(Colorado Springs, Colorado) Grace Church and St. Stephen’s Parish voted to affiliate with the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) in a congregational election that concluded today. Of the 370 votes cast, an overwhelming 342, or 93%, voted for the mother church of Anglicanism in Colorado Springs and one of the oldest Episcopal Churches in Colorado to leave the Episcopal Church over its departure from traditional Christian beliefs and practice.
Last March the vestry, or governing board of the Parish, had voted to join CANA in a provisional affiliation that was ratified by the congregation today. The Parish’s new affiliation with CANA, an American missionary diocese of the Church of Nigeria and the largest Anglican Church in the world, allows Grace Church and St. Stephen’s the freedom to continue its Gospel ministry unmolested by theological innovators and revisionists in the Episcopal Church.
Jon Wroblewski, senior warden of the parish’s vestry said, “The congregation’s decision to join CANA is the most important decision in Grace Church and St. Stephen’s 135 year history. We have decided to remain true to the faith of our ancestors and the founders of this parish even as the Episcopal Church departs from the faith and the Anglican Communion.”
Founded in 1872, Grace Church and St. Stephen’s was the first Anglican Church in Colorado Springs and helped to establish all the other Episcopal Churches in the city including: The Chapel of our Savior, St. Michael’s, and Holy Spirit (now defunct), St. Francis (now defunct), and St. Andrew’s in Manitou Springs. Grace Church and St. Stephen’s pre-dates the existence of the Diocese of Colorado (1887).
According to the parish’s rector, Fr. Donald Armstrong, “The plight of the Episcopal Church truly grieves me. What was once a great church of Gospel proclamation and social influence has now become an irrelevant and insignificant denomination characterized by theological drift and demographic decay. The Episcopal Diocese of Colorado is dying and has lost 60% of its market share of Colorado’s population during the last 60 years. The decision for Grace Church and St. Stephen’s was a simple choice between death with the Episcopal Church or spiritual life and vitality with CANA.”
The significance of Pentecost Sunday is not lost on the leadership of Grace Church and St. Stephen’s and neither is the month of May, 2007. Armstrong said, “Tomorrow is the Feast of Pentecost, the birthday of the Christian church — the day we celebrate the gift of the Holy Spirit empowering his people to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth. Similarly, this month marks the 400th year since the founding of Anglicanism in America with the Jamestown settlers in Virginia. On these two anniversaries we are celebrating our heritage as Christians and Anglicans in a re-birth, renewal, realignment, and recommitment to Gospel proclamation in Colorado.”
The flag of the Episcopal Church will no longer be carried in worship services of Grace Church and St. Stephen’s. Instead, a new flag and banner will be carried ”“ The Anglican Communion’s Compass Rose flag symbolizing the parish’s continuing constituent membership in the worldwide Anglican Communion and the CANA Banner as the standard for proclaiming the transforming Gospel to all peoples in North America and beyond.
Just out of curiosity, what is the source for this article?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/home/article/0,1299,DRMN_1_5557366,00.html
Shocking!
There is nothing “shocking” about a deliberate decision to seek life and health, and cut themselves off from decay and death. We welcome back into the Anglican Communion, and pray God’s anointing hand on their ministry and proclamation of the Gospel.
RevOrganist
As the ABC has just confirmed, they are in no way a part of the Anglican Communion. Here is a quote from reasserter Sarah Hey:
“Back in 2000, when the primates of Rwanda and Southeast Asia created a missionary activity called the AMiA in the U.S., and consecrated two bishops the then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, did not recognize those bishops’ ministries as bishops of the Anglican Communion for several reasons.
First, there is a “one province, one geographic region” principle [although actually there are some notable exceptions to that rule], which is based on Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998, which in turn were based on much earlier “assumptions”.
— The Lambeth Conference of 1930 articulated the formal definition of the “Anglican Communion†in a resolution as “those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury†with three characteristics, among them that they are “bound together†“by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference†and that they are “particular or national churchesâ€.
— Resolution 72 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference reaffirmed “its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundariesâ€.
— Both resolutions speak to the general principle that the Archbishop of Canterbury recognizes one church within a region as the “official†franchise of the Anglican Communion within that region.
Second, only those bishops in the one province of a geographic region that is the “franchise of the Anglican Communion” are in communion with Canterbury.
Third, and finally, only those in communion with Canterbury are in fact in the Anglican Communion — that is, they then are invited to participate in the “councils of the church” that is the Anglican Communion. There may be Anglican entities that are connected to provinces of the Anglican Communion — but that is not the same thing as being within the Anglican Communion and recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Thus, the only Anglican entity in the USA that is in communion with Canterbury and is thus a part of the Anglican Communion is an Episcopal parish in an Episcopal diocese. An ECUSA parish, in an ECUSA diocese. ”
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3096/
RevOrganist,
As much as we might like it, the Episcopal church is still in the Anglican Communion.
It does discredit to the orthodox Anglicans in America when we imply something other than the truth.
People notice.
Agreed with Sarah and Brian, though I think the concept of “franchise” illuminates ecusa’s position wrt the Communion quite nicely. A perennial issue with franchiser-franchisee relations crops up when the franchisee doesn’t responsibly execute the terms of the franchise contract. Like a local McDonalds not cleaning the bathrooms or serviing old food without respect to shelf life.
But the ecusa relations with the Communion are very sketchy in many ways that Sarah Hey didn’t go into, and CANA’s position is even sketchier, so talking of a franchise contract might be portraying the situation in more definite terms than would be accurate.
In the long term though RevOrganist will be right. No matter what the Communion-ecusa-CANA relationship is now, believers will vote with their feet. But it might be another ‘forty years in the wilderness’ getting to that ‘promised land’. The path forward now, due to a lack of leadership on many levels (unlike the Exodus situation), is far from clear precisely due to the ‘ecusa holds the franchise’ argument.
Ah, I see that Brian from T19 posted eagerly at the same time. ; > )
I need to correct my comment though — should have said “As much as we [reasserters] might *not* like it, the Episcopal church is still in the Anglican Communion.”
A few other interesting points:
1) Increasingly, it’s enough for many Anglicans to merely be a part of an orthodox province. As the generations pass — and without a boundaried, ordered, disciplined communion such that it gradually becomes a swamp rather than a river — reasserting Anglicans will simply lose interest. I personally think that the communion’s identity still hangs in the balance . . . but once it’s determined either way, one or the other side will drift away, I think.
2) The reappraiser ECUSAns care quite a lot about still being a part of the Anglican Communion, despite their pretended public sang froid about all of it.
3) And they loathe and despise those of other provinces planting Anglican churches in their own geography, as witness the recent fascinating fulmination of the Bishop of Ohio. Increasingly, more and more dioceses will simply be divided into 1) parishes connected with ECUSA and 2) parishes connected with some other province. Should be an interesting situation over the next 100 years, to observe.
Here are the two quotes from the Bishop of Ohio’s rant:
“I am told that Bishop Minns, along with the Bishop of Bolivia, was in the Diocese of Ohio last week to participate in an ordination in Akron, neither bishop having sought or received my permission to perform episcopal acts within the ecclesiastical jurisdiction for which I am responsible.”
[Note, of course, that Bishop Minns is not performing in the same “ecclesiastical jurisdiction” as the Bishop of Ohio, even though the Bishop of Ohio does seem to desire to look out over all he surveys and croak: “all your geography are belong to us!”
Another fun quote: “As Bishop of Ohio, I cannot say the same about those bishops who have come into this diocese to exercise episcopal ministry in contempt of the centuries old practice of jurisdictional respect, bishops of our own province and from abroad, beginning the month before I became the Bishop of Ohio and continuing even until last week, including the Archbishop of Kenya who presided at an ordination in Cleveland only weeks before last February’s meeting of the Primates.”
I’m not sure which bishops he means when he says “bishops of our own province” since Bishop Minns is not now of the same province.
It is interesting to note that the newly formed board of the Anglican Institute, that is a ministry of Grace Church CANA, includes Geogre Carey–which makes one think there is more of a link to the Communion for Grace Church, and thus Bishop Minns, than most parishes I know could possibly claim.
Also in looking at their parish clergy list, there are more Bishops of conviction from around the Communion in oversight of Grace Church than the single apostate fence sitters most parishes claim for oversight. You can bet Armstrong doesn’t list those names without permission and consultation.
I have heard Father Armstrong quote Rowan Williams as saying he was unclear if the center of Anglicanism was in Nairobi, Canterbury or Colorado Springs–this could well be the case.
Crazy Horse, I don’t think that people question that many parishes, organizations, etc., have links to people and provinces who are within the Anglican Communion. But that is very different from claiming that you yourself are in it.
Surely George Carey is on many boards, and certainly not all of them can say “see — Carey is on our board, and therefore we are in the Anglican Communion.”
I note that this article says 370 votes were cast. But wasn’t this parish reporting 800 regular attenders? Is a decision made on the basis of votes cast by under 50% valid? And even if the congregation wishes to decamp I truly don’t see how they can take the property with them…. Surely the church building belongs to the diocese of Colorado just as much as the building in which our parish worships belongs to the diocese of Toronto?
Abigail
Hi AAY,
I would think that the validity of decisions could not be based on how many parishioners voted of the ASA — after all, how would we ever have valid vestry elections if that were the case!!!
Probably the number to look at is how many folks voted in the last vestry election . . . that would probably give an actual count of how many parishioners can actually work up the energy to vote on issues at the parish.
As regards the ownership of the building . . . I trust the secular courts to adjudicate private property ownership when that is necessary, as it seems to be here. Should be an interesting court case.
With all charity, I might have thought the appeal above to +George Carey terribly ironic. He is also appealed to by the Sec Gen of the ACO as the source of the logic that declared AMiA irregular (a fact in the record, as it were), and that now declares CANA in a similar category. Moreover, if memory serves, the Compass Rose society was formed to help fund the ACO, among other things. Come Holy Spirit is our Pentecost prayer for this day. Come Holy Spirit, come!
Sarah
A few questions/points:
1) Increasingly, it’s enough for many Anglicans to merely be a part of an orthodox province. As the generations pass—and without a boundaried, ordered, disciplined communion such that it gradually becomes a swamp rather than a river—reasserting Anglicans will simply lose interest. I personally think that the communion’s identity still hangs in the balance . . . but once it’s determined either way, one or the other side will drift away, I think.
Let’s assume your scenario of no discipline for TEC does occur. You believe that a fracture will occur-what percent of people do you see as leaving TEC for somewhere else?
2) The reappraiser ECUSAns care quite a lot about still being a part of the Anglican Communion, despite their pretended public sang froid about all of it.
True, although I am not sure that we have pretended not to care. The difference now for us is that we have a much stronger position going into 9/30 and Canada’s synod.
3) And they loathe and despise those of other provinces planting Anglican churches in their own geography, as witness the recent fascinating fulmination of the Bishop of Ohio. Increasingly, more and more dioceses will simply be divided into 1) parishes connected with ECUSA and 2) parishes connected with some other province. Should be an interesting situation over the next 100 years, to observe.
But now that +Minns and others are not Bishops in the Anglican Communion, it is less of a sting. The problem now will be legitimate bishops invading Dioceses. This problem, however, is one the ABC seems more inclined to speak on.
You can bet Armstrong doesn’t list those names without permission and consultation.
I’ll take that bet!
RE: “You believe that a fracture will occur-what percent of people do you see as leaving TEC for somewhere else?”
I assume that you mean by “fracture” a certain number of Primates declaring that they wish to depart the Anglican Communion? If not, then it’s a pointless question.
If so, I really don’t think that it’s the “fracture” that’s important — I think it is the decline of the reputation of ECUSA for reasserters that is important. I really have no idea how many over the coming years will leave. But I can pretty much count on the *percentage* of orthodox within ECUSA being far far less as the years go by.
And in the eyes of ECUSA progressives . . . that’ll be a good thing!
; > )
RE: “But now that +Minns and others are not Bishops in the Anglican Communion, it is less of a sting.”
Uh, Brian? The passage I quoted by the outraged bishop of Ohio was in response to Minns “invasion” and after the notice concerning Robinson’s and Minn’s non-invitation. ; > )
Which would seem to imply that he’s just majorly P.O.’d about any competition at all.
Pity.
Re #11: The vote total doesn’t matter. A parish in a hierarchical denomination such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, or TEC cannot unilaterally vote to leave. Certainly, the congregation can leave, but the congregational membership is not the entity itself.
#17
Dale, that is a legitimate talking point position, but until you cite Colorado case law on that, a prudent reader might conclude that things might be as they are in Connecticut, or in California, with equal probability of being right. In the past you yourself on this site have been correct wrt CT, and wrong wrt CA. So, what is the defining precedent in CO?
My assumption on any vote in a parish is that eligible voters are those over 18 years old who contribute, attend, and participate in the life of the parish. In a heavily family based parish like Grace Church, you can bet every vote includes three or four other people either from the voters own family, or those whose relationships have not been firmed up to qualify for voting membership–the vestry probably had to be very careful in making sure their list was generous and to the letter of the law.
Then too, if people don’t vote–that isn’t considered a vote by default for either side–they simply failed to vote–nothing more can be assumed. And if we needed fifty percent to make a vote legal we would not have very many elected officials in the United States.
Secondly, is it not true that Carey, Armstrong, Minns, and Mohamed are all long time friends and colleagues, the last three having gone to seminary together? I would imagine that there is constant and very tight communication among all four of them. To use Carey to diminish Minns betrays their actual relationship and Lord Carey’s well known support of Minns.
The courts, with a lot of money spent, will decide the property issue. But the Grace vestry apparently is confident they can keep their property for the purposes it was intended, not to be used by a heretical bishop. Besides, what would the little break away group with their nearly bankrupt bishop do with a place that has $10,000 a month utility bills and $20,000 per month loan payments?
The bishop has himself in a real bind it seems to me. The figures I heard this morning in church are that he has spent $400,000 going after Armstrong and will spend an equal amount trying to get the building back. I bet the good bishop could very well loose his diocese and his episcopate over his obsession of Armstrong.
And finally, isn’t it interesting how Seitz keep chiming in against his former funder and colleague at ACI. What’s that about–I am proud to see my rector isn’t participating in that side bar.
Well, actually, Crazy Horse, Seitz did not “chime in” against Father Armstrong, but against your very strange comments about George Carey.
So . . . unless you are confessing to being actually Don Armstrong, I don’t at all see “how Seitz keep[s] chiming in against his former funder and colleague at ACI.”
Sarah,
Having reread the Sietz post I still see it as a diminishment of Armstrong and the very relationships that continue to support and trust him–my point being that the irony isn’t my use of that relationship to support Armstrong and Minns–but that Kearon would use it to cast a shadow over Minns…if that makes any sense
I have actually sat at Father Armstrong’s dinner table with Seitz present, and there is something strange about Seitz’s constant posting about anything to do with Armstrong and ACI’s abandonment of him that smells funny to me.
And by the way, I am not Father Armstrong, but I am a loyal supporter of his at Grace Church—and I must say that what he has been able to endure is a real witness to his own faith.
“the only Anglican entity in the USA that is in communion with Canterbury and is thus a part of the Anglican Communion is an Episcopal parish in an Episcopal diocese”
Not for long…
RE: “Not for long…”
May that be so! ; > )
Re #18: I wasn’t actually talking about the legal situation, since I haven’t researched the Colorado precedents. However, I do not think that the Diocese of Colorado is required to regard one of its parishes as an independent entity ruled by majority vote of the congregation regardless of what the state says. It may eventually fall out that the new CANA parish is regarded as the legal successor to the property of the old TEC parish, but that only requires the diocese to let them have the property, not to concede that they had the right to depart as an legitimate ecclesiastical organization claiming allegiance to Anglican principles or the right to extinguish the membership of the minority in a parish of the diocese.
Sorry, I have been away from the exchange above, busy with other things. What a strange set of comments from Mr Crazy Horse! I am not diminshing anyone, and thank you, Sarah, for pointing this out. I count Lord Carey a good friend and someone I respect. I was only pointing out the–now obvious–fact that saying that Grace was a ‘Communion church’ because Carey was on an ‘Anglican Institute’ Board was ironic. That seems patent. Carey was the one who declared AMiA irregular; Kearon said CANA was not invited because Carey had so formely said so about AMiA. I wish Grace Church well and all God’s blessings. What I do not understand is the strange remarks from someone called CrazyHorse. Pentecost blessings in our Risen Lord.
Dale- I’d agree with your strongly qualified description in #24. There are two identities involved, and neither legally or canonically have anything to do with a congregational vote unless some vestry board is being replaced through elections (which is not the present case).
The legal corporation might be and do one thing, whereas the canonical identity which the diocese recognizes can be entirely another and worship where it happens to worship. At this point, where a split has obviously occurred, the only thing that might represent progress is to be able to keep straight which is which. The legal corporation, headed by the old vestry, isn’t what the diocese recognizes. Who actually holds effective title to the real estate could be either, or even a third party, but congregational votes have nothing to do with that as we apparently agree.
Professor Seitz,
I just reread my own post and see now what you mean–my point was connection, not membership in the Communion. I think primarily my point was about those many good people who remain in relationship with Don and Grace Church show deep affliation within the life of the Communion.
But isn’t the Tanzania statement about CANA and AMiA being enough to make those congregations who flee to their protection of these groups fully in the Communion. I thought that was the point of what the primates said. Is that correct?
The Episcopal Church has by the words and actions of the majority of it’s bishops, decided to walk apart from the Anglican Communion. They can’t have it both ways. The Anglican Church of Uganda, of which I am a member until we can be repatriated, is part of the Anglican Communion and has broken fellowship and is no longer in Communion with TEC.
Therefore, when I say we welcome them back into the Anglican Communion, I am referring to the those whole still hold to Christian tenets…not whether the ABC has invited them to his tea party.
Mr Crazy Horse: I am not sure what you are asking. But let me try.
Many are the public accounts of what happened at Dar es Salaam. A good one was provided recently by the C of E newspaper, in which AB Gomez explains the rationale of the Primatial Vicar and Pastoral Council. The Primates agreed this was the way forward for things like AMiA and CANA (and they are the relevant figures in this). TEC HOB has responded negatively. ACI does not believe this is final/determinative/relevant except as an expose of where they stand, to be taken up by the Primates when next they meet. +Canterbury’s decision about invitations tracks with this logic, because when he presided over the Primates Meeting the communique indicated the way in which Primates viewed the future of CANA et al.
I cannot comment on what Grace Church has decided because, as has been noted: a vote was taken after a decision had already been made by Vestry members; the actual vote tally is hard to assess; the Diocese will contest this; there are matters of financial misconduct under review, and so forth. On these matters, as with most people, I am a total outsider and only view the matter on the basis of accounts I read, blogs, etc. I am sure the situation inside the Co Sprgs context is very hard, with friends divided, etc. One can only pray for resolution and healing.
RE: “Therefore, when I say we welcome them back into the Anglican Communion, I am referring to the those whole still hold to Christian tenets…not whether the ABC has invited them to his tea party.”
Ah, so like any revisionist, you are simply defining the “Anglican Communion” in a different way from that which it defines itself.
Why not simply say “we welcome them back to Christianity and to that body of Anglicans who are in communion one with another, through the Province of Nigeria?”
Why take the name of the “Anglican Communion” in vain? It’s just sad to see such sophism in Anglicans with whom I largely agree theologically.
Sarah #30, I appreciate your compliment….but it was not my intent to be “clever or misleading”. Nor do I intend to “take the name of the “Anglican Communion’ in vain”….but I largely agree with you that it is being redefined. The 9 million Anglicans of Uganda, along with those in Nigeria, are daily seeing the influence and relevance of the Archbishop of Canterbury being diminished. The real leaders of orthodox Christianity within the Anglican Communion are with the Archbishop of Nigeria & Uganda. A simple look at the Panel of Reference, requests for Primatial oversight, and the lack of swift dealing with heresy within the Communion, are just a few examples of how this ABC has lost the ability to effectively lead.
“Choose this day whom you will serve and follow.” It is sad indeed, but as I have daily contact with people from the United Kingdom, there is a reason…a very good reason…why their beautiful cathedrals are largely empty and being turned into museums….because the Word of God is no longer being preached without compromise.
RE: “Sarah #30, I appreciate your compliment….but it was not my intent to be “clever or misleadingâ€.”
No compliment intended — sophistry is never a good thing.
RE: “Nor do I intend to “take the name of the “Anglican Communion’ in vain .but I largely agree with you that it is being redefined.”
It is not at all being redefined and of course we do not agree at all.
What is happening is that some people desire that a new communion be established, with the result that there will be an Anglican Communion — defined as those in communion with Canterbury — and another type of communion entirely.
What is very wrong and lacks integrity is when orthodox Anglicans claim to be a part of the Anglican Communion while at the same time attempting to redefine the Anglican Communion into something else AND claim that ECUSA is not a part of the Anglican Communion when that is not the case.
Why not simply be honest and state that you are a part of a new developing communion that is in communion with the province of Nigeria, that ECUSA remains a part of the Anglican Communion, and that we would very much like for that to change.
It is mind-boggling how those who disregard, or try to re-write, Holy Scriptures and preach Pluralism rather than Jesus Christ as the only way to salvation….thereby separating themselves from the One, holy, catholic Faith as handed down by the apostles and saints through the centuries, then claim WE are the ones trying to redefine the Anglican Communion. The ECUSA, as it is living out its new gospel and theology has become a gay, universalist, and unitarian sect. It will be the Primates who determine whether they will remain part of the Anglican Communion. I look for that decision to be made on September 30th.