TEC Distributes ‘Talking Points’ in Advance of CoE Debate Over Communion with ACNA

They forgot the part about thumbing their nose at the rest of the communion when they consecrated VGR after being told it would tear the fabric of the communion.

Hang on, what happened to the “We’re autonomous and so are you” so we can both do exactly what we want, talking point?

Oh this is funny! Thank you, Greg, for brightening my day!

This brings real smiles on a rainy morning in Texas.

My oh my. Nothing like squashing the AAC memo by saying “look. Those really are not Anglican Churches. No need to worry about them.” Oh, and they left off a point “- The checks in the mail.”

Let me get this straight: when an American shows up with Global South bishops with whom he agrees, it’s improper influence and, probably, leading the savage “around by the nose.”  And when Mrs. Schori shows up to interfere in a synod of which she isn’t a part, that’s entirely proper and an honorable defense of her organization’s interests.  Hypocrisy, anyone?

P.S.  Poor Father Jake, and the rest: out of jobs due to a supposed critical budget problem, and yet, if the reporting here is correct, Schori still jetsets off to merry old England at the drop of a hat.

I see the Church Times has an opening for a proofreader.
“491 clergy inhibited or deposed in legislation estimated to cost $30 million.” Surely the actual quote was “litigation”, not “legislation”.

Um, since when is ACNA not part of the AC? Didn’t Neva hear about that relationship with the Southern Cone? Or is the S. Cone not part of the AC now too? Somebody needs to fill her in! What rot…

#7 - No, I think that is correct. It’s probably written for an European audience who will understand the intent meaning of “legislation”, like the kind the Nazi Party passed over formal procedures and in indifference of law as they crushed any and all opposition.
I’m starting to get British humor!

#5 -
And, I bet she didn’t travel in coach either!

Indaba and a checkbook…that’s our gal Katie!
Intercessor

Surely Jefferts Schori’s efforts are an unwarranted interference in the affairs of another Province.  I am shocked, shocked.

I thought the Communion was still in the “process of reception” with reference to female ordination?  I thought that there were still Provinces and Dioceses which are indubitably still part of the official Anglican Communion which don’t ordain women, or which don’t consecrate female bishops?  Including, so far, the CofE? I thought those holding the traditional view were to be respected?  This is now to be labeled as bigotry and a reason to have nothing to do with the ACNA?  Wow.  I’m behind on the news.

Yes, this email was intended to be private among TEC bishops. Yes, we’re posting it.

Does Mark Harris know about this???? Prepare for double twisted blue in the face hold my breath until you cry uncle diatribe of Biblical…er I mean Newsweek…proportions.
Thanks for sharing.
Intercessor

ACNA is lead [sic] by an archbishop who is not a member of The Episcopal Church…

Apparently, TEC also has an opening for a proofreader, as “lead” rather than “led” was not caught.  At the very least, the 2 $500/hr “name of law firm edited so I don’t get sued” lawyers who reviewed the talking points should have caught this, or the grad school intern clerk who actually did all the work.
At any rate, that he is not a member of TEC is a feature, not a bug.

ACNA is lead [sic] by an archbishop who is not a member of…..The Anglican Communion.

Hmmmm….something fishy here. I have seen pictures of him from Lambeth ‘08, where I think he even wore his pointy hat and received communion from the Archbishop of Canterbury.  I can’t find anything written before or since by any authority of the Anglican Communion to indicate that he has been excommunicated. Perhaps we should poll the Primates on who is and who is not an Anglican.

Overall, I could have come up with better talking points for TEC than this, and I am on the ACNA side.  I mean, the average CoE bishop will toss these out on the basis of grammatical errors alone.

I think talking-point 3 basically says “don’t vote to include these guys in your club, because they are not in your club.”  Seems rather vacuous.

Many of the points seem to be arguments against excluding the Episcopal Church, but there is no motion to exclude the Episcopal Church.

Is it really honest to say “The Episcopal Church is a member province of the worldwide Anglican Communion” when they have been excommunicated by the majority of global provinces?  At last they did not say “member in good standing…”

Katie….Border Crosser!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Intercessor

subscribe

Apparently, TEC also has an opening for a proofreader

tj,

Perhaps they can pay for it out of the Evangelism budget.

OH WAIT.

#16 - LOL - more British humor! Another Nazi reference!

While you are posting things from listserves, has anyone else noticed the utter silence of the HoBD listserve? Not a word since Saturday on ANY subject that involves ++Mouneer, ACI, ABoC, CoE Synod, Naughton….

If I didn’t know better, I’d think the server was down.  Except for the 1/2 dozen emails on completely innocuous subjects.

Or maybe they have just stopped sending to kibbitzers.

Or maybe (you don’t think, do you?) the listserve is being moderated so the CoE kibbitzers don’t read what the “leaders” of TEC had to say about ++Mouneer, ACI, ABoC, CoE Synod, Naughton….

Or maybe it is just me and everyone else who I know who are signed up as kibbitzers who are not getting our usual service, and the erudite and charitable conversations continue for everyone else.

1.  I can’t believe the talking points don’t mention how TEC has followed both the spirit and the letter of the Windsor report.

2.  Also missing is how TEC has tried to mediate the conflicts as a “win-win” with Orthodox parishes and dioceses instead of filing expensive lawsuits.

Don’t stand close by - lightning will be striking me soon. 

tj,

Perhaps they can pay for it out of the Evangelism budget.

OH WAIT.

Good point, Greg.  I would probably be better off applying directly to the law firm- I’m sure they pay better anyway.

B. Hunter-

Don’t stand close by - lightning will be striking me soon.

Good Lord, man, were you such a fool as to read talking points from TEC WITHOUT YOUR TINFOIL HAT ON????????

Oh my, look at those pictures from Jamaica! Not a tin foil hat in the room.  That does explain a lot, doesn’t it?

- The Episcopal Church laity and clergy believe the Christian faith as stated in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.

Hey, this is good news, isn’t it?  Doesn’t it mean that the PB and others have repented of earlier well-publicized assertions and that they now fully embrace creedal Christianity?  Surely they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this statement. 

Surely they are not being cynical. 

Surely not. 

Maybe not. 

Oh, wait.

Methinks Schori is doing ACNA a favor: http://wannabeanglican.blogspot.com/2010/02/schori-does-acna-favor.html
I cannot see her lobbying being well received.

The Episcopal Church welcomes all who wish to serve God through Jesus Christ.

Surely that should be changed to:
“The Episcopal Church welcomes <bold>the money of</bold> all who wish to serve God through Jesus Christ.”

The Episcopal Church welcomes women in ordained ministry - deacons, priests and bishops. The Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church is the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the first woman to lead The Episcopal Church as well as any of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion. ACNA does not permit women to serve as bishops and, in some areas, bars women from all ordination.

The CofE doesn’t have women bishops either….

It is an inaccurate and misleading image that pictures those who have broken away from The Episcopal Church as the persecuted faithful, when in reality those who have remained have felt deeply hurt, and now in some cases are exiled from their own church buildings by ACNA.

This isn’t a fact at all. Its an opinion, and a wrong opinion at that. (now thats a fact)

Hmmm…..Neva seems to forget that other provinces don’t ordain women, either, yet TEC is in communion with them, aren’t they?  Keep yer snoot out, Katie girl!

I was thinking also that Katie must have had a fit of repentance, so that she can say with a straight face that “the laity and clergy believe. . . the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds”. When did she stop believing that Christ is only “a” Way, not The Way? Or that to believe in Him as one’s personal Savior is not only heresy buy idolatry? What hypocracy!
desert padre

In response to

- The Episcopal Church laity and clergy believe the Christian faith as stated in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. We call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible. We look to the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the understanding of the Scriptures. Our assurance as Christians is that nothing, not even death, shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I cite pages 4-17 of the AAC’s report “Tearing the Fabric to Shreds”.

I especially recommend the entire section on the “Heresy of the Presiding Bishop” as well as the album of pictures at the end of the document.

Here is an especially good snippet:

“You don‘t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,” she added. “What‘s important is to worship together.”
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, San Diego Union-Tribune, April 5, 2008

Maybe Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation will make a complete spectacle of herself in her Oven Mitt and Table Cloth, overreach her boundaries, and completely tick off our CofE friends…revealing herself for who she really is…a border-crossing tyrant with bad taste.

Or maybe (you don’t think, do you?) the listserve is being moderated so the CoE kibbitzers don’t read what the “leaders” of TEC had to say about ++Mouneer, ACI, ABoC, CoE Synod, Naughton….

It certainly looks like moderation to me. Birthday greetings and “where can I find” are the only things that have shown up in my mailbox, and not much of that. Very odd for the past few days when there has been so much news. Maybe they’re all in the sweat lodge and don’t have wifi.

Back to the argument of who’s in the Communion and who isn’t:  All of the bishops and clergy…..and by extension, all of us laity…..who went to the Province of the Southern Cone for protection…..are represented in the Communion.  Not a single one of us has been told by Canterbury that we’re not part of the Communion, but Schori has opened her mouth (through Neva Rae Fox) and said that we’re not.  Who does this woman think she is…..telling us this?  Who gave her the authority to say this?  We never left the Communion, but TEC sure did…..even though they still claim otherwise!

Yes, you would think that the “apparently inconsequential” little movements that so distress TEC wouldn’t do so, however they do. Back on 2003-2004 two priests in the DOT were sent Godly Admonition letters from Don Wimberly, then Bp. of DOT, and as I recall the letters to these two good men thinly veiled an implied threat of inhibition if they did not comply to the demands of the GA letter. Their offense against the DOT: they had agreed to preach on a Friday evening to a group of about 14 people, meeting in a Baptist church’s upstairs Sunday school classroom, who were attempting to get an AMiA congregation going on the West side of Houston. 14 people… Friday night in Houston… threat…

Blessings,

IHN
mark+

Fr. Mark R. Turner
Missionary Priest - All Saints Anglican Church

“I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run I feel His pleasure. “
Eric Liddel from the movie, Chariots of Fire

Cennydd-
“Not a single one of us has been told by Canterbury that we’re not part of the Communion,”

Ahhh, but you see, the entire point of the “Bishop’s amendment” at the CoE Synod is to tell all of us that we are not.  It is to make clear to the whole world that we are not in communion with the see of Canterbury.  This is why KJS is personally going to England, and why every TEC bishop is being instructed to bring pressure on their friends in England, why commentary on the HoBD appears to be shut down, and why there is so much subterfuge going on.

The point is to excommunicate us from Canterbury, officially.  With the proviso, of course, that the Archbishops study the situation, and make a recommendation in a few years about whether we are worthy of communion with them.

Now, in all likelihood, Bishop Hill doesn’t see his amendment that way, but from any sort of catholic perspective from the last 2000 years, that is what the amendment accomplishes.

Those “apparently inconsequential little movements” that Schori and Company are so afraid of (they are, actually, or Schori wouldn’t be interfering in the CofE’s Synod) are a lot bigger than they care to admit, and they’re giving them fits.

34.  That may be, tjmcmahon, but any CofE bishop who is not sucking up to Schori should be sensible enough to see through Hill’s nefarious scheme.  They’re not all stupid enough to be so foolish as to kowtow to an arrogant woman who has deliberately and un-canonically assumed powers which TEC’s General Convention has never given her.  And TEC’s House of Bishops bloody well knows it!  And besides, the Communion has no procedure by which they can excommunicate anybody, except to ignore them…..and they never have had such a procedure….nor are they likely to ever have one.

ROTFLMHO!

Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain or her schill.

You know, if the amendment passes, it will be more than a bit ironic that while I am a baptized (shortly after birth) and confirmed Anglican the pathway to communion with the See of Peter will be more direct than the pathway to the See of Canterbury.  The former I can do based upon my own discernment of the will of our Lord.  The Pope will welcome me if I am willing to cross the threshold and accept those few tenets of the Catholic Church that I do not already accept. The latter will apparently require several years of politics in the English Synod, and by all appearances, the permission of the Presiding Bishop of TEC to allow the CoE synod to extend such privilege to me.  Even though I already accept the tenets of the Anglican Communion, and there is record of my vows to that effect.
  That is to say, if the amendment passes I would literally be able to receive Holy Communion in St. Peter’s Basilica before I would be able to receive it in Canterbury Cathedral.

Cennydd,
Oh, I think that ++Rowan is opening a huge can of worms for himself with this amendment.  What is he planning to do if it passes?  Depose all the Anglo Catholic flying bishops for remaining in Communion with FiFNA?  You can bet some revisionist will push the point, and bring charges against a vicar somewhere for communing ACNA members.  Will they start carding everyone at the door of the Church?  Let in the TEC, ELCA, UMC, Buddhists, atheists, but make sure that no ACNA member crosses the threshold.  Make us get re-baptized if we move over there? The whole thing is such a farce, the script might as well have been written by Monte Python.
  At the next ACNA council, someone should put forward a polite resolution stating that all members in good standing of the CoE are welcome at our altar rail, and we accept the orders of the CoE.  If we even need to do that, since we have never questioned either proposition.

Is it too cynical to infer that the Presiding Bishop is going to the UK with the prior knowledge (and consent) of the ABC?

The pattern since Dromantine is dismaying: whenever any portion of the Communion attempts to interfere with TEC’s agenda, the ABC, the ACO, the Presiding Bishop, etc. intervene. The intervention is always, to the extent possible, behind the scenes. The ABC prefers to thwart action indirectly, using subterfuge, procedure and obfuscation, without openly stating his agreement with TEC on the merits of TEC’s revisionist agenda. By contrast, the Presiding Bishop intervenes directly and bluntly to bribe or threaten the target group to take the action she wants.

What a tag team Rowan and Katherine make! Caiaphas himself would admire their professional skill.

TJ: (while I pray for you to swim the Tiber) I got confused along the way. I thought this proposal was a good thing—so who is Hill and what nefarious scheme is he cooking up? And while I’m at it, does anyone know if the recognition of ACNA would merely be an add-on, as opposed to excluding TEC from C of E recognition, or would it mean the latter (i.e. being dropped from councils, etc.)? It seems from the way KJS is acting, she believes this to be a very dire move. Dave

David,
Bishop Hill is the poor fellow who is putting forth the amendment to the “communion with ACNA” resolution.  His amendment strikes all the words of the original after: “Resolved, this Synod shall” and inserts a lot of language about how the CoE knows that ACNA wants to be part of the Communion, and that the Archbishops should mull it over and report back to Synod in a year or 2.

You may recall, that once upon a time, you and I signed a petition supporting a resolution put before the diocesan convention in W Michigan that resolved that the diocese of W. Michigan would adhere to the recommendations of the Windsor report.  You remember what happened to said resolution after the bishop’s henchmen were done amending it?  The bishop’s amendment to the CoE resolution is kinda like that.

Now TJ why would you want to dredge up such unpleasant memories? Some things are never forgotten…but thanks for the info. There are indeed some chilling similarities.

DavidSh-
I recall it being said once that in order to overthrow a petty dictator, you need a small cadre of dedicated military officers and enough troops to take over the government offices and hold them until you get hold of the army payroll.  By comparison, in order to overthrow a parliamentary democracy, all you need a copy of Roberts Rules of Order.

We’re hearing reports that Katharine Schori has arrived in England, presumably to monitor and influence to the extent she can the debate in the Synod

I cannot see why the English would have any objections, they are, after all, under her authority.  As PB, she has personal jurisdiction over Europe, Whalon is just her suffragan.  And if English bishops do not recognize her authority, she will charge them with border crossing and depose them.  Which no one would take seriously, if she had not already actually done it once.

Neva Rae Fox, welcome to the Anglican Communion’s “no spin zone.”  Your time on the air with us has been truly hilarious.  Please do come back to see us again soon.

Is it too cynical to infer that the Presiding Bishop is going to the UK with the prior knowledge (and consent) of the ABC?

These days, I’m not sure there is anything that is *too* cynical.

Well, after the CoE Synod, I think Katie has to go on to heaven to make sure God has it all together in the proper way, too.

All this fuss over the HoB/D Listserv…..incredible. I mean after all these bishops and clergy that the left are worried that might pick something up on the Listserv have e-mail addresses…why not flood them with e-mails letting them know what the left is doing and why KJS is on her way over there? The Listserv is not the only way to communicate….so lets get to communicating and tell our clergy to do the same….there is after all more than one way to descale a descale a fish no matter how stinky.

Time for the CoE to thumb its nose back at TEC.

Do you think it would be a bad idea use the e-mail posted and set them staright…. letting them know that ACNA has gained over 60 churches in the last 4-6 months, while TEC loses the equivalent of a diocese or more every year??? I think I might just let them know!

Welcome back NB&S…been awhile.
Intercessor

Hey, GO AHEAD, texaspiper!

I think this is absolutely fascinating, and particularly these latest panic efforts of TEC to exclude ACNA to the extent of putting up Simon Sarmiento as their apologist and sending over the PB.  A motion about our desire to affirm formally our communion with ACNA is rapidly turning into a trial of TEC before the Synod of the Church of England.  TEC has only itself to blame.

1. Just think of Schori as a lobbyist!
2. “- It is an inaccurate and misleading image that pictures those who have broken away from The Episcopal Church as the persecuted faithful, when in reality those who have remained have felt deeply hurt, and now in some cases are exiled from their own church buildings by ACNA.”
I did not see an invitation to actually join the pity party. One wonders if the sherry will be from Spain or California! Probably the latter, considering recent history.
3.”- The Episcopal Church laity and clergy believe the Christian faith as stated in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds.”
Does this mean that Spong has now been ‘dismembered’ or whatever they now call it?

Rdr. James

ACNA is lead [sic] by an archbishop who is not a member of The Episcopal Church, The Church of England, the Anglican Church of Canada, or The Anglican Communion.

um… Has the PB not heard of the Porvoo Agreement? Churches do not have to be part of the Anglican Communion for us to be in communion with them.

Besides, I can confidently predict that so long as the orthodox bishops speak loudly and clearly in support of the motion the motion will pass.
The Presiding Bishop hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

Neva Rae Fox forgot the most important “talking point” of all:

American Money.

Money talks, and the Church of England will gladly receive the message.

I think it’s more accurate to say that the Anglican Consultative Council and the Anglican Communion Office will receive TEC’s money….or should I say “bribe?”

Hi All,

At precisely 01:05 this morning we had a power loss for exactly one second!  Could that be an American Presiding Bishop touching down in England.

Rocking the Isle, sorry boat!

She must fancy her chances with our General Synod here you know.  Some of them will believe anything these days!

Women priests and bishops?  They will be promoting homosexuals to the priesthood next and calling them practicing sinners!

But isn’t Jesus wonderful, He gave me my computer back intact, I wonder whether I should do a penance!

Yours in Christ,

Colin2000.

Cennydd, I don’t think it boils down to money for the CofE. But I think TEC and the PB are kicking up enough dust that it’s going to be hard for anyone across the water to really know how things are going here and what TEC “stands” for.

We call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible. We look to the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the understanding of the Scriptures.

 
They left out the part about:
Q:  How do we recognize the truths taught by the Holy Spirit?
A:  We recognize truths taught by the Holy Spirit when they are in accord with the Scriptures.  BCP page 853
Perhaps a little reeducation is in order.   
IHSV,
NW Bob

It is not quiet on the Listserv any longer….William Fleener, Jr and Ann Fontaine have piped up…of course William Fleener, Jr. states,
“It is easy for those of us who have struggled
with these people for so long to forget how truly evil some of their actions have been. This memo is a good synopsis of who the dissidents are.  You can read the response here” http://estanimalegis.blogspot.com/2010/02/response-to-dissidents.html

Then I think it would be prudent if a true expose’ of what TEC is really all about were to be sent to the CofE House of Bishops, and especially to those bishops who are perspicacious enough to see through Schori’s smoke and mirrors strategy, and to do it immediately before the resolution comes up for a vote.

Let us note that this report is based on source material provided by:

Acknowledgements:

In compiling this note I have consulted David Booth Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop and Mary E. Kostel, Special Counsel to the Presiding Bishop for property litigation and discipline. I have also been assisted by: the Revd Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG, the Revd Scott Gunn, and Ms Susan Erdey of the Church Pension Group.

All perfectly neutral observers there (for those who do not know me, that was sarcasm).  Interesting that the PB’s attorneys are discussing ongoing cases with the press.  Well, if Thinking Anglicans can be considered the press.

57 and 58- I think it is going too far to suggest that the bishops of CoE, or even the ACC, are in TECs employ or receiving “bribes.”  Certainly, there are any number of very good men wearing purple shirts over there, and we would have been blessed to have had them in TEC- no doubt we would not be where we are. I may be overreacting myself in some comments above, since the vote has not actually been taken it is more a matter of fear that the motion will never come to the floor.  If the CoE in its wisdom determines that we are not in communion, then we will have to deal with that when the time comes.  But whatever our other opinions, it does our own cause no good to fabricate conspiracies- there is enough real intrigue going on without inventing more with little or no evidence.

Although it’s not listed in the ‘official’ talking points, we’ve oft heard 815ers say that ACNA is illicit by its very nature because there already is a national Church in the USA, and there can’t be two geographically-overlapping Anglican jurisdictions…

I hope that her PBness offers that argument. I also hope that someone will then point out to her that the Archbishop of Canterbury has, under his Bishop of Gibralter, dozens of parishes in Spain and Portugal. He also has two national churches, one each in Portugal and in Spain, that are… Extra-Provincial Dioceses under the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus, not only are geographically-overlapping Anglican jurisdictions possible, there are at least two that report directly to the ABC. [And, of course, every American federal prison, VA hospital, and military chaplain serves under the PB’s Suffragan for Federal Chaplaincies, and doesn’t even need to be licensed by the bishop of the diocese where the chaplain is located. Chaplains keep their canonical residency in the diocese from which they entered the chaplaincy, meaning that a military chaplain with 20+ years of service may have served without being licensed in a dozen different dioceses without ever setting foot again in his “home diocese”. [When I retired from the Navy, I was still canonically resident in my old diocese, despite the fact that I’d never even met the current bishop!] Sounds like a bit of geographic overlap from here, but I suppose that if you work for one of the PBs suffragans, it doesn’t count.

Note to tjmcmahon (#45): I hate to give 815 credit for anything, but her PBness and +Pierre Whalon don’t claim jurisdiction over all Europe: only those countries with no national Anglican Churches.  There are no TEC parishes in Spain or Portugal, let alone Great Britain. Americans in Iberia are expected to partake of local cuisine, so to speak.  However, the Brits who live in Portugal and Spain for the most part refuse to have anything to do with the national Anglican Churches, and are seen as feeling themselves far too superior to be part of (gasp!) an ‘indigenous’ Church. And yes, there can be a certain amount of hard feelings…

TEC’s opposition the Church of England being in communion with the Anglican Church in North America has a lot in common with Planned Parenthood’s opposition to the Tebow Super Bowl ad.

The Tebow ad doesn’t condemn abortion, it simply applauds the fact that Tebow’s mother chose to give him life.  The motion before the CofE’s General Synod doesn’t condemn TEC, it simply recognizes that there are other Anglicans in North America with whom Anglicans in England might want to be in communion.

It is all right for TEC to be in full communion with ELCA Lutherans, and it apparently all right for TEC parishes to give communion to those who aren’t even baptized.  But they don’t want the Church of England to be in communion with other Anglicans.  How… um… uninclusive!

ToAllTheWorld…it is also hypocritical

And utterly distasteful.

And Katharine Jefferts Schori has no right to tell anyone who they should or shouldn’t be in communion with.  And neither does anyone else!

and a grave offense to the Body of Christ…
Intercessor

Conego (65) My remarks about the PB claiming all of Europe were meant as humor.  However, her “European jurisdiction” does have a lot to do with the TEC claim to churches in 16 countries- in some cases, I think, 1 church in some countries.  Not sure if the 16 countries counts a chaplain in Afghanistan (if any of the current chaplains in Afghanistan is TEC).  It is interesting though that TEC makes such a big deal out of “16 countries” since in effect they are border crossing into areas of Central and South America, Caribbean, and Pacific (Taiwan), all of which logically should be part of other Anglican jurisdictions.  It is interesting that England so readily freed its former colonial churches to the new provinces, but TEC kept things just as they were.

ToAlltheWorld,
We will have to pray that the Bishops of the Church of England remember that there was a time when the word “Communion” referred to shared Sacraments, and not an international bureaucracy overseeing a variety of carefully nuanced agreements.  The original resolution was asking for shared Sacraments, the bishops amendment is essentially a statement that the ACNA is not a member of the bureaucracy and will need to go through channels to become one.  Well, we all know that.  To a layman, the bureaucracy is relevant only when it gets between him and sharing the Sacraments our Lord commanded.  And then it is not a good thing.  We just want assurance that as members of ACNA, we will be welcome to take communion in a church in England, and that a CoE priest will not be breaking rules if he celebrates the Eucharist in one of our churches.  That’s all.
  And while we are praying, lets not forget to give thanks for those of our sisters and brothers in England who proposed and support the original resolution- win or lose.

  And while we are praying, lets not forget to give thanks for those of our sisters and brothers in England who proposed and support the original resolution- win or lose.

Amen, TJ. And a good assessment of communion vs. bureaucracy.

These are indeed, interesting times.  We shall see if the CoE joins TEC in taking measures to ensure traditional believers are excluded.  Sort of a reverse of the great commission, if you think about it.  What kind of church does this make?

tjmcmahon (#14) wrote:

Hmmmm….something fishy here. I have seen pictures of him from Lambeth ‘08, where I think he even wore his pointy hat and received communion from the Archbishop of Canterbury.  I can’t find anything written before or since by any authority of the Anglican Communion to indicate that he has been excommunicated.

This past Saturday, a number of ACNA leaders, including +Duncan and +Iker, attended +Rowan’s Schmemann Lecture at St. Vladimir’s Seminary. The ACNA folks appeared to be on good terms with +Rowan - and with TEC conservatives, as well (not to mention with the Orthodox). +KJS’s efforts to separate the sheep from the goats cannot succeed because 1) they don’t want to be separated, and 2) there is no secure holding pen to keep them from wandering around and intermingling.

Find it ironic when these missives from TEC seek to assure others that TEC believes in the creeds and Christianity basics.  How many are crossing their fingers behind their back again?  They have to keep writing it because no one believes it. 

The other irony is how the new TEC followers keep saying that their brand allows you to have a brain and think for yourself (falsely implying that conservative beliefs preclude that), why do they have to keep printing out “talking points”?  Can’t these bishops think for themselves?  Or is this another veiled attempt to establish “heirarchy”?

Roland,
I hope you understood that I meant that the PB’s charge that ++Duncan is not an Anglican is what I saw as “fishy” and not ++Duncan’s attendance at Lambeth.

I did read about the attendance at St. Vladimir’s Seminary with some interest.  One imagines that it may have been that Metropolitan Jonah, who has been a great friend to us indeed, who invited the ACNA bishops, if Archbishop Williams did not do so himself.  One hopes they all had the opportunity for some conversation.  And/or that someone thought to snap a picture of handshakes and warm smiles among them.

The St. Vladimir’s website article is here:
http://www.svots.edu/archbishop-of-canterbury-receives-honorary-doctorate-from-st-vladimirs/
and the Living Church take is here:
http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2010/2/2/archbishop-received-warmly-at-orthodox-seminary

I sent an email to TEC regarding this matter and this is what I was sent back:

“Thank you for your note and your thoughts. All views are appreciated.
Faithfully,
Neva Rae Fox
Neva Rae Fox
Public Affairs Officer
The Episcopal Church
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
212-716-6080 Mobile: 917-478-5659”

Although it was less 15 words I did enjoy “all views are appreciated”. Appreciated? It should have read “all opposing views are sued, deposed and slandered”.

Given the emphasis on the “listening process”, why “talking points”? Perhaps we could propose listening points.

Perhaps the first listening point should be “Be still, and know that I am God.” (Psalm 46:10)

“I will believe that the white I see is black, if KJS says so” (With apologies to St. Ignatius [rule 13]).

Our Lord’s command in Matthew 5:43-45 is hard
but extremely important to remember. Thank you everyone,
and especially tjmcmahon.  After being a lifelong
Episcopalian of 57 years, I was received into full
communion with the Church of Rome almost three years ago,
through RCIA, and am happier than I ever imagined I would be. (I cannot forget this unfortunate Anglican
situation because of my mother and other friends and
relatives who still belong.)  I am sure that Our Holy
Father will join me in inviting all disenchanted
Anglicans to go all the way and take the step in their
faith journey which I’ve taken.  As tjmcmahon knows, it’s
easier than ever provided you do it in sincere faith.
It’s easier for an Anglican to go over to Rome than it
was when I did it (had to take a seven-month course to
teach me what I already knew).  If you really want to
join us, I can promise you you’ll never regret it. I
must emphasize that this does not apply to anyone who’s
perfectly happy where they are.

Paul, from one new Catholic to another, my intentions yesterday at the Rosary (they pray it every Friday after noon Mass, for the “intentions of Our Lady”) were for the defeat of whatever forces Mrs. Schori was bringing with her from this country to the Synod. Of course it goes without saying I agree with the rest of what you said as well.

Thank you, DavidSh; I’m at long last learning that both
the Rosary and the Divine Mercy are wonderful
prayers, which, by the way, anyone may say.
I agree that we must pray for the Anglican Communion in
general and the Episcopal Church in particular; I’m in
a quandary about just what prayers would be most
appropriate in this oh-so-perplexing situation (which I
really cannot divorce myself from now that Our Holy Father has made a point of reaching out to Anglicans.)
I think what I’m called to pray for is those most re-
sponsible for causing all the turmoil, in particular the
Presiding Bishop—not so much their defeat as their
conversion to a more Christlike attitude.  By the way,
did you know that a revision has been approved in the
regular (not Anglican use) Roman liturgy which, I
think, will make it closer to the 1928 Prayer Book?
Something tells me I’m going to feel really
at home!

You’re right Paul, I should be praying for conversion instead of defeat—chalk it up to some latent anger from my TEC days!
  Good news indeed about the liturgy. I always loved the ‘28 BCP, and we know the Roman Rite could stand some improvement in its language.

I’m in a quandary about just what prayers would be most
appropriate in this oh-so-perplexing situation…

PaulA,, an appropriate and all-encompassing prayer might be the “Fatima embolism” to the Rosary (and as I usually pray it in Portuguese, my translation may not exactly match English-language usage): O my good Jesus, forgive us and deliver us from the fire of Hell; carry all souls unto Heaven, particularly those most in need of Thy infinite mercy.”

As an Anglo-Catholic and member of the Society of Mary, I prayed the Rosary for years in English. The “Our Lady of Charleston” cell of the SOM at the Church of the Holy Communion in Charleston, SC made many hundreds (thousands?) of single-decade cord rosaries which we sent to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan—I’d found a source for cammie-colored cord, and we used knots instead of beads because they are silent, and blackened the crucifixes and medals so as not to reflect light… it seemed a poor idea to offer the troops rosaries that would get them killed! (I’m a medically-retired military chaplain.)

Each contained instructions on the traditional means of using the rosary, for Roman and Anglican Catholics, and ideas for their use by Protestant or Eastern Orthodox Marines, sailors and soldiers, involving the repition of either the Our Father/Lord’s Prayer or the Jesus Prayer. Many were distributed by TEC chaplains in the field, others we sent directly to base command chaplains (of whatever faith group)in-country.  They were apparently well-received, from what we heard back, and I was told about at least one Baptist Marine who carried one with him and asked for a second to be mailed to his mom back home (who was probably horrified!).

Still, it’s amazing how having total strangers trying to kill you tends to focus the mind on what is truly important…

I’m no longer in the US (and thus out of the PBs reach), volunteering as a very part-time priest of the Igreja Lusitana.  Given the heritage of Portuguese Anglicanism (we were founded as an independent Church after leaving Rome at the same time as the Old Catholics, but were guided, supported and ordained by British and Irish evangelical Anglicans; we only officially made an Extra-Provincial Diocese in the Anglican Communion a couple of decades ago), I find that I am pretty much the token Anglo-Catholic priest in the entire national Church here—and as I said, I´m very part-time,since my health won’t let me be more than a Sunday Mass Priest/preacher. We compromise…  I face the congregation across the altar, instead of facing the altar with the congregation, and they don’t comment on how I seem to move my hands around and bow too much, and everyone gets along. (The clergy shortage here is such that, if they didn’t have me rotating between four parishes in the Porto/Gaia area, one congregation would have no priest… every deacon and priest in the country is either bivocational or was before retiring from their secular work, including the bishop! At the same time, though, the Church here in the north co-sponsors multiple programs for both poor children and the indigent elderly, and is active in ecumenical programs with the Roman Catholic Church as well as the small Methodist and Presbyterian churches).

If Sarah Hey won’t object to a little bit of off-topic recruiting/begging (think of this as a commercial break in the midst of the show): If anyone knows of a Portuguese-speaking priest with a pension who is willing to serve here, the need is great indeed, as my health won’t let me stay forever. For that matter, if anyone knows of a parish with old vestments, chalices or patens, altar cloths, etc. stuck in the back of a closet somewhere, we’re short on those, too: no parish owns vestments, expecting the priest to bring his own, for instance.

And thinking about these “Talking Points”, the very fact that I was able to step (okay, limp) into my position here, and that as a Navy chaplain who was an Episcopal priest I was welcomed to celebrate, concelebrate or preach in Anglican Churches in Bahrein, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Australia, underscores the sad bizarreness of 815’s declaring that those who’ve joined the Southern Cone have somehow “renounced their orders” in the Anglican Communion.  One thing that was abundantly clear to me was that the Communion, the Body of Christ, may be constituted of, but cannot be limited by, ‘national’ churches. I am not easily accused of being some kind of radical anti-American leftist (I’m a retired military officer, for pete’s sake!), but I also know that the Church is the Body of Christ, while national boundaries were made by human beings (usually at gunpoint!). I’m American, but I am Christian first, and the idea that having your ‘hierarchy’ go through the Southern Cone rather than 815 to reach Canterbury means that you’ve “abandoned Communion” implies either a complete disregard or a sad lack of understanding of what it means to be ‘in Communion’- what it means to be a Christian. Communion has nothing to do with what secular governmental passport your Arch/Presiding Bishop carries, and everything to do with being part of the Body of Christ. I am so tired, and saddened, hearing the constant refrain from much of the American hierarchy, repeating to the rest of th world, “I am an eye: Ear, I have no need of you!” (I Cor. 12:14-27).

But that was one of St. Paul’s “Talking Points”... and we nowadays wouldn’t have waited nearly as long to martyr him.

Conego, I’m sure you’ve been a great help not only to me
but to others.  It’s hard to know what else to say except
that, although I don’t consider my years as an Anglican to have been wasted, I wish I had known more wise priests
(and laity) such as you who were both able and willing to
encourage me in my faith instead of undermining it.  David, no need to apologize for any anger; I’m glad if
the Lord is helping me to conceal it or just not feel it as much.  You should have seen me with my mother this very afternoon.  She got to talking about our respective
parishes and I started saying that I realized now that
I couldn’t forget about the Episcopal Church, blah, blah,
blah, that I had to cooperate with the Pope’s effort to
welcome Anglicans; however, I could tell from her reaction that somehow the whole thing was coming out wrong, that perhaps I was becoming very upset and only
gradually realizing it.  Don’t know if you can empathize
at all, but I’m beginning to think that many Anglicans-
turned-Romans are in a dilemma similar to mine: our
problem is not so much feeling comfortable with our new
form of Christian faith, but with how to treat those left
behind.  Puzzling!

KJS is clearly worried by this development or she wouldn’t be in England. She has plenty on her plate in USA.

It won’t help her, because the orthodox in CofE won’t stop. If this resolution is defeated (or diverted by means of the HOB amendment), they’ll bring another. This year or the next, or the one after that, it doesn’t really matter. The orthodox will keep working at every level, in CofE and out of it. The liberals have been working for years to achieve their position, and we can do the same. I’ll wager we will succeed quicker than they did, however!

I have a question regarding the meeting in England and the motion to recognize the ANCA…maybe someone here can help me out.

What would be the purpose of postponing the recognition of the ACNA by the CofE? Would it just be another stalling mechanism so the ABC wouldn’t have to deal with it this year? From what I am gathering, it seems that much of what he (ABC) does is attempt to avoid making any decisions…hence “the listening process”. Would this just be another attempt to appease TEC? Also, why the massive objections from TEC regarding the ACNA? If the church property issue is removed from the debate per se…why can’t there be recognition outside of their own walls? For the most part it seems as though TEC wants nothing to do with Anglicanism outside of a loose association anyways. Why would TEC even care about validation from CofE when their theology (in general) has rejected much of what Anglicanism stands for?
Lots of questions…thanks for replies.
-Josh

Part of the reason for the amendment is the fact that PB Jefferts Schori is doing her damndest to torpedo any chance of the ACNA ever being recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion.  Bishop Hill’s proposed amendment is intended to do her bidding by putting the issue on the back burner for a year in the hope that it will die a-borning, and it’ll be forgotten.  That will not be allowed to happen, in my opinion, because if it IS dropped this year, it will be raised again….and again….until the motion, or one like it, passes.

Josh, my theory is that it’s all about The Brand. Not that everything is perfectly reasonable (that’d be asking too much of some of the TEC leadership), but it seems to me they want the corner on Anglicanism in America, even if their brand of it is quite different from Anglicanism in much of the rest of the world. And losing that would be to lose credibility. Also, I think they somehow believe that time is on their side—this is where the dogmatic thinking (of the wrong sort) comes in. Because gay rights (again, in their minds) are perfectly analagous with any other right (such as those involving race and gender) there will be the inevitable triumph of reason, with the forces of darkness sent away. But of course the issue is not the same, since this has to do with behaviors and not being. But to admit to such a thing is not possible for them.
  But certainly, it does give one pause: Why don’t they just go their own way? What are they afraid of if right is on their side? Apparently because of the Brand, and how its loss would look elsewhere in the world.

DavidSh, I think there’s a good chance that they will in fact choose to go their own way….as The Episcopal Communion….if the ACNA is recognized (which is going to happen sooner or later, in my not-so-humble opinion) by the CofE House of Bishops.  They may as well, since according to their figures, there are some sixteen overseas jurisdictions which come under their umbrella.  The idea isn’t as far-fetched as some would suggest, and they will no doubt make an effort to influence others in the Communion to join them.

One reason why I say this is, as I’ve said many times before….and others may agree….TEC will not accept a second tier status in the Communion, and I believe that PB Jefferts Schori has said so.

Cennyd, If the Synod recognizes ACNA, yes, I think you’re right. But then the question is, will the lawsuits stop?

#91. Cennydd,
It is just as likely IMO that acceptance will come for the ACNA when the lawsuits are concluded. Let’s hope this will be another upset like Brown winning the Senate seat in Mass. Publicly the ABC will be neutral. Privately I think he will oppose it.

Cennydd at #92, I am sure you are right. I note that ++Anis appears to have hardened his position also - his last public statement as reported indicates that he believes TEC should not be allowed to sign the covenant. Probably PB Schori would agree with him, for different reasons!

DavidSh at #93, my belief is that the lawsuits will not stop just because CofE recognises ACNA (if that occurs). If anything, they may intensify.

Not to worry - terrible as it is for congregations to undergo these trials, ACNA congregations don’t actually need the properties. True followers of Christ have always built churches through sacrificial giving, evangelism to the unsaved, discipling believers, and planting new churches. The properties are a nice to have, but they aren’t necessary.

And, I’ve said it before, but I really do wonder what TEC is going to do with the properties, when or if it gets them. Each law suit they win adds a new set of outgoings to TEC’s P&L. I’ll bet the TEC bean-counters haven’t budgeted for any of them.

Hi Michael A,

Oh I think the properties once acquired by the law suits will be sold as redundant churches.  When they are turned into cash TEC. will live off them.  I have had it happen to my old church here in England already, rich with money in the bank and a good congregation in the pews, but the asserts were needed to keep the original church going nearby!

Of course it may not happen immediately but in my opinion it will happen eventually when TEC’s. money starts to run out!

Yours in Christ,

Colin2000.

Colin, TEC is already finding that their bottomless money pit does in fact have a bottom.  They took a huge hit on their property holdings last year during the nosedive in property values….just like most others here in the States, and their stock holdings were affected, too….like those of most other investors.

TEC’s Sunday plate offerings are off dramatically as well….like so many other mainline churches, and in fact, two dioceses have been talking of possibly amalgamating.  Things aren’t as rosy as TEC would have eveyone believe.

I am surprised by the confident predictions above that the COE will eventually recognized the ACNA. By all accounts, the trend within the COE is toward the revisionsism as exists in the US, not in the other direction. I see no evidence that the new entering COE Priests are more conservative than the older ones, and British culture and politics certainly isnt becoming more sympathetic to orthodox Christianity.  For these reasons, I have assumed that time was not on the side of the ACNA, and if they did not get a favorable vote now they certainly wouldnt get it later. Am I wrong? Why?

Hi Going Home—I confidently predicted that the resolution would be a bust and turned down when it first came out.

Sarah,
Do you think that recognizing or not recognizing ACNA is a fork in the road for the CoE or just a traffic circle? The ABC didn’t devote much ink to it but there may have been a great deal of discussion behind closed doors.

I think it’s a traffic circle that people will try to make a much bigger deal of than it deserves.

As I said earlier, even if ACNA had been recognized by the COE it wouldn’t have gotten them anything but a moral victory, since it’s not recognition by the Instruments of Unity.

A moral victory is great, of course, and a poke in the eye of TEC.  And while pokes in the eye are all well and good, it was a foolish attempt in my opinion for little return, and big negatives if defeated.

Sarah,
I think ACNA was hoping it would turn out like the onside kick by the N.O. Saints at the beginning of the second half of the Superbowl.

Going home #98,
“For these reasons, I have assumed that time was not on the side of the ACNA, and if they did not get a favorable vote now they certainly wouldnt get it later.”

Its probably too complex to give a short answer to that one. I am not saying you are wrong, but I don’t think the attitude of a critter as complex as General Synod can be predicted that easily. Nor do numbers and attitude of clergy necessarily matter in the same way as they do in USA.

I am happy to “confidently predict” that the orthodox won’t give up on this one - as long as they are in CofE they are going to keep bringing motions and using other means to achieve recognition of ACNA, just as they are going to work to overturn recognition of women priests and women bishops. It might take 2 years, or 5 years or 10 years, none of which are long periods.

Of course, many things could change the whole situation: a week ago I didn’t imagine that anglo-catholics and evangelicals would seriously consider setting up a parallel anglican jurisdiction in England - its a very different legal and canonical situation to the USA. Yet now they are actively talking about it.

If there were to be a large scale move of the orthodox out of the Church of England, then I grant you that there would be no chance of ACNA being recognised by CofE in the foreseeable future. But since that would likely be accompanied by a split in the whole communion, who would care? Certainly not ACNA which would then be able to sign onto a new orthodox covenant, from which TEC and CofE would likely be excluded.

Why should the ACNA care what ABC thinks? In all seriousness…the ABC has done nothing but “listen” (read: take no action to rebuke TEC) and has done little for orthodox Anglicans within the communion. As a member of an ACNA church I find very little validity in ABC recognizing us or not. We (my ACNA church) are currently within a great body of believers, with a Godly ArchBishop, Godly Bishops, Godly Priests and Godly lay leadership. We are in communion with all GAFCON Primates and have the support of millions of fellow Anglicans world-wide. I don’t believe that ABC has the Spiritual fortitude to recognize ACNA and I have come to expect very little from him. It’s always “let’s listen”...“let TEC be TEC”...“show restraint”...it’s almost mind-numbing. I’ll be praying for the orthodox Anglicans at the convention but I won’t hold my breath.

103—You know the COE situation better than I. However, I read this story with a feeling of déjà vu.

The ACNA Synod resolution reminds me of the presentment charges against Bishop Righter in the early nineties, an effort which had no chance of success and by the time it was over resulted in a formal Ecclesiastical ruling that neither the doctrine nor the discipline of the Church prohibited the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual person living in a committed relationship.  Some felt that the effort was worthwhile for its symbolism. But I always wonder about the opportunity cost associated with pursuing a losing cause. 

Nothing would make me happier than for the COE to recognize the ACNA, because I think it would increase pressure on TEC and perhaps open the door for other initiatives.  But it just doesn’t seem like a strategy that is destined to work given the voting trends I have read about.

I guess we will find out soon.

Even if the resolution fails, there will be no stopping the ACNA, and the revisionists in both TEC and the CofE know it.  Sooner or later, the ACNA will prevail, since it’s inevitable, given the recognition by so many primates.  But in reality, is there any special advantage in being part of the Communion as it now is constituted?  No!  Could GAFCON go its own way along with the ACNA?  It would be nice, wouldn’t it?

Dcn Dale,

That was a tremendous on side kick! But I think you and Sarah are mistaken if you think the ACNA had anything to do with this motion been made.  My sense talking with Archbishop Duncan and others is that this came as a surprise.  Everyone I know in the ACNA hopes it passes.  Of course we do, as we welcome closer ties with more Anglican Provinces. The motion, if it passes, will also encourage those who hesitate to join us to feel more free to make the move.  There is no question that for some it will bequeath a bit of legitimacy to the ACNA.  We welcome this, but we are not placing our hope in a motion being considered by the Church of England.

I think some also hope that the passage of this motion will have a chilling effect within TEC’s house of Bishops and perhaps result in increased pressure to end the lawsuits.

Going Home,

Just to clarify, I don’t claim great knowledge of CofE. I am in regular contact with a few people there, and I have spent brief periods there in the past, months not years.

Re symbolism and losing causes etc, I would just ask: are you and others analyzing this motion as though it was brought by or on behalf of ACNA, for ACNA’s benefit? Because I think it is pretty clear that it isn’t, and if so then much of the analysis so far is based on an incorrect premise. Consider the following:

1. ACNA has shown no interest in this motion. ++Duncan hasn’t flown to London, no-one from ACNA has made public comment or even posted a blog entry, so far as I am aware. Nor has there been any indication of behind-the-scenes lobbying. I might have missed something and please set me straight if that is the case, but at present it appears that ACNA has no interest in this motion.

2. This is consistent with what we know already of ACNA. As the Windsor Continuation Group has already noted in their report to the ABC, ACNA seems happy with the recognition it has already got from the largest provinces in the Communion. It is not chasing either Canterbury or CofE.

3. The motion has been brought by an English evangelical in the General Synod, which has functions and powers under both ecclesiastical and secular law in England. So I would suggest any analysis of whether it was a good move or a lost cause or whatever can only be made in light of what Lorna Ashworth (and the English bishops behind her) are trying to achieve. I can’t read their mind, but I suggest that their priority is the promotion and protection of orthodoxy in the CofE. ACNA is secondary.

4. On this basis, I suspect that this motion (win or lose) is part of the general strategy to influence decisions of General Synod in larger matters. For example, the big issue coming up is women bishops. That one is still too close to call in CofE - there has been a resolution to bring forward legislation, but that is worthless unless the legislation passes, and there is no guarantee it will. The liberals need a two thirds majority in the house of laity, which they didn’t get last time. Then it has to be approved by the secular parliament, which is probably easier, but not guaranteed either.

5. That is just one possible example, but I do think that we have to try to look at it from a CofE perspective in order to analyse what this motion is about.

Several years ago, as I recall, someone predicted a split in the Anglican Communion, with the Global South primates and Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria leading the way.  ++Akinola has since retired, but the possibility of such a split is still there, although the talk seems to have abated somewhat.  GAFCON seems to have assumed the lead, and I think the impetus for a final split may come when Canon Mary Glasspool is consecrated in the Diocese of Los Angeles.  If that split does occur, and if the resolution now before the Church of England’s Synod fails, I hope that the ACNA goes with GAFCON.

Hey MichaelA, several ACNA people are in London lobbying for it, including Tory Baucum and Phil Ashey.

joshmistake (#104) writes:

Why should the ACNA care what ABC thinks?

For many of us, ACNA should care because the ABC is as close as we have to a Patriarch in the manner of the Early Church. Jesus Christ prayed that ‘we may be one as He and his Father are one’ (St. John 17:21), and almost from the begining we have grieved Him: from the Great Schism culminating on 1054 to the Reformation a half-millenium later, when the Western Branch of the Church Catholic and Apostolic was split into two branches, Roman and Anglican, and into non-Apostolic Protestantism which began 500 years of divisions into smaller and smaller denominations and sects. When as a military chaplain I preached the 1996 Ash Wednesday Mass at the Anglican Compound in Bahrain, I noted that the CofE Chaplain allowed any other Protestant group that wished to use the compound: in that tiny 99.5% Islamic nation, there were 60+ groups, mostly from the Philippines, none of which were willing to worship together… this is not the Christian Unity we are called to pray for. [The Bahraini government allowed only two Christian churches in country: one R.C., one Anglican.]

Has the current ABC been weak and slow (exceedingly slow—any slower, and I’d consider CPR)) to respond to the ongoing travesty that has become 815? Absolutely. Does the failure of this human being demand yet another schism in the Body of Christ? No.  The current ABC will retire, and be replaced. The leadership at 815, if 815 still remains in the Communion (their call, sadly), will retire and be replaced. Right now the people in leadership positions are pretty much all extreme liberals… the same types who 60-70 years ago felt as excluded as we do now. Need we walk away, or can we trust that God will swing the pendulum back? Because in the end that seems to be what it comes down to: do we trust God to take care of His Church is His own time and in His own way, or do we think that the lunatics currently running the asylum are more powerful than He is, and that all we can do is get out while we can? [This is the question that +Mark Lawrence and the Diocese of South Carolina have wrestled with; they came down on the side of trusting God to protect His Church, while not supporting the lunatics in the asylum front office spouting their nonsense into the asylum’s P.A.. Those same lunatics are now turning on them, and Bishop Lawrence’s response was ‘to refuse to allow them to capture all of his energy and time’, and to implore his flock to not let ‘ecclesiastical struggles keep us from proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit’. His is truly a message of Christian faith and courage!]

It is particularly fitting that, at least in the lectionary of the Igreja Lusitana (Comunhão Anglicana) where I volunteer now, the Gospel includes, “Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so your forefathers did to the prophets” (St. Luke 6:22-23). [My own days of physically “leaping for joy”—or for any other purpose—are well past, I’m afraid, but my heart can still leap!] God didn’t have his prophets resign from early Judaism and start their own Temple whenever the Temple’s human leaders were corrupt: He sent the prophets to chastise them, often at great personal cost, and to remain obedient. Yet despite what we are taught by God in His Holy Scriptures, we now seem to believe that every time our leadership is corrupt and chases after false gods, God wants us to walk away?  And thus the importance of ACNA’s working to be in Communion with the Anglican Communion, and, God willing, someday with the Church, Anglican and Roman Catholic, Orthodox and all the variations of Protestantism, as a whole: that we may all be One, as Christ and the Father are One. [Note that I didn’t say “identical in every detail of practice and belief”: that’s neither necessary nor desirable (1 Cor 12: 12-27).] That was Jesus’ prayer for us, and must be out prayer as well, if we are to follow Him.

We are called to be faithful and obedient to God’s Word, and trust that God is capable of taking care of all the Jeffords-Schoris of the world: that in the end, it is God’s Church, His Body, and we should trust Him to fix it in His way and in His time, while ourselves remaining faithful to His Word and following His commandments: feeding the poor, giving drink to the thirsty, caring for the widowed and sick and imprisoned, and spreading the Good News of the Kingdom. And we are called, by Christ Jesus, to seek that we may all be One, even as He and the Father are One.

Sarah at #110,

Hey MichaelA, several ACNA people are in London lobbying for it, including Tory Baucum and Phil Ashey.

Fair enough, and good to hear. For a while I thought they weren’t taking any interest at all!

The main point of this exercise is to tell people in the CofE what is happening in America, and that seems to have been very successful.

Conego at #111,

For many of us, ACNA should care because the ABC is as close as we have to a Patriarch in the manner of the Early Church.

Conego, respectfully the early church didn’t have patriarchs.

If by “early church” you mean the New Testament church, they had Apostles, which are so far above any patriarch in authority as to be chalk from cheese.

If you mean the sub-apostolic church, the various churches seem to have had either colleges of elders (as seen in the letter of Clement) or colleges of bishops with one as chief (as seems to have been the position with Ignatius). But more to the point, there is no indication that one church was respected above another.

Even as late as the Synod of Nicaea in the 4th century, the concept of a patriarch isn’t there. Some churches certainly had more prominence because of their size and wealth. But if you look at Nicaea itself, those bishops who spoke with most status and authority did so because of their integrity and acknowledged devotion to orthodoxy, not which church they headed. Look at the two most influential bishops: Hosius of Corduba and Alexander of Alexandria. The fact that the latter came from one of the largest and oldest churches was *not* the reason he was so respected!

The reason I am writing this is to indicate why most orthodox anglicans whether in or out of ACNA are not going to see any particular need for communion with ABC. This is not “walking away”, as you put it. It is rather “walking towards” true communion with our fellow orthodox believers.

Conego, respectfully the early church didn’t have patriarchs.

If by “early church” you mean the New Testament church, they had Apostles, which are so far above any patriarch in authority as to be chalk from cheese.

If you mean the sub-apostolic church, the various churches seem to have had either colleges of elders (as seen in the letter of Clement) or colleges of bishops with one as chief (as seems to have been the position with Ignatius). But more to the point, there is no indication that one church was respected above another.

Obviously “the early church” can mean quite a few things. I would agree that there is no indication in the NT of “patriarchs”. The “ruling fathers” would have been the apostles. The situation in the “sub-apostolic church” is ambiguous. It can be argued that Rome was simply between bishops—that the “college of presbyters” (not bishops, btw) was rather like an interim “standing committee” in the “interregnum”. Certainly there is absolutely no evidence in the epistles of Ignatius of “colleges of bishops with one as chief”. There were, to be sure “colleges” of presbyters (elders if you wish) and deacons. But just one bishop in a place.

By the third century there certainly were “patriarchal” sees—notably Rome and Alexandria. And in the fourth century the Council of Nicea dealt with the ranking of the new patriarchal see of Constantinople.

Ken Peck,
I agree that the concept of patriarchs *evolved* in the patristic church. I don’t agree that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were “patriarchates” (in the sense we commonly use today) by the third century - rather, they tended to be influential because based in the largest cities of the empire, and this process intensified after Constantine recognised the christian church in the early 4th century.

I do understand why you and Conego make the point, and it was worth making. Our views on this naturally influences the degree to which we consider we as Anglicans “need” Canterbury today.

In a practical sense we may not be too far apart anyway - I would much prefer that a godly and orthodox person be Archbishop of Canterbury who can draw the whole Communion together. Howeever, I think we have to realistically consider that that may never occur, indeed that +++Williams may be replaced with someone far more liberal. 

In that circumstance it is highly pertinent to consider whether we are obliged by tradition to accord some sort of role to ABC. I *believe* (but I don’t know for certain) that increasing numbers of orthodox anglicans are starting to think not.

And in the fourth century the Council of Nicea dealt with the ranking of the new patriarchal see of Constantinople.

I think you mean the First Council of Constantinople, (about 50 years after Nicaea)?

I certainly wish the very best to the ACNA.  As a matter of fact, if it had existed just a few years sooner, it’s
possible that I would not have gone under the Pope.  Now,
don’t misunderstand me; I think I was right in the
commitment I made, and I’m too happy about it to have
regrets.  Still, I’m someone who doesn’t like change, and
I’m sure I would have welcomed having one more possible
place to go.

In reading these comments and thinking about this whole
thing, I’m wondering, is there someone who knows much
more than I do about the rather brief history of the
Anglican Communion as a separate Christian denomination?
There’s one important question I would like to ask
(specifically with reference to the ACNA, may the LORD
bless them):  Has any kind of formal vote ever, in the
past, been required for a local church body to be
generally recognized as part of the Anglican Communion?
If the answer is yes, what sort of vote would that be?
If the answer is no, then why is it needed now?
Please, can someone help us out on this??

PaulA,

On any view, the situation of the “Anglican Communion” is very unclear. A few points:

1. Each Anglican Province is autonomous, i.e. no church has legal authority over another. This is the norm for most of Christendom - e.g. the Orthodox patriarchates work in very similar fashion.

2. The “Anglican Communion” is thus more a voluntary association based on shared points of belief and practice. In the past, the touchstone of Anglicanism has been subscribing to the formularies, i.e. the Creeds, the Articles of Religion, the Ordinal, and at least the principle of the 1662 Prayer Book (even if replaced with an “updated” version).

3. The focal point of the Communion has been the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC). Over the years, the ABCs have instituted two concepts which have come to be seen as “instruments of unity” in the Communion:
(a) invited all the bishops of the Communion to the Lambeth Conference every ten years or so (this started in late 19th century);
(b) invited the primates of the various provinces of the Communion to meetings every few years (this started in 1979).

4. In addition, in 1968 the bishops in Lambeth Conference voted to appoint an Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) to assist the ABC in administration of the Communion. Some now view the ACC as also an instrument of unity, whereas many would not.

5. Not all Anglican churches are part of the Communion, however most are. Some have never been part of it, and some have chosen to leave it. 

6. Now to your question:

Has any kind of formal vote ever, in the past, been required for a local church body to be generally recognized as part of the Anglican Communion?

There are differing views on this:
(a) Some believe membership in the Communion is simply a matter of being recognised by the ABC when he invites the bishops of a province to Lambeth (so no vote needed!). This view has a lot to recommend it in practical terms. However there are two weaknesses of this view: traditionally the ABC acts in concert with the Primates and there is now a significant divide; and, many parts of the communion have been expressing a lack of confidence in ABC and Lambeth over their tolerance of liberalism, particularly in the past 5-10 years.

(b) Some (especially liberals) argue that the Anglican Consultative Council must take a vote to put a new Province on the list that it holds - the problem with this view is that ACC has never been given that power. It was always intended as a consultative and advisory body only.

(c) Some believe that it is up to the Primates in council to make the decision. The problem with this view is that tradition and custom assume that the Primates, the ABC, the Lambeth conference and the ACC act in agreement together. There is no precedent for fundamental disagreement between them, and therefore no tradition that the Primates (or anyone else) can decide for themselves who is in the Communion.

7. There is a huge divide in the Communion over liberalism and how to respond to it. Many in the west (where the money is) would not accept a decision by the Primates to recognise a new province. On the other hand, many more (mainly in the Global South) now accord the orthodox Primates great respect, and very litle to ABC. So there is no clear answer as to how a new Province can gain membership in the Communion (hence the nasty disagreements on Anglican blogs!).

8. My personal view of the matter is somewhat complex. I think our main role is to *win over* the waverers to orthodoxy. Votes have their place, but votes of themselves do not bring victory if the hearts of the people are not behind the vote.

I am not too worried about the mechanism for running the Communion, so long as we get to a point where all Anglican churches in USA and elsewhere either heatily reject liberalism, or leave the Communion. That will be a long time coming, but hey, we are Anglicans - our heritage dates back to the 1st or 2nd century AD - we are used to taking the long view!