The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams is facing growing pressure to create a new Anglican province for conservatives after a leading evangelical was effectively defrocked in the US.
Six senior Church of England bishops have come out in support of deposed US bishop Bob Duncan, declaring themselves “deeply saddened and shocked.”
Headed by the Bishop of Winchester, the Right Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, the Bishops of Blackburn, Chester, Chichester, Exeter and Rochester joined in declaring their belief that the deposed Bishop of Pittsburgh remains “a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion.”
In an interview with The Times, the Bishop of Rochester Dr Michael Nazir-Ali said the time had now come for Dr Williams to create a new province for conservatives in the US.
Another senior bishop, a former primate of the Southern Cone province in Latin America, also wrote an open letter to Dr Williams demanding the immediate suspension of The Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion and for the recognition of a new conservative province.
I would strongly support this! I also pray that TECUSA has the wisdom to allow parishes and dioceses to move to the new province (and parishes in dioceses that wish to move to move to not move if they choose to do so).
There is no reason why the Church Pension Fund can’t allow entries from another Anlgican Province.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Why are they even discussing this as an option, since it isn’t one? +Rowan can no more create a new US province than he can set up an alternative government in China. +Duncan, +Schofield et al, are the ones to do it. They, with the other non-juring bishops and congregations, just need sign a declaration of independence, organize the provincial structure and get on with the Church’s mission.
#2 – he might not be able to create one, but he can certainly say in advance that he will recognize it. And he better, if he has any interest in preserving the AC…..
[blockquote]I also pray that TECUSA has the wisdom to allow parishes and dioceses to move to the new province…[/blockquote]
This has slightly less chance of happening as does Lindsay Lohan coming up clean at the clinic.
I keep coming back to the fact that Rowan Williams++ suggested the formation of a Network of Confessing Churches that led the good Bishop Duncan to the place of exile where he is now. If the ABC++ does nothing, would not he somehow be complicit in Duncan’s downfall?
The ABC can (and should) break communion with TEC. That effectively would end TEC’s claims to being Anglican. The the way is clear for a new N. American province.
ICXC
John
FIn # 6 above the last sentence should read “Then* the way is clear…”
Apologies for the typo.
ICXC
John
Sigh… I give up. There are some days when I just need to not type.
Under the mercy…
John
Jeffersonian (#4)
I think that that +Shori et. al. can be persuaded to allow this. +Cantuar could say that if TECUSA allows it, then TECUSA can stay a member of the Anglican Communion (assuming it is not kicked out for not signing on to the covenant). If not, TECUSA will no longer be a member of the Communion.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
An interesting idea, but in the long term, it depends on the Christian wing of the Episcopal Church deciding among themselves how to handle WO. +++Canterbury may sanction one orthodox Anglican jurisdiction in North America (I assume that +Harvey and the Orthodox Canadians would be included in this), but he’s not going to intervene in an intra-mural struggle over women presbyters/bishops.
Re # 10
I can pretty much guarantee that the [url=http://www.archdiocese.ca/]Orthodox Canadians[/url] are not interested in the internal goings on of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps you meant the orthodox (small ‘o’) Anglicans of Canada?
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
“Unless the springs at Lourdes work one of their rare miracles, Anglicans will emerge more aware than ever that innovations such as gay bishops, women bishops and women priests have ended all hopes of re-uniting the Anglicans and Catholic churches, split since the Reformation four centuries ago.”
Yep. ABC’s down with that, obviously. See his writings, his in-action, his subversion of the Instruments of Unity, and his leadership at General Synod regarding traditionalists. ABC’s down with that split stuff. Maybe a sinecure in the new ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC communion would top off the lack of leadership perfectly, like the cherry on a banana-SPLIT … ?!
I don’t see Rowan recognizing a new province in North America. He has done everything he can to discourage it. He has the authority to declare that Canterbury is no longer in communion with whomever he pleases, but he can not control all the primates. Therein lies the problem. No ONE is in charge. Where does the buck stop, who can speak for the entire communion? Who can decide what the faith really is or how do we celebrate it? I know many do not want a megesterium, but look at the alternative, queen katie and a joker named Rowan and their rumpbumper Vicky Gene bringing up the rear. (Pun intended) making up the deck. Schori has made the TEC into a miserable excuse for its former self and Rowan has undermined the see of Canterbury to the point of irrelevence. So, What are you going to do? Someone has to step up and take charge and DECLARE, not ask, not say, not speak, but, as a Marine DI in your face, DECLARE a new communion. Maybe then someone will believe it.
As ++Akinola has said, we do not need to go through Canterbury to get to God. Or is it heaven?
Clearly, the need for a new Communion is indicated! Either reconstitute the one we’ve got now…..minus ++RDW…..or start with a clean slate!
“Either reconstitute the one we’ve got now…..minus ++RDW…..or start with a clean slate!”
Clearly, if you’re going to reinvent the wheel, it should be a round one rather than a square one.
From Kevin’s post:
[i]it depends on the Christian wing of the Episcopal Church [/i]
Nice phrasing. I like it. 🙂
Re #15,
Speaking of wheels, rounds and squares, RW is a square peg that would not fit a round hole. And the only way for this square peg to fit into the round hole (the whole Truth) is if he would let the Lord shape him into a round peg.
Of course, this would require shading off some excesses (nuances, philosophical musings, semi-useless writings, saying one thing and meaning another head-in-the-sand, weakness, lack of conviction, and a lot more), which does not appear to interest RW.
I gave up on RW s long, long time ago.
An orthodox and biblically faithful North American Anglican Province is going to be a reality – WITH or WITHOUT the ABC’s blessing. It is only a matter of time.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX
#11: Of course you are right. If the capital “O” Orthodox cannot even abide the thought of continuing to worship in space that has been used by an Episcopal “diocese” for its convention (as in the rump TEC diocese of San Joaquin), I can’t imagine that the idea of eccelesial merger with TEC has the slightest appeal to them. (Although my error was inadvertent, I would think that my mention of My Lord Newfoundland, +Harvey, would have added context…).
LibraryJim, the scary thing is that the phrase in question just sort of lept out of my fingers onto the keyboard as I was casting about for a way to describe the group of people I had in mind. However, after I went back and read it, you’ll notice that I didn’t change it….
#14. Cennydd,
I agree with you, and nominate ++Orombi as Archbishop of Alexandria. That would a good home for the new “Orthodox Communion.” — Stan
Re 19
With all due respect there is already an Orthodox Patriarch in Alexandria. I am noting a recent trend among posters on this forum towards capitalizing the “O” in orthodox. That’s a bit like capitalizing the “C” in Catholic. It has a clear meaning.
ICXC
John
Then how about this: “The Holy Anglican Orthodox Church of Alexandria,” with His Grace the Holy Anglican Orthodox Archbishop of Alexandria as its head? (++Orombi)
And this: “The Anglican Church of North America,” including our Canadian brother and sisters.
I should’ve said “brothers,” because there sure are a lot of ’em.
No more new denominations. If you can’t find one that suits you, you should ask yourself what ([i]stet[/i]) you’re really worshiping.
Cennydd, I like your suggestions. Maybe even ‘Anglican Church of the Americas’ to include the Southern brotherS and sisterS. — Stan
CanaAnglican, good idea! How about ++Gregory Venables as the first Archbishop? Oh, and Marion R.: Anglicanism isn’t a “new denomination.” It’s been around since Henry VIII.
#26 correction. The Church of England was around temp. Henry VIII (and since Augustine). The World Wide Anglican Communion is much more recent than that. Lambeth Conference starts in 1867, the Anglican Consultative Council in 1971, the Primates Meeting in 1979 and the Covenant – well, that’s still in draft.
Marion R is right – a church for every malcontent is not a church at all. We don’t need new denominations. That way likes self indulgence, which is not the Christian way.
Badman, We are not talking about a new church. We are talking about the restoration of the Anglican Church that was on this soil when we were born. God has been in place and consistent forever. For all intents to our limited thinking capacity that means in excess of 15,000,000,000 years. Is it too much to ask that Christian churches be consistent with the faith delivered for a few thousand years?
We seek restoration to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and in a local way we have found a glorious manifestation of it in the Anglican District of Virginia. It is time for Anglican-thinking Christian people in the Americas to combine their voices in choir. — Stan
Re 17: Spiro,
Yes, I agree, the province will be a reality. But surely you see the benefits of Canterbury recognizing it? GAFCON was explit in saying that they wanted to work for a united Communion; GAFCON was explicit that they were not forming a new communion.
I assume that you, like me, are a GAFCON supporter and therefore support the best way to
(A) provide orthodox oversight for a missionary church in North America faithful to the Anglican tradition _and_
(B) preserve, support, and defend the Anglican Communion as a truly missionary vehicle for the proclamation of the Gospel.
That was the point of GAFCON — not splitting the Communion. GAFCON found the Covenant wasn’t going to do the hard work; and they rightly discerned that Canterbury and the other instruments weren’t up to the task. So they modified WITHIN the Communion to provide orthodox oversight and preserve the Communion.
THUS….. Canterbury’s recognition of a new province would
(A) further ensure the stability of the communion, a goal stated to be dear to GAFCON
(B) provoke institutionalists like those in the CCP (who are _not_ Satanic and include Bp Mark Lawrence of SC) to consider the option of joining the so called ‘outside strategy.’ This will be so because in some respects the ‘outside strategy’ will become an ‘inside stratgey’: it will give objective creedence to our argument since 2003 that TEC is wrong and the wider communion is on our side. We are most certainly not forming a splinter church (eg the so called ‘Continuing Churches’).
(C) _possibly_ illicit some form of discipline on TEC, at least a modified membership status in the Anglican Communion. Certainly you’ve seen reports that some bishops within the C of E have now suggested to Canterbury that he not only recognize a new province but also limit TEC’s involvment in the Communion. This has occured principally because of the deposition of Bp Duncan. Ruth Gledhill and Sarah Hey have pointed out that this event might wake even more up to the Stalin-esque tactics of our ‘tolerant’ TEC leadership. Granted this third outcome is the longest shot — but isn’t that what we’re calling for (viz GAFCON), recognition of a new province _and_ the disciplining of TEC?
Thanks for your witness, Fr. Kingsley.
Re #26 abnd #27:
Anglicanism is a term we should avoid using until after the restoration (1662). At that moment a century of gestation issued forth, from the ashes of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, the broad impulses of the tradition many of us want to sustain here in N America and world-wide as a visible, missionary, evangelical, and catholic witness for Christ.
Before to 1662, talking about “Anglicanism” is anachronistic. However, at the same time, dating the impulses to the tradition to the formation of ecclesial structures (eg the consultative council or the Lambeth conference) denies that Anglicanism does have a confessional face (it may be blurry, but it’s there in 1662).
I think many of the Global South Primates are fully aware of this historical perspective (see Abp Orombi’s First Things article). Also, if he is reading, Prof. Tighe will (I believe) support at least my dating scheme (viz Diarmaid MacCulloch’s fine work and clarion call for the end of anachronistic uses of “Anglicanism”).
Katherine Schori’s mother became Orthodox, that’s with a big “O”. But you only do that by *leaving* Anglicanism altogether for the actual historic Orthodox Church. Any other use of that “O” is misleading.
nwlayman,
It is also interesting to note that KJS never recognized her mother’s conversion, and denied her an Orthodox funeral.
Re # 30
nwlayman,
That’s a sore subject for us Orthodox. When her mother reposed Ms. Schori confiscated her body and refused to permit an Orthodox funeral including internment in consecrated ground.
ICXC
John
I see my post came mere seconds after jim’s post making the same point.
ICXC
John