ACNA, AMiA To Strengthen Ties

AMiA has renamed itself the “Anglican Mission”.

What I do not understand, and hope that someone from The Mission can explain here, is why the apparent aloofness. Why does the Anglican Mission want a special status?  I ask this not to be critical.  I genuinely want to understand.

I’m not sure exactly who the target audience is for this resolution, but it seems to unfortunately convey a rather stiff formality that - this isn’t the Middle East, for heaven’s sake.  “The Executive Committee will appoint a Task Force charged with continuing to carry forward all components of the existing protocol formally and canonically.”  Geez.  Lighten up - we’ve all known each other for decades.  Pass the mashed potatoes.

bb

PS - Maybe the Task Force should meet at Chucky Cheese.

RE: “The canons of the Anglican Church in North America provide for a sub-provincial jurisdiction such as a missionary society, and the Executive Committee expressed a commitment to the Anglican Mission’s role as a missionary society of Rwanda in full participation with the Anglican Church in North America. “

Sweet deal for the AMiA—they get to be a “missionary society” and free and independent while still being—sort of—“ACNA,” while all the other *formal* provincial relationship entities [Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda] get folded into ACNA.

Nice.

So the phrase “strengthen ties” is somewhat . . . interesting.

BB, I think the reason for the “stiff formality” is that 1) the communication needs to try not to communicate the fact that the AMiA is being treated as a very different—and independent—entity “in” ACNA, while at the same time, 2) the AMiA is being treated as a very different—and independent entity “in” ACNA.

Hence—the stiff formality.  It’s tough to communicate “good news” while at the same time trying to make certain that nobody quite grasps the “bad news.”  ; > )

Baby Blue - Chucky Cheese is not an option until they agree on a common size for arcade tokens.

Baby Blue - Chucky Cheese is not an option until they agree on a common size for arcade tokens.

No, Chucky already sets the standards for the arcade tokens.  The real conflict will come when ordering toppings for the pizza.  Maybe everyone will be able to order their own personal slice, and then can pass a resolution declaring the whole of the slices on one table to be one unified pizza. 

Andrew A, this doctrine you’ve described needs an elegant (preferably Latin) name.  I can only imagine all of the future Lambeth resolutions that will appeal to it!

AMiA is like Clark Kent.  Clark goes into a phone booth, and (poof!) comes out as Superman.  AMiA goes into a phone booth and (poof!) plants a parish.  Only, it’s difficult to find a phone booth these days. 

And the ACNA is like the Daily Planet.  All stiff and focused on the business of business, and not appreciative of phone booths. 

So, they compliment one another.

(?)

RE: “Maybe everyone will be able to order their own personal slice, and then can pass a resolution declaring the whole of the slices on one table to be one unified pizza.”

That’s cold, AndrewA.

Cold and cruel.

It’s obviously the fact that all the slices are on *the one table* that makes them “unified.”  And the slice over there on the other side of the room—on another table—is the “missionary society” slice which is also a part of the One Unified Pizza.

What’s the difficulty with Anglican Mission remaining in the Province of Rwanda and at the same time being recognized as a full partner (integral part) of ACNA?  Looks like a healthy arrangement to me.  Are we perhaps experiencing fear of “border crossing”?  Or is it maybe hurt feelings because your parish lost many members and perhaps its Priest to AmiA some years ago?  If the Gospel is faithfully preached, what does it matter how the formal relationship between the two groups is worked out or worded?  And whose business is it but theirs?  Yes, I’m being a bit testy, I have friends on all sides of this equation.
Frances Scott

Hi Frances,

I work closely with an AMiA parish.  We have a joint youth group.  I don’t fear AMiA.  I like them.  I’m just not understanding the reason for this arrangement and I want to. 

Now as for the Pizza question, well…if you can’t poke fun at a friend who can you?  Chucky Cheese sounds good to me.

Hi Frances,

The original original idea was that ACNA would be unified with the entities of Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone, Rwanda, and Nigeria all in ONE body, with no disparities or differing treatment and losing their *individual* identities to become ACNA.

That is—obviously—no longer the idea.

The AMiA maintains its individual identity and autonomy—everybody else is “ACNA” and the AMiA is “integral part” with “strengthened ties.”

Here’s just one practical issue [of many] with that arrangement.

Since the AMiA is a “missionary society”—will their system of electing bishops be the same as the ACNA entities?  If not . . . how will it differ?  If it differs, how does ACNA IN TOTO deal with AMiA’s new bishops [created I should add, in droves, in the past, because their “charism” apparently demands it].  Further . . . doesn’t that make the ACNA HOB rather unbalanced?

Those are a few questions for answering.

But even if all of that has been worked out—and surely it has—that doesn’t deal with the more holistic issue of “how does one have a One Unified Church when there’s an entity over there in its own sandbox with its own rules, being a “missionary society”?

For the record—and I don’t think you meant me but just in case—I don’t think folks from my parish have left for AMiA plants.  The AMiA has attempted to plant a parish in this region three times since 03—but most folks leaving CC have gone to a local Presbyterian church, a non-denominational church, and the RCs.  There is no AMiA plant here at this juncture—although judging from the past six years, one never knows when one might pop up again.  ; > )

Remember, many biblical Episcopalians criticized the AMIA quite heavily for leaving, only to follow some few years later. AMIA had momentum, organization and the great commission advancing. One doesn’t want to get bogged down and off track (from planting churches and saving souls) due to procedures and canons because greater numbers of other biblical former Episcopalians have now heard the same call, formed the ACNA and are rapidly trying to catch up. Even brothers in Christ can call you down from re-building the wall unnecesarily. We laggers have to build up trust with AMIA (now AM) to show we have embraced the same mission—In the whole scheme of things, this is happening quite rapidly and well. Those of us who are familiar with what AM is doing aren’t worried that they aren’t running back to meet us but merely calling “on on” as they lead the way. Remember also, this is really about carrying out the great commission within our tradition, not carrying out our great tradition within our commission.

The AMiA is very serious about remaining in close affiliation with African churches, while this plan is no longer so much in force with the rest of the ACNA.  One can look to bishop Thad Barnum’s words on this matter, he’s quite vehement, he is afraid that without proper apostolic leadership and direction the ACNA could end up looking exactly like the church it left after a while, and from what he has witnessed in Africa, he believes: it’s those guys over there, considering their faith and what they have been through.  I think he has a point, though it may be difficult to incorporate within the ACNA.  I do hope that the ACNA keeps robust ties with the African churches, the African churches are a great wealth.

[1] You may need to describe what you mean by aloofness.  I am assuming you are referring to the appearance of reticence for a prompt dissolution and incorporation of parishes into ACNA.

My impressions are certainly not anything near official - mere observations - but I would hazard to suggest that there may be a sense that with over a decade of growth, church planting, networking, etc., as a mission, that the evolution of the relationship with ACNA should be managed so as to minimize disruption, loss of mission focus and culture, loss of corporate knowledge, loss of relationships within the AM, loss of relationships with Rwanda (e.g., church partnerships, clergy connections, mission relationships), etc. 

I suppose the AM could have decided to disband one date certain, and redistribute its churches into nascent diocese of the larger ACNA.  I can see how that approach might appear attractive to some outside of the AM. 

But I can also see how some within the AM may want to be careful about the process.  If ACNA is be careful about the process, ISTM that the process would naturally be more involved for those entities that had spent the longest time developing on their own, doing things their own way. 

At any rate, the ACNA Constitution provides the following:

ARTICLE VIII: THE LIMITS OF PROVINCIAL AUTHORITY

1. The member dioceses, clusters or networks (whether regional or affinity-based) and those dioceses banded together as jurisdictions shall each retain all authority they do not yield to the Province by their own consent. The powers not delegated to the Province by this constitution nor prohibited by this Constitution to these dioceses or jurisdictions, are reserved to these dioceses or jurisdictions respectively.

If I recall correctly, I think the canons expressly permit relationships to remain with overseeing provinces.  Maybe I have a limited view, but I did not read this report as disclosing any problems - given how the constitution turned out. 

But there is always a simple, constructive prayer that is in order: ut unum sint.

The LCMS is also starting a dialogue with the ACNA (from http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=16678 - note that CTCR stands for Commission on Theology and Church Relations):

In other action, the CTCR encouraged LCMS President Gerald B. Kieschnick to respond positively to a recent request from Archbishop Robert Duncan to “explore dialogue” between the Missouri Synod and the recently-formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), which Duncan heads.  This was in response to Kieschnick’s request for “input and counsel” from the Commission.

The ACNA, with 100,000 Anglicans in 700 parishes, was formally recognized as a “province-in-formation” in April 2009 by leaders of Anglican churches representing 70 percent of active Anglicans globally.  It is based in Pennsylvania.

According to its Web site (http://anglicanchurch.net/) the church body “represents the reuniting of orthodox Anglicans who have been squeezed out of the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada by successive changes to historic Christian teaching and Anglican practice.”

In his letter of response to Duncan, Kieschnick wrote, “I believe that discussions such as you have outlined would prove to be a blessing for each of our churches.”

Dr. Samuel Nafzger, LCMS director of church relations, will meet with the appropriate ACNA officials to work out the details of how to facilitate these discussions.  Nafzger attended ACNA’s Inaugural Assembly last June in Bedford, Texas.

There is clearly differentiation.  I remember that AMIA chose/elected three bishops just before the final ratification gathering in Texas.  In my understanding they simply elected their own and ignored the ACNA protocols.  There was then a statement by Chuck Murphy that was maintaining their independence as certainly to many of us this was an “in your face” type behavior.  With a show of grace the ACNA folk accepted their choices of bishops.  Under the surface I have received comments to the effect that AMIA will not accede to the ACNA in the same way as have the Kenyan and Ugandan plants.  CANA, as I understand it, still needs some independence until some of the lawsuits are settled.

I am of the opinion that AMIA is doing a good job.  I am however repelled by a certain arrogance that is communicated from time to time.  I do believe that ACNA needs to be an independent and new province.  I have heard that Rwanda is more than willing to cede its authority as did Kenya and Uganda, with Nigeria likely to do the same.  The Southern Cone retains its nominal relationship too but the eventual goal is a truly American Anglican Province.

If there will be a change of attitude I welcome it.  Having watched Murphy in action my hopes are not high.

This is all small stuff. It will all be ironed out in 20 years. In fact, it is unreasonable to expect that the birth of the ACNA will go from 0 to 100 without some hiccups. I agree with AMiA’s goal to remain strongly tied to Africa - if not ecclesiastically then collegially.

There are some incorrect comments being made in regards to relationships between the Anglican entities that provide oversight for the North American entities, function and relationships. I highly suggest reading the Canons of the ACNA would be most beneficial before more comments.

http://acnaassembly.org/media/ACNA_Canons_-_RATIFIED_2009-06-23.pdf

I would be interested in seeing the numbers on individual AMIA parishes. Which are flourishing?

Subscribing for now…thanx!
Intercessor

RE: “I remember that AMIA chose/elected three bishops just before the final ratification gathering in Texas. There was then a statement by Chuck Murphy that was maintaining their independence as certainly to many of us this was an “in your face” type behavior.  With a show of grace the ACNA folk accepted their choices of bishops.  Under the surface I have received comments to the effect that AMIA will not accede to the ACNA in the same way as have the Kenyan and Ugandan plants.”

Yup—that’s what the underground railway of communication is saying.

RE: “. . . he is afraid that without proper apostolic leadership and direction the ACNA could end up looking exactly like the church it left after a while, and from what he has witnessed in Africa, he believes: it’s those guys over there, considering their faith and what they have been through.”

Well, actually - it’s the maintenance of the personal fiefdoms that look mightily like both the Continuers and the TEC.  So I don’t think the “fears” are invalid considering that the similarities are already so striking—a nice big chapter’s worth of a novel, writing on those.

It’s simply *incredible* to me to see the similarities.

Consider this: there is no lay group formed to hold any of the “apostolic leadership” accountable and there is no news service doing the same thing from within ACNA.

And when one mentions that . . . loud are the cries of “trust The Leaders” and “how dare you sheeples” . . . just like the Old Dear Way of TEC, only of course . . . there’s less canonical power for the lay sheeples in ACNA than in TEC and far more for the bishops.

Going Home—the answer to that question is only provided on a “need to know” basis—and you don’t “need to know.”  ; > )

Subscribe

One more reason why the ACNA should not yet be recognized as a “stand alone” Anglican Province.  Pre-2000 TEC had several major problems and challenges.  Ultra-liberal, sub-Christian theology, and capitulation to liberal western social mores were only two of those problems.  What has happened with part of the ACNA/AMIA group (it seems to me) is that they excised the theological and social liberalism, but have NOT done the hard work to tackle some of the other issues (such as pride, arrogance, love of power, love of turf, etc.).  There is more humbling that needs doing.

#15, I am describing the optics when I use the word “aloofness”.  That is just the way it looks.  As has been noted, Article 8 of the constitution provides plenty of separation.  This was sufficient for all the other partners.  Why not the Anglican Mission?  Again, please understand I am not being critical.  I’m curious.  I work with and will continue to work with the Anglican Mission with great joy and mutual benefit.

Here is a link to the protocol (easily located by google), which was ratified by the Rwandan HoB prior to AM’s ratification of the ACNA Const. and Canons:

Protocol (pdf)

IMHO, it doesn’t seem all that nefarious:

“The Anglican Mission in the Americas is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America and fully under its Constitution.”

The protocol appears to address some inconsistencies in governing documents.  At any rate, strengthening the relationship by resolving the inconsistencies would be a good thing.

The incorporation of AM bishops into the Rwandan HoB, along with its rules and obligations, occured before ACNA was formed - while a good thing in some respects, it has apparently contributed to certain perceptions.

Let me ask this - Are comity agreements part of the “strengthened ties” ?  And if so, is everyone committed to honoring them?

tired, I also don’t think it is nefarious.  It just seems odd. 

The Anglican Mission is represented in The Provincial Council and The Provincial Assembly.  Their bishops are seated in the Council of Bishops in the ACNA, although the Council of Bishops is specifically not asked to consent to their election. It just seems odd.

I just wondered if anyone in the Anglican Mission could explain this special relationship.  I haven’t heard a good answer to this.  I guess if they want to be special they can be special.  I like them the same anyway.

AM, nee AMiA, seems to operate very much as an old boys club, in my experience.  Perhaps people are concerned about the seeming plethora of purple shirts in ACNA and some want to make sure their shirts stay purple.

Sarah,
I understand that you have a variety of concerns about the AM, and particularly in this matter you are frustrated by the lack of communication.  Unfortunately, in this context you are pronouncing statements that are false…

“while all the other *formal* provincial relationship entities [Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda] get folded into ACNA.”

Fact is that neither CANA nor Southern Cone jurisdictions are folding into ACNA at this time, so the AM is not unique.

“The original original idea was that ACNA would be unified with the entities of Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone, Rwanda, and Nigeria all in ONE body, with no disparities or differing treatment and losing their *individual* identities to become ACNA.”

Don’t know what the word “original” means (i.e., where the point of ‘origin’ lies for you), but the AM became embedded in the constitution and canons of Rwanda before the ACNA came to be.  This relationship cannot be dissolved as easily as it has been in some of the other jurisdictions.  Thus, while it may have been someone’s “original” idea, it was not someone who understood the lay of the land within the AM.

In any case, let us be clear that the AM is not undermining the ACNA.  It is aligning itself with the ACNA as far as its constitution and canons will allow it to do so at this point.  It is committed to seeing a unified, missionary, orthodox Anglican witness in North America develop.  But let us all recognize that this will take time to realize and will not happen in a day or even a year.

As someone not called out from TEC, I appreciate folks’ candor here.  I had mistakenly assumed that ACNA had folded the predecessor breakaways into itself, but there seems to be more of a loose confederation here.  In 10 or 20 years, ACNA may act like a province—or I suppose it may splinter and fall apart, as its detractors anticipate.  This thread has been one of the most illuminating as to ACNA in months.  Thanks, all.

There is one other entity that hasn’t been named in this whole conversation: the REC. They are also one of the founding members of ACNA and I have not heard of their intentions to completely fold into ACNA either. Like others have commented, we’ll have to see where this all shakes out in the next 10-20 years.

Shane, I heard recently that there is going to be a new “diocese in formation” in the North West that includes some REC congregations.  I don’t think you will need to wait 10 years to see congregations clustering geographically into new diocese.  The ACNA has been a huge blessing for many churches in the way that it fosters local fellowship and ministry.

Does the AMiA wish to ordain women as bishops?  If being somewhat separate may facilitate this as ACNA has agreed not to ordain women as bishops for the time being.

Thanks, Shane+ and Rob+, for your clarifying comments.  I welcome the news of closer ties between ACNA and the AM.  Whatever exactly that looks like, it feels more like unification in a single province, which as others have noted, has not fully taken place anyhow.  But I sense it is in progress.  It will take time but most of all, patience and the building of trust, both of which have been amply manifest in the dealings I have had across the various jurisdictions.  Yes, there are still major hurdles and issues, but I praise the Lord that ACNA is getting sharply focused on the mission of glorifying the risen Christ and reaching the lost.  That alone will unite us and ensure the ‘success’ of this nascent province.

Along those lines, I am bemused by Sarah’s enthusiasm for lay leaders to hold bishops accountable in an episcopal polity. This is humorous stuff, given the way that TEC revisionism has been driven by droves of lay leaders aligned with political actions groups, grabbing ahold of the reigns of power at GC and in the Executive Council.  How’d that check and balance work out for you?  Governmental structures can slow the slide towards heresy, but ultimately, it is the people who populate the church at all levels who are accountable for what happens.

So there is only one way that any church maintains its fidelity to the Gospel: no matter what checks and balances are in place they will be ineffectual if leaders at all levels must remain focused on the glory of the Lord and reaching the lost for Him.  I see ample signs of that in ACNA.  That alone will ensure faithfulness to the Gospel, not having checks and balances on episcopal power.

Paulinus, no, the Anglican Mission is among the more resolutely opposed to women bishops AND women priests. Women bishops are a non-starter in ACNA, no matter what some minority voices might want.

I see a number of speculative things above, including some to my response #17.  However it is my understanding that the Province of Rwanda resolved along with Uganda and Kenya to cede their US ministry to ACNA and the protocol above as quoted in #25 would affirm this.  However AMIA have not agreed to do so, as I understand it.  They are holding out independently.

AMIA is opposed to the ordination of women so women bishops for them is not a possibility, unless the former changes.

Yet the AMiA branch in Canada is not opposed to women priests, nor is the Province of Rwanda.

#37 You are incorrect regarding the Province of Rwanda…the Am is embedded in their constitution and canons and has never been released by them.  The AM is not “holding out independently.”

#39 Sorry if I am in error.  My source was impeccable - Maybe they were referring to a spoken understanding of such ceding on the part of Rwanda, but which was not being asked for by the AMIA folk who wished for a form of independence from ACNA.  Certainly the latter fits with what I understand of some in AMIA’s leadership and I am guessing that this is what others have described as either aloof or .....

Finally this issue is being aired in public. As a member of (AMiA) the AM, I find it quite amusing to hear, in our prayers for the church during Eucharist, our (lay) prayer leader twisting like a pretzel in referring to Abp Kolini as our archbishop and then later on praying for Abp Duncan as archbishop of ACNA.

I’ve often asked who my archbishop is. In fact, at last Winter Conference, I was speaking to a senior priest about the priesthood and my reticence to begin the discernment process, and he opined that perhaps Abp Kolini wanted to make sure of ACNA before he handed the AMiA over.

The issue of the recent appointments to the episcopacy also had my head spinning a bit, especially when a previously non-Anglican, apparently great church planter, was made a bishop less than 90 days after being made a priest.

No doubt in my mind the AM is idiosyncratic and does seem, from where I sit, to be a church in a church.

#41
Actually Bp Todd was a priest for 6 months, not 3 months

wow—what a lot of valuable insights here.  Clearly there is a process underway in the gradual consolidation of ACNA.  It is only reasonable to expect that this will take some time.  And it is a good thing that it is indeed a GRADUAL process, with various entites—esp. AM—discerning carefully how to carry-over its charism into the emerging province.  I would not want to see its fervor, nor its broader vision of missional engagement in any way diminished as it becomes more integrated into ACNA.

Let us not forget that Thomas Becket was a deacon on Friday, ordained priest on Saturday, and consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury on Sunday.  By comparison, 6 months is a long time. (granted, Becket had been a deacon, and indeed served as Archdeacon, for some period of time).

RE: “Unfortunately, in this context you are pronouncing statements that are false…”

Nope.  As I said—they are getting “folded into ACNA” and that is certainly the plan—but not for the AMiA.  So yes, the AMiA is *unique* in that it does not intend to do so unless it has quite quite recently changed its mind.

RE: “. . . but the AM became embedded in the constitution and canons of Rwanda before the ACNA came to be.”

Right and agreed.

RE: “This relationship cannot be dissolved as easily as it has been in some of the other jurisdictions.”

Right—especially when its leaders don’t want that “relationship” “dissolved.” 

RE: “Thus, while it may have been someone’s “original” idea, it was not someone who understood the lay of the land within the AM.”

Well no.  It was the “original” idea for *ACNA* for its parts to be unified into the whole and not maintain separate identities.  But—interestingly—that *original idea for ACNA* has been caved on, as I said above, for the AMiA.  It has [heh] a “special charism” of “planting churches.”

RE: “In any case, let us be clear that the AM is not undermining the ACNA.”

I have no idea what you mean by “undermining”—AMiA has decided to be a distinct entity.  That’s all.

RE: “It is aligning itself with the ACNA as far as its constitution and canons will allow it to do so at this point.”

Well—it’s aligning itself with the ACNA as far as its leaders have decided to, yes.

RE: “It is committed to seeing a unified, missionary, orthodox Anglican witness in North America develop.”

I’m sure it is.  Just as all the pizza slices are “unified” within the Chucky Cheese restaurant on different sides of the restaurant.

RE: “This is humorous stuff, given the way that TEC revisionism has been driven by droves of lay leaders aligned with political actions groups, grabbing ahold of the reigns of power at GC and in the Executive Council.”

Um, no.  TEC revisionism was driven largely by activist bishops, with the complicity and laziness of a vast majority of ignorant sheeple laypeople [like me].

The latter seems to be carrying over quite nicely into ACNA; I suppose the lessons will need to be learned all over again.

RE: “Paulinus, no, the Anglican Mission is among the more resolutely opposed to women bishops AND women priests.”

Well . . . it all depends on the definition of the words “Anglican Mission.” ; > )

Here’s the summary of the contortions from an AMiA priest:

So as an AMiA priest, I agree with the AMiA’s WO study several years back. This led to the AMiA adopting a policy of not ordaining women to the priesthood [as opposed to their earlier policy of ordaining women]. However, the connection with Rwanda, which does ordain women priests, led to a change in the structure. In 2007, the AMiA set up an umbrella organization called the Anglican Mission in the America’s (it unfortunately uses the same AMiA acronym which tends to confuse things).

Under this umbrella, are 3 separate entities. The original Angliacn Mission in America (AMiA), which still only ordains male priests (this encompasses the vast majority of all the parishes). But it also includes the Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) and the newer Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA). Both of these groups ordain women priests.

#44
Becket had been a deacon, and indeed served as Archdeacon, for some period of time

tj that is the point, and the contexts could not be more different.

Even Bp Todd was surprised.

Of course this in no way detracts from his substantial abilities as a church planter and I am sure he will do a good job. My comments have more to do with the AMiA

Sarah—I stand by my statement that you were being inaccurate.  Notice that in your original posting, you wrote, “get folded” but you changed it to “are getting folded” in your response.  Big difference…first statement definitely false in that it speaks of completed actions that have not taken place.  Second statement, in that it is an incomplete action, could prove true, though it may also prove untrue.  Nice rhetorical move, but a slight of hand nonetheless. 

Simple truth is that at this point, the AM is not unique.  If and when the others fold into ACNA and the AM remains first and foremost under the authority of Rwanda, then you can make the statements you made and they will have some force.  Until then, I encourage you to lay off the rhetoric as it blunts your credibility.

RE: “Notice that in your original posting, you wrote, “get folded” but you changed it to “are getting folded” in your response.”

No.  I carefully quoted exactly what I wrote earlier.  *QUOTED*. 

RE: “Simple truth is that at this point, the AM is not unique.”

Yes, it is.  AM has been clear that it does NOT wish to be “folded in.”  The others are well on the path or have actually completed the handover of their parishes to ACNA.  The AMiA has no intentions of doing so.  Therefore, yes, it is unique—although it is intriguing that you wish to pretend as if it is not unique. Note that I have not stated that the AMiA is “wrong” or sinful or immoral in its intentions of uniqueness.  But you wish to obscure those intentions. 

Interesting.

RE: “Until then, I encourage you to lay off the rhetoric as it blunts your credibility.”

No, I think I’ll continue to point out the truth despite your desires, and allow others to decide for themselves.  Obviously, I have no need to gain your good opinion about my credibility—I’m indifferent to it, and trust others to read the facts and recognize them.

Regardless of the politics of the thing, on a practical level, there were diocese of the Holy Spirit and AM folks together at Anglican 1000.  We are eager to work together, talk, email, facebook, etc…  The AM folks have been very encouraging and supportive of me and our venture in Castle Rock.  We’re talking about summer camp together.  Maybe it won’t end up as one organic whole, but as long as we stay gospel focused, I’m not that worried about it.

Regarding your credibility, agreed…you and any others who care to do so can go look at it…

#3 Sweet deal for the AMiA—they get to be a “missionary society” and free and independent while still being—sort of—“ACNA,” while all the other *formal* provincial relationship entities [Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda] get folded into ACNA

vs.

#45 Nope.  As I said—they are getting “folded into ACNA” and that is certainly the plan—but not for the AMiA.  So yes, the AMiA is *unique* in that it does not intend to do so unless it has quite quite recently changed its mind.

(Italics added for clarity) I realize that the difference may seem slight, but as I said, the change makes all the difference between a false statement and a possibly true one.  If this is what you call careful quoting…yikes.

Don’t care what you think of my opinion…do care about words and your care in writing them as you write to a large audience and have a responsibility to all who read them.

I’ll stop here…up to you whether you see my point that the change in your words matters or not.

Theron+, you are absolutely correct.  I look forward to working with you and celebrate your ministry just down the way in Castle Rock!  May this attitude and activity guide us into full unity throughout the continent over the years to come.

Our parish is one of those in the Bolivian Cluster and we are working on diocesan options.  Until we have a local diocese, we’ll remain under Bp. Lyons, whose oversight has always clearly been understood to be a temporary arrangement.  Once we become a part of a local diocese, he’ll release us to our new bishop.  While we are sad about this, as we love Bishop Lyons, we believe local dioceses under local bishops to be the best arrangement for all involved.  It is our intention to continue to support Bp. Lyons whichever diocese we are in, as the care he has provided us has created enduring bonds of affection.

It is my hope that, as we mature in the ACNA, that our relationships with our bishops of the Global South will change in this way.  From ties of authority to ties of affection and mutual support. 

It is also my hope that over the next few years our varying groups will all commit to follow the same procedure for calling and consecrating bishops. This commitment will require learning to know and trust each other, which will happen as we work together. None of us, whether we left TEC 150 years ago or 150 days ago (or haven’t left yet), can say that we don’t need the other, and all of us have to overcome our own pride and look to what we can learn from and share with the church-planters and the charismatics and the Anglo-Catholics and the Reformed Protestants.

But we can’t push it to happen faster than any group is comfortable with.  The AMiA did make a sea change - vowing in their first charter to happily cease to exist when there was an orthodox presence in the US, to writing a new charter in December of 2008 that didn’t make them cease to exist. I can only read into this that there is something that made them uncomfortable.  Locally, last year, we were asked to jump first and trust later - which didn’t happen as very few of our priests would commit our parishes to an unknown.  We’ve spent the last year getting to know each other and we won’t all end up in the same diocese.  And that’s fine.  Better to take our time and form something that will last than to paste something together quickly and have it blow up later.  The great thing is that, even though we won’t all be in the same diocese, we’ll continue to support and pray for folks we’ve come to respect and love.

This same work has to happen between the dioceses. We need intentional meetings so that clergy and laity from each can get to know each other.  And to build the relationships that will eventually solidify the ACNA into a mature province.  We’re toddlers yet, some of us behaving more so at times than others.  But what I’ve seen gives me cause to hope that we’ll grow in wisdom and stature and favor with God.  It just takes time and patience and a willingness to learn.

I am sorry as I am not seeing this “change of words”. The content and the meaning as I read it is the same. I’ll ask the question….Why would not AMiA become a full member of ACNA…has not REC?

#50, Rob,

The story that began this thread is about the fact that AMiA now AM is in a different category than all the other members of the ACNA.  That is why the title is newsworthy.  Sorry.  You can debate Sarah on semantics but she is absolutely correct in that AMiA now AM is not the same as all the other partners. Follow the link in comment 26 to see how they exclude themselves from portions of the ACNA Constitution. No one else has this need. So my question, still without an adequate answer is “why?”. 

Among the reasons offered I’ve heard in the past is that they spent all these years developing a missional DNA and don’t want to lose it by joining all those former TEC parishes.  This makes no sense to me as they seem quite willing to accept all the large and small TEC parishes that want to join them. So it can’t really be DNA can it? That makes no sense.  So what is it that drives them this way?

When the call came from the global south to form an orthodox province in North America it was the expressed intent that a new province would arise.  I think we are seeing this occur.

My own opinion is that the AM if it is truly going to be an order within the ACNA focused on church planting will plant say 300 - 400 of the 1000 parishes ++Duncan has called for.  Not parishes with an ASA of 20 either, but at least an ASA of 50. If they do that I will stand up and salute when they walk by.  In the meantime, I will continue to do my best to plant parishes and wonder why they need to be different.

But perhaps there is an AM priest here who can explain this to us.  Anyone?

I have a REC related retention of distinction question.

How will the “We do not ordain women” (setting aside women as deaconess is not an ordination) of the REC be maintained if they’re folded into some ‘local diocese’ with folks who have females in the role of priest?

It took a while for William White to fold Samuel Seabury and Samuel Provoost into one church. Seabury had been a Loyalist army chaplain and was a high churchman in the tradition of the Yale Converts of 1722. Provoost had been more or less a Patriot though he was able to retire to his upriver farm during the British occupation of New York. White had been a Patriot and chaplian to the Continental Congress. Seabury’s father was an SPG missionary though his family had some Newport Huguenot money. Provoost’s family had enough money for him to be educated in England and marry an Irishwoman with money. Provoost had been an Assistant at Trinity, New York, before the war, but he was better known as a botanist, and so far as I can figure was a low churchman. White had been an Assistant at the united parish of Christ Church and St. Peter’s which was the moderate alternative to the evangelical St. Paul’s in pre-war Philadelpia. And Virginia presented its own set of problems. David Griffith was elected bishop but he was not a native Virginian and served in Alexandria so the James River William and Mary folks refused to raise money for him to go to England for consecration. After he resigned they elected James Madison of William and Mary who was well-connected and a moderate. Frederick Mills’ _Bishops by Ballot_ has the story.  All this to note that new churches inevitably have problems with many facets.
White’s father made his money in land speculation in Maryland.  There were political

and social as well as ecclesiastical issues in the formation of the Episcopal Church.

Rob . . . “while all the other *formal* provincial relationship entities [Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda] get folded into ACNA” is not a statement that pretends to be present tense or past tense—“get folded” is clearly not “were folded” or “have been folded”—it is an ongoing pursuit and “get folded” clearly articulates that.

RE: “I realize that the difference may seem slight . . . “

Oh it’s not only not “slight”—there is none.  “Get folded” = “ongoing.”

RE: “. . .  but as I said, the change makes all the difference between a false statement and a possibly true one.”

No—both statements are precisely correct.  I can’t really prevent your attempting to obscure their meaning other than to point that out—and to wonder why you are attempting to do so, when everybody on this thread recognizes the uniqueness of the AMiA and the fact that the other provincial relationships are committed [or have accomplished already] to being folded into ACNA.

RE: “If this is what you call careful quoting. . . “

Yep—I do—it was *precise and exact* quoting of my own words and it was accurate as to the meaning of the statement, too.

RE: “How will the “We do not ordain women” (setting aside women as deaconess is not an ordination) of the REC be maintained if they’re folded into some ‘local diocese’ with folks who have females in the role of priest?”

Bo, my understanding is that the REC parishes would be in no-WO dioceses.  But I could be wrong there.  Remember the whole “clustering” concept, which is that parishes don’t all have to be in the same diocese even if they are within the same region.

I have no idea why AMiA wants to distance itself from ACNA and retain its independence.  But that is a reality right now.  If you look at the AMiA website you will find no mention of ACNA on its homepage (compare with REC which features the ACNA logo on its homepage noting that it is a founding jurisdiction).  In fact, you will have to dig quite deeply into the website before finding every cursory mention of its affiliation with ACNA.  Judging solely from their website, which seems fair to me, it appears that belonging to ACNA is of very little importance right now.  The same is true of CANA as well, but I’ll give them a pass since their website is badly in need of updating- I could only find mention of being part of the Common Cause Partnership which was the precursor to the formation of ACNA nine months ago…  I also checked out a sampling of AMiA church websites.  Couldn’t find any that mentioned ACNA.  These are the facts on the ground right now, make of them what you will…

As a former Anglican, former African led parishioner, and former AMiAer, I’m with Rob Paris on this one. I believe people are reading what hey want into the ACNA communication - and it’s either an ignorant misrepresentation of how ACNA functions according to canons or an intentional misrepresentation.

Money quote in all this:
“Better to take our time and form something that will last than to paste something together quickly and have it blow up later. ”
Which precisely explains some peoples’
concerns about ACNA. Is this a trial marriage, or a real commitment by all
the factions? Much was said after meeting in Ft Worth about the Holy Spirit guiding them to set aside their differences in creating the Constitutions and Canons for ACNA.
Have some of the factions stopped listening to the Holy Spirit and started listening to their own self-interests?
Why participate in the creation of the
C&Cs; and then not accede to them?
Was the creation of them rushed to the point of not recognizing and hammering out the differences to a mutually acceptable state?
Inquiring minds want to know.

Bo, ....that has been my question from ACNA’s inception. I still have not gotten a good answer….and I have come to the conclusion that there is not one….but I believe that whom ever it was that said that ACNA is not much different from what they left…if fairly right on and I would be inclined to agree…the only difference is that they just are not ordaining LBGT’s ......Yet! But then PECUSA ...ECUSA…TEc morphed over time.

The merry-go-round has gotten old, so you get the last word, Sarah.  While I continue to disagree about the meaning of your words, I am sorry for my rhetoric about your credibility…I overstepped the bounds there.

I would like to know, however, since many seem to be under this impression, where you all are getting the idea that the AM is permanently in this ‘special status?’  As a Network Leader who has been involved in many inside conversations regarding our relationship with the ACNA, I have to say this assertion does not fit what I have heard.  It has never been suggested to me that this is the way it will always be.  Only that we are going to take our time aligning.  Which, is why I do not see us as ‘unique’ despite all the assertions to the contrary on this thread…seems to me others are taking their time as well.  But if someone can give me something concrete to the contrary, I will recant.

One small observation regarding the Chucky pizza analogy - at least the pizza slices have the same crust/bread as their foundation.

Mr. Paris,
It might be helpful to state the meaning/reason(s) for “take our time aligning”. What benefit or purpose/advantages does AM have that REC and others do not in taking your time?

For those who are unfamiliar with the structure and governance of the AMiA, the AMiA has a Primatial Vicar who is appointed by the Primate and House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The Primatial Vicar, Bishop Chuck Murphy, is the presiding ecclesiastical authority of the AMiA in the absence of the Primate of Rwanda and governs the AMiA with the assistance of a Council of Missionary Bishops. The Missionary Bishops forming the Council are also appointed by the Primate and House of Bishops of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Since the minimum age requirement of a Rwandan Missionary Bishop is 35 years of age, the Governance Task Force that drew up the ACNA canons set the minimum age of an ACNA bishop at 35 years of age, rather than the traditional 30 years of age. This was done presumably to accomodate the AMiA. When there is a vacancy in the AMiA episcopate or the AMiA needs an additional Missionary Bishop, the Council of Bishops may recommend a nominee. The Primatial Vicar must approve the nominee before passing on the recommendation to the Rwandan Primate and House of Bishops. The Rwandan Primate and House of Bishops is not juridically bound to choose the nominee that they recommend, and has the last say in the appointment. AMiA Missionary Bishops as members of the Rwandan House of Bishops are ultimately responsible to the Rwandan Primate. Network Leaders are appointed and vested with authority by the Primatial Vicar with the consent of the Council of Missionary Bishops. The Network Leader’s role and authority is strictly delegated to him by his Missionary Bishop to whom he is accountable.  The Primatial Vicar may from time to time call a College of Presbyters as a council of advice. A board of directors deals with corporate matters under the laws of South Carolina under which the AMiA is incorporated. For those who would like to look at the AMiA canonical charter themselves, it is on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/am_cms_media/theamcharterforministry.pdf

The following comes from the June 30, 2009 Message from the AMiA Chairman, Bishop Chuck Murphy:

“As a member of ACNA’s Executive Committee and Governance Task Force, I attended a meeting in April with GAFCON Primates including archbishops with US jurisdictions. Those leaders in attendance agreed that each member jurisdiction would develop individual protocols outlining specifics for each group worked out between the overseas jurisdictions and the ACNA leadership.

Some of the key points of the Anglican Mission’s Protocol are:

1. The Canons of the Anglican Church in North America apply to the Anglican Mission in the Americas, except in those matters addressed by the Anglican Mission’s ‘Canonical Charter of Ministry,’ and therefore articles such as Article 10, Section 5 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America [addressing the process for electing and approving new bishops] are not applicable to the Anglican Mission.{my emphasis]

2. The Bishops of the Anglican Mission in the Americas are elected and consecrated in the Anglican Church of Rwanda.  The names of the newly consecrated bishops are brought to the College of Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America to be welcomed and seated[my emphasis].

3. The Bishops and Clergy of the Anglican Mission in the Americas are under the license and discipline of the Anglican Church of Rwanda.

4. The Archbishop of Rwanda, on behalf of the Province, exercises principal responsibility for the Anglican Mission in the Americas through his Primatial Vicar.  [The Anglican Mission Charter states that the Anglican Mission remains as a missionary outreach of the Province of Rwanda, and in addition, the Mission is embedded in the Constitution and Canons of the Province of Rwanda.]”

The constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda and the Anglican Mission Protocol for the ACNA are also on the Internet at: http://www.theamia.org/resources/download-docs/
Click on the link and then scroll down to “Structural Documents.”

The AMiA Clusters that were represented at the ACNA Inaugural Provincial Assembly were created especially for representation in that body. If the AMiA had been represented as a ecclesiastical organization as was the Anglican Network in Canada, it would have have fewer delegates at the the Provincial Assembly. The AMiA may be the largest of the Common Cause Partners forming the ACNA and the creation of these groupings gave it the most delegates in the Provincial Council. The ACNA at its present stage is basically a federation of ecclesiastical organizations. While the Provincial Assembly has very limited powers—it may deliberate upon matters relating to the faith and mission of the ACNA and make recommendations to the Provincial Council respecting these matters and receive reports from the Provincial Council and must ratify any changes in the constitution and canons—a ACNA member organizations with a large number of delegates can exert a strong influence on what changes are made in the ACNA constitution and canons—especially if its delegates are appointed as may be the case in the AMiA. The interests of the various represented in the Assembly would be better safeguarded if the proposed changes to constitution or canons were circulated among the member organizations before they were submitted to the Provincial Council for their approval and then, if approved, submitted to the governing bodies of the member organizations for their ratification. The Provincial Assembly offers opportunities for one or more persuasive speaker to convince the delegates of a member organization to vote against its interests, as well as lobbying groups to employ pressure tactics to achieve the same results, as well as permits the member organization with the largest number of delegates to determine what proposed changes to the constitution and canons are ratified.

The Provincial Assembly offers opportunities for one or more persuasive speaker to convince the delegates of a member organization to vote against its interests, as well as lobbying groups to employ pressure tactics to achieve the same results, as well as permits the member organization with the largest number of delegates to determine what proposed changes to the constitution and canons are ratified.

If this is true ...it is very concerning to me for a variety of reasons

From the AMiA web site:
Protocol Governing the Relationship between The Anglican Mission in the Americas and The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) Province of Rwanda House of Bishops
June 13, 2009
Entered into between the Anglican Church of Rwanda, the Anglican Mission in the Americas, and the Anglican Church in North America:
1. The Anglican Mission in the Americas is a founding member of the Anglican Church in North America and fully under its Constitution.
2. The Canons of the Anglican Church in North America apply to the Anglican Mission in the
Americas, except in those matters addressed by the Anglican Mission’s “Canonical Charter for Ministry”, and therefore, articles such as Article 10, Section 5 of the Constitution of the Anglican
Church in North America are not applicable to the Anglican Mission.
3. The Bishops and Clergy of the Anglican Mission in the Americas are under the license and discipline of the Anglican Church of Rwanda.
4. The Bishops of the Anglican Mission in the Americas are elected and consecrated in the Anglican
Church of Rwanda. The names of the newly consecrated bishops are brought to the Council of Bishops of the Anglican Church in North America to be welcomed and seated.
5. The Archbishop of Rwanda, on behalf of the Province, exercises principal responsibility for the
Anglican Mission in the Americas through his Primatial Vicar. The Archbishop of the Anglican
Church in North America exercises authority in all things relating to the Constitution and Canons
of the Anglican Church in North America, expressly limited by the canonical exceptions spelled
out in numbers 2 and 3 above.
6. The Anglican Mission in the Americas agrees to a substantial financial commitment to the Anglican Church in North America.
7. The Anglican Mission in the Americas will be represented in the Provincial Assembly based on
the ASA of its clusters.[my emphasis]
8. The Anglican Mission in the Americas will be represented in the Provincial Council as if it were
three dioceses (clusters or networks); the bishops, clergy and lay representatives being chosen by
the leadership of the Anglican Mission in the Americas by whatever means this sub-provincial jurisdiction elects to use.[my emphasis]
9. As with all congregations of the Anglican Church in North America, congregations of the Anglican Mission in the Americas are free to move from the Anglican Mission in the Americas to another diocese (cluster or network) with the mutual consent of the Anglican Mission bishop and the new bishop.
10. A declaration of full communion with the Anglican Church in North America has been (will be)made.
11. This protocol will be re-examined and re-negotiated in June 2010.*

Note: This helps to explain the provision in the ACNA canons for member ecclesiastical organizations of the ACNA to continue to operate under the constitution and canons of their parent provinces.

If there is a genuine interest in understanding where the AM is coming from, I can outline the types of things I have heard…though, again, it is not that the AM is seeking to be unique.  All of the jurisdictions could (and some are) take their time in fully aligning as well.
Here is what I understand to be the key reasons (though I do not speak for the AM)...

1. We want corporate/structural unity to flow from relational and missional unity rather than vice versa.  We want to align with the other ACNA members in common mission and allow the corporate structures to evolve out of this.  Something that is commonly not understood about the AM is that it began not merely as a reform of theology, but also of mission and structure (i.e. bureaucractic structures that impede mission).  You can agree or disagree with the AM’s concern on this, but it is a key motivating factor.  We do not want to see the same forms of church life that existed in the Episcopal Church come to be imposed on the ACNA.  We would rather see the types of missional structures that exist in Africa inform and guide us.  Hence, we want to retain a connection with Africa until these missional structures become more fully realized among us and gives rise to a unified orthodox, missional Anglicanism in North America.

2. We want to retain our link with the Anglican Communion through Rwanda, something that goes away if we simply fold into the ACNA as it currently exists.  I realize that many think this is not a good reason (I myself agree, actually), but it is one of the reasons commonly given. 

3. The elephant in the room as well is the simple fact that relationships were strained when the AM left the Episcopal Church.  Things were said and done that hindered trust (I realize this is felt on the other side as well).  We are at the table because we are committed to getting past this, but reconciliation takes more than forgiveness, in other words, it takes time. 

I realize I am not going to convince anyone who is already convinced that the AM is simply independently minded.  I can tell you without a doubt, however, that the AM is pressing into the ACNA because we do care about a unified Anglicanism. 

I am not going to debate any of these thoughts with anyone.  You can agree or disagree, but it is what it is.  What I, and everyone I know within the AM, desires is simply to work together for the advance of the kingdom.

I do appreciate your input Rob Paris.  At this point I’m not so concerned about the situation, what with ACNA not even being a year old yet.  Five years from now we’ll have a better handle on how it’s going to turn out…

#62

Bo, ....that has been my question from ACNA’s inception. I still have not gotten a good answer….and I have come to the conclusion that there is not one….but I believe that whom ever it was that said that ACNA is not much different from what they left…if fairly right on and I would be inclined to agree…the only difference is that they just are not ordaining LBGT’s ......Yet! But then PECUSA ...ECUSA…TEc morphed over time.

At the Anglican 1000 Conference, bishop Duncan said, ““It’s easier to leave Egypt than to leave Egypt’s patterns.”  We have a lot of changing to do.  I can say, however, that what’s afoot is more than not ordaining LGBTs.  I’m aware that we need to deal with at least 45 years of erosion of orthodox commitment and discipline.  But more, there is a serious attempt going on to break the TEC tradition of ruling class thinking, and getting focused on the Great Commission.  Of course, time will tell.

Ron #69

Hence, we want to retain a connection with Africa until these missional structures become more fully realized among us and gives rise to a unified orthodox, missional Anglicanism in North America.

When you refer to “us” in this statement are your referring to the ACNA or the Anglican Mission?

When you use the term “orthodox,” what is your definition of orthodoxy? The ACNA is composed of several different theological schools of thought that do not agree on primary matters as well as secondary ones.

While an authoritarian structure may be a workable structure for the management and administration of a missionary organization, is it the right kind of structure for the governance of a province and its subdivisions? The Anglican Mission as a missionary outreach of Rwanda is responsible to the Rwandan Primate. To whom would an authoritarian structure for the governance of a province and its subdivisions be responsible? The authoritarian structures one sees in the African churches show the influence of the Roman Catholic Church as well as traditional African society. The United States and Canada are a different cultural context. African authoritarianism has its downside and has its own share of problems. This is generally overlooked by those enthusiastic about introducing it into North America. Stephen Noll has pointed out that the Africans still have a lot to learn about the difference between episcopal authority and episcopal tyranny. The problems that the Roman Catholic Church’s authoritarian structure has evidenced do little to commend it. Authoritarian structures become bureaucratic in time. Authoritarian structures were popular during the 1930s. While the trains ran on time, the trains also carried the Jews to the gas chambers. An extreme example but it points to the downside of authoritarian structures. In the wrong hands they can be used to do great evil. Who is to oversee the overseers?

Authoritarian structures also prone to clericism and elitism. In a number of cases where authoritarian structures have been introduced into North American churches, they have resulted in abuse of power and arbitrariness in decision-making. People have been hurt. In the past the Church of England was more authoritarian but that did not make the English Church more mission-oriented. Authoritarianism is not the solution to the problems of the North American Church.

...we need to deal with at least 45 years of erosion of orthodox commitment and discipline.

I hope this includes the ceasing of ordaining women. But of course that is still going on even in ACNA today. Remember a break away from ECUSA was not just done a few years ago over the authority of Scripture and elevating a gay priest to the Episcopate….those who left ECUSA in the mid seventies saw what was coming when women were being ordained and the Prayer Book was revised and changed, thus they made their move. Since then it has been a downward spiral not only because of what was being allowed to be done in just those two arenas but, there was too much of the mentality in “Well, we do not do that in our diocese/church.” Or
“Let us see where God takes this!”

“Ron” should have been “Rob.”

69,

Thank you for this.

Something that is commonly not understood about the AM is that it began not merely as a reform of theology, but also of mission and structure (i.e. bureaucractic structures that impede mission).

There is much about the Anglican Mission I love.  For example, I love the emphasis on a 10-10-10 model of stewardship.  I think it is really healthy and I think the sort of corrective you mean.  I also appreciate the focus on parish vs diocese.  I mean of course the contentious notion that the parish is the basic unit of the church and not the diocese.  This plays out that the diocese or network exists to support the parish and not the other way around.  I think most of us get this and agree with it.

I have not met anyone in the ACNA that wants to build a new version of TEC.  We agree.

My experience here in the far west is that the far flung networks of parishes, some spanning thousands of miles, does not create a system that supports parishes.  Congregations experience isolation instead of fellowship and clergy, often bi-vocational, are equally isolated. For example, the REC bishop for parishes here in the San Francisco Bay Area lives in Houston.  I know he cares for his clergy and I am in no way critical of his ministry.  Its just kind of tough to meet on a regular basis, when you live so far apart.

72…when I say “we” I am referring to the Anglican Mission (i.e., the concern I have heard voiced among us).

Human ego and pride. The million dollar question is the extent to which the leadership in the AM, ACNA and its constituant churches are willing to subordinate their own personal ego to a larger cause.  Leadership on both sides should reflect, and be ashamed, of the dithering in this area.  Lay people in these churches shouldnt permit it.

Egos are obviously still bruised over the circumstances surrounding the early AMIA departures from TEC, which were not supported by some of the current ACNA leaders.  Ego has obviously played a hand in the manner and timing of the selection of Bishops, and the timing and method of the AM bishops discribed above was obviously not helpful.  However, the AM is right in theory on the need to identify for leadership individuals with the ability to plant and grow churches, and that may mean some battlefield promotions are in order. The AM should acknowledge, though, that a good number of its plants have failed to thrive and it could benefit from some of the wisdom and history of the larger ACNA churches. 

Its wasteful, inefficient, and just silly to have a Bishop supervising churches which collectively have fewer congregants than would fill a large Baptist church.

Ego continues to play a big hand in the manner in which WO is addressed.  The policy set out in the Nov. 5, 2003 Anglican Mission in America Announces Policy on Women’s Ordination made perfect sense given all of the circumstances, and should have been adopted by the ACNA. Unfortunately, WO seems to have become a matter of pride for some ACNA Priests and Bishops who took a pro-WO position early in their TEC careers in TEC, and are too prideful to even talk about a compromise along the lines of the Rogers report.

Sorry about “TEC careers in TEC”. I obviously dont have enough pride in my quick blog writing!

Having watched those Orthodox Anglicans who had the foresight to leave the Episcopal church in the late 70s-early 80s splinter into about 100 pieces over ego (rarely basic theology), I am disappointed and a little surprised to read so much discussion among fellow Anglicans about the perceived ‘faults and failures’ of this healthy toddler - the ACNA.

The ACNA is not only growing rapidly, it is creatively bringing together orthodox factions and groupings that no one thought would join together. This constant emphasis on ACNA ‘imperfections’ (for there are some) and constant worry over whether (at some vague time in the future)ACNA will develop ‘the same faults as TEC’ makes my more cynical side wonder: “Are you folks afraid the ACNA will fail, or afraid that it will not?”

The sad experience of the 70s-80s proves that we will never find nor develop the perfect organization. Only God is perfect. Even I am only nearly-perfect.

Form follows function. I think that great.

By the way, a little background for those of you who don’t know, Rob is pastor at Wellspring Anglican in Englewood CO (a suburb or Denver). It is a fantastic church and growing. It is our church home away from home when visiting Denver. There are many wonderful attributes about the church. One of the things, I find amazing is how there are people from walks of life - rich socialites to urban poor - all committed to the Gospel. Another thing that I like is there are a lot of families with adopted kids as well as many ethnicities, so my kids feel quite at home. (Warning: they do have a praise band which I understand is not for everyone.)

(I think that Rob is also the “missioner” or something like that for the Rocky Mountain region.)

Ecclesiastical hierarchy should foster not hinder growth such as seen at Rob+‘s parish. I don’t feel at all uncomfortable with leaving a few i’s undotted in the ACNA structures, keeping things fuzzy for a while. I don’t disagree with JamesW saying that the ACNA is not a province ready yet. Guys like Robin Jordan are put out that Bishop Harvey was appointed dean of the ACNA even though this “authority” wasn’t in the present documents. I don’t mean to be dismissive, but that seems to be sweating the small stuff. Use people’s gifts to advance the kingdom. Focus on growth. Work on the details as we go along.

Having read through this discussion, several points occur to me.

1)  I am thankful to Anglicansablaze, both the comments summarizing the AMiA protocol regarding the Constitution and Canons of the ACNA and AMiA’s own life as a missional jurisdiction, and for his perceptive comments about the importation of authoritarian episcopal structures that are foreign to North American culture.  I am by no means a supporter of democratic ecclesiastical government, which I think is clearly part of the problem in The Episcopal Church, but neither do I think that episcopalian authoritarianism is any better.  Dr Noll’s comment on this point is particularly apt.  Conciliarism, both universally and locally, is the right and proper form of ecclesiastical government, a conciliarism that is only partially summed up in the tag, “episcopally led and synodically governed” that is trotted out in the Western/Global Northern Anglican provincial Churches from time to time.  (I say only partially summed up, because while the clergy and laity have a role in governance and the discernment and reception of doctrinal teaching and practice as being faithful to apostolic teaching and practice, the bishops are the ones charged by the Church and empowered by the Holy Spirit rightly to take counsel together and to decide doctrinal matters in a way that clergy and laity aren’t.)

2)  As one who is now attending an AMiA congregation (parish seems an inappropriate word, as they never refer to themselves thus, and there is a certificate posted in the narthex that proclaims the church to be “affiliated” with the AMiA, something that raises the hackles of my catholic ecclesiology), I have real concerns about the ecclesiology of the Anglican Mission movement.  I rejoice in the idea of corporate and structural unity as proceeding from relational and missional unity, though I am troubled by the fact that eucharistic unity, the unity most important to the patristic Church since the writings of St Ignatius of Antioch, doesn’t seem to merit a mention as the unity from which all other unity (missional, relational, structural) flows.

3)  Again, from several months observations from within an AMiA congregation (which we are in the process of joining), I think that the AMiA is insufficiently catholic (and by this I don’t mean insufficiently Anglo-Catholic).  I realize that there are congregations and clergy within the Anglican Mission who understand the Anglican tradition as a reformed catholic tradition, but the missionary success of the Anglican Mission and the large numbers of people who have joined Anglican Mission congregations from free church evangelicalism have led to a diminution of a sense of Anglican missional distinctives; e.g., no clear sense of the fundamental formative character of the Prayer Book liturgical tradition, even while the Prayer Book is being claimed as part of the Anglican patrimony and used in worship services (sometimes only in part or in textually altered forms that seem beholden to evangelical Protestant theology); a neglect of a rich tradition of Anglican sacramental theology (cf. the Caroline Divines), of how the sacraments and the ascetic practices of the Church form us and conform us to the image of Christ; and (somewhat less important) a neglect or less-than-robust embrace of Anglican and catholic hymnody.  Neglect of such Anglican distinctives are ways in which the Anglican Mission seems more evangelical Protestant than thoroughly Anglican.  (I realize that Evangelicalism has a long and distinguished history within Anglicanism, but not to the neglect or diminution of the Prayer Book tradition and of the Anglican sacramental and ascetic theological tradition.  See the lives of John and Charles Wesley for excellent examples of the sort of High Church Evangelicals that Anglicanism can produce.)

I suppose that one could accuse me of being beholden only to a certain type of Anglican churchmanship, but I don’t think so.  These are fundamental theological matters (yes, even the hymnody, because of its doctrinal content), not simply marginalia of a particular school or party of churchmanship.

4)  This is likely completely unfair, based as it is on my own limited experience and reading, but considering what I’ve mentioned in #2 and #3, I think part of the apparent authoritarian feel of the Anglican Mission lies in what strikes me as the personality-driven character of American free church evangelicalism.  Am I wrong?  I would love to know that I am.

5)  As others have noted, we are very early in this movement, toward the creation of a thoroughly catholic and evangelical Anglican Church in North America.  I wish that ACNA had not been formed already, but that instead a more closely-knit umbrella synod of the constituent members had been created last summer(an Anglican Synod of North America, if you will - and yes, I know the history of some of these synodical movements in conservative Anglicanism in North America), with the creation of an actual Anglican Church in North American awaiting the enfolding of all constituent members into complete relational, missional, and structural unity based in our eucharistic unity in Christ.

In some of this I’ve wandered far from the actual thread here, but I think that the protestant evangelicalism of the AMiA is part of what’s driving the train on the seeming aloofness.  Again, I would love to be shown to be wrong.

As a postscript, I completely agree that Dr Roger’s excellent position paper on women in holy orders, adopted by the Anglican Mission (and now in some sort of limbo, as there have been some ordinations of women to the presbyterate within the AM?), should have served as the position and policy of the ACNA as a whole on the matter.

Good observations 81. I would only add that you perhaps minimize the human factor. I remember being critical of the AMIA when it was formed. Some relationship building is still needed.

As a postscript, I completely agree that Dr Roger’s excellent position paper on women in holy orders, adopted by the Anglican Mission (and now in some sort of limbo, as there have been some ordinations of women to the presbyterate within the AM?), should have served as the position and policy of the ACNA as a whole on the matter.

There still a lot of confusion out there over this issue, and rightly so. However, it really is quite clear. The AM is the new acronym for the umbrella “Anglican Mission in the America’s.” There are 3 subgroups in the AM. One is the one we most commonly think of: the Anglican Mission in America. This group is by far the largest and does NOT ordain women to the priesthood. There is also the Anglican Coalition in Canada, and the newer Anglican Coalition in America. Both of these groups DO ordain women to the priesthood. All of this has been written into the AM Charter.

Section 4:  The Anglican Mission accepts two theological conclusions regarding the ordination of women to the priesthood, and
is structured to accommodate both.  The Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) believes Holy Orders to be a matter of both the doctrine and the discipline of the Church, and receives the call of women exclusively to the diaconate as part of its common life. 
The Anglican Coalition in Canada (ACiC) and The Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA) accept Holy Orders as part of the discipline of the Church, rather than a matter of doctrine alone, and receive the call of women in the priesthood and diaconate as part of their common life.

So on the hand, the +Rodgers Study is still in full effect. Just only for the AMiA, which is by far the largest contingent in the AM. Also, to date, no AM bishop has ordained a woman to the priesthood. All the women so ordained have been by Rwandan or other ACNA bishops. And yes, I am an AMiA priest…in the classic sense stated above!

I wonder what I can, or even perhaps should add to a thread like this?  Perhaps a distant and probably less informed view from a far off land:

As far as I understand it AMiA [AM] was an early formation which has had more time to develop, pretty much on its own, and to settle into ways of doing things and relationships.  This took place well before the formation of GAFCON and other relationships which have encouraged the formation of ACNA.  AMiA have had to deal with things and problems on their own and find solutions on their own.  ACNA is far more recent, and although AMiA has participated, it brings its own history, achievements and ways of doing things.  It would not be unreasonable for it to be cautious while at the same time showing its enthusiasm and active participation in the project.  I think ACNA and its components including AMiA have done quite remarkable work in such a short period. 

I understand that people in the US may like instant results, but if you look at the development of your own country as a federation of individual states, that relationship took time to develop and perhaps is still developing.  I would have thought there was an analogy with ACNA, and federations are far from foreign to the Anglican Communion.  There are several such provinces in the Indian sub-continent.  It will take time, and perhaps should, in order to make sure things are got right.

What is most striking to me is the missionary heart and enthusiasm for taking Christ out into America that I hear reports of from people I have met in both ACNA and AMiA.  It is pretty clear that God is on the move in them.  I wish them every success in that mission and keep them in my prayers.

This whole discussion is premature considering that ACNA parishes, if not tied to the Anglican Communion through the mission society of another province, i.e., Rwanda, are not canonically members of the Anglican Communion.  Three cheers for the ACNA, but until the other so-called instruments of unity recognize it as a province, the ACNA is not enough.  As another poster said, this will sort itself out in 20 or so years; we just need patience.

My thanks to the Revd Mr Copeland for clarifying the issue, particularly for highlighting the statement (that I had not read before) that the AMiA considers Holy Orders to be “a matter of both the doctrine and the discipline of the Church”.  (This does beg the question of why they would continue within the same missional structure and juridiction with those who ordain women to the presbyterate, however.  But then, Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Quincy were doing just that for a number of years.)

Pageantmaster, what you have to say about the shift of the United States of America through the 1780s from a confederation to a federation of states is a handy analogy that illustrates precisely why I wish that the ACNA had instead incorporated at first as the Anglican Synod in North America.

83- is it fair to say that The Anglican Coalition in America (ACiA) was formed primarilly because CCP decided it wanted to ordain one of its female deacons as a Priest?

If I’m not mistaken, the ACiA was formed just before CCP entered AMiA in response to a parish in Orange Park, Florida, which had decided to go with AMiA and already had a woman priest on staff.  ++Kolini helped form an alternative AMiA structure that would allow women priests to accommodate her.  When CCP entered AMiA shortly thereafter, it chose to be listed as an ACiA parish. A few months later the AMiA website then dropped the designation of AMiA/ACiA in its parish directory.

8-but I thought the prior AMIA structure would have allowed Priests in place, just not new ordinations.

The ACNA is a microcosm of the Anglican Communion; like the ABC, Archbishop Duncan is only a titular head so far, with a variety of jurisdictions, not just the AMiA, functioning with a great deal of autonomy within their own chains of ecclesiastical command.  This will continue for some time, even among those who have “folded in,” as what it says on paper in the Constitution and Canons becomes an implemented organizational culture over time.

Any rush to centralize bureaucratic structure, and any arguments over who gets to wear purple, and any discussions in a committee of who gets to be in charge of which geographical part of the North American R.I.S.K. board, (i.e. “I want to be the bishop of Kamchatka—so I better find 12 parishes I can count to self-actualize my dream”), would only stifle the creativity that the Lord has been giving many in the AMiA as well as in other missionary parts of the ACNA.  For crying out loud, folks, there are non-geographical dioceses in the ACNA that overlap with geographical dioceses precisely because the founders of the ACNA saw the payoff in a real-live visual aid: the astronomical growth for the AMiA in the last 10 years.

While something like 3 out of 4 church plants fail, across denominational lines, the AMiA’s track record is substantially better, averaging the addition of a parish every three weeks.  While Sarah may scoff at missional attempts to throw the kitchen sink at a hostile post-Christian culture, I, for one, do not.  Should we quit trying to plant churches in the Muslim dominated parts of the world because it’s hard and we may fail?

As far is participating in ACNA, there is no need for the AMiA to “fold in.”  We are not only already in, all chips, but we are founding members, and one of the strongest pieces of the patchwork quilt that the Lord has seen fit to pull together.  The ACNA folks don’t seem to have any trouble when it comes time to count our people, the number of our parishes, and ask us for financial contributions!  Nor do they have a problem when Bishop Todd Hunter says he’s going to go down trying for 200 of the 1000 churches +Bob Pittsburgh called for on inauguration day.  While some ineffectual American missionaries may have wanted him to wait in line behind them for enough ecclesiastical tenure to suit their fancy, he is probably the only person at Bedford to say 200 without it being totally ridiculous.

Bishop Chuck Murphy has been in every Executive Committee meeting since the inception of Common Cause, and he has worked tirelessly alongside the others to craft constitution and canons that would unify as many as possible without losing the missional DNA the ACNA is going to need in a hostile post-Christian missionary environment.  It was Chuck Murphy that made sure that there would be a court of appeals so that a future ACNA bishop couldn’t pull what TEC bishops have been trying to pull: ignoring their own canons by fiat.  What is the deal?  How is it that he still gets accused by some in this thread for being aloof?  The AMiA has given tens of thousands of dollars to fly ACNA bishops around for GAFCON, help with Bedford, etc.  In short, we are your FRIENDS and your BROTHERS, not the dadgum enemy.

In addition, I find it somewhat amusing that anyone cares one whit about the AMiA having an ongoing relationship with Rwanda as a missionary outreach that is both embedded there and a founding member here.  Surely this is the point of a global Christian fellowship, a,  dare I use the word, catholic fellowship?  Part of the attraction to an ongoing relationship is the spiritual authority Rwandan bishops like the Rt. Rev. John Rucyahana (Shyira Diocese) and the Rt. Rev. Jered Kalimba (Shyogwe) have, not to mention the outgoing Archbishop.  They are leading a movement of divine forgiveness in the wake of a genocide.  They are teaching people to love, not just enemies, but people who murdered their family members.  From Bishop John: “Let me tell you about my ministry: after repenting of my own sin of bitterness at the men who skinned my niece alive and gang raped her to death, I ask God’s forgiveness for my unforgiveness, and then I go to those very men in the prison to tell them about the love of God in Jesus Christ.”  We are not there folks.  Just read the sarcastic comments to the posts on this blog, (many of which have sadly been my own over the years).  Bishop Jered has had assassination attempts on more than one occasion within the last 10 years, and yet he continues to be faithful.

That is a far cry from the over-focus on the lint in our ecclesiastical navels as evidenced by the thread above this post.

Furthermore, each bishop in Rwanda is responsible for the spiritual formation of nearly 100,000 people, and they are meeting that challenge, not by ordaining as many people as possible, nor by creating autocratic systems, but through the creativity and entrepreneurship of lay catechists.

By contrast, in the U.S. continuing Anglican jurisdictions we have bishops with tiny jurisdictions, with often a 1 to 15 clergy-to-lay person ratio, with no ingenuity or capacity for making even a dent in the 150,000,000 unchurched population in North America, instead choosing to relegate ourselves to becoming the curators of a liturgical museum that nobody comes to anymore.

Further, the history of our beloved Holy Catholic Church bears witness to the Spirit of God’s spiritual “market corrections,” through a variety of means: missionary societies, monastic orders, parachurch non-profits (parachurch literally meaning: FOR the Church).  The AMiA is FOR the Church.  We don’t even mind planting churches that get subsumed by some other bishop without the spiritual gift of church planting!

Brothers and sisters, we have a great deal of work to do simply to be obedient to participating in this extraordinary move of God’s Spirit.  He is moving powerfully toward the largest English-speaking mission field in the world, our continent, and blog threads like these are like fleas arguing over the dog.

We have been afforded space and freedom within the structure of a visible unity in ACNA to creatively respond to this move of God’s Spirit.

One thing is for sure: if we are this unsupportive of our missionaries, their societies, their Rules, and their risk-taking, if we in the ACNA become a vehicle for the Gospel that is remembered beyond the next 25 years, it will be an act of God that He will have no trouble getting the credit for.

I’ll be back to this blog in about 6 months.  In the meantime, I’ll be doing whatever I can to make disciples who make disciples to populate the pews of ACNA churches, and I’ll be planting churches that plant other churches to strengthen the Anglican witness in North America.

(This does beg the question of why they would continue within the same missional structure and juridiction with those who ordain women to the presbyterate, however.  But then, Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Quincy were doing just that for a number of years.)

Doing what? My diocese, San Joaquin, only ordains women to the Diaconate….but I believe that will change soon….as we are in process of looking looking for a Bishop since Bishop Schofield has announced his retirement in 2011. So it will be interesting to see just how this process of “obtaining/electing/choosing” a new bishop happens and what we wind up with. I am not holding my breath that we will not wind up with a bishop that is all for ordaining women to the priesthood…and it will be interesting to see the shift of people yet again, that might take place in San Joaquin if that happens. As for our diocese being in the same Province as those other diocese who have been ordaining women and gay or lesbian persons to Holy Orders of any level well….Yep we probably would have faired better had we all paid attention to the handwriting on the wall a few decades ago but we cannot cry over split communional wine now can we?

90,

Tomorrow morning my parish will celebrate its first birthday.  I don’t consider this a new church plant as we are really a transplant.  Most of us were in an Episcopal church and left everything and started new.  I ask questions because I am curious and because I believe one of the values we need to embrace is accountability.  A slogan I use in St. James and in our two parochial missions (yes 2 in our first year) is “The mission is more important than anyone’s ego.” That includes mine. 

Your post rests on the accomplishments of AMiA.  Ok then.  Give us some numbers.  What is the ASA of churches you planted that are not TEC replants?  Honestly I don’t know how the ASA of the ACNA is distributed among the partners.  Do you?  I’d be curious to know. Knowing wouldn’t change my relationships or my work.  It wouldn’t change my admiration for AMiA either.

One observation I would offer you based on your numbers.  You are adding a parish every three weeks.  The ACNA is currently adding a new parish about every two days.  This suggests that AMiA is adding about 10% of the new parishes. Based on that, it sounds like the rest of us are doing a decent job planting new parishes also.

I wish we had a score board that showed who was accomplishing what.  Not to brag, but to boast in the Lord. 

Christoferos, when you come back to this blog in six months or so, please know that many of us who are here are also passionately trying to make disciples and plant new parishes.

Yep we probably would have faired better had we all paid attention to the handwriting on the wall a few decades ago but we cannot cry over split communional wine now can we?

TLDillon, I wrote what I did not to express any judgment other than a simple acknowledgment that jurisdictions (dioceses, in this case) who view Holy Orders as a matter both of order and of doctrine (and who do not ordain women to the presbyterate) can exist canonically within larger jurisdictions (TEC, in this case) who do ordain women to the presbyterate.  (As an analogy for the coexistence of a variety of practices regarding WO within the Anglican Mission.)

Or at least could exist for a while, until the traditional went from the optional to the proscribed, hence the subsequent history of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Quincy.  There is, however, every indication that this proscription of the traditional will not be the case in ACNA or in the Anglican Mission.

Sounds like another sweet deal cooked-up, several months ago, in the incense-filled room in the back that many are only now becoming aware of. How many more surprises will there be to come?

#88 Going Home, there were two women priests already in AMiA when the WO study done by Bp. Rodgers was adopted.  They were grandmothered in since they were already in place.  However, the decision was made at that time that any additional woman priests coming into AMiA would be received as deacons and their priestly orders would not be recognized.  BTW, the two original AMiA woman priests are no longer involved in active church ministry.

First,
Thanks to Christoferos (90) for a reminder about what AMiA is all about, and who the Rwandan bishops are.  Quite frankly, we should all be taking some moments to thank God for every African and South American layman, priest, bishop and primate who has “stuck their nose in our business.”  Without them, there would be no ACNA, and like as not, TEC itself would be even worse without “Communion interference.”

Thanks also to AnglicansAblaze (66 and 68) for putting up the AMiA and ACNA “chapter and verse.”  By doing so, much of the doubt and suspicion was removed from the discussion.  Let’s try to build our arguments on the documentary record, and not on our own home brewed worst case scenarios.

What it seems happened here is that the bishops and other leaders of AMiA and their counterparts throughout ACNA recognized that the bond between the two was not as close as it could or should be, and have committed themselves to addressing that.

the leaders agreed among other things, to strengthen the relationship between the Anglican Mission, the Province of Rwanda and the Anglican Church in North America

This is a positive step to address the very problems that some of the posters here recognize between the two organizations. This is analogous, it seems to me, to the creation of a diocesan structure for FiF- done to assure Anglo Catholics that, should San Joaquin (for example) take the step indicated as a possibility by TL Dillon in #91, the Anglo Catholic parishes will be able to remain in ACNA and have a bishop and diocesan structure they can turn to.

As you travel through the Midwest (could be true in other parts of the country too, but I am familiar with this one) you will find, in many small towns, churches well over 100 years old, and the original altar (probably no longer in use for anything other than a candle stand) will have a tabernacle for the Blessed Sacrament- ample evidence that at one time, Anglo Catholics knew how to plant churches.  It is a skill we need to learn again.  If our brotherhood with AMiA under the ACNA umbrella were to yield nothing more than a good education in church planting, it would be a blessing.

It is up to us- Will we focus on the differences that work to pull us apart, or will we focus on Jesus Christ, who would have us find the things that bind us together?  30 years ago, a movement took place among those with a surprising degree of theological unity, and it began to come apart within months, eventually splintering into any number of factions- some no larger than a single parish.  ACNA has taken enormous strides in its first year.  The outcome of the GS meeting next month may strengthen it further.  For our Lord’s sake, for the Church, and for ourselves, let our focus be on building the Church, and not on our petty squabbles.

Barbara, These women were grand-mothered in or chased out?  I ask this in all sincerity.

This has been a great thread and some great exchanges.

There’s a whole lot of assumptions, though, in the thread that probably could be addressed.

For instance, Christoferos states the oft-purported meme of “the astronomical growth for the AMiA in the last 10 years.”

I’ve always found that meme to be odd.  After ten years, the AMiA has about 150 parishes of unknown ASA.  I could name the ones that have huge ASA—and I could name ones that are quite quite quite slender in ASA, not to say, dying on the ground—[for a small story for an aspiring blogger, just review the history and losses in the AMiA parishes who left the Central Gulf Coast Episcopal diocese.]  The only “blurring” of all that “growth” is when they try to throw in the old “parishes in formation” line—but “parishes in formation” I’ve found are more hit and miss then not.

Just to point out a contrast—the PCA church, hardly a huge denomination, 14 years after its start had 924 parishes [now, of course, many more].

Struggling to 150 churches in 10 years, particularly with a massive meltdown in the Anglican denomination from which one has departed is not particularly impressive to me at all, much less do I consider it “astronomical growth.”

Now thankfully, “astronomical growth” is not required to be a faithful church.  One need not experience “astronomical growth” to be devout and doing good work in the community, sharing the gospel with the lost and seeking.

But fostering the illusion that Anglicans should imitate the “astounding success” of the AMiA is just . . . strange.

RE: “That is a far cry from the over-focus on the lint in our ecclesiastical navels as evidenced by the thread above this post.”

There is no “over-focus” in this thread, Christoferos—and one [of several reasons] reason we all know that is that you’ve troubled to reply to what you characterize as “lint.”  Heh—some mighty strong “lint” there.  Or are you just “over-focusing” on the response to the lint?  ; > )

RE: “By contrast, in the U.S. continuing Anglican jurisdictions we have bishops with tiny jurisdictions . . . “

Not probably something to be proud of . . . but when will the consecration of bishops cease then?  What is ACNA at now . . . 40 new bishops or so?

RE: “if we are this unsupportive of our missionaries, their societies, their Rules, and their risk-taking, if we in the ACNA become a vehicle for the Gospel that is remembered beyond the next 25 years, it will be an act of God that He will have no trouble getting the credit for.”

Who on this thread has been “unsupportive of our missionaries”?  Oh . . . wait—you mean “AMiA?”  “Our missionaries”—AMiA?  And “unsupportive” means “pointing out that the AMiA is unique in ACNA” and criticizing that.

[roll eyes]

A whole lot of pretension and preening there.

The only thing I see on this thread is a bunch of people saying “wait—what’s this press release about?”  And a bunch of other people *explaining* just what the press release was about—a denomination that is getting special rules over the others in the ACNA, which news was kept pretty strikingly quiet for a time—and then a couple of people not appreciating the explanation and doing the same old redux of “our special charism.”

RM Bruton:

RE: “How many more surprises will there be to come?”

A good 7-9 more.  I keep waiting for a good group of ACNA laypeople to start a blog to cover it all.  But suffice it to say that there’s going to be several more “look over here at this good news here” sorts of releases, and bunches of people saying “wait—that doesn’t look like good news to me.”

And that gets to the fundamental issues with this thread and another mistaken assumption.

It’s not that the AMiA should not be able to join ACNA and then not follow all of ACNA’s rules.  ACNA leaders can do anything they like, frankly, and there’s pretty much *nothing* that laypeople can do about it.

Four years ago when all of this was coming down the pike, I made a pretty clear case for slower unity rather than quicker.  In business, one doesn’t conduct 10 mergers at once.  One first merges with the entity that one is most similar to.  So I postulated that one had the Network [sans TEC], and the unity amongst the three non-organized provincial relationships could begin first: Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone.

That being done—and that’s a multi-year process in itself—one could then turn to the more recent individual entity—CANA.  Then—and ONLY THEN—the AMiA, which because it began back in 2000 had deeper-seated theological and ecclesial differences.

From those unifications—taking multiple years—one could begin the process with the REC and others.

For political reasons—1) because of the need for “quick growth” and “quick organization” [Christoferos is correct when he says “The ACNA folks don’t seem to have any trouble when it comes time to count our people, the number of our parishes, and ask us for financial contributions!] and 2) because there was a felt-need to have some sort of reunification with the Continuers [didn’t happen, and boy, no surprises there for some of us], and 3) because some parties [ahem] wanted to shape and control from the ground-up rather than have the organization be built without their votes—that didn’t occur.

I thought at the time—and stated it—and still think that that was a big mistake.

So the idea that the AMiA should not seek immediate unity with ACNA is quite understandable to me—the haste of multiple mergers was not wise, but that’s my opinion and others think differently.  Of course . . . along with the AMiA not seeking unity with ACNA [that is, acceding in full to the C&Cs;], should also come not having a vote in ACNA.

But that didn’t happen either—also for the political reasons mentioned above.

All of the above being said, mistakes or what I or others might consider to be unwise decisions along the way are not actually The Big Deal. 

What is The Big Deal, however, is the hiding and secrecy, coupled with the same old tired lines that people have heard from TEC all those years, namely “be quiet—do not be divisive” and “let the leaders work it out in private and negotiate” and “these are all minor details—let’s focus on mission and ministry and not the politics” and “support our Dear Leaders—do not question their decisions—they are our authorities.”

Ring any bells for the former and current TECers?

Boy—it sure does for me.  This blog has been at it for four years—and hearing the same old lines from those outside of TEC that we heard shrilling from TEC bishops and clergy was . . . eery.  [past tense used deliberately]

Talk about off shoots! How many does AMiA have 1 or 2? Why?

AMiA does not count churches under 50 people in its total of 150 churches.  Of course, I am not saying that there are no churches that have fallen back under 50 and remain on the list…we are not always the best at such communication. But, you cannot get on the national website as a member church until you are over 50 ASA.  If we did not limit ourselves this way, the number of churches would be far, far higher. 

For example, the Rocky Mountain Network ASA is somewhere above 1200.  We have 6 congregations under 50 and 9 over 50, with the largest just shy of 300.  We are a medium sized Network among the nearly 20 Networks in the AM, so you can approximate the numbers from there.

What is often missed in these discussions is that there is a building momentum throughout the country.  Today we had two pastors of prominent evangelical congregations come to check us out because they are interested in the historic patterns of worship.  We have over 50 Denver seminary students/graduates in worship every week.  Similar stories are playing themselves out all over the country, Wheaton, Columbia International University, Biola, and Gordon Conwell are just a few that I know of.  Our church alone has set the goal of planting 20 churches in the next 10 years.  It is only God who can make this happen, but he has blessed us so much that we truly believe this could be our future.  Just yesterday our Network hosted a liturgical practicum for emerging leaders and had 44 people show up (though a number were already clergy).  All this to say that God is sending people to Anglicanism to help us become a missionary force in North America.  If we squander this opportunity, by focusing on our differences, rather than on the needs all around us, woe to us. 

The cries of folks like Christoferos are not about control.  Having seen the need and the opportunity God is giving us, we are simply asking that we spend more time doing mission and less time dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s.  We do not see this as a time for establishing the church, but for extending it…more like the first 5 centuries of the church rather than the past 5.

Although I understand the concerns about ‘secrecy’ in the ACNA and how this can appear to be the same as TEC, I have to say the differences are striking…one denomination that is steadily decreasing in members, and the other steadily growing; one that passes the Dennis Canon, and the other that explicitly gives control of the buildings and all assets to the local church; one that refuses to transfer anyone…the other that allows transfers almost at will.  So, despite a few similarities, the differences are just as striking and completely change the equation. 

Although I have not always been blessed by the level of disclosure within the AM in the past, I can also say it is usually a matter of being too busy seeking to do mission rather than a desire to conceal or control.  And, there is no ‘secrecy’ about the AM and its relation to the ACNA.  The meeting where this decision was made only happened a couple weeks ago.  Don’t see this as keeping things “pretty strikingly quiet for a time.”

Just to point out a contrast—the PCA church, hardly a huge denomination, 14 years after its start had 924 parishes [now, of course, many more].

The PCA started off with 260-some-odd parishes, and (after quite a long while of deliberation) “folded in” the Reformed Presbyterian Church (along with RTS, etc.), and then dozens of parishes in the early 80s who refused to merge into PCUSA.  That’s all in the first 10 years.

It’s not a fair comparison.

Ed and Sarah,

I like you both, and I want the Lord to do great things through biblically faithful Anglicanism.  I have already prayed before this posting that the Lord will continue to bless you personally, and bless those around you by loving them through you.  I hope you do more and greater things than the AMiA, to God be the glory.

God’s mission, as you undoubtedly know without one of our Anglican missionaries telling you, is to reconcile humanity and the cosmos to Himself.  Whether we are inside or outside the Anglican Communion, whether we are inside or outside the Episcopal Church, whether we are “folded into” the ACNA or accused of being aloof or not really being a part, the mystical union of the Body of Christ is evidenced best when we get about the business of loving Him and others in a way that images His character.  There is a particularly Anglican way of doing this that I hope we do not lose, any of us Anglicans, either because the church simply ages and dies by not building a bridge to the culture, or because the church loses its Anglican distinctives by being subsumed by the culture.

I simply do not see how it advances the cause to continue to undermine the efforts or the strategy of the AMiA, and that is the part of the questions and the postings to which I take exception, not the legitimate questions you are entitled to raise.

I did not attempt to say anything in my post that reflected negatively on the ACNA, which I love and of which I am a part.  I do not believe the thrust of my previous post was to suggest the AMiA was either the greatest Anglican thing since Real Presence in sliced bread, nor was I communicating that it was growing faster, or better, or larger than whatever portion of the Anglican Communion another disciple is in.

What I am attempting to observe is that the Lord is using a variety of strategies to organize Anglican disciples to be a part of a move of God’s Spirit toward those who are without.  The size of the task is monumental.  It will take inside and outside strategies.  It will take missionary societies as well as mission partnerships with the Global South.  It will take missionary dioceses that are non-geographical, as well as geographical dioceses that are missional, with servant-leaders who do not lord their authority over people, like many of our TEC bishops had been doing.

Sarah, I happen to like your posts, for what it’s worth. I think they are intuitive, they raise good questions, and I am grateful you are in the Anglican portion of the Body of Christ.  But Sarah, your condescension to those who are not of the inside strategy is well documented over the years.  I just think the spirit of your posts, not the content, is sometimes undermining of people who are on the same team.  It certainly has felt that way to me.  In this thread, you’ve rolled your eyes at me, you’ve called me a pretentious preener, you’ve suggested I have tired lines from the same old people who inhibited and deposed me, and that the organization of which I am a part has deep theological and ecclesial issues.  Okay.

Ed, by contrast, wants to compare adult baptisms and turn it into a competition.  Great.  We’ll compare ministry scars and triumphs in six months, and I’m sure we’d both end up giving God the glory.

But why must I come to Stand Firm and find that those who I have believed to be my brother and sister traditional/conservative/reasserting Anglicans only to find that they continue to be suspicious of the AMiA?  Is it arrogance to enjoy being a part of the AMiA?  Is it wrong for me to describe it as astronomical growth, whether I’m speaking of spiritual fruit, or applied missiology, or quantitative analysis?

And there are a great deal of erroneous assumptions in the questions raised in this thread, and certainly a great deal of erroneous information being passed around with all of the same “rigorous” [roll eyes] investigation as a 24-hours cable news program does on a slow news day.  Suspicions abound.  Why?  “The AMiA is a mission, nothing more, nothing less,” as Bishop Murphy is fond of saying.  Someone explain to me how giving up our relationship with Rwanda helps the ACNA? or how by continuing that relationship hurts our mission?  or hurts theirs?

End of “woe is me” lament… I shall be dealing with the erroneous assumptions in a following post.

I love you people!  I just want to be loved too!  Is that so wrong?!?

Sarah would like to compare us (the AMiA) to the PCA.  That’s an inappropriate comparison, and a red herring.  The PCA gathered all of the Presbyterian churches who were leaving the PCUSA, in addition to planting new ones.  It would be better to compare the ACNA to the PCA, and compare the church planting portions of the PCA to the church planting portions of the ACNA and the AMiA.  That would be apples to apples.

Comparing the numbers from the PCA after almost 40 years to the numbers from ACNA after almost 1 year leaves me thinking the PCA might not have been the best stone to throw. 

ACNA has ~half the parishes and a ~third of the membership, with 39 more years to catch up.

In 2000, there were 4 AMiA congregations.

Prior to the Bedford meeting, the AMiA had a rule that said a church would be counted as a fellowship “in formation” if it had fewer than 50 ASA, and as a church if it had more than 50 ASA.  At the time of Bedford (summer ‘08), there were 200 churches and fellowships in the AMiA.  130 were listed as full-fledged churches, and 70 were listed as in formation, with a total aggregate ASA of 20,272.

AMiA Cluster One: ASA—2,106—13 churches and 5 in formation—the Rt. Rev. Sandy Greene.

AMiA Cluster Two: ASA 1,588—12 churches and 18 in formation—+Sandy Greene.

AMiA Cluster Three: ASA—1671—12 churches—the Rt. Rev. John Miller.

AMiA Cluster Four: ASA—2268—12 churches and 2 in formation—the Rt. Rev. Terrell Glenn

AMiA Cluster Five: ASA 2618—12 churches and 10 in formation—+Terrell Glenn

AMiA Cluster Six: ASA 4749—14 churches and 9 in formation—The Rt. Rev. Philip Jones

AMiA Cluster Seven: ASA 2185—14 churches and 6 in formation—The Rt. Rev. Thad Barnum

AMiA Cluster Eight: ASA 2157—12 churches and 2 in formation—The Rt. Rev. T.J. Johnston

AMiA Cluster Nine (ACiC): ASA 930—6 churches and 10 in formation—The Rt. Rev. Sandy Greene

oops… Bedford was summer ‘09…. getting older…

RE: “Sarah would like to compare us (the AMiA) to the PCA.”

No, Sarah would merely like to point out that the AMiA does not meet Sarah’s definition of “astronomical growth” and to supply an example of what could be considered fairly decent growth [because the PCA ain’t no great shakes either] she pointed out the PCA number of parishes after 14 years.

Now—the AMiA *does* meet Christoferos’s definition of “astronomical growth” but . . . well . . . I don’t have anything to say about that other than “to each his own.”

RE: “I simply do not see how it advances the cause to continue to undermine the efforts or the strategy of the AMiA, and that is the part of the questions and the postings to which I take exception, not the legitimate questions you are entitled to raise.”

How has what has been written above “undermined” the efforts or strategy of the AMiA?  Keep in mind, were I the ACNA, I wouldn’t have moved as swiftly either!  I wouldn’t have tried to combine Kenya, Uganda, Southern Cone, CANA, AMiA, and the REC all at once.

If the analysis or even defining of terms above in the comments by some lay peons is somehow “undermining” than I shudder to think what will happen when someone with power actually *tries to really undermine*!

RE: “But Sarah, your condescension to those who are not of the inside strategy is well documented over the years.”

Well no, actually, it’s not.  My *criticism* of traditional bishops and clergy on the INSIDE of TEC, my criticism of traditional bishops and clergy on the OUTSIDE of TEC, my criticism of revisionist bishops and clergy overall, and my criticism of all laity, including myself, is well-documented “over the years” however.

And yes, I’ve certainly critiqued Common Cause, ACNA, and Gafcon in spades—but not nearly so much as I have critiqued Communion Partners, TEC, and the ABC.  The difference is . . . some who have left TEC hate to have any criticism or analysis of strategy, actions, and rhetoric of ACNA.  They can’t bear it.  And they certainly can’t bear having pointed out just how lousy some decisions have been made and some character traits that have been exhibited.

RE: “In this thread, you’ve rolled your eyes at me . . . “

I have rolled my eyes at your rhetoric, yes.

RE: ” . . .you’ve called me a pretentious preener . . . “

No—I stated that your *rhetoric* was “pretentious preening” and yes, it was.  It was ridiculously self-serving.

RE: “. . . you’ve suggested I have tired lines. . . “

Much worse—I’ve suggested that *many* outside-TEC leaders use the same old tired lines of TEC clergy and bishops.

RE: “. . . the organization of which I am a part has deep theological and ecclesial issues.”

Nope—I suggested that the organization of which you are a part has deep seated theological and ecclesial “differences” and that is why the attempt at unification should have been much much slower than it was.

Which it does.  After all . . . you’ve spent much of this thread articulating the differences as explanation of why the AMiA gets to be treated differently and not accede to all of ACNA’s C&Cs;.  And in that . . . we agree. 

RE: “Ed, by contrast, wants to compare adult baptisms and turn it into a competition.”

Heh—Ed merely wants some facts to back up your rhetoric of “astronomical growth” and being the “missionaries” of ACNA.

RE: “only to find that they continue to be suspicious of the AMiA?”

Huh?  Who is suspicious?  I accept AMiA at face value.  They’re an Anglican organization attempting to grow and share the gospel.  There’s a lot I don’t want to be a part of or imitate in the AMiA, but that’s because my values, goals, priorities, ecclesiology, and theology are a bit different.  But that doesn’t mean that the AMiA is not doing its best to live into its identity and do the best for the gospel in the context of that identity.

RE: “Someone explain to me how giving up our relationship with Rwanda helps the ACNA? or how by continuing that relationship hurts our mission?  or hurts theirs?”

Um—not acceding to the ACNA C&Cs; in their entirety?

But here’s the good news.  The ACNA leaders have chosen to allow that.  It’s their decision.  As I’ve said over the past four years of observation, I certainly would have moved much more slowly, and said “take your time, AMiA, we’ll continue in good fellowship over here in ACNA and with you, and work on growth and when you’re ready, we can talk about unification.”

All some of us have been doing on this thread is saying “wow—that doesn’t look like a good idea.”  And it doesn’t.  It looks like a good idea *to you*—just as AMiA’s growth looks like “astronomical growth” to you.  But that doesn’t make either side bad or wicked, again, or even suspicious or undermining. 

Hi Rob Paris:

RE: “The meeting where this decision was made only happened a couple weeks ago.”

I was referring to the AMiA’s decision not to assent in entirety to the C&Cs; of ACNA—and yes, it was kept pretty strikingly quiet.

RE: “Comparing the numbers from the PCA after almost 40 years to the numbers from ACNA after almost 1 year leaves me thinking the PCA might not have been the best stone to throw.”

Hi James Manley, I was not comparing the PCA to the ACNA.  No stones, and no comparison at all.

The PCA itself—as I’ve made clear several times too—is not a particularly “astronomically” growing church either.  And it is now no longer the choice of departing PCUSA congregations, [the EPC is] which after all, made up a large portion of its growth.  It will be interesting to see what happens as it is now approaching the end of its “youth” in a sense and as an “established” church will have to deal with other matters associated with the end of the peak growth curve.

There is a lot of what Sarah is pointing out and saying that I agree with especially in regards to combining Kenya, Uganda, Southern Cone, CANA, AMiA, and the REC all at once. I am sure that they did this to make it look good in the way of acronyms and numbers than what had taken place back in the mid to late 70’s when churches left and formed fracturing groups through the St. Louis Statement. But, by doing this they have brought in so much diversity all at once with differing theological and ecclesial issues that it will eventually evolve into problems and in fact might already be doing just that. I believe that the African Primates helped to rush this new “Province” into being tin order to get some pressure of of them from the wider Communion itself. There was a larger picture and reason for the rush to do this without benefit of having everyone fully on board with all of the C’s&C’s of ACNA.

To address some of the erroneous information:

Leading up to the inaugural meeting, the AMiA was asked to relate to the constitutional convention as only 3 diocesan clusters, instead of 9, at Archbishop Duncan’s request, precisely because of the issue raised by Sarah, that we would be voting on something under which we had special dispensations.  There was nothing secret about this, we knew about it for months leading up to the convention, and of the 300 delegates, the AMiA did not have the representation we would have had if we had related as nine dioceses instead of 3, despite representing over 1/4 of the ACNA: 20,000 of the 70,000 ASA in the jurisdictions originally applying for recognition as Dioceses.

Of the 416 churches qualifying under the 50 ASA rule for recognition in the summer of ‘09, 138 were from pre-existing Episcopal structures: 33 were in Pittsburgh, 19 were in San Joaquin, 32 were in Fort Worth, 54 were in the REC.  This leaves 278 churches under the overseas jurisdictions of Rwanda, Nigeria, Receife, Uganda, Kenya, the Southern Cone, and Bolivia, of which the AMiA is nearly half.

In the summer of ‘08, there were 288 affiliated congregations that didn’t qualify under the 50 ASA rule.  73 of those are in Quincy, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and Ft. Worth. 104 are in the REC.  This leaves 111 congregations “in formation” under the other previously existing jurisdictions under foreign oversight.  Of the 111, 62 are AMiA.  Again, half, and the overwhelming bulk of those are new works are not pre-existing churches, (new works which Sarah derisively refers to as potential failures rather than new works).

So let’s go deeper into the navel to find more lint by interpreting this data.  ;>)

Of the 70,000 ASA, the AMiA is 20,000.  Of the 416 qualifying churches, the AMiA is one quarter.  Of the 111 “new works,” even if you don’t count the number of pre-existing congregations (dominant majority in the other jurisdictions) versus the new works (dominant majority in Rwanda’s jurisdiction), the AMiA was over half.

We would need more data concerning pre-existing congregations coming in as a whole into the overseas jurisdictions, versus church planting, as well as those coming under Rwanda’s care as whole congregations.  It gets messier given that some of the churches were planted by small groups from existing churches, but not the whole congregation.

While this may not be representative of the whole, as of the summer of ‘09, in our Network, under +TJ Johnston, we had only two churches that were planted with a 50 person ASA from a pre-existing Episcopal congregation, in addition to one that brought the bulk of the congregation with them and could afford to immediately build a new property.  The other 11, 9 with at least 50 ASA and 2 with fewer than that, are brand new start ups within the last 4 years.  Since the summer of ‘09, a 1000 member Vineyard church joined the Anglican Mission, (and they have already planted a church), we have planted two affiliated fellowships both nearing the critical mass of 50 already who have not a single former Episcopalian in them.  We have two more in the works that promise to have near 50 the moment they begin; and again, this is without borrowing a single person from existing Episcopal churches.

More numbers from Bedford—I stand by astronomical, with the caveat that I am comparing it to Anglican church planting movements in the West since the Reformation:

Name, originating jurisdiction, ASA, # of congregations,
(>greater than 50 ASA/< less than 50 ASA)

Diocese of Cascadia, REC/Receife, 510, 6/2
Diocese of the Southeast, Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Receife, 2352, 12/5
Diocese of Western Anglicans, Uganda, Kenya, 2009, 13/8
District of New England, Kenya, Uganda, 1136, 7/10
International Missions Diocese, Argentina, Kenya, 1300, 8/2
Diocese of Quincy, Southern Cone, 712, 7/12
Diocese of Pittsburgh, Southern Cone, 5746, 33/23
Diocese of San Joaquin, Southern Cone, 3103, 19/19
Diocese of Ft. Worth, Southern Cone, 5627, 32/19
Diocese of the Holy Spirit, Uganda, 2459, 16/7
The Bolivian Cluster, Bolivia, 1382, 6/8
CANA, Nigeria, 9,500, 75/0
Diocese of the North East and Mid-Atlantic, REC, 2614, 12/35
Diocese of the Southeast, REC, 2481, 12/22
Diocese of the West, REC, 1211, 6/16
Diocese of Mid-America, REC, 2315, 12/28
Missionary Diocese of the Central States, REC, 721, 12/3
AMiA Cluster One, Rwanda, 2106, 13/5
AMiA Cluster Two, Rwanda, 1588, 12/18
AMiA Cluster Three, Rwanda, 1671, 12
AMiA Cluster Four, Rwanda, 2268, 12/2
AMiA Cluster Five, Rwanda, 2618, 12/10
AMiA Cluster Six, Rwanda, 4749, 14/9
AMiA Cluster Seven, Rwanda, 2185, 14/6
AMiA Cluster Eight, Rwanda, 2157, 12/2
AMiA Cluster Nine (ACiC), Rwanda, 930, 6/10
Anglican Network in Canada, Southern Cone, 3496, 21/7

RE: “new works which Sarah derisively refers to as potential failures rather than new works). . . . “

Well, actually, what I said was “The only “blurring” of all that “growth” is when they try to throw in the old “parishes in formation” line—but “parishes in formation” I’ve found are more hit and miss then not.” 

And I see that you’ve done exactly that—thrown in a lot of “parishes in formation” to the numbers.  No surprise there.  It’s done all the time.

I’ve found over the years that “parishes in formation” is basically thin air that people grasp at, so yes, I’m “derisive” of the rhetoric [not the parishes, the rhetoric] about “parishes in formation” if it’s used to pump up the numbers.

But I’m not certain what “erroneous information” that Christoferos claims to be addressing in his latest lengthy comment glorying in the AMiA as the “missionaries of ACNA.” 

There are a lot of pretty numbers—but I strain to discover what the pretty numbers are supposed to address other than “we are the ‘missionaries’ of ACNA.”

The only thing I see that is faulty is that ACNA claims 100,000 ASA not 70,000. 

RE: “I stand by astronomical . . . “

Yes—we’ve established that you have a different definition for “astronomical growth” than I do.

And I’m confused.

I thought you’d “be back to this blog in about 6 months” after you’ve populated “the pews of ACNA churches.”  ; > )

95—that is my understanding, that the existing female Priests were grandfathered in place when the AMIA adopted the Rogers report. But this seemed to be a very wise and well thought-out policy, one that would have served the entire community well if adopted accross the board.

Then something happened. Wasn’t it the desire by one church to ordain a deacon to the Priesthood?

My point in raising this issue is to underscore the need for sacrifice if we are to be the Lord’s hands in building a new church in America.

Sarah, I made the mistake of reading your post earlier, and I had to address it.  Since Sunday is a feast day, I’m reading blogs…. shame on me, letting an ecclesiologically-focused inside-strategy gal drag me into, albeit a polite and respectful exchange of logical fallacies: you’ve been ad hominem, straw man, red herring, and non sequitur in your arguments.  At least I’ve only purported pretentious preenings.

And, maybe if I keep beating my head against the wall expecting a different result, YOU might one day populate an ACNA pew.

I don’t pretend to be hoping to move you further into the Venn diagram of the ACNA to think that you might populate the pews of an AMiA church.  If you were to come, however, you’d find the Holy Spirit present in worship, an intact Anglican liturgy, new visitors every Sunday, and an ASA after 3 years of 150 having started with 6 ex-Episcopal couples and a clergyman, none of whom had any experience planting a church.

Good heavens—does CANA have 75 parishes??!!??

RE: “you’ve been ad hominem, straw man, red herring, and non sequitur in your arguments.”

I’ve made no attempts at arguing.  All we’ve done is traded assertions, based on what we each believe, and no, none of my assertions have been straw man, red herring, non sequitur or “ad hominem” [an ad hominem argument asserts that a thesis is false *because of the person stating that thesis* and I have done no such thing, which leads me to believe that you don’t know what an ad hominem argument is].  But pointing out that I don’t see the AMiA’s growth as “astronomical” and pointing out that the AMiA is being treated rather differently and not acceding in full to the C&C of ACNA and pointing out that I don’t think that is a good idea is in no way “straw man” or “red herring” or “non sequitur.” 

RE: “And, maybe if I keep beating my head against the wall expecting a different result, YOU might one day populate an ACNA pew.”

I do not share the same values, theology, goals, or ecclesiology of ACNA as a whole, although there are certainly some wonderful people and parishes and friends in ACNA.  But threads such as this one make me further understand why I’m particularly unsuited for ACNA.

RE: “If you were to come, however, you’d find the Holy Spirit present in worship, an intact Anglican liturgy, new visitors every Sunday, and an ASA after 3 years of 150 having started with 6 ex-Episcopal couples and a clergyman, none of whom had any experience planting a church.”

I have no doubt of it.  But I don’t join churches based on finding a good congregation—and I don’t want to join ACNA. 

RE: “Sarah, I made the mistake of reading your post earlier, and I had to address it.  . . . “

Well . . . okay.  As long as it doesn’t take away from your populating “the pews of ACNA churches.”  ; > ) 

Going Home:
RE: “Wasn’t it the desire by one church to ordain a deacon to the Priesthood?”

Another perspective on that question might be: “Wasn’t it the desire by an organization to create a means of having parishes which ordain women in that organization?”

Sarah,

In post #45 you wrote this:

RE: “This relationship cannot be dissolved as easily as it has been in some of the other jurisdictions.”

Right—especially when its leaders don’t want that “relationship” “dissolved.” 

RE: “It is aligning itself with the ACNA as far as its constitution and canons will allow it to do so at this point.”

Well—it’s aligning itself with the ACNA as far as its leaders have decided to, yes.

The sentence that begin RE and are in quotes were written by Rob Paris and your response the is sentence that immediately follows.

Here is my question, when you refer to the AMiA’s leaders in each of your responses, do you mean the American leadership (i.e., Chuck Murphy and the American Bishops), or do you mean the Rwandan leadership (Archbishop Kolini and the Synod in the Church of Rwanda) or both combined?

Thanks.

There are 100,000 regular attenders and 700 churches in the ACNA.  The media doesn’t require a 50 ASA for it to count (just ask the Episcopal Church “All is Well” people).

Meanwhile, the ACNA required a diocesan average aggregate Sunday attendance of 1000, and a minimum of 12 churches meeting the 50ASA criteria for a cluster of churches to qualify for recognition as a Diocese when it was forming.  This was to their credit.  As of the meeting in Bedford, there were 70,000 in average Sunday attendance, and 416 churches meeting the criteria of 50 ASA.  However, our Network cluster alone, one of several in +TJ Johnston’s jurisdiction, has added 1300 people and 6 new church plants at or near 50 ASA since, with more on the way, in less than twelve months. To Ed’s point, the wider ACNA is also doing extraordinary work in this area, not just the AMiA.

Whatever you’re looking for in your “see, I told you so” insider smugness (I hope you hear me tongue in cheek), the smoking gun to prove your point isn’t here, especially because the “inside-strategy” folks haven’t been blazing a missionary trail in North America lately.

As to your point about “in formation,” that is precisely why I brought it up.  The AMiA has many NEW churches “in formation,” while other portions of the ACNA has many OLD churches “in formation.”  This is not to criticize, it is simply to point out that when you compare the “in formation” category, the bulk of the AMiA is made up of new work.  Some of our NEW churches and missionary efforts are in places that are unsustainable, such as on college campuses, or in an urban environment.

When I first came into the numbers posted at Stand Firm, TEC claimed 1.5 million members, while having 800,000 in ASA, while 300,000 members were in Anglican Communion Network dioceses, some of which have since departed.

If you compare ACNA to TEC, ACNA is growing at an alarming rate both in people and in new work, while TEC is hemorrhaging.  Within ACNA, if someone tries to make the point that the AMiA is not the majority of the new growth, the numbers do not support that argument.

an ad hominem argument asserts that a thesis is false *because of the person stating that thesis* and I have done no such thing, which leads me to believe that you don’t know what an ad hominem argument is

are you being ad hominem by saying I don’t know what ad hominem is?

;>)

astronomical: enormously or inconceivably large or great

I guess the difference between us on this subject is that you were going with “enormously large” while I was going with inconceivably great.

Anglicans in the West haven’t been good at church planting since the first half of the 20th century, if we ever were.  That makes what the AMiA, and by extension, the ACNA, are doing, inconceivably great, and therefore, astronomical.

;>)

I think this has been a great thread, and Christoferos, I appreciate your spirited defense and citations to AMIA’s worthy accomplishments.  Much of what you say about our American Anglican/Episcopal history of church planting and building is true. 

I think the jury is still out on the TEC émigré congregations. Will they grow? Will they find an identity that is not defined by their relationship with their former denomination?  How many are building, putting down roots?  Or these traditional markers matter in the 21st Century?

Sarah: re: “Wasn’t it the desire by an organization to create a means of having parishes which ordain women in that organization?”

I haven’t found anyone who is willing to address that issue head on.  If the organization wanted to incorporate a parishe(s) which ordain women as Priests, why didn’t they just change their policy, rather than obfuscate things by creating separate, but not really separate, organizations.  I realize that this dichotomy is reflected within ACNA as a whole, but I expected more cohesiveness within the AMIA “missionary” organization. The AMIA Priests have I have asked about this aren’t clear themselves.

Maybe I am making more of the WO issue than it deserves.  I am just disappointed that there is so little interest in working together on this issue as set forth in the Rogers report.

Ok, numbers aside Sarah has a point.I am in sympathy with ACNA.  Our structure is a mess. A real argument could be made that we are a shadow church. We have very few people that are members only of our province.  All four founding dioceses are part of another province, including the seat of our ARCHBISHOP.  Of all the various groupings only Uganda has turned over her congregations. Anyone who has been to a winter conference or heard Bishop Murphy speak on this issue know very well that AMIA has NO PLANS of dissolving and merging with ACNA fully.  He often calls AMIA the missionaries like Paul and Bishop Duncan and the ACNA James of Jerusalem. (i.e. they stay at home and build structures) The real irony if anyone care to examine it is that we have formed a federation which is exactly what the liberals in TEC want while at the same time calling for the communion to avoid that exact fate.

also Instead of combining to form dioceses we have overlaps all over the place.  We have way too many new bishops. Some of whom I have no idea what they do as they are not over an area or leading a church.  All this is done for the sake of “mission” when all over our parent provinces have “geographical” dioceses! In those geographical dioceses there is tremendous growth!  We allow parishes all over the country to join any diocese they want and end up with churches in California that do not join either of our two overlapping Western dioceses but instead chose Pittsburgh and Fort Worth.  This will inevitably cause problems down the road.
Also 150 churches is better than any other anglican movement in the US, but in wider christian churches not so much. A fair comparison would be the vineyard movement or the calvary chapel movement which grew faster with similar beginning movements.  Also Tim Keller and the REdeemer crowd alone might give AMIA a run for their money. Any of the church planting networks probably far outstrip AMIA as well. nonetheless keep up the good work. We anglicans are far behind the curve.

Going Home, post 120:

On the subject of WO, the AMiA had determined not to ordain women beyond the diaconate, as you know, based on the +Rogers study.  Later, the Archbishop of Rwanda asked if +Chuck Murphy would create an umbrella that would give the Province of Rwanda the opportunity to afford ordained women safe haven from persecution in TEC.  So the Anglican Mission in the America(s) was created.  Initially, at least to my knowledge, this was not for the purpose of forcing our bishops to go against previously established policy.  Rather, it was because Archbishop Kolini, who had said that he couldn’t stand by and ignore the spiritual genocide going on in TEC, asked for a safe haven portion in +Chuck’s primatial vicar’s span of care.  So the Anglican Coalition in America was created for the purpose of having a safe haven for churches with ordained women on staff to come into the umbrella organization.

The Anglican Communion has put women’s ordination in the process of reception.  The ACNA has created a structure so that people can be biblically faithful according to their interpretation.  The Anglican Mission is a further microcosm of the same structure, and yet, the AMiA portion of the AM is the largest.

My understanding is that some in the AMiA have really not appreciated this arrangement, saying they would prefer not to be in Communion with those who ordain women, and when +Chuck forwarded their concerns to Archbishop Kolini, he said, “you mean they don’t wish to be in Communion with ME?”

There are those of us Anglicans who are not Anglo-Catholic who do not believe the efficacy of the Eucharist is at risk if a woman presides, but at the same time, we are not interested in distancing ourselves from historic Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox practice to such an extent that it jeopardizes the possibility of future reunification.  In addition, if there is a flattened egalitarianism at the foot of the cross, and if you’re in a non-hierarchy (do not lord authority, but be servant of all) with respect to polity in the Body in the Kingdom of heaven, if we are neither male nor female, nor Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, then it stands to reason that it couldn’t be a non-egalitarian or mysogynistic thing to prefer a man as the icon of Christ during Eucharistic presidency, precisely because there is no plateau of worthiness that women have the right to get “up” to.

For the Province of Rwanda, however, it is simply a matter of headship, which they put at the level of the episcopacy, and they therefore wouldn’t think of consecrating a woman bishop, but they have no reservation about ordaining a woman to the presbyterate.

I think that one thing that all of us need to bear in mind: if one looks at the rite of ordination to the diaconate, which involves preaching and teaching, baptism in the absence of a priest, and conducting a deacon’s mass, regardless of one’s position on the subject of WO, we are among the least mysogynistic Communions of Christians that exist outside of the Roman and Orthodox Churches.  I believe we should be creating jurisdictions that allow us to land on different sides of this argument, rather than going the direction of intolerance against those of us who believe it is biblically unfaithful to ordain women beyond the diaconate.

122- I am not challenging your history—you speak of it first hand and obviously know.  I am just not aware of any women Priests seeking “safe haven” in AMIA, other than those that were grandfathered in under the Rogers policy.  Are there more than were identified above?

RE: “As to your point about “in formation,” that is precisely why I brought it up.  The AMiA has many NEW churches “in formation,” while other portions of the ACNA has many OLD churches “in formation.”

Well, certainly that’s what you assert.  I assume that by “NEW” you mean “not begun from TEC bones” and there’s no way really for me to assess the truth of that statement.  But at any rate, I still don’t understand why you’re touting all the pretty numbers, other than, again, your assertion that you’re the “missionaries” of ACNA as if 1) that is true and 2) that somehow is supposed to make the fact that the AMiA is not going to accede to the C&Cs; all better. 

To get this straight—the thesis is: AMiA is Very Special, because it has 130 parishes over the past ten years [and other parishes-in-formation, many of which it is asserted are “NEW”] and asserts that its special “missionary” identity means that it does not have to accede to the canons of ACNA and thus that for instance when it elects its bishops zey vill be “welcomed and seated” by ACNA’s council of bishops.

RE: “Whatever you’re looking for in your “see, I told you so” insider smugness (I hope you hear me tongue in cheek), the smoking gun to prove your point isn’t here, especially because the “inside-strategy” folks haven’t been blazing a missionary trail in North America lately.”

I wasn’t looking for anything, Christoferos.  Nor do I feel “insider smugness”—I have my own battles to fight that are unconnected with ACNA.  Nor do I have any point to prove at all—so far I’ve asserted all of my points in this thread and haven’t seen any counter assertions that are at all meaningful or significant. 

Nor did I make any sort of claim that the “inside-strategy” folks have been blazing any missionary trail.  You’re the one that announced that AMiA was demonstrating “astronomical growth” and that AMiA is now claiming the “missionaries of ACNA” role, implying that somehow that is supposed to excuse the non-accession to ACNA canons.

“The ACNA has created a structure so that people can be biblically faithful according to their interpretation.”
This eventually will be a problem. 
“There are those of us Anglicans who are not Anglo-Catholic who do not believe the efficacy of the Eucharist is at risk if a woman presides, but at the same time, we are not interested in distancing ourselves from historic Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox practice to such an extent that it jeopardizes the possibility of future reunification.”
Yet it will.
”...if we are neither male nor female, nor Jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free, then it stands to reason that it couldn’t be a non-egalitarian or mysogynistic thing to prefer a man as the icon of Christ during Eucharistic presidency, precisely because there is no plateau of worthiness that women have the right to get “up” to.”
It is amazing to me how we can take scripture that in effect is trying to reach the Jews of that day to understand that the Gentiles were adopted into the Kingdom through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Son of God and some how make it a platform that it is okay to ordain women…that is just a huge stretch!

Exactly, TlDillon,
We are, by adoption, all sons in Christ, and joint-heirs.
We remain bodily, slave or free (or this same apostle would not have advised the slave to rather be free if it were within their reach), male or female, Jew or Greek. 

I set on the outside looking in, and wonder, what has become of the historic married males in holy orders?  The Greeks permit them to Priest, and the Easterners in Communion with Rome, and once upon a time, there were the Anglicans, who had them in the Episcopate, and even as Primates.  Now it seems the choice may become ‘do without’ the married male episcopate, or share it with women ordained to elder.  REC, and the Rodgers Report (AMiA) sounded good, are they going to hold out?

Good heavens—does CANA have 75 parishes??!!??

The latest roster of congregations, dated Jan 7, 2010 and found here , lists 91 congregations.

TL Dillon…

You’re making all the points I was making as though you were arguing against me… not the case.  I agree.  That’s why I pointed them out.  I personally don’t want to be making it harder to reunify with the Roman or Eastern Orthodox Communions, the two largest communions of Christians in the world.  However, I don’t mind being in a larger communion of Anglicans with WO in the process of reception if it simultaneously creates a legitimate opportunity for me to be biblically faithful.

It is amazing to me how we can take scripture that in effect is trying to reach the Jews of that day to understand that the Gentiles were adopted into the Kingdom through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Son of God and some how make it a platform that it is okay to ordain women…that is just a huge stretch!

I was making the opposite point with that passage of Scripture:  that it is okay NOT to ordain women beyond the diaconate because there is no eschatological hierarchy that women in a temporal egalitarian movement should be feeling they have the right to be getting “up” to.  With a flattened non-hierarchy at the foot of the cross, with servant leaders that do not exist to be served, but to serve, one can simply make the assertion that a man is the best icon of Christ, who was certainly male, while presiding at the Eucharist, without being mysogynist.

Now I’m off to step into a phone booth to change into my Missionary Man suit, complete with cape (but definitely not cope) and “poof,” plant another church…

See y’all in 6 months.

Peace.

I don’t mind being in a larger communion of Anglicans with WO in the process of reception if it simultaneously creates a legitimate opportunity for me to be biblically faithful.

Not me! That would be a compromise and Jesus did not compromise and neither did God with the Jews. Where are we called to compromise Biblical Scripture? Nowhere in the Bible is there an instruction on “ordaining” women. Did they serve as teachers…yes but so do I as a lay person. I do know that in the Bible we are instructed that women are not given authority over men and when you ordain them you have given them that authority…...... against Scripture.

money quote: ” I just think the spirit of your posts, not the content, is sometimes undermining of people who are on the same team.”

Sarah, your comments are so often uncharitable. If winning blogging debates were a virtue you would be doing well. But it isn’t, so you aren’t. You really should go on a long and guided retreat. The spirit of your posts harms the helpful ministry of Standfirm.

Wow! I’m sorry I was off line today! I missed so much drama! Not to mention “interesting” stats.

Thank you Christoferos.  I don’t know where you live, but I’m sorely tempted to fly there to meet you for a beer or two.  I suspect, despite your opinions about WO and other matters, we would be friends.

Thank you for the break down at Bedford.  That is helpful. So the AM is about 20% of the ACNA.  Nice.  Great job. I hope you rock the next five years.

Thank you also for addressing me with Sarah! I think that is a first for me, and I must confess I’m tickled.

Now I must say I really am not interested in comparing scars.  I expect I would match up pretty well though.  As Sarah pointed out, I like numbers.  I live in the valley of hype: The Silicon Valley.  I live within a couple of miles from eBay, Apple, NetFlix, Adobe, Intuit, etc… Press releases don’t impress me. Numbers do. So I appreciate your numbers.  I have questions about them, more follow up than anything I expect.

You have given lots of numbers.  I appreciate that.

The challenge facing the ACNA, in all its parts, is to grow from new conversion. So how are we doing? Are we expanding our mission beyond former TEC congregations (and other churches) and reaching the unchurched or are we building “lifeboats”? Our two parochial missions at St. James in San Jose are made up of people who need a life boat.  We are hoping to build a base to reach the unchurched, but haven’t accomplished it yet. How is the AM doing? We had one Adult Baptism this year.  Jason’s Baptism is what we celebrated for our first Anniversary.  Nothing else was as significant. 

Metrics Matter.  Accountability Matters.  Without it I don’t know whether to turn to you for advice and guidance or dismiss you as so much hot air. Please don’t mistake searching questions as criticism. 

BTW. I’m glad you didn’t go away for six months.

Subscribe…
Wow…my head spinneth!

#133 I don’t think that is the only thing that is spinning. 

LOL - but it has been a very enlightening thread and overall very encouraging, particularly to see the figures quoted and background given.

Hyperlink in #127 has a problem. It should be:
this

RE: “Sarah, your comments are so often uncharitable. If winning blogging debates were a virtue you would be doing well. But it isn’t, so you aren’t. You really should go on a long and guided retreat. The spirit of your posts harms the helpful ministry of Standfirm.”

Yes indeed—pointing out 1) that the AMiA is not acceding to the canons of ACNA because 2) of its pretensions as having a special identity of being the “missionaries” of ACNA, and that 3) its bishops will simply be “welcomed and seated” by the ACNA Council of Bishops, and that 4) it has twisted itself into a pretzel in order to both reject and affirm parishes with women clergy and 5) that the odd claim of “astronomical growth” does not appear to be so astronomical to me and that therefore that is an odd foundation for not having to adhere to the canons of ACNA, and 6) that there are a whole lot of details that folks who love and cherish ACNA should get out there and communicate with one another about [blog, anyone?], and 7) that there are some truly astounding similarities between the rhetoric and tactics of TEC leaders and the rhetoric and tactics of those who have left TEC is Deeply Uncharitable.

I should add that on this thread, EpiscoAnglican, I haven’t “won” anything.  Both Christoferos and I have asserted our beliefs, neither of us has changed the other’s mind, and both of us I assume are happy and at peace with our assertions.

I’m disinterested in your opinions about whether I’m doing “well” or not—you’re certainly welcome to your opinion just as thousands of others are welcome to that opinion—but I’ll be accepting the judgements of those who know me and work with me, and not a blog reader who’s irked over my comments about weaknesses of ACNA.

I’m also disinterested in whether you think I’m harming the “helpful ministry” of StandFirm, but I have to wonder if you know what that “helpful ministry” is.

The “helpful ministry” is not to go beat up on the Rascally Revisionist TEC bishops and give all the Real Anglican Christians a free pass so that they can spin, bloviate, hide, engage in bombast and feel generally good about themselves, even when or if it appears that “mistakes are being and were made.”  In fact, the Real Christians have higher expectations than the Rascally Revisionist TEC bishops—we know who the latter are and don’t have any expectations.

But as it is, you can stand in a long long line of revisionists who have deemed the “helpful ministry” of StandFirm to be “divisive,” “uncharitable,” and—hopefully—“unsavory.”  ; > )

Nevin [#127], perhaps CANA should go ahead and claim that it should be the “missionaries” of ACNA.  ; > )

However, with God’s blessings, the ACNA will continue to grow.

This has been an exciting thread, and I’ve greatly appreciated the several exchanges. 

A few more general observations come to mind here, since I’ve got to continue working through the day’s tasks . . .

1) I wish some ACNA laity would start an ACNA blog to hash through the dozens of ACNA stories out there and work to hold their leaders accountable and also communicate news and analysis to other ACNA laity so that they can be informed and engaged and active—it’s not too early to start now in developing the communication resources that are needed.  Yes yes, I know—that’s uncharitable and unsavory for me to even think that ACNA leaders need to be held accountable, much less say it out loud.  And my saying this out loud so uncharitably does not mean that there are not wonderful ACNA leaders either—there are.  Great clergy whom I know and love, and great bishops, and great [though mighty mighty slim, since it’s been deliberately set up that way] lay leaders.

Further—it can’t be clergy doing it—as with TEC [yet another similarity] they’re not going to be able to say out loud any negative or critical analysis in any sort of consistent, long-term, public way.  It’s got to be laity.

But there’s developed—just as with TEC—an underground railway of communication amongst and betwixt laity and clergy, and between Stayers and Leavers [at least, the ones who are friendly with one another] and that leaves out the many who “aren’t in the loop.”

2) I would be very interested in finding out if the comments expressed on this thread by AMiA folks are typical of what AMiA folks believe about themselves and their organization and ACNA.  I’m truly surprised.  Now—it doesn’t really matter if I’m surprised and dismayed—I’m no great shakes and I’m not a part of the AMiA or ACNA.  But it has been quite a jolt and I hadn’t realized.  Maybe some folks will email me about that.

3) Recall Greg’s original and very clear mission for SF.  He was outraged—and rightly so—that laity were denied news and information and kept ignorant of the back-room deals and behind the scenes shenanigans, or even simple decisions—and he made the decision to bring things into the open.  If you all will recall, one of the first posts he put up was about a covered-up issue of a clergyman and his removal to another parish in a diocese.  It was not, as some of the early regulars may recall, received very well at all by the powers that be.  But he was sickened that the laity of the second parish were kept ignorant of what “gift” they had received. [Actually, he just pointed out to me that it was not necessarily a first post of SF—“it was merely one of the first ones that engendered widespread contempt and hatred” for SF].  ; > )

As SFers know—the more one digs, the more things get exposed to light.

4) We have not stinted from posting a) bad news about the RCs [even though we have frequently posted their great sermons and actions and pro-life videos, etc] and other denominations [Haggard, etc], b) bad news [ie, public sins] about our own allies [with some degree of pain], and c) unstinting criticism and analysis of very mistaken decisions by all and sundry.  Most of what we write is about Rascally Revisionists—they provide so much fodder—the percentage that we devote to them is massive. 

But I also don’t think it can be said by our Worthy Opponents that we have held back on things that might be perceived as “embarrassing” to our side either.  Of course—there are some things that they wish were embarrassing that are not because we don’t share the same gospel with them—so we’re not embarrassed when an ally does what is right and the revisionists are outraged.  But those things which are truly embarrassing or bad, we’ve tried to post with some integrity and honor.

5) This particular post—happily for all of us—is not about things that are wicked or immoral.  But the comment thread *is* about disagreement and critical analysis of decisions.  Nobody had an affair, nobody got caught embezzling or doing something publicly sinful.  But there is legitimate difference and disagreement and criticism.

I haven’t been at all private about the things with ACNA that I consider to be huge mistakes—although I also have not blogged about those things regularly either, and work hard not to take other posts off-topic even when asked to do so.  Generally, since my posts of enjoinment, analysis, and begging from two or more years earlier about Common Cause and the Network, I’ve confined the criticisms I have to comment threads like this one, in large part because I have other fish to fry and I’m not a part of the ACNA movement and I said my piece years ago.  But people *do* disagree, and there is a lot on display for people to think about and consider.  Some will consider just how “uncharitable” and “divisive” my comments are.  ; > )  And others . . . will consider, um . . . more along the lines of what *I’ve* considered and written.  Regardless, I’m sure not going to pretend, on threads like this one, that I don’t have some convictions and criticisms, any more than I’ll pretend that on a Communion Partner, or ACI, or Fulcrum thread.  I do—and they’re going to be said when appropriate.  The things which I did say on this thread were quite mild—[compare my recent estimation of Bishop Gulick’s behavior or other recent revisionist bishop posts for a stark contrast in rhetoric and long-time readers will see the difference]—although they certainly have not been received as such by some.

Of course, knowing StandFirm, on some other thread, a mere few weeks from now, some commenter will be outraged that I’m not joining ACNA and demand to know “why” and “when have you ever shared your reasons.”  And I will state that they need to go examine other threads.  And they’ll maintain that they’ve never ever seen anything clearly expressed—so very soon we’ll return to that now long and entrenched StandFirm Tradition.

Insofar as Anglicanism can be characterized as “the modern petri dish of ecclesiology,” SFiF in general, and this thread in particular, is very interesting and a good service to Christendom as a whole. Thanks to all the folks who put in lots of hours maintaining this blog.

tdunbar:

Insofar as Anglicanism can be characterized as “the modern petri dish of ecclesiology,”

That would be us.  Off to the lab, to see what’s on the slab.

Thanks to all the folks who put in lots of hours maintaining this blog.

Amen!  Particular thanks to Ms. Hey for making it an hospitable place for those of us who . . . might not be entirely welcome elsewhere, for more reasons than one.

I don’t care how mean she is.  At least she has a calming effect on Mr. Griffith.  Of course, being able to beat him at arm wrestling (and a number of other things) probably helps with that.  I trust her to stay in fighting trim and keep up the good work.

Now, I have to stop gushing and focus my attention elsewhere.  I hear someone from Anglican R & D yelling, “It’s alive!  It’s alive!” 

I can’t wait to see what they’ve come up with this time.

Sarah, that was sort of my point.  CANA has gone from a start of 14 churches to over 90 in three or four years.  Yes, I have no idea what percentage are new plants vs TEC “refugees” or what the ASA of any of them are, but there has been growth.  BTW wouldn’t it be nice to have ASA details for each ACNA church?  Now that would generate a lot of discussion!  But that would require the same level of transparency as, oh, say, TEC for instance…  Anyway, Bishop Duncan’s challenge to plant 1000 churches was given to ACNA, not just AMiA, so I still don’t understand how AMiA needs independence from ACNA to carry out their portion of the church planting…

As for a new ACNA blog, I think SF should just find an ACNA layperson with lots of inside connections and add him/her to the staff- easy!

RE: “BTW wouldn’t it be nice to have ASA details for each ACNA church?”

Yes—and that would be another great investigative story for a blog, too—a survey of ACNA churches detailing their worship, liturgy, ASA, theology, sermons, BCP, etc—it would be incredibly interesting.  There are some alternate Anglican churches that are doing great—and that’s a fascinating story.  And there are some that are doing awful—and that’s a fascinating story.

It’s the kind of thing that a careful, conscientious, ACNA layperson of integrity who enjoys seeking out truth would be great at chronicling.

RE: “As for a new ACNA blog, I think SF should just find an ACNA layperson with lots of inside connections and add him/her to the staff- easy!”

SF already has enough TEC enemies!!!  And besides . . . it is not our “special charism” to try to rassle up stories about other organizations.  This is a job for an “inside-ACNA” blog—not for three Cruel and Hard and Unsavory TECans, an Unsavory and Embattled ACNA priest, and an Australian.  Even if we added an inside-ACNA person, inevitably we’d all end up collaborating and supporting the poor person and SF would be tarred as the Hateful Unsavory Blog on all sides. 

No—somebody needs to start an ACNA blog and post the good and the bad and the inspiring and the great and the not so great and the strategic and the “uh-ohs, laity need to spring into action.”

But in short I have to return to the fact that it is not SF’s special charism.  ; > )

Count me out.

Sarah,

I think that

and SF would be tarred as the Hateful Unsavory Blog on all sides.

is re-tarred, not to be confused with re-tarred’d!

In seriousness, I was about to say stick to your mission, but reading your list of contributors and reflecting on their various and potential trajectories, I realize that “mission creep” is part of your mission.

I can’t locate who said “As for a new ACNA blog, I think SF should just find an ACNA layperson with lots of inside connections and add him/her to the staff- easy!” But I actually agree with this post.  The concept easily fits within your expanded mission.  Perhaps you need more than one person doing this. Or maybe the right one person.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks…;-)

“uh-ohs, laity need to spring into action.”

  Thank you, Sarah.

O’, would that THEY would (spring into action everywhere)!

...in short I have to return to the fact that it is not SF’s special charism.  ; > )

Oh!  I know what that is !

Is it ... planting churches ??

Christoferos #110
Perhaps in the AMIA, it was known for a number of the months that the AMiA’s representation in the Provincial Assembly and the Provincial Council would be determined by special protocol but it was not widely known outside the AMiA. Even in the AMiA it came as a surpise that the new AMiA bishops would be “welcomed” rather than confirmed. Bishop Murphy as I recall made this announcement on June 30, 2009, just after the inaugural Provincial Assembly. If the AMiA protocol had been more widely publicized, it would not have prompted the present discussion. If the AMiA protocol had been more widely publicized it might have caused some delegates to the inaugural Provincial Assembly to have second thoughts about ratifying the proposed constitution and canons. When the Anglican Church of Australia’s new constitution was adopted, any special protocols establishing representation of the existing dioceses in the General Synod was annexed to the constitution. It was there in black and white for everyone to see. I monitor the AMIA web site and the special protocol was not on the old web site—only the canonical charter and then the constitution and canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. I have been following the AMiA and the ACNA since their inception and their leadership evidences a lack of openness and transparency. Things are not announced in the developmental stage, only later when there may be less fallout. Neither organization is going to build public trust this way. The basic attitude is that we are going to go ahead and do this and tell the folks about it later, if at all. There is no sense of accountability: We owe the folks an explanation of what we are doing and why.

If the ACNA is going to be a real province and not a loose federation of ecclesiastical organizations, each of which has made its own special arrangements with the larger organization, some cutting better deals than others because they were involved in the ACNA in its Common Cause Partnership phase, then all the member organizations need to be participating on the same terms. Everything needs to be upfront.

I have studied the ACNA constitution and canons probably more than most folks. It is quite evident that they were designed in a number of places to accomodate the AMIA—the age requirement for bishops, for example. It is the minimum age of missionary bishop of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Indeed the constitution and canons have the AMiA finger prints all over it. The alternative method for choosing bishops is very similar to that in the proposed constitution of the Anglican Missionary Province of North America, the AMiA plan for a new North American province, and in the canons of the Anglican Church of Rwanda; the method of choosing a Primate is idential to that of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. In a number of places the language of the ACNA canons are adapted from the Rwanda canons. The special provision permitting member organizations to operate under the constitution and canons of their parent provinces was not in the earlier draft of the proposed constitution and canons.

The reality is that the AMiA, or the Anglican Mission as it now calls itself, is an extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Rwanda before it is a member organization of the ACNA. Bishop Murphy said this himself in his June 30, 2009 message. The AMiA has been moving on two tracks. By participating in the formation of the ACNA it has been able to shape the structure and governance of that organization more or less to its liking. On the other hand, it has sought to maintain its independence from the ACNA as a missionary outreach of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. The end result of this movement is that it has very little external oversight and accountability either to the ACNA or to the Anglican Church of Rwanda. It is free to do its own thing.

Sarah #115 and Nevin #127:  AND GROWING!  I know of 3 new parishes now that will be on that list in less than a year… and that’s just within spitting distance of me!  I could go visit on a Sunday, if I wished!

I think it matters little what one’s Anglican affiliation outside of TEC is.  The fact is that we faithful Anglican Christians are growing in number, while TEC is drastically shrinking and failing miserably.  This, of course, depends on one’s point of view.  Ben Franklin put it pretty well when he said “We must all hang together, or we must surely all hang separately.”  Personally, I don’t think we’re going to hang.

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

1 Thessalonians 5:11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

The numbers by Cristoferos in 111 are incorrect with regards to the Bolivia cluster; should read 8 above 50, and 6 below. Not 6/8.  So I do not know about other clusters.

The AMIA strategy from the beginning has been to accept large parishes and not small ones.  The large parishes have church planting capabilities.  The smaller one’s do not.  It’s a great strategy to help focus on plants and you do not have to deal with pastoring the small damaged churches.  These churches have their own staff.  The smaller one’s only have part-time staff.  So AMIA has been dealing with glasses that are more than half full and letting other folks deal with the glasses that are not so full, or close to empty.  There is an inherent problem in this strategy.  But not for AMIA.  Can you see it?

Well, I’ve got a pretty good view and I don’t see it francis…the strategy, that is…I oversee over 30 of the AMIA’s congregations in about 8 states. We haven’t received a single ECUSA parish but do have four transplants that (with a majority leaving their former church) have joined us since 2004. The first had an ASA of about 40, the second just over 100, and the third and fourth, (from the CEC) about 40 a piece.

Guess what I’m saying is that the responsible thing to do is check stats before posting them as facts… Or at least let me know when the AMiA strategy meetings are being held so I can attend.
~smile~
Doc

I will say Doc that you are an exception!

Exception to what francis? What is the rule? What are the statistics my friend? No one is more interested than I am…

I think we are all interested in the stats, Doc.  I do not have any.  Do you?  ASAs of your churches.  The rule will be a very high percentage of churches over 150 ASA.  I’m not clairvoyant so I am throwing that number out.  I am not talking new plants.  I can appreciate your plowing there, bud.  I am talking original transplants which was the basis of AMiA.  I do not know if that info exists, but it would be great to see.  That wasn’t a bad strategy to start with either, but strategy it was.

Francis…have to say that your assertions are not correct here in Colorado either.  Not a single church that was received into the AMiA from TEC had over 150 people to begin with out here.  We now have three over that size in our Network, but all of them grew to that size rather than beginning that way.  On the other hand, we care for quite a few under 50 (6 out of 15 to be precise) and regularly take in new ones under 50 as well. 

Can’t speak for other regions.  It may be true that something occurred along the lines of your assertion in some particular region for reasons unknown to me.  But I know it was not true here, nor has it ever been expressed as a strategy in any meeting I have ever attended.

Nor are you accurate about Utah, Francis.  St Johns in Park City is not a large parish, but a faithful one.  My experience in the AM is recent - but that experience is not at all what you reflect.

Fr Darin Lovelace+
St Johns, Park City UT

And when I get to visit Park City I’ll also visit Fr. Darin’s church…at least there one won’t get the “Jesus was a nice guru and the Resurrection a metaphor” drivel that one gets, even on Easter, at the Episcopal church in Park City. 

You go, Fr. Darin!!

Bottom Feeder,

We will look forward to your visit! 

In Christ,
Darin+

Well this is good news.  Maybe Doc is not exceptional, after all.

On the contrary, +Doc is absolutely exceptional! 

Darin+