The plan is scheduled to be publicly released on Dec. 3 in Chicago at a gathering of the Common Cause Partnership, a coalition of conservative Anglicans who oppose moves within the Anglican Church of Canada toward blessing same-sex unions and the ordination of an openly gay man as an Episcopal bishop in the U.S.
“What’s quite disturbing, in my opinion, about this proposal is the determination to create a province based on theological grounds,” Archbishop Hiltz said Nov.17. “The creation of provinces, as I have always understood it, is based on mission. It is based on a commitment to embrace and give flesh to an expression of the gospel in a particular context. There is a geography associated with that context, there is a set of cultural needs, a set of social needs.”
He also noted that the Anglican Consultative Council is the only body of the church that can create a province, and it does so, only after “after a long period of discernment and testing the viability and capacity for the province to maintain itself in the spirit of mission.” The Anglican Consultative Council is also the only body of the church that includes bishops, clergy and laity.
I think a new North American Province will be recognized by about a quarter of the present provinces. Rwanda, Nigeria, Southern Cone, Kenya, and Uganda have American congregations and dioceses. West Africa and Jerusalem have said they will approve. Maybe Southeast Asia and Tanzania will also recognize, perhaps Burundi and Congo. The four churches in the British Isles will oppose, as will Canada, New Zealand, and probably Australia (except Sydney) and Southern and Central Africa, as well as the former US provinces in Mexico, Central America, and the Philippines. I don’t know about the four churches of the Indian subcontinent, but see no reason for them to disagree with England. But as the new province gradually grows and if it can avoid the divisions that have hurt the continuing church movement it will continue to offer a different expression of the Anglican tradition.
How could they, not recognize ACNA as a new province? And what difference would it make if they didn’t? After all, the revisionists like Dr Jefferts Schori have been continually reasserting that no international Anglican body has any real authority over any province, and that the ACC is only one of the “bonds of affection.” So if the ACC doesn’t recognize a new province— big deal! Lambeth ’98 produced resolution 1.10, to which TEC et al thumbed their noses, and the primates conferences have issued several pleas for revisionist restraint which have also been politely ignored. So much for two other of the four bonds of affection. “In those days there was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
Hilz and Schori need to be worried. The new province – even if it isn’t recognized by a majority of primates (which is more a testimony to the power of American lucre) – will draw away the strongest and most faithful. The financial consequences will be extreme. When the ACoC and TEO have fallen to the level of the metropolitan church (membership about 50,000), full primatial recognition of the new province will then be granted. Even the old ditherer if he hasn’t retired before Lambeth ’18, might concede to give his blessing.
The snarky part of me is inclined to retort “never mind a province, shouldn’t an entire Church be based on “theological grounds”?
I might have a less-snarky way to express that: I agree with the quote above; however, the earnestness with which the CCP and others are pursuing separation and re-identification perhaps raises the question of whether they have a different mission than TEC and ACoC. It might be good for Abp Hiltz to articulate his mission, then folks can compare and contrast. and decide whether a different mission calls for a different province.
[blockquote]“What’s quite disturbing, in my opinion, about this proposal is the determination to create a province based on theological grounds,†Archbishop Hiltz said Nov.17. “The creation of provinces, as I have always understood it, is based on mission. It is based on a commitment to embrace and give flesh to an expression of the gospel in a particular context. There is a geography associated with that context, there is a set of cultural needs, a set of social needs.â€[/blockquote]
Change the word “disturbing” to “uplifting” and his whole response works quite well for me. And while I get what he is trying to say, his first sentence is too easy to parody: how dare anyone create a church or province based on theology! Why the whole notion of a church based on theology is disturbing, I tell you!
I largely agree with #1. However, despite the odds (not that “chance” has much to do with it!) I am glad that this is progressing, and I’m willing to live with the ambiguity. My conscience and I have struggled within TEC for many years, and my parish has left TEC, and there is no going back. I will not ever be a part of a “church” that is ashamed of and denies the gospel, and I do not expect TEC to reform itself in my lifetime. So here I am, in the Anglican diaspora (CCP, provisionally aligned with Kenya), and see no good reason to NOT at least try to coalesce with others in the same situation, establish a greater degree of communion and fellowship with as much of the Anglican world as possible, and ask for validation from the ABC. If it doesn’t come, oh well, I’m no worse off and still in a better spiritual condition than I was as an Episcopalian.
So, yeah, d*mn the flaming darts, full speed ahead. 😉
I must agree with robroy. He has made money, and its power, crucial in this issue. Schori et al will have serious cause for concern because, as robroy said, the new province will be made of those who have been willing to sacrifice for their church. TEC has no such strength, while it is losing money steadily, as well as losing membership. We may say of TEC, the rats are not leaving the ship, the crew is. Larry
I just bought the entire Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister series – Bishop Hitz sounds just like Sir Humprey Applegate – “A province based upon theological grounds – how disturbing” – the scary part is that this is a real primate and not a comedic actor with a script trying to be ironic.
I share some but not all of Archbishop Hiltz’ reservations about this scheme. I don’t follow the logic on the issue that asserts that adherence to geographic locale (borders) is a make or break proposition. There are places within the Anglican Communion where this works without major harangue (Anglican and Episcopal churches in Europe come to mind). Likewise, being too stuck to geographical boundaries is in some sense ridiculous, given our ecumenical concordat with the Lutherans where there are all sorts of concurrent jurisdictions if we are all indeed called to “common mission.”
What I do agree with the Archbishop on is the precedent set by setting up another province (a rogue province, a province within a province, or whatever you want to call it) simply because of theological differences. Given the somewhat odd theological bedfellows that are making up the Common Cause Partnership, what happens when a third, presently unseen, theological conflict arises within this group, assuming for sake of argument that the scenario where they get their own province fully recognized by Canterbury is in play. Will the precedent be set to create a 3rd Province, and then a 4th, etc. if the Common Cause Partnership somehow begins to break down over some other issue?
I guess my question boils down to asking are we simply recreating another Protestant Reformation in miniature by setting in motion a dissenting Province? I think that’s what will stay Canterbury’s hand in the end from recognizing some such dual-provincial scheme.
That whole territorial thing doesn’t fly either. After all, there’s the CofE’s Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe and TEC’s Convocation of American Churches in Europe, each with a diocesan bishop. They are presumably on the same page theologically, or once were, so what’s the deal there?
According to what I read from George Conger at Stand Firm the Primates create provinces
Disturbance in the Force is a weighty matter.
An ARCHdisturber like Fred has the gall to talk about disturbing things.
No wonder Canada and the ACoC is in such decline. Rank hypocrisy doesn’t sell all that well.