It can be argued that the establishment of an orthodox North American Province (even if it is initially recognized only by some of the GAFCON primates) is the best way to deal with the crisis in the Communion. (a.) The orthodox will be able to look after themselves, so “border crossing” for episcopal oversight by overseas bishops and primates can cease. (b.) Instead of being a beleaguered minority within TEC, the orthodox can be treated as equals in a dialogue intended to resolve the crisis of authority in Anglicanism. (c.) TEC will have greater incentive to respond to the calls of the rest of the Communion to return to Anglican norms, lest they lose credibility compared with the new Province. TEC’s leadership fears the realization of this last point, which is the main reason why they are working so hard to prevent establishment and recognition of a new Province….
While some may argue that the best way to preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion is to preserve the unity of the American Church (or, failing that, not to recognize any group that splits off from the American Church), I would argue the exact opposite. The best way to preserve the unity of the Anglican Communion is to allow the American church to divide (which is happening anyway, whether anyone likes it or not) and to recognize two North American provinces. Some overseas provinces will relate to one of the North American provinces more than the other. But there will not be the present level of vigorous advocacy (and border crossing) that now threatens to divide the Communion. And there will not be any reason why the other provinces of the Communion should be impaired in their relationships with each other or with Canterbury. However, if the present situation continues, and Canterbury does not recognize the new North American Province, it will eventually (and sooner rather than later) force some Global South provinces to end their relationship with Canterbury, and the Communion will be lost.
[blockquote] But I believe the ACI’s efforts would win the support of a greater number of people if they spent more time telling us how they propose to save the ship and less time knocking holes in other people’s lifeboats. It remains to be seen whether the ACI’s strategy can be successful; and, if not, there may come a day when we are glad the lifeboats are there.[/blockquote]
Well said.
The entire response is excellent, cogent, and respectful of both the Rev. Dr. Radner and ACI. Both deserve our respect, even when they are wrong.
Like Dean Munday I remain a priest of the Episcopal Church. I just finished almost six months service as Interim at the the Church of the Advocate, the Diocese of Western NC ministry with the street people of Asheville. We were honored by a visit Thursday November 13 from the Presiding Bishop, on her way to the WNC diocesan convention that weekend. I thnk the failure of the Episcopal Church to heed the good advice given at Lambeth 1998 and following is a serious error, but I am not convinced that I am called by conscience to reject the authority of the General Convention. Like Dean Munday I respect those who are led by conscience to do that, and I hope they will respect my decision to remain.
An innocuously worded resolution about sexual orientation not being a barrier to full inclusion in the Episcopal Church (or words to that effect) was adopted at the recent WNC diocesan convention. I did not attend the hearing on that resolution. I had introduced a resolution asking for parish study of the proposed full communion agreement with the Moravian Church in America; I am honored to serve on that dialogue. But last year two of the proposers of the inclusion resolution and I were present at the convention discussion of a similar resolution (which was tabled). One of them used a parliamentary procedure to cut off discussion; the other chose to try to shout me down in the open meeting. The proponents talked about how they had tried to have extensive discussions about their resolution; they never consulted me or anyone else I know of who is conscientously opposed to same-sex sexual relationships. The resolution was about the last thing we did at convention; the resolution on the Moravian agreement passed without opposition.
I chose not to speak to the resolution at convention, but a woman priest rose to say that the discussion at the hearing indicated that the purpose of the resolution was to endorse blessing same-sex sexual relationships, and she could not do that.
As I reflect on it such a resolution is profoundly schismatic, tending to further divide the Anglican Communion, and I was one of a dozen or so – out of over 100 – who voted against it. We have to continue to witness to the truth “come whence it will, lead where it may.”
In response to Dean Munday’s final comment quoted above in #1, I would note that in Philip Turner’s recent article on “Subversion,” he states:
[blockquote]It is often assumed that the goal of the “inside strategy†is to reform TEC from within. This assumption is false. Those with whom I speak who are supposed to have an “inside strategy†do not pin their hopes on the reform of TEC. Indeed, beyond seeking to find ways to band together with and give support to others who share their views, they have no strategy save to bear faithful witness and wait patiently for God to do what God will do with the church of which they are a part. Their desire is to form more than “bonds of affection†with other Anglicans both within TEC and in other parts of the Anglican Communion. Their intention is to model what they believe communion in Christ implies.[/blockquote]
I suspect Dr. Turner may protest an anti-strategy too much. He hopes (as I do) that an effective Communion Covenant may be adopted, a Covenant that TEC as a whole cannot and will not sign onto but which Communion Partner dioceses will (assuming this is allowed at the Communion level). That seems to be a piece of strategy. The problem is what happens when TEC manipulates the canons to depose anyone who signs on to the Covenant and to take away their property.
The Common Cause Province will probably be quite willing to sign on to an effective Communion Covenant and can do so without internal interference from TEC, and one might wonder what authority a non-covenanted Province would have in blocking the admission of an affirming Province. So it would seem that the new Province may be better positioned to benefit from the Covenant in the long run than those who remain behind in TEC.
Sometimes our arguments are so very short sighted, shallow and … ludicrous. Some argue that there actually is such a thing as ‘wrong.’ “Both deserve our respect, even when they are wrong. ” This implies that there is, indeed, a ‘right.’ Argued is that there can be two provinces recognized within the Anglican Communion. Really? Which one is right and which one is wrong? And, once the wrong is determined, why would one want, or even allow, out of pure honesty’s sake, that province to be a part of what is ‘right?’ Get my drift? If all is relative, (“there are no absolutes” I was told in my EFM course), then all is well. But, if absolute truth is the reality, then how can both be accepted? So, determine. What is truth?
T
“Both deserve our respect even if they are wrong” is hardly a vote for moral relativism. These two gentleman do deserve our respect. They have EARNED it.
So sorry robroy, but respect was not my point, nor was I being disrespectful. The point is TRUTH. That’s all. Perhaps you missed the sarcasm in my note that I was taught that there are no absolutes. My response was to ask if she was ‘absolutely’ positive.
T
I guess my consideration is really this ~ if one honestly believes that TEC has turned away from truth, has become apostate, etc., as so many have opined, then why stay in communion with that wayward body? To me that is compromising truth, giving tacit approval if you will. And, yes, I have left, am no longer a part of TEC or the Anglican Communion, for that very reason. I simply cannot give that aforementioned approval by way of religious relationship. I hope that clarifies.
T
I have sent Dean Munday a personal response. I will leave it personal, however, in the spirit of public mutual forbearance. Blessings to all.
Agree with Tikvah:
We have been brainwashed by the world to believe that there is “two sides” to all issues. Whether or not a side is right or wrong depends on which side you are on. See what I mean?
This is a lie. It is the great lie of the world. There are not two sides to everything. There is a right side (Truth) and a wrong side. To put this to the acid test is to re-read 1John, especially where he says that we are EITHER Children of God OR children of the devil.
It is clear. It is time to stop all the pandering to those who argue “their side” to basic Christianity.
Those who choose to stay in TEC, are wrong.
Those who say Jesus Christ maybe is the Son of God are wrong.
Those who say God created Adam and Eve only because God did not think about how much fun Adam may have with Adam are WRONG.
They are all wrong. It’s time to call a spade a spade.
Thank you Dr. Radner for taking the moral high ground; something you and the ACI are always proud to do.
Dr. Munday’s article is a good one on several levels, if only showing the pros and cons…but I must say I agree his understanding and perspective.
Dr. Radner seems to imply that two decisions must be made for the recognition of a new province to occur: (1) Recognition by the Primates meeting as a whole, or by a majority of its members; and (2) Recognition by the ACC. He writes:
“5. Will the new grouping actually be a formal “province†within the Anglican Communion, whatever name it assumes? Surely, it will be recognized by some of the GAFCON Primates. 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 cause for division there. Nor will it be recognized at the ACC.â€
He may be right. But as I read the Constitution of the ACC, assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion is all that is needed to add to the membership of the ACC. The notion that ACC has the power to recognize or to withhold recognition is, to my mind, incorrect: the ACC has no such power. In the 18 powers listed in the ACC constitution (a through r) the power to recognize a province is not listed. We should not yield to the ACC more powers than are granted it by its constitution.
“The Council shall be constituted with a membership according to the schedule hereto. With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule. “Primates,” for the purposes of this article, shall mean the principle Archbishop, bishop, or Primates of each of the bodies listed in paragraphs b, c and d of the schedule of membership.â€
Being listed in the “schedule†entitles the body (a province or a church) to appoint member(s) to the ACC to represent it. In addition to the bodies entitled to representation on the ACC, “The Council may co-opt up to six additional members of whom two shall be women and two persons not over 28 years of age at the time of appointment.†These co-opted members represent no particular province or church. This is one more reason why we should not accord the ACC any more powers than it has by its constitution.
I respect Fr. Radner, but he really needs to talk about where he is and why, and stop the critiques of orthodox Anglicans whose choices differ from those he has made. I always read what he writes, but in his essays of late it seems his arguments have been becoming more and more irrelevant to things as they are (as distinct from how he would like them to be), which saddens me since he used to be a unifying rather than a divisive voice in the orthodox Anglican world.
Regarding Ephraim Radner’s #3 listed in Robert Munday’s article, I would like to expand to an additional argument that includes more than just the members of the Anglican Communion. In Pittsburgh, where I reside, there is also a sense of communion, if we can broaden the term, with other denominations, or parts of denominations, who also feel grounded in Scriptural Authority. Bishop Duncan has the respect of many of these groups, and is considered an example and witness to them for his taking of a stand on the traditional understanding of the Faith. I personally have friends in other denominations where there is a better sense of commonality than I have with the fence sitters. Being included in the CCP, I don’t have to apologize or make excuses when I talk to them.
[i] An additional comment:[/i] I know there are a lot of people who feel a need to express their frustration within this debate among the two sides in the orthodox camp. I hope the elves will let some of them vent. It possibly appeared in some past threads that the tolerance was a little short. If they can’t blog here, then where?
[Thank you for your additional comment Cole but we would be grateful if commenters would please use correct titles for people and avoid offensive ad hominem comments about individuals and other commenters etc which other readers find offputting on a Christian site – Elf]
Although I’m sure this will not allay many of the concerns of Dr. Radner’s critics, it does seem to me that some of the criticism does not take sufficient account of his “Truthful Language and Orderly Separation†at, e.g., http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/?p=262, and his statement in a comment a week or so ago on the Covenant website that although he does not favor the organization of a new Province in North America at this time, “my concern is not that e.g. Fort Worth needs to decouple from TEC. That sense of need, and its foundation, are both well-established and persuasive.â€
In Corinthians, Paul tells the local church that those who are sinning need to be thrown out. One should not even dine with them. IN short, right and wrong are not merely words for gaming the system; they mean something and should be acted upon. This appears to be the very reverse of tolerance. But does not this approach simply create a a narrow and parochial church, perpetually stewing in its own juice because it has the obligation to meddle in the lives of its parishoners. Shades of Geneva.
But is the reverse worse? That accepting what is wrong in a congregation is to put a bad apple in the barrel, knowing how fast such rot spreads? Or do we agree to a modest relativism, accepting wrongness up to the point at which it impinges on core doctrine. But this approach requires that core doctrine be truly clear.
I would ask, if the CCP establishes its own province, is its core doctrine truly clear to all? This seems to me the central issue. If it is not, it has no way of telling a bad apple from one merely sour, so that separating from TEC takes them out of a bad neighborhood but does not remove the bad neighbors. Earlier here an blog entry quoted Oscar Wilde who said that morality like art had to draw a line somewhere. I want to know where the line is that CCP is drawing. I already know that TEC can’t draw a line because it doesn’t believe in pencils. Larry
This is a complicated issue – inside or outside strategy. We need more patience and charity on all sides of this question.
I have more to say [url=http://deaconslant.blogspot.com/2008/11/inside-looking-out-outside-looking-in.html]here at the Deacon’s Slant[/url]
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Dean Munday’s point-by-point rebuttal is marvelous. I wholeheartedly agree with him.
As I keep insisting, one of the chief lessons to be learned from this wearisome crisis is this: Doctrine trumps polity, and not vice versa.
I hold, along with many others in the orthodox wing of North American Anglicanism, that BOTH the inside and the outside strategy are vital to the health and future prospects of orthodox Anglicanism in the western hemisphere. Like the two blades of a pair of scissors, both are essential. Or perhaps an even better analogy would be this: we need orthodox champions vigorously pursuing both options, since we need both flanks to carry out a successful pincer movement on the ecclesiastical battlefield. For after all, this is a civil war for the soul of Anglicanism, and nothing less.
Bravo, Dr. Munday. Well done.
To all naysayers, who shun the CCP effort, I’d say this: Put not your trust in the Anglican Covenant, for there is no help in it. That is not the way Reformations are carried out. The old wineskins have failed. New wineskins are needed to carry orthodox Anglicanism into the third millenium.
David Handy+
Larry #17: Could you just come out and say what you mean, or are you being rhetorical? – Especially in paragraph three. When I think of doctrine, I don’t mix it up with hermeneutics. In my previous post, I made reference to a commonality. I think people in the CCP can unite around this commonality without clashing over less fundamental issues. I know that some bloggers, here, think issues like WO are fundamental, but if the member groups think they can respect each other (no sour apples), what’s the problem? Scripture is fundamental!
#[i]15c:[/i] If an elf edits a remark and then reprimands the poster, the casual reader may not understand what the poster’s original infraction was. It may appear that the thought was what was being reprimanded since the actual infraction was not so obvious. If a poster’s comment shows up in an e-mail notification, seems benign but doesn’t remain on the web-site, it also can cause confusion. That was the reason for my comment. I may be thinking of apples, and the elves may be thinking of oranges. I am personally in favor of reading a lively discussion within the civilly appropriate bounds. And please know that this isn’t about me.
Thank you for your contribution Dr. Munday.
Perhaps this all should have been communicated on a personal level, in the “spirit of public mutual forbearance,” re: the initial post.
😉
#20 Cole
Sometimes after an initial warning the apples get thrown out with the oranges but generally “lively discussion within the civilly appropriate bounds” is encouraged provided it remains on topic and bearing in mind Ephesians 4:29
[If you or anyone else has particular concerns feel free to email or send a private message to us through your account]
But do the elves not think that sometimes they really interfere with the truth coming out…I have seen many important details deleted by elves when the details don’t support this site’s perspective.
I want to go back on topic. ECUSA, The American Anglican Council, TEC, the Network, Common Cause, CANA-Virginia, San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy, Fort Worth, North American Province – The positions are very predictable. It is easy to part ways from a mismatched blind date, but between close friends or a marriage, it can be very painful. So it is within the orthodox. The topic of this thread is so sensitive and maybe so hurtful or maybe also helpful. I think it is one of the most provocative issues of the week. How the arguments are carried forward and accepted is of great value in discerning the pulse and reasoning of contributors of this site.
No 19 – NRA – Depends on what “doctrine” you are talking about, re doctrine trumping polity. We Anglicans would not be what we are without the apostolic three-fold ministry. Certainly some of the mistaken ideas of the Reformation such as Double Predestination (Article 17), should not “trump” polity. If, on the other hand, a catholically constituted polity should deny the Nicene Creed, then of course it would be in heresy. But not all of what is “orthodox” in the Reasserter movement is not necessarily orthodox, but only “private” opinion. Thx.
Correction – delete the double negative in the last sentence of my no. 26 above. Thx.