And this time blown first in Africa and then in the USA.
While I agree that with Peter Toon that it is unlikely that the departures from ECUSA will end up unifying in one cohesive body [and in fact, if they do not unify, they will claim they are “unified in spirit” anyway like the invisible church, which is all that will matter to them], I don’t understand his primary point.
He seems to be saying that if bishops would go to Lambeth, a variety of things would have occurred.
For example, he says with regards to founding an new Anglican province in the US this: “At this Lambeth Conference the negotiations could take place, it was hoped, to make it possible to gather together within the USA at a later time the various seceding congregations and groups into some orderly unit and then make this the beginnings of a new Province—blessed initially at least by the Global South and probably, later, by other Provinces as well.”
The “gathering” together does not need to happen at Lambeth, nor do negotiations need to occur at Lambeth. Furthermore, Lambeth would in no way facilitate the Global South’s blessing of a new Province. The Global South can bless a new province without attending Lambeth. So I am uncertain as to what on earth Lambeth has to do with any of that.
Then he says: “Meanwhile TEC would cease to be the American Anglican Province, because a majority of Anglican Provinces would not be in communion with it, and thus TEC would become an independent, liturgical Unitarian Church.”
The only thing that would make TEC “cease to be the American Anglican Province” — and by this I suppose he means “the American Anglican Province recognized as such by the Anglican Communion” — is if the ABC refuses to recognize their bishops, by not inviting them to Lambeth — which invitations have already taken place. So that’s out the door, not to be regained until [drum roll] Lambeth 2018.
Further, a “majority of Anglican Provinces” are already not in communion with TEC — but since TEC is manifestly in communion with the ABC, that does not matter [to TEC]. They are still within the Anglican Communion if they are recognized by the ABC.
It is hard for me to believe that Peter Toon is not aware of these basic facts about the Communion and the ABC.
So there must be a point that I am missing. Is it that he wants a province established that is not recognized by the ABC and thus not in the Anglican Communion, yet recognized by various Provinces? Well, if that is so, there certainly does not need to be any “meetings at Lambeth” to accomplish that.
Don’t get me wrong! I wish that the ABC had bothered to do more than simply using the Windsor Report as a [now] transparent delaying tactic to move people farther towards 2008 and Lambeth. But he did not.
I’d still love for him to assist in establishing the Anglican Communion as a disciplined, ordered, boundaried body — which he can do by refusing invitations to those bishops who manifestly and publicly and deliberately do not adhere to the three requests of the Windsor Report.
But in the absence of that action by the ABC, I don’t see that the communion will be so disciplined. They will have missed their “Bishop Pike Moment”, as Greg Griffith put it so well, and in the missing of that moment and the failure to discipline, the Anglican Communion essentially becomes a body of water without boundaries — a stagnant, fetid swamp.
If that is the case, the next best thing to an ordered communion is for the Global South Primates to save themselves and their provinces and send their “Dear Rowan” letters to Canterbury, asking to be “taken off speed dial, deleted from the email book, and axed from the list of members.”
[blockquote]Anyone, who can discern the Providence of God clearly to see how the LORD our God will lead us out of this confusion and disorder that we have brought upon ourselves, and into godly unity in truth and charity,needs to speak as a prophet of the Lord right away unto his diminishing and sorrowful Anglican people.[/blockquote] We need to be obedient to and accept discipline from the heirs to the Apostles. Within the DNA of Anglicanism is the rejection of authority and discipline, from the Reformation to the founding of PECUSA, we keep our own counsel and time-table.
When the Diocese of San Joaquin prepared for our historic removal of references to ECUSA from our Constitution and Canons at the 2006 Diocesan Convention, the original draft supported by our Bishop was substituted for one written by several Rural Deans whose draft was favorably supported by several Southern Primates. +John-David has shown a willingness to submit to the authority of the Global South.
We cannot submit to the authority of ++KJS because she is not submitted to the authority of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. In her Pastoral Letter in the Diocese of Nevada’s official newsletter “Fish-Talesâ€, dated October/November 2003, Bishop Schori wrote that [blockquote] The Episcopal Church’s General Convention acted last summer out of a sense that reason and a broad reading of the Great Commandment required a different conclusion about matters of homosexuality than did strict adherence to seven passages in scripture which seem to speak against it.[/blockquote] Notice that this ‘reason’ is not even in the grand tradition of ‘Classical Reason’ and systematic argumentation but of ‘broad reading.’
We must submit to the authority of those who are heirs of the Apostles due to their obedience to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, not because of any material lineage.
The historic news that the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Outside Russia have signed letters of mutual submission and inter-communion should have created a firestorm on Anglican Blogs, because of the hopeful model of unity that it provides for Anglicans.
Despite 80 years of bitter suspicion, enmity and strife these two groups have united because of their deep love of and desire for unity.
Are our vestries and clergy seeking the obedience and discipline of faithful Bishops? Are our Bishops seeking the obedience and discipline of faithful Primates? Do we as a people say that we believe in an apostolic and catholic church with a deep desire for the unity and discipline thereof, or are these vague notions of using the same books and creeds that we always have?
A true belief in an apostolic and catholic church will be evidenced in vestry meetings and conventions that make every effort to be submitted and unified under the authority of the heirs to the apostles.
The idea of waiting until Lambeth 2008 would have been a disaster. The Archbishop is proving to be a part of the problem, not the solution. A new American provence is going to have to come about despite him, sad to say. And that is why we will most likely end up with a new Orthodox Anglican Communion as well and independent of the See of Cantebury.
Most regrettably in the period of testing and waiting, patience recently ran out; Lambeth July 2008, it seemed, was too far away; righteous anger and holy indignation made their impact; Africans long held down by British colonialism flexed their new muscles and took (precipitous?) action!
Sarah, No. 1, is absolutely correct.
I also, in the above excerpt, find it to be rather condescending to the African provinces and primates, who have repeatedly said to be patient, and they have, and we have.
Lambeth will be nothing more than a tea party, like the other meetings. ++Williams seems incapable of making a strong decision, and I don’t believe that will change. There will be more calling for “discussion”…………….
I think Toon is out of touch on this one.
By breaking away, we can save successive generations from TEC.
As I remember the history the movement to continue to recognize an apostolic ordained ministry of men only was not able, at its founding St. Louis conference, to accept those who had previously rejected the spiritual authority of the General Convention as fellow members of the movement. The St. Louis Declaration statement that the Episcopal Church was not only in error but was apostate set up a barrier, and the inability of the four bishops subsequently consecrated at Denver to remain in communion with one another, combined with the decision of some to become Roman Catholics, led to the present confusion.
I hear that four of the five bishops of the Anglican Province of Christ the King, one of the more conservative of the continuing churches were to meet to elect a successor to Archbishop Morse. I regret the divisions among the continuing churches and also regret their inability to present a more united witness.
I also regret the inability of those who have rejected the spiritual authority of the General Convention since 2003 to present a more united witness, though I appreciate the efforts of Bishop Duncan and others to move toward an Anglican province in the United States that accepts the good advice of the large majority of the bishops of our communion at Lambeth 1998.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
Peter Toon is a very perceptive observer of the Anglican scene, in North America and beyond. His basic message is sobering and gives real pause for thought. I must admit that the logic of multiple jurisdictions under the authority of different Global South primates totally escapes me. How these different hierarchies will be merged into one seems less likely by the day. I don’t question the sincerity of any of these newly minted bishops, but the human ego does have a way of interfering with even the best intentions. I pray that Anglicanism in North America will not disolve into a multitude of competing jurisdictions.
The big difference between 1977 and 2003 is the internet.
The current division is largely lay-and-presbyter led, with all the infighting of the bishops either skillfully evaded or simply ignored.
I don’t see different groups marching off under the egos of divisive bishops, largely because the laity can’t see a big picture. The call for unity is coming from the grassroots, and any bishop who thinks he can put his little fiefdom behind a wall and live in ever-honored purple bliss is a fool.
[blockquote]The historic news that the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Outside Russia have signed letters of mutual submission and inter-communion should have created a firestorm on Anglican Blogs, because of the hopeful model of unity that it provides for Anglicans.
Despite 80 years of bitter suspicion, enmity and strife these two groups have united because of their deep love of and desire for unity.[/blockquote]
I believe that the above quote from Br. Giles provides a ray of hope for unifying the Global South prelates into a cohesive communion. It may not be in my lifetime but I believe the Holy Spirit will cause it to happen. I can’t accept the ABC as sacrosanct for accomplishing that goal. There will be a new “Anglican” communion possibly without ABC.
[i]Frank: blockquote is one word when you’re using formatting tags.[/i]
The centrifugal force in American society is one factor in what appears to be the emergence of three threads: The Continuum, TEC and the mostly Evangelical realignment aided by the Global South. But are these new threads? Anglocatholics and Evangelicals were always on opposite ends of the Episcopal Church spectrum but their differences were moderated by a liberal but reaffirming broad middle. Now that the middle has become radical and heretical there is nothing to hold the threads together.
[blockquote]A new American provence is going to have to come about despite him, sad to say. And that is why we will most likely end up with a new Orthodox Anglican Communion as well and independent of the See of Cantebury.[/blockquote]
So that’s how it is now.
One of the biggest frustrations reasserters have expressed over the years since Spong appeared on the scene was inaction on the part of reasserter priests and bishops. The whole scenario could best be described with:
[i]”I’m shocked that something like this could happen! We are going to have a meeting and if nothing happens then we are going to take action — right after the NEXT big meeting.”[/i]
and nothing happened. Even after GC ’03 that same refrain was sung. It was only after the world-wide primates got into the act that something was started. And yet, it’s still “wait until after the NEXT meeting” that we hear. It’s very disheartening to those of us who seek to be faithful to Christ and the Scriptures to be told, “we will take a stand for righteousness — after the NEXT meeting” when we wish for a Church with a backbone. Which is why, I think, so many individual parishes have voted to walk to Kenya or Rwanda or Uganda or &c., without waiting for “the NEXT meeting”. “For what fellowship does righteousness have with unrighteousness? Separate yourselves from them” we read and we want to act.
peace!
Jim Elliott
Dr. Toon is concerned about overlapping diocese, but his observation is based on traditional geographic divisions. AMiA parishes affiliate with bishops via networks which are non-geographic. As a result we are able to work together with churches in our area who may be under a different bishop. This could be true for other GS congregations as well.
I’m also with Sarah.
I spoke to the wardens of Trinity, Bristol (now in CANA), CT on Sunday. They met with Bishop Andrew Smith last week. His last words to them were: “If you remember nothing from this meeting, remember this. Trinity, Bristol, is now, and always will be in TEC. The Episcopal Diocese of CT is in full communion with Canterbury and the Anglican Communion.”
Would Smith have dared say this if he had not just received an invitation to Lambeth from RW? The GS did not act precipitously. They recognized the reality of the situation.
[blockquote]When the Diocese of San Joaquin prepared for our historic removal of references to ECUSA from our Constitution and Canons at the 2006 Diocesan Convention, the original draft supported by our Bishop was substituted for one written by several Rural Deans whose draft was favorably supported by several Southern Primates. +John-David has shown a willingness to submit to the authority of the Global South. [/blockquote] This is quite a statement. At what point did +John David agree to submit to the authority of the Global South? On what terms did he allegedly agree? I agree that removing ECUSA from the constitution shows an unwillingness to conform to its will, but where has he ever said he or the diocese is willing to obey the will of the GS?
EmilyH,
Let’s be careful with our diction. I wrote that ‘+John-David has shown a willingness to submit to the authority of the Global South.’ You wrote ‘…where has he ever said…willing to obey the will of the
GS?’
We submit to the apostolic and catholic authority of our Bishops while we obey the will of the Father! We cannot obey the will of any human person because the will is always mediated by language and the material world, while the will of the Father can be perfectly infused through the power of the Holy Spirit.
As to my sources, check out the address that +John-David gave at our Convention on December 1st, 2006 http://sjoaquin.net/about_us.htm
Below I have included a blockquote of the pertinent portion from the meeting of the GS steering committee with 10 traditional bishops of TEC.
[blockquote]1) What were we prepared to give up in order to achieve unity among ourselves? 2) A single spokesman to be elected by us to speak for all the orthodox. 3) Submission to their authority and –as a demonstration of that – flexibility to allow them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to prepare a way for us to live in a separate ecclesiastical structure which would eventually provide a way home for many Anglicans who had left The Episcopal Church for conscience sake, and many individuals and parishes that had been isolated in hostile dioceses to be part of the world-wide family of the Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]