The formation of this new “province” appears to be a fait accompli. It will presumably provide formal stability for the congregations and their plants who have left TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, as well as some kind of more easily grasped relationship with some other parts of the Anglican Communion. It is important to note, however, that such a new grouping will also not solve the problems of traditional Anglicans in North America , and that it will pose new problems to the Communion as a whole. As a member of the Covenant Design Group, committed to a particular work of providing a new framework for faithful communion life in Christ among Anglicans, I want to be clear about how the pressing forward of this new grouping within its stated terms poses some serious problems….
Could all commenters please be cautioned to interact with the actual arguments made in this piece. This is not a thread about Ephraim, whom I am sure would be pleased to hear from you directly, nor about the ACI, but about the possibility of a new North American province and the concerns raised about it.
Responses which do not respect these concerns, or which veer off topic, will not be kindly dealt with by the editors.
Middle of the road is where one finds yellow lines and dead animals.
Then let’s start with this part of his argument: that the word [i]province[/i] must only be used in quotation marks, or so the author apparently thinks. In fact, they can call this a province, a church, a denomination, the New Anglican Communion, or whatever they care to, so to be so snide is truly unnecessary. There are arguments to be made against this endeavor, but he weakens his position right out of the gate with this pettiness (while, ironically, commenters here are sternly warned to engage the actual arguments!).
I agree with each one of Mr. Radner’s points; save one. They make a difference. But I also do not see how a new province can be postponed.
It also seems that I must disagree at one other point: I do not see how “discipline” of the current N. A. provinces would ever occur in the future if it has not happened yet. If the failures of TEC have not been met without a covenant then why would they be met with a covenant?
Don
“For instance, the Communion Partners group within TEC, comprises 13 dioceses as a whole, and a host of parishes and their rectors, whose total Sunday membership is upwards of 300,000. It is unlikely that these will wish to be a part of the new grouping, for some of the reasons stated below. ”
I wonder what real hope is in something called Communion Partners? Isn’t that just the new American Anglican Council/Network but more wimpy? A realistic Covenant will hardly proceed even slowly to any helpful end. The likes of 815, the ACC, etc. will continue to obstruct, tear down and obscure. Further General Conventions will continue to form their wall of (in)Tolerance. No resistance will be allowed. The attrition of orthodox will continue through further woundings. The Communion Partners, excepting possibly South Carolina, will continue to weaken, sicken and diminish as they loose their life blood from so many wounds of revisionism.
IF Canterbury were serious about proceeding with a Covenant all might not be lost, but the repeated pattern of his actions (allowing for some words in the other direction) only aids the attrition.
The New Province will actually provide a home for the Communion Partners as they realize the home they think they have is no longer.
But if this is all wrong and a good Covenant is formed? Then Communion Partners can one day receive the errant new province back home. But that sounds more like never never land to me. Not the receiving home part but the faith in a Covenant ever forming. Things that sound good in theory must be tested by the reality on the ground.
I would like to see Fr. Radner “put facts on the ground”.
The ship is sinking. People are in the water. There is only one life boat. Fr. Radner does not like the lifeboat so he proposes either that it was never built or that it should be sunk until it can be rebuilt to his specifications.
Fine.
What do the people in the water do? We will make our own way and not care what Fr. Radner says.
[blockquote] However, it will probably not be recognized at the Primates’ meeting as a whole or even by a majority of its members, and will be yet another [b]cuase[/b] for division there.[/blockquote]
Is this a treatise or an Article from the LA Times. Highly qualified statement muddled with a misspelling. Grade D-
[blockquote]Such division on this matter among the Primates and the ACC will likely strengthen the position of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. They will move forward as continuing and undisciplined members of the Communion. All of this will merely hasten the demise of our common life, even among Global South churches themselves.
Earth to Dr. Radner…NOTHING WILL STOP THE CURRENT TRACTION OF THE APOSTATE ORGANIZATIONS…This is tantamount to blaming the wife for the beatings she recieves from her husband.[/blockquote] Grade F+
Dr. Radner’s approach to the Anglican controversy can be summed up as follows: The Anglican Communion is in crisis and something needs to be done. But [INSERT ANY IDEA FOR A COURSE OF ACTION HERE] would be exactly the wrong thing to do.
Seems to me that the very existence of the new ACNA, will only facilitate TEC’s departure from the Anglican Communion. TEC has pretty much departed from the ancient faith already; it just needs to be replaced, in the general view of the Communion, by ACNA as the legitimate expression of Anglicanism on this continent in order to come to the realization on its own that it truly is on its own– well, with provinces like Brazil as sidekicks– but a completely autonomous and isolated form of liberal (unitarian) religion much like the United Church of Canada has become.
[i] Ad hominem comment deleted by elf. [/i]
Apparently Dr. Radner still believes that the alternative to schism from ECUSA is the Covenant, in which he seems to have an emotional investment. Well if–and this is a huge if–the Covenant were accepted by all the provinces of the communion, including ECUSA, what would happen then? Even if the covenant has teeth (and we all know that it won’t) and manages to make ECUSA officially isolated, how will that help the orthodox believers stranded in an apostate denomination? Answer: it won’t help them at all. Even if ECUSA is declared a sub-par member of the communion, the apostates will go on doing and believing exactly what they are believing and doing right now, and the orthodox will continue to be marginalized–or even worse, become accomplices to ECUSA’s heresies by failing to take any meaningful action. That is a huge sin of ommission.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
The series of comments over the last 18 months that has come from this source regarding real unity producing events on the ground is like contrasting a province being built on a Rock with a vision of an Orthodox TEO being restored while located on heretical quicksand.
We all have friends among the CP’s and I hope they keep “815” really occupied without funding their legal activities. I also pray that the firms of those providing pro bono legal services to the orthodox find their lives filled with blessings.
If TEC rejects scripture, the inspired word of God, will they be any more likely to accept the Covenant written by man? The solution to the Anglican issues in North America are not to be found in keeping an exclusive franchise.
The split is coming. Logic and sound ecclesiology demand it. Until it happens and we have a coherent communion that is actually a theological union, rather than a hodge podge, and one based upon normative catholic or even traditional evangelical ecclesiological principles, every stage we will be in will be provisional, and sometimes ad hoc, in order to get us from outright inasnity to some form of rational ecclesiastical unity.
Hey Kendall and elves, why don’t you take your “moderation” and stick it up your sanctimonious hypocrtitical asses?
I’m just askin.
It would seem to me that the new province would be far more willing to sign the covenant than TEC, so then what would CP do?
And where have all these guys been all these years we have been fighting this fight, not Radner-he is has been there from the get go, but his new CP cronies…so many, so mystical, so unknow and so unseen.
I was especially struck by this comment in Fr. Radner’s comments:
“The new grouping will not, contrary to the stated claims of some of its proponents, embrace all or even most traditional Anglicans in North America . For instance, the Communion Partners group within TEC, comprises 13 dioceses as a whole, and a host of parishes and their rectors, whose total Sunday membership is upwards of 300,000. It is unlikely that these will wish to be a part of the new grouping, for some of the reasons stated below.”
“Communion Partners group within TEC” which supposedly “comprises 13 dioceses as a whole.” Since Dr. Radner was such a big proponent of the famous “Windsor Bishops,” the ones who NEVER showed up, spoke up, or did anything of consequence, I am skeptical that this new entity he is trying to sell us on, the “Communion Partners group within TEC” (rather an odd name for a supposedly organized coherent group don’t you think?) is any more real than the phantom “Windsor Bishops” were.
I have no doubt that there will be many faithful Anglicans who for one reason or another (good or bad) will stick with TEC (institutional loyalty is hard to shake), but I harbor no illusions that they will have much of a future in that structure or that they will play any significant role in the future of historical Anglicanism in North America. Ultimately the orthodox presence in TEC will wither and die off. The cards are too stacked against them. Their bishops will retire or die and they will be replaced eventually by those supporting the “new theology” of the TEC. The future of historic Anglicanism in North America does not lie with TEC, but with ACNA. If ACNA is successful, and I ultimately think it will be despite the significant challenges it faces, orthodox Anglican holdouts in TEC will gravitate towards it in the years to come, probably sooner than later.
A witness telephones 911 to report a violent crime in progress. The 911 dispatcher puts the caller through a bureaucratic interrogation, with no sense of urgency. The caller becomes increasingly agitated. “There’s a man being bludgeoned!†she exclaims. “Don’t you care?†The dispatcher replies, “You have no right to talk to me that way. Get control of yourself, and call back when you can keep a civil tongue,†then hangs up.
This paper, albeit in a less extreme context, reminds me a bit of that exchange. Such punctiliousness demanded of the orthodox. Such seeming indifference toward ECUSA’s abuses and infidelities.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] The new grouping . . . will continue in litigation within the secular courts for many years. This continues to constitute a sad spectacle, and is, in any case, practically and morally unfeasible for most traditional Anglicans. [/i]
Orthodox Anglicans are in court because ECUSA has repeatedly refused to settle disputes out of court. Indeed, since KJS became presiding bishop, ECUSA has embarked on a costly, pitiless litigation binge. Remember how ECUSA has made threats and claims against orthodox vestry members’ personal assets. Remember how KJS nixed a settlement in Northern Virginia. Remember how she directed that vacant ECUSA-controlled church buildings should never be sold to orthodox Anglicans. It’s OK for the buildings to become mosques or nightclubs but not AMiA churches. Why the double standard?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] The new grouping is, in the eyes of many, representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible. [/i]
To call ECUSA’s theology and ecclesiology “incoherent†would be a kindly, indulgent euphemism. Why the double standard?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] There is a host of irregularities regarding . . . [/i]
. . . so many of the actions ECUSA takes against the orthodox.
Think of the misuse of the abandonment canon. Think of how the HoB purports to depose orthodox bishops by voice vote and without prior inhibition. Why the double standard?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
If Fr. Radner must put “province†in quotation marks whenever he refers to the new North American province, . . . why doesn’t he put “church†in quotation marks when referring to ECUSA?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I respect Fr. Radner and his many gifts. This paper, brief and tentative though it may be, is unworthy of him.
This is not my fight anymore, so having the luxury to think like a business strategist, my question to Dr. Radner would be “compared to what?” A new province is not the perfect solution, but the perfect solution (ie, genuine TEC repentance) is not in the hands of any group or coalition to effect. So what exactly is the alternative to a new province and does it fare any better given Dr. Radner’s success criteria? Since we don’t know exactly what those are, let’s take a stab by seeing what he doesn’t like in a new province and reversing it:
1. Embrace all traditional Anglicans in North America
2. Stop litigation
3. Don’t put artificial structure around incoherent/irreconciliable groups
4. Avoid making other parts of the Anglican world embrace ministers or bishops of controversial standing
5. Forego putting additional stress on the Anglican Communion and emerging signs of common witness by forcing primatial divisions
6. Don’t inadvertantly strengthen TEC/ACoC by weakening opposition to them
These are my words, not Radners, so he might disagree with the success factors. But with that caveat, lets run the “Stay and hope the covenant does something” scenario against them.
1. Stay Scenario doesn’t look much better here. Who knows what the Covenant will say, how it will be enforced, and what GenCon and TEC do in the meantime. I suspect traditional Anglicans are in for a tough ride in any case.
2. Echoing #1… litigation is here, more is coming, and traditional Anglicans aren’t initiating all of it.
3. The Anglican Communion and TEC are nearly premised on this. Will a Stay for Covenant scenario resolve any incoherence? Call me skeptical.
4. To paraphrase John Rambo, TEC drew first blood here.
5. This, along with 6, might be Radner’s best point. But traditionalists can easily point to collective primatial actions of the past and ask, “Did this stick? Did this make us better off?” Plus, let’s recognize that primates are driving the formation of the province, not merely responding to it.
6. Skepticism on #5 naturally bleeds into #6. Does anyone seriously believe TEC and ACoC will be disciplined? Or will change if they are disciplined?
I just don’t see much benefit from letting official Anglican wheels grind on “just a little longer.” A new province is a risky, divisive move in part because it forces hard choices. The fact that those making the choices would rather not do so is not a compelling reason to demure and delay.
[blockquote] The new grouping is, in the eyes of many, representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible.[/blockquote]
And the communion partners are compatible with Marc Andrus, Jon Bruno, John Chane,…, Gene Robinson? Thus, the argument is that the new province is doomed to failure because there are Anglo-catholics and evangelicals and both sides of the WO question. Well, that doubly dooms the Communion partners. The Anglo-catholics and the evangelicals have been putting up with each other for 400 years – if they still remain Christians, not unitaropalians.
[blockquote]…comprises 13 dioceses as a whole, and a host of parishes and their rectors, whose total Sunday membership is upwards of 300,000. It is unlikely that these will wish to be a part of the new grouping, for some of the reasons stated below.[/blockquote]
The ASA’s of the new province and the CP-ers are about the same. The new provincials have chosen with their feet. The average guy in the pew in a CP diocese or parish is there, in large part, due to inertia. The clergy might have strong ecclesiastical reasons (let’s not mention pension fund reasons), but the guy in the pew has a much less fixed idea about this. They simply want a church that doesn’t drive their kids away from Christianity. When GC09 opens the floodgates of homosexual bishops, we will see about whether “it is unlikely that these will wish to be a part of the new grouping.”
[blockquote] There is a host of irregularities regarding ordination…[/blockquote]
Sounds like the birth of the Episcopal church.
[blockquote]However, it will probably not be recognized at the Primates’ meeting as a whole or even by a majority of its members, and will be yet another cuase for division there. Nor will it be recognized at the ACC.[/blockquote]
Provincial recognition is probably not in the short term cards. Since, as pointed out by George Conger, invitation to the primates meeting is not by the old ditherer, one could hope for an invite for the new primate. As I have said elsewhere, the situation is somewhat analogous to that in the Philippines – there are two recognized Anglican structures, the Episcopal Church of the Philippines and the Philippine Independent Church.
[blockquote] They will move forward as continuing and undisciplined members of the Communion. All of this will merely hasten the demise of our common life, even among Global South churches themselves.[/blockquote]
It is tragic that people still hang on to the hope discipline will come out of Windsor. The SAD covenant puts Rowan Williams as the jury and judge. He most certainly won’t allow discipline to happen. Ephraim+ misses the obvious here. The new province IS the discipline. It is my not unreasonable hope that it will cause the demise of the ACoC and TEO. That is real discipline. There is no hope of reform of the TEO or ACoC. There is no hope to extricate the Ingham’s, Chane’s or Schori’s from the ranks of the ACoC or TEO. Those organizations must die and be reborn.
[blockquote]There is a host of irregularities regarding ordination, representation, consent, and so on that is included among the members of this new grouping. Some of these are both understandable and inevitable under the circumstances. But they nonetheless constitute barriers for future reconciliation with other Anglican churches.
[/blockquote]
There are a few of the Continuing Churches who orders had a bit of a cloud, but most of them have clear have been cleared.
For me, point #1 is tenuous and weak. I am in a Partners Diocese with a good bishop–but as many as a third in the Diocese feel that even the Partners strategy is too much. On the other hand, there are others who anticipate leaving TEC when the Bishop should retire, making the assumption that Mark Lawrence will be the last outspoken re-asserting bishop elected and confirmed. Thus, Radner’s inclusion of the whole diocese in his numbers is a bit too generous.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out by others, if the Communion has not disciplined TEC to date, then how much hope is there for “teeth” in the Covenant?
I have come to the conclusion that the CP strategy would be greatly enhanced if it found a way to articulate a call to suffer and to sacrifice for the Gospel. As I read the CP strategy, I sense an expectation of eventual victory over the reappraising direction. Yet many of us have come to the conclusion that the Presiding Bishop has successfully gained the upper hand for her theological views–and has made it clear that she will not tolerate divergent (orthodox) views. So to press ahead with a CP strategy requires a call to suffer for the Gospel, not to seek persecution or martyrdom (in the broad sense of the word), but to be prepared to suffer and make sacrifices in order to witness from within the TEC.
Ironically that requires just and bold acts of resistance to the dominant views within TEC, it requires rocking the boat while staying in it. Will the CP bishops and rectors do so, or will they try to fly under the radar? This is a costly ministry–and historically one that has been afforded honor by the Church. But the leaders who speak of such sacrifice are those who have left or are leaving for the new province.
Thus I am not persuaded by Radner’s piece here–in fact, while I find it well-intentioned, I find myself more and more drawn to the CC strategy.
I have a fair degree of respect for those who have chosen the “stay inside and fight” mindset that is so strongly voiced by CP. It may actually work if: 1) TEC maintains its current state, and 2) there were actually a fight from the inside.
The next GC will further isolate those who have taken the CP postition. The doctrine and discipline of TEC will be distinctly beyond the realm of orthodox Christianity. Those who stand for the Faith will be isolated at best, but more likely eradicated. The CP bishops will, one by one resign and retire. Being within TEC will prevent a new generation of CP bishops. CP priests are not sufficient in number to influence diocesan elections in any way. The war of attrition worked with the Anglo Catholics and it will work with CP.
My own bishop commented that leaving the battlefield was no way to win the battle. Fort Worth, Quincy, Pittsburgh and San Joaquin, in the eyes of CP have given up the fight. What, pray tell, is the fight being waged by CP. They talk about staying and fighting, but where is the action? GenCon is less than a year away. Judging from the last couple HOB meetings, they have voted correctly and a few have even voiced disagreement, but with no impact. There has been far more objection to the New Province than there was to the deposition of faithful bishops.
Dr. Radner is quite sure the New Province is not the right way to proceed, but, as of now, CP has presented no way of their own. If waiting on the Covenant is a way forward, the faithful majority of the Anglican Communion will leave CP behind. TEC will continue apace and CP will wither and die as so many other Alphabet Soup groups have in the past 25+ years.
My prayer and plea is that CP will encourage those who have chosen the “outside path, and truly engage in the inside fight they so easily talk about.
I have no doubt that men and women of strong Faith occupy both CCP-soon-to-be-ACNA and CP. However, people-of-logic must look at near-past events and actions with respect to all critical parties involved. This is especially true if the same actions are repeated time and time again by some of these critical parties. If Party-A repeatedly undermines Party-B on multiple occasions, especially if this is during a constricted time frame, one could logically assume that Party-A will continue to undermine Party-B in subsequent future interactions. Any logically coherent rational strategy should therefore assume this continuing pattern and not project that some miraculous change-of-heart will occur. I would challenge those adopting the CP Strategy to point out any logical reason based on recent history to believe that such a strategy has any remote chance of success, success being defined as “turning things around” inside TEC and the ACC.
The New Province will be recongised by about 75 percent of the world’s practicing Anglicans. I think this gives a clear picture as to where the mind of the Communion stands. This appears to be just another example, in a different context, of Western Christianity not appreciating that the balance of power is shifting to the Global South.
Recognition of a new province takes time. It is unlikely to occur either at the Primate’s Meeting in Feb or the ACC meeting in May. Most of the Communion will wait to see what GC2009 does with B033, the Moratoria, and the Covenant. Indeed, we are all waiting to see the event.
I think it extremely improbable that the HOD will accept the moratoria, and fully expect them to seek the repeal of B033. Even if the HOB accepts the Moratoria and maintains B033, it will remain that GC2009 did not accept the moratoria. I wonder how well that will play in the wider communion. However this plays out, I expect the spectacle of GC2009 will lead to increased support for the new province. If GC2009 repeals B033, the new province will likely be accepted quite quickly. Ironic, isn’t it, that the new province sitting in the wings might in fact strengthen the CP’s position in the HOB?
[blockquote] In the light of these clear downsides, it is unclear what is gained for Common Cause by seeking a self-styled “provincial†status. [/blockquote]
What is gained, Ephriam, is the future of the Anglican Communion.
The threats to real Anglicanism, posed by TEC and a powerful, hostile liberal society will at last be good for Anglicanism, for it will foster the attitude of hanging together or hanging separately. The new province’s greatest strength is that it gives us an opportunity to hang together, and the outside threats give us the incentive. Such outside pressure will also provide a powerful incentive to develop a set of core beliefs that are tuned to American comprehension.
Even now, these outside threats have forced Anglicans to reexamine scripture and to consider in a hard light whether there are really a set of standards which must be upheld at all costs, without regard for what is fashionable and de trop. The C of E has grown soft and pliable, what happens when the spiritual connective tissue grows too old or begins to decay. American Anglicans are in a position to fight off such decay because it cannot be allowed when the threat is so great. The new province is therefore essential, for it is the point d’appui from which this power of self defense and renewal will grow. From this point of coherence and insight, a new identity will grow, not new in the TEC sense of disposing of the past, but renewed from old ground made fertile by external hostility. Accordingly, I must disagree with Dr. Radner as strongly as I can.
LM
“For instance, the Communion Partners group within TEC, comprises 13 dioceses as a whole, and a host of parishes and their rectors, whose total Sunday membership is upwards of 300,000. It is unlikely that these will wish to be a part of the new grouping, for some of the reasons stated below.”
Four problems I see with the Communion Partners.
1. No energy of their own. The Communion Partners appear to be a reactionary group which borrows the energy for existence from the ACN. In other words, if there were no ACN to react against, the Communion Partners would never have gotten off the ground.
2. No demonstrable accomplishments. The Communion Partners may have 300,00 people but to date they have not been able to produce any action. They have produced no real protection for the persecuted, no real discipline for the heretics, no real help for the oppressed. Their only product thus far are words and in-actionable ideas. (Some might point to the Covenant, but that is still an idea which is hardly “off the ground” and hardly anyone is excited by the draft.)
3. No real backing across the Communion. In part because of the above reasons, the Communion Partners have little to no backing across the Communion, especially in comparison to the Common Cause Partnership. However you measure it, the CCP has a formidable list of supporters from all over the globe. (Yes, many leaders wish the ACI well, mainly because we all genuinely like Dr. Radner et al, but well wishing is not the same as backing.)
4. No real future. Most if not all the 13 Diocese of the Communion Partners have been ineffectual in fighting the heresies of the day and they have resisted changes to their failed approaches. (Howe, Stainton, etc.) It seems to me that the Diocese of Florida and its transition from Jecko to Howard is a trustworthy indicator of what comes next for most of the 13 diocese of the Communion Partners. (There may exist one other South Carolina out there, but probably not.)
The Rev. Dr. Radner does make some points. Nonetheless, with out being long winded, he misses the point. This is not simply about TEC or the ACoC. This is a spiritual battle for the Soul of Anglicanism in the World. As such, the failure of the Instruments of Unity and especially the ABC to apply discipline have shown that the great strength of Anglican is also its greatest weakness. He ignores the tyrannical and despotic actions of the current Presiding Bishop and what will come at General Convention 2009. With the departure of so many priest, people, congregations, and dioceses, it no longer matters what the Communion Partners try to do. Their witness has been reduced down to such a level they cannot be effective. The leadership of the EC has the votes to force their agenda on the entire EC no matter what the laity want. Priests and bishops have capitulated and given up.
The New Anglican Province is the only options for those who wish to preserve Anglican Christianity.
‘John Wilkins’ has some cogent comments on his blog. Excerpt:
The orthodox could not launch any meaningful opposition at GC2003 or GC2006 when their numbers in TEC were higher than they are now.
I suspect that if there were some sort of settlement that allowed CP parishes to join the new province without going to court or losing their property, most of them would jump at the chance. I do not say that as criticism, just observation.
It seems to me that, in the AC, we are living through one of those really uncomfortable in-between-times. The present situation is intolerable and the what-will-ultimately-emerge cannot be seen clearly at this point. I don’t usually major in both/and, but this may be one of those situations in which a new province is necessary in the short term.
Dr. Radner seems to think that the new province would pose a significant obstacle to a future fuller coalescence of faithful Anglican Christianity including both Canterbury (our historic roots) and the Global South (our future). I am not sure that it does – perhaps a new province is just another step towards that very thing. It may be more akin to the strategy of dividing the family treasures for safe-keeping so that even if some get lost, the whole enterprise will not fail.
For now, why not build as many bridges as possible (keeping intact the ones that are functioning) between those attempting to remain as faithful witnesses and those who will be part of the new province? Perhaps the future coalescence will emerge from the ground up – who knows?
[blockquote]…even while there have been signs of coalescing efforts to restore the integrity of our common witness.[/blockquote]
That is simply a totally unsubstantiated statement. Is this in reference to the Communion partners plan or the Covenant? In regards to the Communion partners, we have this incredible statement from Chris Seitz, “Most in CP do not believe that anything GC does need affect them. We concur.” Is this really true of the members of the CP? I hope it is not. He also states, “Most who wanted to leave left.” Wow.
Sometimes, I wonder if the “Great Commission”, and the preaching of the Gospel isn’t all lost in the effort to shore up the organization.
Never mind the concern for structure, its all man-made anyway (albeit hopefully under the auspices of the Holy Spirit).
Where is the concern for the souls of all who are being led away from the Gospel now, and will continue down the path to distruction?
Grandmother in SC
#31-I find it amusing that these arguments come from 2 sources. First is the CP/Windsor types who claim TEC is apostate, want it to be better and have dug in their heels. The second is the radical liberal element of the church who should be delighted to see those associated with CCP walk away.
For some strange reason those involved in CCP are able to discuss these issues in good faith with the integrity and holding the Gospel as their point of unity. They acknowledge their differences and can live with them. The same cannot be said for the liberals in TEC, nor, judging from recent comments, those who lead CP.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
I actually think there is much truth in the exerpted comments from Mr. Wilkins’ blog. And Fr. Radner is quite correct to point out the issues of WO, and Anglo-Catholic/Evangelical Protestant tension within the Common Cause members. There are very real problems with the emerging province, and I say this as one whose parish will be part of it. I don’t say a new province isn’t necessary – it is – just I haven’t heard enough details about how it will be organized and function to decide if it appears viable or not as planned. I pray that it is a success and that the primates of the communion recognize it.
These objections seem stronger if one puts to the side a number of things, and assumes that the new grouping somehow impairs the ability to gain a covenant solution.
“The new grouping will not,… embrace all or even most traditional Anglicans in North America.”
I have not seen the claims that it would – but such claims would oddly state, in effect, that there is no inside fight – a la Dio of SC.
“The new grouping, through some of its founding members, will continue in litigation within the secular courts for many years. This continues to constitute a sad spectacle, and is, in any case, practically and morally unfeasible for most traditional Anglicans.”
It is a sad spectacle, but note that this affects individual churches of the grouping and not the corporate body of the new grouping (unlike the corporate involvement of TEC). In addition, such churches are, by and large, defendants in litigation.
“The new grouping is, in the eyes of many, representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent…”
He rightly notes that “this is no different than historic Anglican comprehensiveness.” To extend this into an argument for not forming such a group is to put to the side pre-existing diversity and to argue that the diverse elements should not cooperate.
“There is a host of irregularities regarding ordination, representation, consent… “
Given the context that communion is broken between TEC and many provinces, this is indeed “inevitable under the circumstances” and should not present any greater barrier than currently faced with ordination within TEC.
“… it will probably not be recognized at the Primates’ meeting as a whole or even by a majority of its members, and will be yet another cuase for division there. Nor will it be recognized at the ACC.”
Well, yes – to the extent such bodies choose to be divided on this issue. However, given the historical ineffectiveness of such bodies…
“… even while there have been signs of coalescing efforts to restore the integrity of our common witness.”
This does not appear to be consistent with the following:
“… [TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada] will move forward as continuing and undisciplined members of the Communion.”
If there are signs of effective efforts, then why should TEC and the ACoC continued undisciplined?
This new grouping does not render the prospect of a strict covenant with effective discipline null. Instead, ISTM, it is the historic ineffectiveness and corruption of the instruments that pose the greatest threat to an effective covenant. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the subtext seems to be that primates supporting this new grouping are misguided – and the totality of their energies should somehow be directed to forcing an exclusive covenant solution through the instruments.
My suggestion to the supporters of the exclusive covenant solution is to present the primates supporting this group with an iron-clad covenant with effective discipline and see how they respond.
Given history, I can not criticize these primates for supporting efforts beyond the covenant.
🙄
Quoting Irenaeus: “Orthodox Anglicans are in court because ECUSA has repeatedly refused to settle disputes out of court. Indeed, since KJS became presiding bishop, ECUSA has embarked on a costly, pitiless litigation binge.”
I have often found Ephraim Radner’s writing very helpful and have the greatest respect for him. But I find this piece sad and wrongheaded – and I say that as one who continues to remain in TEC.
“even while there have been signs of coalescing efforts to restore the integrity of our common witness.”
Is it possible for someone from ACI to explain what these are? I certainly haven’t seen any such signs, and ACI’s complaints about the new province coalescing would seem to be only as valid as the evidence that their own efforts to reform or discipline TEC are succeeding.
[i] Signs of coalescing efforts to restore the integrity of our common witness [/i]
Did Lambeth 2008 promote “the integrity of our common witness?
Will indabalating the primates’ meeting (as Abp. Williams evidently seeks to do) promote “the integrity of our common witness?
Would scuttling a new province promote “the integrity of our common witness”?
In any event, who exactly are “we” and to what do we bear witness?
PS: If those of us still in ECUSA retain some integrity, it is [i] despite [/i] our connection to ECUSA and not because of it.
The author lists 6 ‘problems’ with the new province (quotation marks intended…thx #3). I presume the article was written in the hopes of moving forward the conversation about the life of the Communion. However, since most of the ‘problems’ listed by the author aren’t problems at all, it seems to have done little more than highlight the author’s bias, and rankle folks like myself; his potential allies.
I write as a rector of a parish forced out of a revisionist diocese, and a rector who once had high hopes for an ordered Communion life. To be clear, I never expected the Instruments of Unity to ride in on a white horse and save my parish, but I did expect them to follow through with the things they said they would do.
Alas DES, was subverted, the ABC, on his own initiative, decided that a deadline wasn’t a deadline, VGR’s consecrator’s were invited to Lambeth….the list goes on and on and on…but I digress.
Here’s why Dr. Radner’s “problem’s†aren’t really problems:
1. “The new grouping will not, contrary to the stated claims of some of its proponents, embrace all or even most traditional Anglicans in North America .â€
Ok, so why is this a ‘problem?’
If the author and others choose not to be a part of the new grouping, but instead choose to fight TEC from the inside, then more power to them, but how is their choosing to not join the new province a problem? Some provinces of the communion overlap. It happens. It is happening. It’s going to be a problem for TEC, but that’s a good thing.
2. “The new grouping, through some of its founding members, will continue in litigation within the secular courts for many years. This continues to constitute a sad spectacle, and is, in any case, practically and morally unfeasible for most traditional Anglicans.â€
I couldn’t agree more, tell TEC to stop suing us. The fact that a new province doesn’t ‘fix’ TEC’s aggression is hardly a knock against the new province.
3. “The new grouping is, in the eyes of many, representative of diverse bodies whose theology and ecclesiology is, taken together, incoherent, and perhaps in some cases even incompatible.â€
As the author himself points out, this isn’t much different from the rest of the Anglican world. So why is it a crippling problem for the new province? Apparently only because the author wants it to be.
While we’re on the topic, I have found the theological differences amongst members of the new province to be far less of a strain than in the rest of the AC. Are our theological differences broad? Yes. Are they irreconcilable? No. Holding a common gospel tends to have that effect.
4. “There is a host of irregularities regarding ordination, representation, consent, and so on that is included among the members of this new grouping.â€
Again, pot, kettle, black…
5. “Thus it threatens to be yet another wedge in the breakup of the Communion, even while there have been signs of coalescing efforts to restore the integrity of our common witness.â€
Let’s be clear here: the wedge has always been TEC’s new theology and the AC’s unwillingness to enforce discipline(don’t be fooled they are perfectly capable of acting if they want to act). If the author spent more time writing open letters to the ABC regarding his inaction (still waiting for that Pastoral Forum…) and less time attempting to attach a ‘wedge’ label to allies of a different strategy we might be further along the road to reconciliation.
As for ‘coalescing,’ let’s be honest, there isn’t much more of that now than there was three years ago, or ten years ago. I for one am glad to no longer be waiting around for the just-around-the-corner-coalescing. If the author wants to keep using that carrot to drive the donkey cart then I’m sure he’ll find an audience, however, if you, dear reader, are a part of that audience, beware that when things clearly stop coalescing, the author will undoubtedly fall back on his now standard back-up defense: “ecclesial time is really slow and nothing’s guaranteed.†Just a heads-up.
6. “Such division on this matter among the Primates and the ACC will likely strengthen the position of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.â€
Then shame on the ABC. He has been given the tools necessary to effect discipline and restore the Communion’s Christian witness, but has instead chosen a false sense of unity instead of the unity that comes through the truth of Christ. TEC’s position in England may be stronger than ever, but amongst the majority of Anglicans worldwide it couldn’t be lower. Is this a problem? I suppose for some it is, but not for the majority of Anglicans, and not for the new province.
What is abundantly clear to me is the counterproductive nature of articles like this one by Dr. Radner. Orthodox Anglicans in North America are committed to different strategies that have the potential to be complimentary in the reform of the Communion. An article that highlights the potential moving forward, would be far more useful.
Excessive punctiliousness in the face of apostasy or other evil plays into the hands of entrenched power.
Think of Governor Gumpas in [i] The Voyage of the Dawn Treader[/i]:
— “No inteviews without appointments except between nine and ten p.m. on second Saturdays”
— “Nothing about it in the correspondence. Nothing in the minutes. We have not been notified of any such thing. All irregular. Happy to consider any applications.”
— “Your tender years hardly make it possible that you should understand the problem involved. I have statistics, I have graphs.”
— “That would be a question to raise at the Council next month. If anyone moves that a commission of enquiry be set to report on the financial condition of the islands at the first meeting next year, why then….”
Will someone please give me a good reason for why it is so all-fired important or desirable to be a part of the Anglican Communion? Is there some social stigma in NOT being a part of it? Why does TEC, for example, think it’s so important to hobnob with Rowan Cantuar? Is it a matter of prestige, as much as snobbery?
44, a very good question indeed. Given its absolute ineffectivness to date why indeed? If it were to disappear tomorrow I doubt that any of us at the parish level would notice.
The concern behind statements like this is that the effect of a new province as a December fait accompli will import the problems of TEC into the councils of the primates in such a way that a proxy will be forced, and primate will be divided against primate (that includes within the GS). Then when/if the number necessary for recognition is not forthcoming, the primatial supporters will themselves be forced to choose between a Gafcon entity and the Communion instruments, some opting one way, others stranded in an experiment. The putting of facts on the ground is seen by some as a necessary stratagem (as a deliberate way to force an issue) and by others as a concession ahead of time to the fact that nothing will happen in the Primates Meeting. Rather, it would be better to let the Primates face the problems of TEC and elsewhere on their own terms, and so not have decided ahead of time that an Instrument is incompetent, or that the entire instrumental apparatus of Anglican Communion life is now to be dismantled so as to create a new province for those so desiring. The other concern is of course to alert the wider communion to the fact that this is not the only way forward, and it has not been requested nor will it be joined by other conservatives. Surely that is a right and a responsibility borne of Christian conscience, just as others have the same.
Br. Michael, Cennydd – because we are Anglican? If Anglican means nothing to me, then I might as well be Baptist or non-denominational and go away without a fuss. I assume it means *something* to most of us who are engaged here or we wouldn’t be discussing it. One of the things that drew me to TEC was that it was part of the Anglican Communion, a truly global church sharing catholic worship and tradition. I’m not sure what your measure for “effectiveness” is.
What I don’t understand about all this is why ACI is so set against the Common Cause Partners and the new province instead of just being for their own Communion Partners plan.
My sense is that the only stance the new province would have toward the CP dioceses and parishes would be to welcome them into our midst if they finally so decided to join us…but other than that we wish no one ill in the way ACI seems to do the new province.
These are difficult days to the point that no decision is a good one. Churches loose members if the stay or go. Clergy suffer a high price for leaving with all its pension implications, not to mention rebuilding a congregation. But they equally suffer guilt and abuse for staying attached to TEC in any number of ways.
The last thing we need to do is criticize each other’s attempt to be faithful and survive. The orthodox need to be on the same side against the evils that have been unleashed against all of us by Katherine Schori, who is using every dirty trick in the book to bring about her own will.
I know the enemy for the new province is not ACI, and I would hope the ACI would not see the new province as an enemy…even though I think both sides think what they are doing is the better option.
Radnor is right. Another province is not the answer. The right answer is for TEC to repent. Turn around. Ask for forgiveness. Get back to Christianity.
…but that is not going to happen.
bl
Sietz…how many times will the primates have to meet, put forth an ultimatum to TEC, which TEC then roundly rejects before you give up on that as a way forward?
47 a measure of effectivness might have been a simple matter of discipline. 5 years ago I would have agreed with you, but no longer. See 46 for the defense of continued inaction. The AC has a solid record of inaction and there is nothing to indicate that it ever will act. The AC is no longer ” a truly global church sharing catholic worship and tradition.” All it is is a name.
And if this forces the primates to actually do something, then, as they say, it’s a feature not a bug.
Is discipline of TEC the only tool of effectiveness by which the entire Anglican Communion is to be measured?
#37
Well said. I’m right with you.
Maybe Sarah Hey could enlighten some of the commentors here as to why one should care whether or not we are in the Anglican Communion. Sarah? Help them out.
For most, if not all, on the orthodox end who want to remain in communion with Canterbury, it’s not about prestige or hobnobbing with Rowan. It’s about retaining what to them is an essential part of Anglicanism. It has a lot to do with ecclesiology and other areas of theology, and perhaps even soteriology. (If I remember correctly, Radner once stated his belief that the structures are part of our salvation.)
And what we’re seeing is a significant divide concerning what it means to be Anglican. Is being in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury essential? Some of us say “yes,†others “no.†The issue here isn’t a concern about being the one, true church (as could be incorrectly assumed), but rather how valuable Anglicanism is for us, and how valuable its historic distinctives are for the larger body of Christ as a whole.
We have to recognize and give one another the grace for a wide latitude for differences in ecclesiology and other theological matters today. If we ever thought that all orthodox Anglicans—including our leaders—would rally behind a new province and/or see it as an unquestionable good, we were just dreaming (as well as ignoring church history). It’s also helpful to remember that many of us are very practical, while others are more idealistic, and these traits will also result in differences between us.
Whatever God’s doing in the midst of all of this with Anglicanism, it will take patience to see the end result (and we may not even see it in our lifetimes) and much charity toward one another.
Not the only one, but a necessary one.
55, I agree with most of what you say, but three years ago I came to the conclusion that if the AC was not going to act then it had lost it’s importance to me. It still has not acted and I don’t think that it ever will. I would like to remain an Anglican Christian outside of TEC, but if that is not possible then I can live without the AC.
To expand my previous comment, I believe that the future of the Anglican Communion is gained in several ways (and future here is long term). For one, the direction of the communion will now be determined by orthodox believers whose Anglicanism is not about mythical via medias and three legged stools, but about the Gospel of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as delivered by him and interpreted by his apostles. Second, those who will be piloting the communion’s future will no longer be ivory tower vestiges of the British Empire, but leaders from Africa, Asia, and South America who represent the overwhelming majority of the communion now, and into the future. Fancy theological arguments and ecclesiological smoke and mirror routines devised to buttress a failing structure will no longer hold sway, but will give way to Christianity as expressed in Scripture, and understood by the majority for 2,000 years. Finally, when the “power center” of the Anglican Communion completes its shift away from money and power politics, the western world will be ready for a new and vibrant Anglicanism with Jesus himself at the center again.
#58
You describe being Christian, but not being Anglican. I hear way too much of this from too many of the more evangelicals among my fellow reasserters. Anglicans are Christians but not all Christians are Anglicans. Some of us want to be both.
Sure #59, and I agree with what you are saying in part. But I think that the soul of Anglicanism is being lost in North America one lawsuit, one fancy argument, one heretical liturgical/theological innovation and one duplicitous synodical decision at a time. When those who are currently taking North American Anglicanism off the rails are finished, there will be so much collateral damage I wonder what will be left… Oh yea, I forgot… there will be that new Anglican province with Anglican Christians left, worshipping in an Anglican way, within an Anglican polity and structure, in communion with the overwhelming majority of the Anglicans in the world, carrying Prayerbooks and Bibles as no doubt Cramner himself did. Sure, in the end it might mean the Archbishop of Canterbury might give sway to one from another location, but why should this bother Anglicans?
# 46
“The concern behind statements like this is that…primate will be divided against primate.â€
I think we’d all agree the new province isn’t creating this division. The primates are divided now, and have been for some time, so although the new province may make it impossible to avoid the issue, it isn’t as if the new province has created a division within a presently harmonious grouping. Even if it did, however, the onus for such a division is squarely on TEC and the Instruments. Not the GS.
“Then when/if the number necessary for recognition is not forthcoming, the primatial supporters will themselves be forced to choose between a Gafcon entity and the Communion instruments,â€
That’s good. Life’s full of choices. However, this is a false dichotomy. Gafcon is working within the life of the AC, so it’s not an either or.
“…some opting one way, others stranded in an experiment.â€
Let’s be clear, it doesn’t really matter which side you are on, it’s an experiment wherever you go.
“Rather, it would be better to let the Primates face the problems of TEC and elsewhere on their own terms…â€
We’ve tried that a couple times now, Dromantine & DES. The good news is that the Primates did GREAT! Hit it out of the park!
The bad news?: Another supposed “Instrument of Unity†used his power to pull the plug on those plans/timetables.
“The other concern is of course to alert the wider communion to the fact that this is not the only way forward, and it has not been requested nor will it be joined by other conservatives.â€
That’s all fine and good. Send out the alert. I wish you and the CP’s the best of luck. I hope ya’ll are successful. If you are, then reconciliation within the Communion will again be a possibility.
If you aren’t successful then we’ll probably meet up somewhere in the new province, or we’ll read about your conversion to Rome, Constantinople, etc.
In the meantime, railing against a new province sounds too much like an opportunity to procrastinate from the actual battle against 815 that you are supposedly organizing for. (I’m glad to hear some are organizing for such a contest. Others in the CP’s, as we know, are looking for ways to ‘strengthen the hand of the Presiding Bishop’ so ya’ll have got your own leaky boats to shore up if you are to put up a meaningful resistance.)
Thank you 46 and 42.
Thank you Dr Seitz for indicating that Dr Radner’s piece may have had a different audience than most of us reading it have understood–namely, the Primates themselves. In that context, yes, ACI/CP have not only a right to articulate a different strategy but also a responsibility. Further, the concern to allow the Primates to resolve their decisions on their terms is fair and most appropriate. I do note however that Primates are already expressing their support suggesting to me that the Primates themselves intend for the facts on the ground to change as part of their own deliberations. Thus, I suspect that some of them feel that, “If there are no actions on the ground, then why should we Primates engage empty talk?”
Thank you Fr Gross for turning the equation around–turning problems into opportunities. As I said earlier in the day, Dr Radner’s article has had the opposite effect on me than intended–namely, moved me closer to the CC strategy and further form the CP strategy. Your entry has put words to my intuitions. Thank you.
#62. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, the audience was more Communion wide (which is where our concerns are as a priority among other concerns). Radner, Turner, Sumner and others have spent long blocks of their lives in the mission field and this sensitizes them and us to the concern that the Communion not collapse into lots of federations. Many have made it clear that such is not their concern, but rather they want a problem solved in the context of NA liberalism. We are also more optimistic–based upon preliminary reports–that the Primates are very prepared to face into real problems in Egypt, and that chief among them is the PB of TEC. That is the place we wish energy to be focussed, including a sober discussion of the role of TEC in future Primates Meetings and Communion life given TEC’s obvious inclination to move forward with SSBs etc. Others feel this is a waste of time; we would prefer to watch the Primates–not 6 or 8 with a new province plan, but all of them corporately–deal with the problem on the terms of their larger sense of affairs, including Lambeth Conference and what many regarded as a serious demoting of TEC’s liberal purposes. The Primates can move forward unencumbered by ‘facts on the ground’ to outcomes that reflect their corporate will. It is not as if the Primates as a corporate body as ‘progressive’ and this means the larger will is catholic and evangelical both. The decision to make decisions over their head, ahead of time, threatens to strengthen the hand of TEC progressives by taking the focus off of them, and placing it rather on this or that preemptive plan, which they will then be forced to address. It would be preferable to work for a demoted TEC than to sidestep the matter with a new province — a move which will in no way bring a halt to litigation or even de-center the aggressive posture of 815. Rather, it will lead to prolonged and intensified and costly litigation. And the danger is that this could lead to the supporting Primates ceasing to attend any future Primates Meetings as unncessary — something many here have said they believe would be a good thing. A Communion become several distinctive federations. So as others have said, in many ways this is about the preservation of an anglican commmunion that has been a gift in its form and way of preaching Christ in Communion. ACI would not want that to happen out of the hopes that some new anglicanism will emerge that somehow will free itself from debate and further fissuring. I spent a decade in Scotland and see the way a spirit of federating can just keep producing the same offspring. I would hate to see that spiral into form in Anglicanism. I fear it may already be moving at a rapid pace of no returning.
[blockquote]”The other concern is of course to alert the wider communion to the fact that this is not the only way forward, and it has not been requested nor will it be joined by other conservatives.”[/blockquote]
I have seen nothing by the CCP stating that it is ‘the only way’ forward – granted, I have seen concern about the weakening of the covenant. But on the contrary, I do see considerable energy spent by some being critical of the CCP for not supporting an exclusive covenant/inside strategy. At least that is the message of these objections.
So, for some ‘conservatives,’ it is important to communicate to other ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ (i.e., the wider communion) that these conservatives will choose not to support or to resist the new grouping. It is also important for those conservatives to choose to divide themselves from other conservatives, even when they know it will “strengthen the position of TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.” Oh yeah, and they will blame the new grouping for any division among conservatives.
Indeed, this communication must come as some comfort to the ‘liberals.’
On one hand, I do think that some in the CCP have over-reacted, as if these early steps of organizing will somehow – as of Dec 3 – create a viable, counter-balancing province to TEC/ACoC, one of equal or greater standing in the AC to TEC. IMHO, it is merely the first step of a journey that may go in a number directions.
Yet on the other hand, some in the CP have over-reacted in a different way, and are willing to risk their own efforts at a covenant because, at all costs, they must resist the fact that CCP has become better organized and is accepted by some of their fellow conservative primates.
🙄
#64 “and is accepted by some of their fellow conservative primates” just is other primates (those who attended Lambeth from the GS) are not so inclined.
And that is the issue. Hopefully the Primates Meeting will allow all outcomes to be weighed and considered, so that an Instrument can emerge as functioning and retaining integrity both.
63…I am afraid that in Egypt we will see the same result we have from other similar events: the Primates will law down the law, Katherine will agree, Katherine will come home and do as she pleases…with all the various talk about the polity of TEC having to work things out over the years…your points sound good, but the don’t address the people currently being slaughtered on the battle field.
I am posting below what I posted over at the Covenant site. I think that we do need to take Dr. Radner’s points seriously (only a fool will not listen to thoughtful criticism of a serious plan with far-reaching consequences) and to Dr. Seitz’s post #46. Rather then the knee-jerk reactions and defensive justifications, we need to heed some of the warnings. That being said, there is a vast gulf of difference between doing nothing and hoping the Primates and ABC will accomplish something that they have so far failed to do versus making a unilateral declaration of a new “Province” that isn’t really a “Province” at all (but rather a “partnership” of allied entities) and which will prove to be counterproductive and divisive at the primates meeting.
So following is my post of a couple days ago at Covenant with some additional thoughts inserted IN ALLCAPS.
*************
I am not sure why the choice has to be between nothing and a Province. I agree with Dr. Radner that declaring the CCP as a “Province†would be very unhelpful for the reasons he stated, but also because it would radically redefine what is meant by “Province†in Anglicanism. The Common Cause Partnership is exactly what its name says it is – a partnership. It may become a more coherent organization in the future but it is not that yet.
However, I also believe that the non-TEC Anglicans in North America need to be drawn together by the GAFCON primates (and other GS primates) into a single organization. This should be done for the sake of orderliness but also in preparation for the future.
A few things we need to keep in mind.
1. Whether one wishes to explain it in positive ways or in negative ways, the fact remains that Rowan Williams has a track record of not carrying through on commitments he makes which would provide solutions. His preferred method of leadership is to adapt to what happens and try to keep everyone at the table. ACCORDINGLY, NOT TO CREATE “FACTS ON THE GROUND” FOR WILLIAMS TO REACT TO IS A SERIOUS STRATEGIC ERROR. THE QUESTION IS NOT “SHOULD WE CREATE FACTS ON THE GROUND?” BUT RATHER “WHAT FACTS ON THE GROUND WILL BE MOST CONDUCIVE TO OUR END GOAL?”
2. The Communion as a whole would not likely react positively to a proposal of a new North American Province as a fait accompli. You need to boil the frog slowly, and declaring unilaterally a new Province would be boiling the water much too quickly.
ACCORDINGLY, MOVING TOO QUICKLY BY DEMANDING A NEW “PROVINCE” WILL MOST PROBABLY BE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO THE STATED GAFCON GOAL OF REFORMING THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION.
3. The Communion would be much more receptive to a more tentative plan, and one which has both the Common Cause and the Communion Partners aboard. ACCORDINGLY, NOT CALLING IT A “PROVINCE” AND PITCHING THE JURISDICTION AS A TEMPORARY MISSIONARY JURISDICTION WILL BE MUCH MORE CONDUCIVE TO AN ANGLICAN APPROVED NON-TEC/ACoC JURISDICTION IN NORTH AMERICA.
So why can’t the CCP and CPP primates and bishops get together and work out an interim solution to the North American situation, which makes NO long term guarantees about final new Provinces, but at the same time accepts a seperate, orderly jurisdiction for non-TEC Anglicans? This would come very close to the plans Rowan Williams promised to implement but never did. AND NOTE THAT MOST OF THE PRIMATES AGREED TO THIS SORT OF PLAN ALREADY.
Why not create a new North American “missionary jurisdiction†for CCP, with a North American bishop as its lead bishop, but which jurisdiction remains under the primatial oversight of GAFCON, and which is declared to be recognized by both GAFCON and the other GS primates? At the same time, this new jurisdiction would explicitly partner with the CP dioceses within TEC. There would be no violations of TEC constitution and canons, and no attempt to ram through a new Province into the Anglican Communion.
Rather, there would be a wise and measured creation of “facts on the ground†which would probably be palatable enough to Rowan Williams that he would be obligated to include such new jurisdiction into his strategy. And the majority of Primates would probably favor such a plan also. The end result would most likely be some sort of official recognition from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the toehold of official recognition for a new non-TEC jurisdiction in North America will have been won. And at the same time, CCP would need to continue its steps to forge itself into one body, from the current multiple bodies it currently is. This would seem to work in everybody’s favor. LET’S KEEP OUR EYES ON THE END GOAL AND ACT IN A DISCIPLINED MANNER IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT GOAL.
[blockquote] Whether one wishes to explain it in positive ways or in negative ways, the fact remains that Rowan Williams has a track record of not carrying through on commitments he makes which would provide solutions. His preferred method of leadership is to adapt to what happens and try to keep everyone at the table. ACCORDINGLY, NOT TO CREATE “FACTS ON THE GROUND†FOR WILLIAMS TO REACT TO IS A SERIOUS STRATEGIC ERROR. THE QUESTION IS NOT “SHOULD WE CREATE FACTS ON THE GROUND?†BUT RATHER “WHAT FACTS ON THE GROUND WILL BE MOST CONDUCIVE TO OUR END GOAL?†[/blockquote]
Good point. Rowan was supposed to have named the [strike]panel of reference[/strike] pastoral forum in 2 months. That would have been in October. A quick check of the calendar shows that it is now November.
[blockquote] So why can’t the CCP and CPP primates and bishops get together and work out an interim solution to the North American situation, which makes NO long term guarantees about final new Provinces, but at the same time accepts a seperate, orderly jurisdiction for non-TEC Anglicans?[/blockquote]
The problem as I see it, is that the CP-ers are outright hostile to the CCP-ers. This includes a very public letter of resignation and repudiation of the Network. Some had suggested an invitation to +Bob Duncan to come and talk. That would certainly raise the hackles of Ms Schori. But I think that it would be very helpful.
[blockquote] Why not create a new North American “missionary jurisdiction†for CCP, with a North American bishop as its lead bishop, but which jurisdiction remains under the primatial oversight of GAFCON[/blockquote]
I really like this idea. Again, I look at the situation in in the Philippines where one has a similar situation – a province (the Episcopal Church of the Philippines) and a missionary jurisdiction (the Philippine Independent Church).
Robroy [#66] writes: “The problem as I see it, is that the CP-ers are outright hostile to the CCP-ers. This includes a very public letter of resignation and repudiation of the Network.”
This took me back nearly 30 years to the Monty Python movie Life of Brian — from the Wikipedia entry:
(Emphasis and extra paragraphing added.)
I regret that I view Radner’s positions as intentional obtructionism. I cannot understand this ongoing desperate defence of TEO by him. Surely he must see that waiting any longer is fatal?
Perhaps Radner recognizes, and fears, that Anglicanism has grown to be a sytematic theology not anchored in drafty piles of English masonry and the fantasies foolish old white men. That it is emerging as a global, reformation driven vibrant Christian witness is apparently disturbing to him and his fellow go down with the ship apologists. Why?
It is nonsensical to presume that the smart guys who are pushing this new province haven’t got assurances that the requisite votes are there. As I have elswhere said, you may not like them but you have to agree they are not stupid.
Also, this refuge we are creating does answer the threat of GC 2009 where Consiglieri Beers will ram through measures to steal all the remaining real estate. Wait for the Covenant, wait for ++Rowan to do something, wait for things to stop going boomp in the night….we loose Granny’s church. The ACI needs better reasons than here stated to wait another minute.
I think Radner has a long term view here. As I have mentioned, this current partnership will probably not work, as its main thrust is that these churches aren’t Episcopalian. It’s not an easy core to hold together. Most of the breakaway denominations are pretty small in these churches. And they have a lot of bishops to support. It doesn’t make for a good start.
Further, if the liberal church dies, opportunities for wise conservatives to reestablish the church will remain. But it won’t be the conservatives who left. It will be the ones who showed the tenacity to stay, who pick up the pieces….
Well, at least John Wilkins and DC support Fr. Radner and the ACI. But not, I fear, to the advantage of the North American orthodox.
LOL. Preemptive???????
This problem has arguably been lurking since the 1945 revision of the lectionary, but possibly became patent in the 1970s. Even scrunching the timeline to 2003 hardly makes the CPP plan preemptive, unless perhaps, the actions of some will always be preemptive to the plans of others.
😉
Anywho, I really must take issue with the “be forced to” aspect. Aside from the fact that it brings to mind the following from M.P.’s Cheese Shop sketch:
Now by your statement – are we being asked to believe that some primates, in full capacity, are incapable of ignoring a fatally flawed, trifling movement of little account – even at the cost of risking focus on their hard hitting, trenchant solution for the issue at hand?
😉
63, 67 and 68
I am finding this one of the most fruitful conversations that I have seen online in quite some time. Whilst I found Dr Radner’s opening statement less than convincing, I am beginning to rethink it in light Dr Seitz’ point that the Primates need to evaluate the options and come to a decision amongst themselves so that all the Primates buy into the chosen strategy.
The discussion of a missionary jurisdiction particularly seems to help clarify what ACI might have in mind (I say might because I did not hear such a jurisdiction considered in Dr Radner’s statement.) A temporary measure that does work towards consolidation yet avoids moving the pressure from an errant TEC to a squabling CCP-CP exchange. I have colleagues and friends in both CCP and CP, and need to say that I do not see the ugly rivalry that others have described herein. My experience has been that the leaders of both CCP and CP leaders are united in their desire to proclaim Jesus Christ, that they are fundamentally for the Gospel not against TEC.
The missionary jurisdiction in my opinion opens up the opportunity for both CCP and CP to call for sacrifice, a willingness to suffer, and a commitment to humility. In terms of the language of politics, this is taking the high road against TEC. Rather than complain about being attacked by the leadership of TEC, we ought to follow Peter’s warning, “do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you, but rejoice insofar as you are sharing Christ’s sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed.”
I have on a number of occasions attempted to articulate for myself what a call to suffering might look like in this context. Somehow it is easier to praise men who were willing to be burned at the stake, than it is to praise men who are willing to be sued in court. I am open to suggestions and prayeful input.
#74–we have also had proposed from wise heads that a missionary jurisdiction of some sort would place before the Primates and ABC a different kind of negotiable for the CCP ideals. Frankly, our assumption was that new province people did not want that. Certainly CP has no objection (insofar as anyone cares). CP is not a ‘stragegy’ but seeks to capitalise on polity limitations such as Mark McCall has pointed out, viz, that there is no hierarchy above the diocese and that a covenant could be a means to establish a hierarchy into the Communion as such (bypassing/ignoring 815 and GC ‘hierarchy’ claims) consistent with what has been the tacit reading of the Constitution and Canons from earliest days. We believe serious inroads can be made by maximizing the limitations of the office of PB and 815 and driving that point home. So by definition a ‘new province’ is not of interest because it changes the subject and takes the pressure off the place it needs to remain: showing the overreach of the PB and 815 and addressing these as challenges to be met and defeated. Our concern is that forming a new province just prolongs the impasse and resolves nothing, practically speaking. Perhaps someone could explain how a ‘new province’ supported by, say, 8-12 Primates, defeats the 815 litigation and produces a Communion entity in a genuine Communion. (Those who do not care about the latter obviously can refrain from comment — though somehow I doubt that will happen).
[i] We are also more optimistic . . . that the Primates are very prepared to face into real problems in Egypt [/i] —Fr. Seitz [#63]
Fr. Seitz: But what about the reports that Abp. Williams wants to indabalate the primates’ meeting?
More broadly, how can the primates play the active role you outline in #63 if Abp. Williams controls the agenda and doesn’t want much to happen?
75…your points sound good, but they don’t address the people currently being slaughtered on the battle field…what are going to do about them.
Dear Irenaeus: The Primates Meeting–as ACI has often stated–ought to assert its independence by establishing a protocol for the setting of agenda. Recent proposals from Primates we have seen intimate quite clearly intentions to do just that, in Egypt. In my Pro Ecclesia essay of ten years ago I argued, consistent with the larger ACI view and indeed with the statements of the Communion, that the Primates Meeting ought to be a genuine Council, as in the Orthodox churches, and a ‘lead horse in the harness’ of 4 Instruments. Many think +RDW opposes that. I am not certain that is so. In many ways, initiative is the winner in this modern anglicanism season. It may well have been the case that in former days everything tilted toward Canterbury, because the Communion required no adjudication the kind that is now required. Do I think that +RDW would rise up and smite the efforts to create an agenda — No I do not. That statement of course will mean that all the old ideas that +RDW single-handedly defeated Dar es Salaam etc, will rise up now to smite me. Those of us who attend heated conciliar meetings of every kind (Yale Board of Permanent Officers Meetings; St Andrews University Executive Meetings, Vestry Meetings, you fill in the blanks) know full well what kind of work must go in ahead of time to defeat, massage, alter, set-back plans we believe are facing us as an obstacle. The Primates are not incapable of this, even as in times past (pre-Carey) it was not needed as it is now needed. Grace and peace, and thanks for your good question.
Anglican Province (post #77) – how will a new “Province” which is not recognized by any of the Anglican Instruments of Unity help those orthodox Anglicans in the USA in any practical way? This new “Province” will not have any relevant legal standing to put an end to litigation. All that a new “Province” would do, is make those Anglican who have left TEC and ACoC feel good because they are now recognized as a “Province” by some Anglican primates that they like. But practically, how will that help stop litigation, etc.???
Can someone tell me what Anglicans in southeast Asia and India – in short, places far removed from Canterbury think of all this to-ing and fro-ing? There must be an Anglican world of some sort in Germany, France, Italy and the like, yes? Is America stewing in its own juice while others are dining on shishkabob? If there really is an Anglican communion, why do we not ever here it speak on those matters that have us in a tizzy? Larry
#63
Re: Radner, Turner, et. al. are concerned about the whole Communion in particular, and the dangers of a collapse into federations in particular. Others, however only care about fixing the problem of North American liberalism.
This seems like an odd characterization, as de facto federations have already existed for some time. It seems to be a bit late to be fearing their arrival. As for liberalism, what has become frighteningly clear, is that this is not merely a North American problem, as the cancer has spread to nearly every part of the communion. Because North America is the most compromised, it is therefore experiencing the most severe symptoms of the disease, however, few provinces are immune, and others such as the COE are fairly paralyzed by it. Dealing with liberalism is a global issue. Though let it be noted, the language of liberal and conservative is not the most truthful and plays directly into the hands of 815. It is actually a matter of orthodoxy and heresy.
Re: “we would prefer to watch the Primates–not 6 or 8 with a new province plan, but all of them corporately–deal with the problem on the terms of their larger sense of affairs, including Lambeth Conference and what many regarded as a serious demoting of TEC’s liberal purposes…. It would be preferable to work for a demoted TEC than to sidestep the matter with a new province…â€
Another false dichotomy. The Primates are pretty capable individuals. Are they not able to multi-task? If there is, as you suggest, a promising preliminary report that there is the will to discipline TEC and demote her agenda, then the Primates can do this first, and deal with the more contentious issue of a new province second. Or they could start talking about the new province, and finding no agreement, happily fall back upon what they can agree on: disciplining TEC.
It works either way.
#75
Re: “So by definition a ‘new province’ is not of interest because it changes the subject and takes the pressure off the place it needs to remain: showing the overreach of the PB and 815 and addressing these as challenges to be met and defeated.â€
Of course someone committed to the inside strategy isn’t very interested in a new province, but how exactly does this ‘take pressure off of the PB and 815’? To the contrary it sets up a legitimate outside rival to 815 at the same time as the Communion Partners begin to assert pressure (in the ways you described) from the inside. They are complimentary strategies.
Re: “Our concern is that forming a new province just prolongs the impasse and resolves nothing, practically speaking. Perhaps someone could explain how a ‘new province’ supported by, say, 8-12 Primates, defeats the 815 litigation and produces a Communion entity in a genuine Communion.â€
If the diocese is the fundamental unit of Anglicanism (as you have been suggesting) then 815’s litigation is defeated by both those diocese inside and outside. For those diocese who remain inside TEC, and all sign up for the Covenant, I would guess that you guys will then be getting together for fellowship amongst yourselves, working out some common projects (deployment & missions), and generally acting like a province would. Of course, still being inside you’ll have to spend no small amount of time remaining on your guard as 815 will be using it’s funds to set about changing its canons to make your assent to the Covenant evidence of your “abandoning communion,†sending Integrity reps to tour your diocese, having Bonnie Anderson speak in your cathedrals, etc.
A new province helps us get on with mission and ministry in much the same way you will be doing, but in a way that is more straightforward (both in its relations with its members and the rest of the Communion) and unencumbered by the incessant need to defend ourselves from 815’s machinations.
#82 — I’m unsure why there is some need to suggest that evil forces will be rampaging through Texas and Louisiana and Central Florida and SC. That sounds a bit hysterical, frankly. At any rate, we shall see about that. But is your response an answer to #79?
Those who know me best have never accused me of anything approaching hysterics, nor did I suggest there would be ‘rampaging’…that was your word choice, and an odd one at that.
My exact words were: “Of course, still being inside you’ll have to spend no small amount of time remaining on your guard as 815 will be using it’s funds to set about changing its canons to make your assent to the Covenant evidence of your “abandoning communion,†sending Integrity reps to tour your diocese, having Bonnie Anderson speak in your cathedrals, etc.”
Of all the things we might debate, I really didn’t think the capacity of progressive activists to launch coordinated initiatives with TEC diocese was a matter of dispute. If you are unaware that the above tactics have been/are being used extensively and aggressively, then that doesn’t bode well for the longevity of the Communion Partners.
Thanks–I suspect we’ll trust the wise leadership of our Bishops and men like Mark McCall on that front. Grace and peace.
Fr Gross: bear with me. I am trying to understand your logic, over against #79. On the matter of litigation (serious and costly business) you write: “[I]t sets up a legitimate outside rival to 815.” Could you explain that in more detail? Isn’t legitimacy exactly the issue? So, e.g., we have quite a few people saying that Canterbury is pointless and is indeed a harmful force for confessional good. Wouldn’t a TEC litigator simply say, ‘this rival entity,’ is by definition not a rival or an entity, and it is not legitimate. Or, if the sought for recognition by the Primates fails to get 2/3 (which is reasonably certain) wouldn’t the same TEC litigator actually use that fact in defense of his case? I am not trying to be antagonistic. I just do not understand the logic of this, other than, as #79 says, it might (in his words) “make those Anglican who have left TEC and ACoC feel good because they are now recognized as a “Province†by some Anglican primates that they like.” The legal case is probably even harder to make in Canada, from what I can tell.
#82 Fr. Andrew Gross says:
If I understand the ACI position correctly, their concern is that forcing the issue of recognizing the new province when it’s unlikely to get the necessary two-thirds majority of the Primates to agree carries the distinct possibility that it may lead to the FCA Primates effectively splitting off from the remainder of the Anglican Communion. (I’m inclined to agree with them in that analysis, for what it’s worth.) If the strongest GS voices are absent from the Primates’ Meeting, then there will be little impetus left to oppose TEC in continuing its present reappraising course.
The strategy that the ACI prefers is to develop a covenant that is sufficiently “toothy” that TEC will be unable to sign it, and so TEC effectively takes itself out of the Anglican Communion. Then, as I understand ACI to see matters, would be the right time to start talking about new jurisdictions in North America.
I, of course, am on the third side of this argument, namely the reappraising side. If — I say “if” — it does happen that FCA + ACNA walk away and become their own federation, leaving the rest of us in the Anglican Communion, I can’t say that I would find that an entirely unwelcome development. But it may not happen, and the FCA releases so far have been pretty cagey about not going that far. Which is why it still wouldn’t surprise me if the FCA Primates delayed their formal recognition of the new province until after the Alexandria Primates’ Meeting, just to avoid forcing the issue at this time.
This is a close summary of our concern. And thank you for your candor. “If—I say “ifâ€â€”it does happen that FCA + ACNA walk away and become their own federation, leaving the rest of us in the Anglican Communion, I can’t say that I would find that an entirely unwelcome development.” I gather you mean this as ‘welcome’ because it removes a present challenge of TEC being pressured by the Primates as a totality, them having been asked to choose for or against FCA?
[blockquote] I’m unsure why there is some need to suggest that evil forces will be rampaging through Texas and Louisiana and Central Florida and SC.[/blockquote]
Interesting that you mention Texas. The bishop elect’s parish was on Integrity list as being “friendly.” Florida and San Diego show that a single vote with the orthodox split can result in catastrophe.
[blockquote] “If—I say “ifâ€â€”it does happen that FCA + ACNA walk away and become their own federation, leaving the rest of us in the Anglican Communion[/blockquote]
The FoCA are not walking away. What is being created is a sub-communion within a federation. The “Anglican Communion” ain’t.
So FoCA is the Anglican Communion and the ‘Anglican Communion’ becomes a Federation?
My point is that the Anglican Communion IS a federation currently. A communion necessarily has all its members in communion with each other pairwise. We have Ms Schori charging octogenarian bishops with abandoning the communion for coming under the authority of Southern Cone for example. FoCA IS a communion within the AC federation.
As long as it is a legal person (e.g, a corporation), then it will be an entity. With respect to AC status, in most cases, I am not sure how this would be relevant.
*In VA, the court found a split sufficient to implicate the statute, which determination was substantiated in part by evidence of the existing split in the AC.
*Determinations under neutral principles will have no need for such an inquiry.
*Determinations under hierarchical deference should not change.
At one point, there was conjecture that if TEC lost its communion status, then those seeking to stay in the communion by the mechanism of alternative oversight might have an argument by reference to the preamble in TEC’s constitution; however, some un-named parties ensured that that has not happened, so even if TEC were somehow demoted in the future, it would arguably still be in the AC.
I am missing something: What is FoCA
Thanks ‘tired’ (get some rest).
The arguments against hierarchy extending beyond the diocese to an alleged ‘national church’ (M McCall), conjoined with the Constitution and Canons’ Preamble, make a strong case for hierarchy moving from Diocese to Communion. And if the Covenant in fact serves as a mechanism for clarifying that, should Gen Conv not take it up, but CP Dioceses sign on, the knock-on could be important.
#89 robroy says:
But if the FCA adopts the new province — ACNA or whatever they call themselves — and the AC Primates do not, then the FCA is no longer a grouping within the Anglican Communion. It becomes a group that intersects with the Anglican Communion, and that’s significant both ecclesially and practically.
Ross: No, you are wrong there. The FoCA primates will remain officially within the “Anglican Communion.” The new North American “Province” (if not officially accepted) would be the group which intersects with the Anglican Communion without being officially a part of it. The FoCA primates will remain part of the “Anglican Communion” until they choose to leave.
#94 I do need rest, lol. Thanks.
I guess I was thinkn the concern was the ongoing litigation between TEC and already departed churches/dioceses.
#96:
Of course the FCA Primates will remain within the Anglican Communion, unless and until they decide to remove themselves. The ACNA and its Primate — assuming things fall out as they seem likely to — will not be within the Anglican Communion. Therefore the totality of the FCA — comprising both the current FCA provinces and the ACNA — will intersect with the AC. That is, it will be partially inside it and partially outside it. That’s what I was trying to say; perhaps I was unclear.
Ross, is this dueling Venn diagrams? I see your point. It is one of semantics. The new province might be considered to some as something like the ELCA, which is in communion with the TEO but not, say, Uganda. I would double dare you to try to get the old ditherer to say that the new province is NOT part of the Anglican Communion. (Yes, I know that he won’t say that it IS part of the AC, either.) But whether the FoCA is fully or partially a subset of the AC, it will be a communion unlike the Anglican Communion, which is an oxymoron.
Many interesting thoughts:
#75: “CP is not a ‘stragegy’ but seeks to capitalise on polity limitations … , viz, that there is no hierarchy above the diocese and that a covenant could be a means to establish a hierarchy into the Communion as such (bypassing/ignoring 815 and GC ‘hierarchy’ claims) consistent with what has been the tacit reading of the Constitution and Canons from earliest days.”
And yet, the Archbishop of Canterbury seems in practice to recognize the PB and General Convention as hierarchically controlling of the US diocese – see his treatment of Lamb and Schofield. Though this may contradict his private letter to Howe. So what speaks more strongly, actions or words? Now, ACI may well be arguing for a view that there is no hierarchy over the diocese, and I might even agree with that, but if the ABC does not accept that, and the covenant is to be accepted by provinces and not diocese (which I believe Canon Rosenthal also said at Lambeth), then there seems to be some way to go before a strategy of waiting on the covenant becomes even as viable as a new province.
#87: “If—I say “ifâ€â€”it does happen that FCA + ACNA walk away and become their own federation, leaving the rest of us in the Anglican Communion, I can’t say that I would find that an entirely unwelcome development.”
Except that I don’t think they intend to walk away. That is a hope of TEC. When they were talking about walking apart, they meant TEC should walk apart. They are staying put – you will have to kick the Anglican primates that recognize them out. Though that could happen.
I also don’t understand the focus on litigation. I fail to see how the new province will affect property litigation at the bishop versus bishop level (new ground entirely, by the way, and not like the common bishop versus parish litigation) much one way or the other. Although I suppose a few depositions by 815 of some archbishops here and there might stir more interest in stopping litigation at the primatial meeting level.
“In many ways, initiative is the winner in this modern anglicanism season.”
Strangely enough, it usually is in most seasons.
My apologies for not responding in a timely manner, but between ministry and a ‘snow event,’ my access to the internet has been limited.
Regarding ‘legitimacy’ and the new province, it seems that there are a lot of angles on this one. There’s ‘legitimacy’ in the eyes of other members of the AC, ‘legitimacy’ in the eyes of the court, ‘legitimacy’ in the eyes of your average orthodox Anglican in NA, and of course ‘legitimacy’ in the eyes of God.
Regarding the members of the AC, I would surely like to have the new province be recognized this Winter/Spring by the ABC, 2/3rds of the Primates, the ACC, etc., but then I’d like a lot of things in life to happen that probably aren’t going to happen. This isn’t to say that if this form of ‘legitimacy’ doesn’t come by June 09 that it will never happen. It may be that more wide-spread recognition of the new province will simply require a longer time-frame (a few years) …and of course, I’ll have to be ready for the possibility that it may simply not happen at all. The same could be said of the Covenant. It may take a while, if it comes to fruition at all, but that’s not necessarily a reason not to give it a go.
As a parish that came out of a revisionist diocese, our options are the ABC’s holding tank, the ‘missionary jurisdiction’ mentioned above, or a new provincial structure. The first idea seems like a bad joke (shouldn’t TEC be the one in the holding tank?), the second leaves us in limbo until the ABC decides to move (read: indefinitely….where’s that pastoral forum?), and the third lets us get on with the work of mission and ministry.
I can live with the last reality. If some parts of the AC don’t agree with the GS’s strategy, even after years worth of work, then so be it. I’d like to be recognized as a full member of the AC by both the ABC and Abp. Orombi, but when it comes to integrity and following words with action, Orombi’s impeccable. The ABC? Not so much. If it weren’t for Orombi, my parish would have had to become Congregationalists.
As for “legitimacy†in the eyes of the legal apparatuses of the United States, that’s a different question. . Both McCall and Fort Worth (among others) have recently laid forward the claim that the diocese is the fundamental unit of Anglicanism. Whether a diocese joins the AC in general via the Covenant, or the AC in particular via the Southern Cone seems to me rather inconsequential in the eyes of the law.
As far as I have read, folks of both strategies feel they have good arguments to make in court, but at the same time we all recognize that this is uncharted territory. Which strategy (inside or outside) provides the better arguments for legitimacy in the eyes of the courts? I think anyone who says they know for certain, is kidding themselves, and given that law on the matter seems to differ state by state, there are all sorts of tangled issues to sort out, and a multitude of reasons why there isn’t a simple answer to “who’s legitimate in the eyes of the American legal system.â€
As for legitimacy in the eyes of the average North American Anglican, I think that’s a different question entirely. A good number of episcoplians/anglicans will deem a new province to be worth their time to work on and sacrifice for. These are the folks who are no longer motivated to try to reform TEC, and/or would find the idea of a ‘missionary jurisdiction’ to be either too weak, or too unstable. Others, of course, will remain inside TEC and continue to work for reform. Of these some will carry on that work while viewing the new province as legitimate, and others will carry on that work and choose not to recognize the new province.
In terms of God’s perspective on legitimacy, I believe God wants Christians to speak with clarity, and get on with the work of ministry. Because the new province is working to facilitate that process, I believe it will be blessed by God. Of course, my perceptions remain tainted by sin, so I could always be wrong. However, if I didn’t believe God was at work in this, I’d be somewhere else.