[Martyn] Minns, a former Episcopalian elevated to bishop by the Church of Nigeria and leader of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, said the new province could count on 100,000 people as its average weekly attendance. The Episcopal Church says its average weekly attendance is about 727,000.
Becoming a province would require approval from two-thirds of the primates and recognition from the Anglican Consultative Council, another church body.
“More than half of the Anglican world will support us,” Minns said in an interview, referring to the primates. “My guess is that we have provincial recognition from at least a majority.”
Is it really helpful at this point for anyone to be making predictions about how many primates will recognize the new province? Certainly it is a given that more than half the Anglican world will support the new province, because it already has the support of primates whose flocks are of that number. But the primates who have not yet said “yes” should be given the chance to do so, and on their own timetable. Rushing them (as a prediction like this seems to do) won’t be helpful. Indeed, letting some wait until GC 2009 is done might be the best tack, since GC 2009 will certainly look like a middle finger being given to the Anglican Communion, and will likely sway some of those who today would say “no” (or at least “not yet”). And if there’s a no–however tenuous–you can be sure that 815 will trumpet that as “game, set, match” and try to ensure that result doesn’t change. (And there most assuredly aren’t the votes at the ACC now.) In reality, the new province has nearly 10 years (or whenever Lambeth next meets) to get its bona fides. And that’s plenty of time for the U.S. church to overreach and destroy its relations with the world’s Anglican primates. After all, they don’t have to de-recognize the Episcopal Church (although some, and perhaps most, will.) All they have to do is bless a co-existing province. We should give them the chance to do so.
[blockquote] “I absolutely think there will be a strong and vibrant Episcopal Church left. Look at the number of people in their 20s, 30s and 40s. The vast majority don’t (care) about whether someone is gay or straight. … As the older people begin to die off, the rage and passion will begin to disappear,” he said in an interview.[/blockquote]
He apparently doesn’t see the contradiction. The average age of the guy in the pews is about 60. And that average age has basically been going up by 1 every year, i.e., very little new blood is coming in. The conclusion: as older people die off, the TEO dies off.
RE: “The creation of a province, Minns said, has backing from most of the conservatives in the church in the United States.”
Not true.
But . . . folks have got to stick to their scripts I suppose.
RE: “He apparently doesn’t see the contradiction. The average age of the guy in the pews is about 60.”
Right — how ironic that the bloggers over at one blog, for instance, are in that “strong and vibrant” age range that this fellow mentions — and all disagree heartily with the agenda of the progressive activist Episcopalians.
Unless we all die off might quick all that “rage and passion” [heh] won’t be disappearing any time soon. ; > )
Thanks, Sarah. I can say from repeated experience that it is indeed confusing to those outside NA to be told that a new province and so forth is what the majority of conservatives in the US want. The majority of conservatives in the US were not consulted, did not request, and are not participating new province planning. That’s fine and I believe slowly we see that people can live with two realities. But Sarah is right. Whether this is ‘sticking to script’ or whether it is an effort to gain support, it is not accurate. The core group of CP rectors represent 45,000 baptized members, and that is only the core group (whose leadership met in Houston two weeks ago with four CP Bishops), and not the number of parishoners who are in CP dioceses and in non-CP dioceses, whose rectors are also with the CP initiative. We have explained this to key primates privately, so as to avoid further confusion. I believe Russ Levenson+ has prepared several press statements for TLC and hopefully these will be out soon. It is possible to wish one another well and also to avoid misleading statements. “A large number of conservatives (from 4 Dioceses, and including continuing church groups, AMiA, CANA, and so forth) are interested in a new province†is a more accurate way to describe what Minns means. The rectors and bishops of CP are not involved in this initiative. Again, that is fine. No aspersions.
“God is our refuge and strength …” Psalm 46:1
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Colossians 3:16-17
If we remember what is really important, a new province will do just fine.
I’m glad the ACI has now admitted that they are actively trying to undermine the new province by “explaining” to “key primates” that the CCP does not represent the bulk of conservatives. Frankly, sir, this is reprehensible conduct on the part of the ACI, which has done nothing except write lovely papers about the situation–and nothing at all that has contributed in any real sense to advancing orthodoxy within the Episcopal Church. In essence, fancy words notwithstanding, you are doing 815’s work for them, Vichy-style, and thus (unwittingly, let’s hope) advancing heterodoxy by trying to remove any incentives there might be for TEC to restrain itself. It is high time for the ACI to simply stand down, for it is with respect to the Episcopal Church it is at best a useful idiot, and with respect to the orthodox positively injurious. For those of us still in the Episcopal Church, you can point to no improvement that your words have produced for the average person in the pews–NONE. At least the CCP, which some of us who wanted to stay in the Episcopal Church were not necessarily excited about, has actually done something–albeit with the ACI opposed them every step of the way. The new province is not perfect, but it represents the best hope we have for an orthodox alternative. And the idea that there are fellow orthodox Anglicans in the Episcopal church actively trying to work against this and divide us is deeply troubling.
My gosh, RA, keep your hair on. When we are asked, and when we discuss the matter, are we supposed to make up a support for something we are not involved in, did not request, so forth? Surely we are not at some juncture where everyone just throws principles out the window and imagines some great convergence of view. We know that new province supporters don’t want that, and we don’t either. The majority of conservatives do not find the way described by a new province acceptable. That is a fact and it has nothing to do with ACI’s views. These are Bishops, Rectors, Primates and others who have seen the dilemma and believe there is another way forward. God will in His time bring all efforts into His coordination. Grace and peace.
RE: “I’m glad the ACI has now admitted that they are actively trying to undermine the new province by “explaining†to “key primates†that the CCP does not represent the bulk of conservatives.”
How is it “undermining” by telling the truth to people, RomeAnglican?
The CCP does [i]not[/i] have the “backing from most of the conservatives in the church in the United States.”
Are you suggesting that all of the conservatives who don’t wish to be a part of the CCP should “be quiet”, and “sit down” and “stop being divisive”?
My, how much I’ve grown familiar with those sorts of demands.
I note that your reply offers no evidence, my challenge notwithstanding, of anything the ACI has done for the average orthodox believer in the pew. Nothing–because there has been nothing. Q.E.D.
RE: “I note that your reply offers no evidence, my challenge notwithstanding, of anything the ACI has done for the average orthodox believer in the pew.”
Right — because I’m indifferent to your challenge. I responded to the other foolish thing you said. I can’t respond to *every* foolish thing.
Of course . . . the “challenge” is also irrelevant and meaningless, since neither the CCP nor the ACI has done anything for the “average orthodox believer in the pew” in TEC. I have experienced *nothing* practical from either organization, and neither have my fellow “average orthodox believers in the pew” alongside me. Beyond that, the the worth of an organization is not determined by whether it does things for “average ordinary people” anyway, so the entire premise of the question is self-serving and bizarre.
“Average orthodox believers in the pews” are on their own — as I’ve been saying now for three plus years. Their job is to connect with other “average orthodox believers in the pews” and construct a thoughtful, realistic plan for their parish or diocese, as best they are able, while ignoring the shrill cries of either “the leavers” or their institutional bishops and clergy. Neither the Primates, nor the ABC, nor the ACI, nor the CCP, nor the old Network, nor Kendall Harmon, nor the elves, nor Lambeth, nor anyone else is going to do that for them.
Sarah, I do not think the ACI can make a claim about the conservatives in the Episcopal Church, of which I am one, just because they are not within the CCP umbrella (which I am not). Likewise, I do not think they can claim that everyone under one of the tiny remnant of orthodox bishops is conservative. So I do not grant that their overstatement, which I believe is what it is, is so self-evidently the “truth.” And so I do think it is undermining, yes.
I do think conservatives within the Episcopal Church should continue on whatever inside strategy they think is effective, absolutely. They should not sit down or be quiet–absolutely not. But the ACI, it seems to me, uses most of its energies (admittedly ones confined in the main to keyboards) against other conservatives, those who have felt led in a different direction. Godspeed to anyone who carries on the fight within the Episcopal Church. But that’s a far, far different thing that what the ACI has shown itself all about lately–which is throwing darts at CCP and those leaving. Staying in and fighting can be an honorable endeavor, and must be admired, saluted, and prayed for. Is anyone actively trying to keep you or others from doing that? I think not. But is anyone actively working to undermine the CCP? You bet: the ACI.
“CHICAGO (Reuters) – Conservatives who have abandoned the U.S. Episcopal Church by the thousands in recent years are trying to form a [b]separate-but-equal[/b] church, a move that could leave two branches of Anglicanism on American soil.”
Gee, Reuters. What do you really think? No bias here. (I know, I used sarcasm).
RE: “Sarah, I do not think the ACI can make a claim about the conservatives in the Episcopal Church, of which I am one, just because they are not within the CCP umbrella (which I am not).”
I completely agree.
But then . . . nor can the CCP make a claim about “most of the conservatives” in TEC either.
In the absence of a quantitative survey, we simply have no valid provable data to back up claims on any side at all. We can only look to qualitative, experiential, subjective data.
Of course . . . we can have strong opinions. I have one. You have one.
Mine is that of the conservative Episcopalians in my diocese who have not already determined to be a part of the CCP [there are a few who have and are just hanging out], none of them — not one — will end up being a part of the CCP. And I’m the most conservative. And I’m not interested in the CCP’s solution.
Should we leave — should I, for instance — I’ll be heading to a non-Anglican entity.
RE: “Likewise, I do not think they can claim that everyone under one of the tiny remnant of orthodox bishops is conservative.”
I agree — where were you when the Network was making such claims about the people “under one of the tiny remant of orthodox bishops”? ; > )
RE: “So I do not grant that their overstatement, which I believe is what it is, is so self-evidently the “truth.—
I’m confused. Seitz-ACI said this: “The majority of conservatives in the US were not consulted, did not request, and are not participating new province planning.”
How is that an “overstatement”? How is what Martyn Minns is *purported* to have said — [and I note that it is not in quotes] — not an “overstatement”? Of the two, one seems like an overstatement — and it isn’t the one from Seitz-ACI!
Fact is, Rome Anglican, we are merely seeing worked out the huge divide that has been between the conservative sides since the beginning of this current conflict back in 2003.
Some in the Network wanted to leave TEC and also were — in the beginning I think — under the delusion that the ABC would see things their way. Once 2006 events occurred, I suspect that many who were under that delusion came to new conclusions, and when those conclusions occurred decided that “what the ABC thinks isn’t important”. Once that happened — the divide amongst conservatives became, shall we say, publicly obvious.
Some wished to leave and found something new, connected with the primates of the Anglican Communion with whom they agreed. Others believed — and I am one of them — that such a new entity would be in no way an adequate “solution” for folks like me — although obviously it will be an adequate solution for others, and I’m happy for them.
I say all of the above, by the way, as a person who has long-criticized BOTH entities about which we are speaking.
Like I keep saying. Conservative laypeople in TEC are [i]on their own[/i]. They can look for help to no organization at all.
As a postscript — if the CCP is on such weak and tenuous ground that it “undermines” them to have conservative Episcopalians raising their hands and saying “nope — it’s not for us” publicly, then they are a far weaker organization that I would have thought.
No, conservatives on all sides should welcome honest, truthful statements of dissent.
It’s helpful to both sides to have public clarity.
Sarah,
could you direct me to any writings you’ve done that explain why, if you leave TEC, you will not go to another anglican entity? thanks.
Evan
I hesitate to mention another blog at this blog, but if you surf to another blog where I have written, I’ve posted numerous essays and comment threads that detail those reasons — and after each lengthy thread, I receive more requests for explanations by some of the same people who have been engaged in the original debates for years over there — so I’m guessing that any further things I write will not succeed in providing an adequate explanation for them either. ; > )
Beyond that, I’m not going to use this thread — which originally was responding to comments made by both conservatives and revisionists in the Reuters article — to detail those reasons. But I’ve been happy to engage on those reasons at appropriate threads elsewhere and intend to do it again — though certainly it will be to no avail for some.
Sarah,
Thanks for the reply. I’ve been following that other thread daily for the last couple of years at least and I must have missed those posts, though I’ve seen numerous comments from you where you refer to earlier posts on the subject. Do they have some sort of archive I can search (I’m barely literate with computers) to see if I can find them?
Except that the evidence was in the California Proposition 8 battle – based on pre-election polling – that while the majority of the younger generation did support same-sex marriage, they did so out of a “whatever” attitude. Once young people actually were presented with a full discussion of the issues, the trend in favor of same-sex marriage shrunk significantly in that age bracket. I think that the high percentage of younger people favoring same-sex marriage can be accounted for by:
1) the fact that younger voters are typically motivated by emotion rather then analysis;
2) younger voters have been subjected to an incredible propaganda effort on the part of liberals – both in school and on TV.
This means that our work is cut out for us in terms of educating people.
The Trinity College professor makes one other glaring error. Even if we accept the fact that younger people trend more favorably to gay marriage then older people, that does not mean that TEC will be “thriving and vibrant” in the future. I would guess that there would be an nearly identical trend in young people away from Christianity. In short, TEC – by reaching out to the young and liberal mindset – is reaching out to a demographic that has little to no interest in church, and TEC’s only message is one of affirmation, so these non-religious young people will see TEC as the “nice, progressive church” that they will say nice things about but see absolutely no reason to attend.
[i] Your reply offers no evidence . . . of anything the ACI has done for the average orthodox believer in the pew [/i] —RomeAnglican
RomeAnglican [#9]: I support the new province and share your concern that some ACI members have been too ready to [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17975]find fault[/url] with the orthodox and put unfounded trust in Abp. Williams and his staff.
But it’s not entirely fair to demand that a group of [i] scholars [/i] demonstrate that their ideas have bettered the life of “the average orthodox believer in the pew.” Ideas matter, even though they may make themselves felt slowly and indirectly.
The ACI has made two magnificent contributions during the past few months. First, Mark McCall’s paper explaining that from the standpoint of secular law, [url=http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/is_the_episcopal_church_hierdoc.pdf]ECUSA is not a hierarchical church[/url]. Second, paper(s) setting forth a conciliar ecclesiology that stresses the role of the diocese and the larger church—and thus deflates the pretensions of national bodies like ECUSA. These are important contributions and will, I believe, make a positive difference.
Yet scholars often suffer from [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypertrophy]hypertrophy[/url] of the critical faculties: they’re more comfortable theorizing and finding fault than taking the risk of acting now in an imperfect world. We need action now, and we should give thanks for leaders like Bp. Duncan who are willing to take it.
Irenaeus, your last paragraph is in the bullseye. It is so much easier to criticize, which may well bring kudos, than to act, which frequently brings out the tasmanian devils of unintended consequences from the puckerbrush and sneeze weed. To act is to risk, and this is not the scholar’s forte. Pace scholars; the time to talk more is gone. LM
Well, I suppose I could point out that I was part of major planning sessions over five years, chaired some, have been in and out of airports more than I would possibly have imagined, have my own preaching to ‘the average man in the pew’ and like my colleagues have worked tirelessly with Primates, Bishops, rectors, students and people in the pew for positive outcomes — but what is the point? No one can answer the kind of bitter criticisms leveled on blogs. That’s fine. Grace and peace.
New posting on our web-site if any are interested. best wishes.
Re. #22 – This Elf agrees – would all commenters avoid ad hominem comments and stick to the thread please.
#24. What web site is this please. LM
Comment deleted – Please take note of our comment above – there will be no further warnings – Elf
Could someone give me an email address for Seitz-ACI? I would like t o write to him directly. This is all I can do because there was no ad hominem attack in my posting of #26, but it cuts off what I had wanted to say about the necessity for action. LM