Anglican archbishops will hold an emergency meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury today to discuss the unfolding schism in the Church in America.
The meeting between Dr Rowan Williams and the primates of Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and the Southern Cone comes two days after conservatives in the US unveiled the constitution and canons of the new Anglican Church in North America.
With a membership of 100,000, drawn from disaffected members of the Episcopal Church of the US and from churches that broke away over the women’s ordination dispute, leaders of the new “province” claim they are not splitting from the 75 million-strong Anglican Communion.
A formal proposal arguing for recognition as the 39th province of the Anglican Communion will be put before the primates at their meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, at the end of January.
Wow-that was spontaneous;-)
Well, more power to them. Let’s see how it all shakes out, but if I am right about the ABC, he will not cede anything and the “emergency meeting” will have been fruitless.
Here’s another report from George Conger:
[url=http://www… ]http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/new-american-province-looms-cen-120508-p-1/[/url]
Why does Conger’s article refer to the “Third Province” ?
OK, I get it now. TEC, Anglican Church of Canada, Anglican Church in North America.
[blockquote]However, Jim Naughton, of the Episcopal Church denied charges of unorthodoxy. He said: “There are small antigay Christian denominations all over the US and we have existed in the midst of these denominations for ages. At this point, this is just another of those small antigay Christian denominations. They are distinguished from other small antigay churches in the US by their global pretensions, but the relationships they have cultivated with a handful of like-minded leaders in Africa do not really change the dynamic here in the US.â€[/blockquote]
Gee, the LCMS calls homosexuality a sin, and it is at least as large at the TEC. Does that make the TEC a small progay Christian denomination, just like other small progay churches in the US?
Harry: yes.
[url=http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/new-american-province-looms-cen-120508-p-1/]Here[/url] is a corrected link for the George Conger article.
One can always count on TEC to show its fangs.
[i]At this point, this is just another of those small antigay Christian denominations. [/i]
His use of the word ‘small’ is kind of interesting and odd. After all, 200 years ago, the RCC in America was another one of those ‘small antigay denominations’ and 150 years ago the LDS church was another one of those ‘small antigay denominations.’ Now both are bigger than ECUSA. One could list many others. The truth is that being antigay wins, as has most form of oppression in Christian history. That’s why scripture is as antigay as it is. Maybe Naugton realizes this deep inside, but sometimes I wonder if liberals really believe that history will be on their side.
Jeff Thimsen, “Third Province” refers to this movement in the CofE: http://www.thirdprovince.org.uk/ The first two are Canterbury and York, not PECUSA and ACC.
[i]The truth is that being antigay wins, as has most form of oppression in Christian history.[/i]
Not that’s a form of antinomian rhetoric I’ve not heard before. I learned something new. Any “no” from God s really just another form of oppression in Christian history.
In 1789 16% of the American population was Anglican. Now it is about .3%. That means this country is 99.7% Episcopal-free. This stat, among other facts, suggests that Anglicanism has never adapted to American culture. In other words we have never appealed to the deepest desire and aspirations of the American people and they have returned the favor. It is axiomatic in missiology that you cannot reach a people whose culture you despise or think is beneath you. Loving the people (not being superior to them) is a pre-condition to reaching them.
This, among other reasons, is why I support a new province. It gives us a chance to be an indigenous, apostolic expression of Anglicanism, something that TEC never has been and something AMiA and CANA are already learning to do. Like many, I regret that I have come to this conclusion but I have.
Another reason I support the emerging province is that it may actually be the last way, ironically, to save TEC. Breaking up the cartel may force them to address issues of quality control. As they lose the last shred of credibility they have in the wider Anglican Church (and Church Catholic), and more Americans choose the new option, the institutional liberals may find the courage to wrest institutional control from the radicals in power. I know its unlikely, but possible.
I also believe within the decade this new province will be recognized by the majority of the Communion, including the ABC.
“In 1789 16% of the American population was Anglican. Now it is about .3%.”
that is a fascinating stat – did it grow from 1789 up until the 1960s or has it been steadily on the wane for 220 years?
Don’t you think a large part of that percentage drop could be attributed to immigration from other nations?
The loss would be attributed to many things – westward migration out of Anglican strongholds along the Southern atlantic seaboard. Lower birtrates, non Anglican immigrants, loss of those who were Anglican before the Revolution to death. But mostly because the Episcopal church has historically been more insular and not big on evangelism.
#14,
Precisely. It started dropping as early as the 1800s, as the Presbyterians and Methodists improved their mission strategy and was also affected by the commencement of Catholic immigration in the early 1840s. The best post-Civil War showing was during the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s) when the national church idea was in vogue and the Episcopal share hovered around 5 percent. Ever since then, it’s been on the way down.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
I would also think more Americans self-identify as non-Christian now than 200+ years ago, which would impact the statistics.
He said: “It would be unthinkable if those who believe in original Anglicanism found there was no place for them in the new Anglicanism.â€
++Venables raises a good point about original Anglicanism. The Rev. Dr. Ian T. Douglas, Angus Dun Professor of Mission and World Christianity at Episcopal Divinity School and member of the last Lambeth Conference Design Team said:
This radical innovation in church polity by Bob Duncan and his followers not only contravenes the ancient Christian councils of Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451), but also goes against Lambeth Conference encyclical letters of 1878 and 1888, as well as Lambeth Conference resolutions 1897:24, 1908:22, 1988:72, 1998:V.13, III.2. In addition Paragraph 154 of The Windsor Report clearly states: ‘Whilst there are instances in the polity of Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.’ Seems to me that those who claim to be traditionalist have a very selective view of what the traditions of the Church are.
One problem with that analysis, BfT19: The “parallel jurisdictions” that exist in America were started by 815, not this new province. The dioceses that form it did not overlap TEC’s dioceses in any fashion until 815 resolved to attempt a reformation of rump organizations.
What is more important – Councils or Scripture? Polity or Doctrine?
Jeffersonian
Even if you accept your premise that Dioceses can leave, the only churche recognized as the Anglican Communion in the US is currently TEC. Therefore, when a Dioceses “leaves,” TEC is free to plant missionary Dioceses in that area. However, the point is moot as there is no overlapping jurisdiction because ACNA is not recognized by any of the Instruments of Unity.
Brian, Ian Douglas can be counted upon to parrot the TEC line. After all, as you note, he is a (highly-compensated) prof at EDS, and was a member of the ‘design’ team for the last Lambeth. That was the team that carefully designed a conference which blocked meaningful action by the vast, vast majority of the bishops who remain Christian and fault TEC for wandering far from the Faith. Dr. Douglas is a handy spokesman to the Eastern Establishment press, so TEC uses him as such.
BfT19, I say, what does your good professor say about the elevation of a partnered practicing homosexual to the office of deacon, priest or bishop on the grounds of canons?
His learnedness should also provide you with an explanation of the deposition and un-ordering of Maximus and his alleged ordinands in the very same Council which gave us the suggestion that dioceses should have orthodox bishops and only one of those in each. You know it as the ‘boundary canon’ I believe. Interesting that the Council in question established two very useful precedents, only one of which seems to ever get trotted out in public by the side you propose in the manner you propose.
But do let us hear the answer.
BfT19, I say, what does your good professor say about the elevation of a partnered practicing homosexual to the office of deacon, priest or bishop on the grounds of canons?
He’s not claiming to be a traditionalist
Speaking of “small antigay Christian denominations all over the US,” let’s not forget the Roman Catholic Church.
[blockquote]However, the point is moot as there is no overlapping jurisdiction because ACNA is not recognized by any of the Instruments of Unity. [/blockquote]
Yet. It’s just recognized by most of the Communion. Give TEC another decade of homophilia, non-breeding singles and gulit-ridden hipster couples who have one designer baby at age 38 (who is promptly driven off by hideous liturgical dancing, empty theology and the general Star Wars cantina that TEC surely will be), and it will be just a matter of time before the truly vital, muscular entity in the US is. It will be, as my namesake once said of conquering Canada, “just a matter of walking” into the parishes.
Membership in the Anglican Consultative Council determines membership in the Anglican Communion. Article 3 of the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council vests the authority to make members with the primates: “With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule†of members.
Now I did not know this. If this is the case, why has everyone been looking to Canterbury for action?
BfT19,
He’s not a traditionalist? Just a cherry-picker of canons he likes? Or is that a canonical proof-texter?
If you claim the boundary canon II
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.iii.html)
you have to take it contextually with the other canons passed at that Council and Canon IV by which Maximus the Cynic was deposed and declared never a bishop:
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.v.html)
and all his “ordinations” invalid.
Care to explain or have your expert explain why these canons are not equally valid? And why the interventions of other bishops in the troubled diocese of Maximus were not disciplined for boundary crossing?
“BfT19, I say, what does your good professor say about the elevation of a partnered practicing homosexual to the office of deacon, priest or bishop on the grounds of canons?
He’s not claiming to be a traditionalist”
Obviously, as he just had Polyamorous Marvin speaking at his school and in DioMA again.