Bishop [Robert] Duncan is Archbishop-designate of the ACNA and Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh that is now under the auspices of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone. The Rev. J. Philip Ashey, chief operating officer and chaplain for the American Anglican Council, told The Living Church that Pittsburgh is one of the five applications for recognition as an ACNA diocese that have already been received. The deadline for applications is April 15.
Earlier this month, the Rt. Rev. John H. Chapman, Bishop of Ottawa in the Anglican Church of Canada, said he would authorize a congregation under his oversight to begin performing same-sex blessings in part because “while our church struggles to honor the call for gracious restraint in blessing same-sex unions, those who are proponents of cross-border interventions have and continue to show no restraint.”
That view was echoed this week during the House of Bishops’ spring retreat by Bishop Dan Edwards of Nevada. Bishop Edwards posted a blog entry noting that a number of bishops are considering the repeal of Resolution B033 because of what they perceive as a lack of reciprocal restraint by the ACNA.
From [url=http://bishopdansblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/live-from-kanuga-vii-hob-question-for.html ]”Bishop Dan” of Nevada[/url]:
[blockquote] The Communique acknowledges concientious [sic] objection to the 3 moratoria: new openly gay bishops, same sex blessings, and cross juristiction[sic] interventions (e.g., Southern Cone takeover of San Joaquin). Acknowedging concsientious[sic] objection is both good and bad from our standpoint. In the face of that, they ask for “gracious restraint” in these matters. Restraint is precisely what we passed at the last Convention at the request of Bishop Katharine and outgoing PB Griswold. So the primates are tracking our language. This is a step toward reconciliation.
So here’s the problem. The moratorium on same sex blessings is not likely to survive forever — especially since Southern Cone and others have been violating the other moratorium with reckless abandon if not malice aforethought. They are now even in Nevada, though not in a particularly potent way. There will probably be some move to repeal the “restraint” resolution to comply with the moratoria at General Convention this summer. What to do?
On the one hand, if we just do a 180 and repeal what we did at last Convention, that will be destructive to the commuion, tearing open a wound just beginning to heal. The theology committee is working on its report on human sexuality and that will not be out unitl next year, so taking dramatic action this year, just before the report is getting the cart before the horse.
On the other hand, LGBT folks all over the nation feel diminished by Prop 8. If we maintain the moratoria, that is likely to be seen as our Church aligning with the churches that backed Prop 8 — absolutely untrue, but the appearance may matter more than the reality.
So what to do? I would be interested in hearing from you. [b]I hope you won’t post left vs right rants like you see on Stand Firm or some of those other unsavory blogs.[/b] But serious, sensitive, respectful expressions of opinion would be helpful to me in my discernment. [/blockquote]
Note that ASA of the entire diocese of Nevada is just over 2,000. “Bishop Dan” talks about the fact that there are [i]incursions[/i] into even Nevada “but not in a particularly potent way. If one starts a tiny church of ASA of 20, that’s 1% the tiny diocese of Nevada. We have three church starts according to a [url=”http://www.united-anglicans.org/stream/2009/03/three-new-anglican-churches-form-nevada.html”]recent press release of CCP[/url]. There is also a church in Las Vegas which is part of Anglican Province of Christ the King which has apparently spun of a mission.
I wonder if he thinks that Titus 1:9 is also “unsavory”? Feelings are apparently the main reason that he wants to repeal B033. Yet, what about the SF crew’s feelings? They must be feeling really hurt right now to be called “unsavory.”
Interesting allegation that the foreign incursions are continuing with “reckless abandon.” I have not heard of any new churches or dioceses for a while. And how about that naughty Southern Cone for “taking over” San Joaquin. I can just see ++Venables with some of his South American henchmen with trench coats and dark sunglasses, “Ya’ see, John David, this is the way it’s gonna be. We’re movin’ in and there’s nothin’ you cans do about. Ya’ got that, John David?” The good news, “Bishop Dan”, is that foreign incursions are going to cease with the advent of the ACNA this summer. This will before Gen Con, so no excuses when you repeal B033.
[blockquote]I can just see ++Venables with some of his South American henchmen with trench coats and dark sunglasses, “Ya’ see, John David, this is the way it’s gonna be. We’re movin’ in and there’s nothin’ you cans do about. Ya’ got that, John David?†[/blockquote]
Well, robroy it wasn’t quite like that but they did make us an offer we couldn’t refuse.
Blessings
I am a little confused about the projected timeline. In October, 2008, the diocesan convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh amended Article I of the Constitution of the Diocese to read:
[blockquote]The Church in the Diocese of Pittsburgh is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional churches in communion with the See of Canterbury[/blockquote]
It seems to me at this point, anyway, to depart “from” the Southern Cone and to enter the ACNA, a body of Anglican character but not one that is “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion . . . in communion with the See of Canterbury,” would be a violation of the constitution of the realigned diocese. Although the Southern Cone-related diocese could “associate” with the ACNA, it would seem to me to require a constitutional amendment passed at two successive annual conventions to allow for actual membership.
Anyway, just wondering how that works, in an orderly way.
Bruce Robison
The ACNA might not be a province (at least for the present), but Rowan Williams has made it clear that they are Anglicans in good standing. So the members of the Anglican Communion in a pre-provincial structure. I don’t have problems with that.
Perhaps the ACNA falls into the category of regional churches?
My question isn’t about whether members of the ACNA are Anglicans. I believe they are, and agree entirely with Archbishop Williams on that point. My question is whether the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, now of the Province of the Southern Cone, can “leave” the Southern Cone and become a diocese “of the ACNA,” without an additional amendment to the diocesan constitution. Back in 2007 as we discussed the first reading of this amendment, a great deal was made by its proponents that passage would assure that the diocese would always remain “fully in communion” with the Archbishop of Canterbury. In fact, one of the most persuasive arguments in support of the amendment and of realignment in general was that it was a way to assure full continuity of membership within the Anglican Communion in an era when TEC might well be sent, or might voluntarily assign itself to, “associate” status in the Communion. I know many who voted in favor of realignment did so because, as they said, they “were Anglicans first, not Episcopalians first.” Had the proposal been to realign to an entity of Anglican character but not participating in the formal “instrumental” life of the Anglican Communion, and not in “full communion” with the Archbishop of Canterbury, I think there might have been less enthusiastic support.
Bruce Robison
The Anglican Church in North America will likely include the Episcopal dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, and Quincy that were formerly members of the General Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, the Anglican District of Virginia (including both congregations that were formerly part of the Diocese of Virginia in the PECUSA and congregations that are presently under the episcopal authority of dioceses in the Anglican churches of Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone. [One of these congregations is in the Baltimore area and includes some former members of St. John’s Church, Western Run Parish, in the PECUSA Diocese of Maryland – the congregation whose vestry approved me for ordination some 44 years ago.] Other dioceses in the ACNA will include congregations now part of the Anglican Mission in the Americas and part of the Anglican Communion in Canada.
I can think of at least eight former members of the PECUSA House of Bishops plus three former members of the Canadian House of Bishops plus a number of bishops consecrated under the authority of the Anglican provinces of Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya.
I think the PECUSA House of Bishops made some serious mistakes in purporting to depose some of these bishops and other clergy for seeking to transfer to other parts of the Anglican Communion.
#1 Oh dear – after all the nice things we said about the Hat.
http://www.stfrancismacon.com/images/FatherDan6.jpg
#8. Pageantmaster,
Are you certain that you haven’t confused Father Dan with a photograph of Mammy Yokum?
http://www.deniskitchen.com/docs/bios/bio_capp_characters.html.
The dioceses and parishes under the protection of the Southern Cone have always made it a point to emphasize that this is a TEMPORARY situation, until better more permanent arrangements can be made.
Those of us under Uganda and others feel the same way, and are grateful for this refuge.
In His Peace!
Jim E.
#10, I agree that it was clear to all of us in Pittsburgh that the residence in the Southern Cone was understood as temporary. That’s why the specifics of Provincial “alignment” were placed in a canon, which can be changed at a single convention, rather than in an article of the Constitution, which requires two successive annual conventions for amendment. However, the constitutional article passed here did indicate that whatever the alignment, the diocese would remain “a constituent member of the Anglican Communion” and in “communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury.” I was just curious about how membership in ACNA works in the context of those constitutional requirements, since ACNA will not at least in the near term be a “constituent member” of the AC and will not be formally on the roster of those bodies “in communion” with the Church of England. Folks in Pittsburgh did indicate, many of them, that their support of realignment came in the context of their desire to remain fully within the Anglican Communion–which they are now, as a member of the Southern Cone Province–and there was strong assurance from leadership that this was a shared value and commitment. At least it seemed so at the time to me. So, again, I was just wondering.
Bruce Robison
Allow me to review the bidding. ACNA will not be a Province but it will be independent of the African Provinces and the Southern Cone. Won’t this cancel the “poaching” charges against these Provinces by TEC? Thus, won’t SS marraiges and LGBT ordinations by TEC have to stand on their own “merits”? Statmann
Statmann, whether or not we are recognized as a province is up to the primates, and we all know that. However, our bishops have assurance from Rowan Cantuar that they are in fact bishops in good standing in the Anglican Communion; a good example of whom is my own bishop, John-David Schofield. Therefore, would it not be safe to assume that since they are, our province will in fact be considered a part of the Anglican Communion based on this fact?
Thank you Cennydd, but I still have the question concerning “poaching” being used as an excuse for SS marraiges and LGBT ordinations by TEC. How can TEC use ACNA as an excuse if it is not an “official” entity (Province, etc.)? Will this be stealth “poaching”? Abp Williams can’t punish ACNA by not inviting Abp Duncan to a Primates meeting if Duncan is NOT a Primate. Is it possible that this “situation” could cause a big problem for TEC at GC 2009? Am I confused or is this a valid question? Statmann
Last July, Bishop Venables of the Southern Cone reported this message from the Archbishop of Canterbury:
“I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law…”
Bruce: Good question, but I don’t see how this clause
is necessarily violated if the Diocese of Pittsburgh joins ACNA. The Diocese of Pittsburgh remains a “duly constituted Diocese…in communion with the See of Canterbury” whether it is part of the Southern Cone or part of the ACNA. As Rowan Williams himself has said – the connection with the See of Canterbury is through the diocesan bishop, not the larger Province or other jurisdiction. Accordingly, I would suggest that while you are correct that the ACNA as a whole is not yet a “constituent member of the Anglican Communion”, nevertheless the Dioceses of Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Quincy will remain constituent members nevertheless.
JamesW,
As a member of the Communion Partner Rectors fellowship, I would be delighted to hear a straightforward statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury to say that he will determine “in communion” relationships “through the diocesan bishop, not the larger Province.” He said something tantalyzingly close to this in his communication with Bishop Howe, but the context was rather different, and I’m not sure it would be correct to generalize from that one comment. The Archbishop’s comments regarding Bishop Schofield specifically identified Bishop Schofield as a member of the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, and it is not at all clear to me, given his and Archbishop Cary’s approach to AMiA bishops, that he considers them “in communion.” Validly ordained, to be sure, but in some sense Anglican Vagantes. Perhaps it will be the intention of those ACNA bishops who hold seats in the Houses of Bishops of other Provinces, Southern Cone, Nigeria, Kenya, etc., to retain those seats even as they accept “dual citizenship” in ACNA? Nonetheless, I believe a more formal relationship was implied in much of the advance promotion of realignment. The Church of England maintains a list of those bodies, Anglican and now Lutheran, via the Porvoo agreement, that are “in communion,” and ACNA will not be on that roster, at least for a while. A good number of my lay and clerical friends who supported and joined the realignment but who declined participation previously in AMiA, CANA, etc., told me that being an Anglican not just in spirit and heritage but also in “full communion” with Canterbury was a high priority for them, and that the possibility that TEC would eventually move out of that relationship of full communion was a strong influence on their decision about a way forward. Perhaps their thoughts on this matter have changed, but I was simply surprised to see ACNA emerge so quickly. My belief had been that the intention was for a somewhat longer “transition” in Southern Cone, until the Covenant process was further along and the status of TEC more clearly defined.
Bruce Robison
Bruce: I see your point, but isn’t the fact that Schofield’s Lambeth invitation was not withdrawn (whatever else the rumors say, the invitation was not withdrawn) indicate that Schofield remains “in communion” with the See of Canterbury?
Further, my impression with the ACNA was that its member bishops would remain a part of whatever AC jurisdiction they are currently a member of. It is one of the things that I am both bothered by yet encouraged by. Bothered because it makes it very plain that the ACNA is not really a “Province” by any stretch of the imagination. Encouraged because I don’t think that the ACNA should sever ties to their supervising Anglican Provinces until a Communion agreement is in place.
James writes, “Encouraged because I don’t think that the ACNA should sever ties to their supervising Anglican Provinces until a Communion agreement is in place. ”
I absolutely agree with this. That way, the ACNA will have their own can own version of a Communion Partners plan.
RE: “I hope you won’t post left vs right rants like you see on Stand Firm or some of those other unsavory blogs.”
One can hardly imagine the joy and honor it is to be deemed an “unsavory” blog by the likes of the bishop of Nevada.
My heart leaps within me and sings a new song.
Obviously, if someone estimable and honorable and whose mind and faith I respected called us “unsavory” I’d be somewhat depressed. For instance — if Kendall said “that unsavory blog,” I might rend my clothes.
But the bishop of Nevada?
Who knew we could receive such words of favor and compliment from him?!?
Even Mondays can be days of blessing!
I wonder something though. I wonder if perhaps the bishop of Nevada might add to his description with some other compliments.
Is it possible that he could think me . . . [i]The Very Meanest Blogger Ever?[/i]
I do hope that he will weigh in. All of us have wondered.
I think that if the bishop of Nevada. Or the Buddhist bishop elect. Or Bishop Robinson. Or some other worthies ever offered that title, my cup of joy would overflow and I should go to my grave happy.
So think about it. Read a few past posts. Ponder my comments — Uninclusively Cruel in their direct quotes of foolish “arguments”, Mean-Spirited in their rationales, Deeply Divisive in their constant pointings out of various incoherencies and inconsistencies . . .
I could be it.
I could be [b]The Very Meanest Blogger Ever[/b].
If the bishop of Nevada could possibly mention me — and make some sort of assertion like that . . . I would be forever grateful. Let’s not stop at little old StandFirm — that’s too general and vague anyway — people might not know what you’re talking about — and it’s as indirect as other bishops mentioning “fasting from the Divisive Internets” of a few years ago. No, let’s get a little more pointed, a little more direct, a little more personal.
Let’s mention . . . The Meanest Most Divisive Most Cruelest Blogger Ever.