Stand Firm

Response to the Primates’ Communique
The Anglican Mission in the Americas
Feb 22, 2007

The Anglican Mission in the Americas Response to the 2007 Primates’ Communiqué from Tanzania

In response to the 2007 Primates’ Communiqué, the Anglican Mission in the Americas has issued the following statement:

The Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) commends the Primates of the Anglican Communion for their strong resolve to demand clarity from The Episcopal Church (TEC) concerning adherence to the standards of the Communion regarding sexuality. The Communiqué issued a firm demand for reformation and repentance within TEC to be marked by specific commitments and actions, and we fully support this demand.

We believe it should always be remembered that while much of the focus of this recent Primates’ meeting has revolved around The Episcopal Church’s violations of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution I.10 concerning human sexuality, those violations have, in fact, been only a painful symptom of the much greater crisis of faith and leadership that presently exists within TEC and the many questions that TEC has raised in recent years regarding the authority of the Scriptures as our “standard and ultimate rule of faith.” [Lambeth Conference of 1888 – Resolution 11]

Given the continued crisis in Anglicanism, especially in the U.S., we are thankful that the Primates unequivocally rejected The Episcopal Church’s request to end all interventions in North America until there is deep and genuine change in The Episcopal Church. [See Communiqué, paragraphs 32 and 34.] This decision provides much needed protection for those who can no longer accept the spiritual authority of TEC.

We are grateful that the Primates see the Anglican Mission as a part of the larger family while recognizing our mission and ministry as a missionary movement of the Province of Rwanda. The Anglican Mission will continue to focus on its mission to carry the Gospel to the 130 million un-churched in North America and to plant new churches.

We remain thankful that the AMiA enjoys a secure home in the Province of the Episcopal Church of Rwanda and the assurances of our Archbishop that this will not change without our request and/or consent. Given our canonical standing within the Province of Rwanda, the Anglican Mission is in no way expected to be placed under the oversight or authority of either the proposed Pastoral Council or a Primatial Vicar, but we will support and pray for our brothers and sisters in the Communion who may be entering into this interim arrangement.

Cynthia P. Brust
Director of Communications
Anglican Mission in the Americas PO Box 3427 Pawleys Island, SC 29585

“Given our canonical standing within the Province of Rwanda, the Anglican Mission is in no way expected to be placed under the oversight or authority of either the proposed Pastoral Council or a Primatial Vicar, but we will support and pray for our brothers and sisters in the Communion who may be entering into this interim arrangement.”

It sounds as if the AMiA is rejecting organic reunion with the ACN and CANA as suggested by the primates in the Communique!

They have no interest in returning to bondage under a PV. Organic union with CANA, maybe, and maybe soon; the ACN, maybe, once it loses its yoke with heretics. But no more playing games with Spong, VGR, Schori, and so on.

No, DDW+, that is not it. Rather, the AMiA is pointing out that the least of TEC’s worries is playing ball with the Communion on human sexuality. With heresies running rampant—e.g. no bodily resurrection, Christ not divine, Christ not the universal savior but one of many vehicles to the divine—the AMiA is not going to be in communion with +KJS vicariously through the Primatial Vicar. We are going to keep planting churches and continuing the mission of THE gospel, the one in which Jesus died, was buried, rose again bodily, and by this atonement for our sins is possible, and through Him we are able to live resurrected lives, having baptized the natural state in which we find ourselves into the death of Christ. Many of my best friends are CANA, ACN, even orthodox TEC, and I cannot wait to be rejoined with them…. but this short term Primatial Vicar solution is for parishes or dioceses looking to keep their property and stay in communion with the AC—to allow such inertia to slow down the powerfully expedient mission the AMiA is engaged in, (from 4 to 172 parishes in 7 years), would be absurd. We’ll become the missionary church planting society of whatever new province emerges, but not if TEC only complies in letter, but not in Spirit, to the communique.

My own diocesan TEC bishop is Windsor-ish on paper, but he and every priest, save a couple, in his diocese is heart and soul into the sexual-self-actualization-masquerading-as-social-justice movement. Any reunification is unworkable until the gospel that is preached throughout TEC is the one the apostles taught, not the one 20th century intellectuals made up to suit.

To be fair, I think that the communique sees the AMIA as eventually coming back into the TEC. But I would suggest that this is a largely academic issue. The communique clearly sees the Pastoral Council to first of all organize orthodox TEC parishes first, and then, if all is running well, to negotiate with the overseeing bishops of CANA, AMIA and the Seventh Convocation of the ACN. Realistically, if all went smoothly, this wouldn’t happen for a couple of years.

Long before that happens, I forsee a massive change in TEC. Either of two things will happen over the next year in TEC - either the HOB will vote to accept the communique’s demands or they won’t. Either which way, there will be (I predict) a bitter feud between the radical revisionists and the institutional revisionists. If HOB complies, then I would fully expect a sizeable chunk of the extreme revisionist bishops and dioceses to ramp up SSB’s with the result that they will be declared outside of the Anglican Communion. What happens to their relationship with TEC will be anybody’s guess, but I would expect to see some very nasty internecine warfare between the radical and institutional revisionists. Regardless, the TEC will be in no shape to reabsorb any of the departed groups, and quite the contrary, there will be several TEC non-Anglican dioceses that will be open ground for the AMIA and CANA.

If the HOB doesn’t comply, look for all hell to break lose within TEC (and the Pastoral Council would become moot then anyway).

I think that the Communique is a step on the process, and does not represent the final structure of new NA Anglicanism. That being said, I do hope that all involved with CANA, AMIA, SC-ANC do look forward to a reunification in the long run.

Of course the AMIA will not come under a primatial vicar who stands under ecusa in any manner. The communique recognizes the possibility, if not the likelihood, of this outcome.

It would make little sense for AMiA et al to agree at this time to come under the PV plan- mainly because they really don’t know what it is going to look like. Who will be appointed PV? Who will be on the Pastoral Council? What will the powers of the PV be? These details will take some time to come to fruition and in the meantime I believe TEC will firmly reject the requests in the Dar Communique, at which point everything will be up for grabs.

Primates:
“Although there are particular difficulties associated with AMiA and CANA, the Pastoral Council should negotiate with them and the Primates currently ministering to them to find a place for them within these provisions. We believe that with <u>goodwill</u> this may be possible.”

AMIA:
“the Anglican Mission is in no way expected to be placed under the oversight or authority of either the proposed Pastoral Council or a Primatial Vicar”

“Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.”

Is the AMIA suggesting that the primate of Rwanda would not follow through on this? Is the AMIA saying “no thanks” to the pastoral provision offered by the primates?

AMiA will CONSIDER it when TEC makes some sort of Reformation-sized about face. Until then, all of this speculation about what is “possible” is just that…. speculation.

I believe in Jesus without having seen His bodily resurrection. I will have to SEE the resurrection of TEC before I will believe.

At some point in time, I have no doubt that the Anglican Mission and many other Anglican entities in this country will come together into a New Province, but what we see here initially is a tentative stop-gap set-up primarily designed for those Anglicans still in TEC. The time will come for reunion as the mist clears, but that time is not now. Every Global South Primate understands that. We in the Anglican Mission are blessed to have Godly Ministers, under Godly Bishops, under a Godly Archbishop, with a clear concise Great Commission Ministry. We love and honor our Brothers and Sisters both inside and outside TEC who share the Faith of our Fathers, and we thank God a thousand times over for our rock-solid pastoral support that is the Wind Beneath our Wings.

This is off topic, but since I’m staring at it, the “THIS IS A NO-WHINING, NO-FREAKOUT ZONE” graphic is hilarious, and I laugh every time I see it, namely, whenever I am about to leave a comment, or even just thinking about.

I thought it was hilarious when it first went up, during the rapidly growing tension of the Primates Meeting, when I really wanted to whine and freakout. And it still is, now that tensions have dissipated.

While we’re off topic. I just wanna state the obvious. This is the best Anglican website in the world. Hands down.

Condensed news.
Insightful commentary.
Conversation.
It’s Well moderated.
Great sense of humor, when things get tense.

My wife and I were talking today, and she wondered aloud, “Where would we be without this website?” I reminded her that we would still have ENS. Needless to say, we had a good laugh.

AMIA’s rejection of the primates effort at this point is totally unhelpful and sounds like +Murphy wants to retain his pointy hat at any cost

Christoferos says:
“AMiA will CONSIDER it when TEC makes some sort of Reformation-sized about face. Until then, all of this speculation about what is “possible” is just that…. speculation.”

What AMiA seems to be saying is that what’s good enough for the primates (in terms of what TEC must do) is not good enough for them. The primates (including ++Rwanda) have said that if TEC agrees to abide by the Windsor recommendations, they will turn over pastoral care of their extraterritorial missions to the care of the pastoral council.

AMiA seems to be saying that they will not even consider honoring this agreement. Maybe they’re saying this because they don’t think TEC will hold up their side of the bargain, or maybe they’re saying Windsor-compliance isn’t good enough for them.

Either way, it’s an unfortunate statement that could even give TEC an excuse not to acquiesce—if ++Rwanda isn’t serious about fulfilling his side of the agreement, why should they be serious about fulfilling theirs? Maybe ++Rwanda needs to clarify his intentions.

I think what AMIA is saying here is, we will not be rejoining TEC at the present time. We will be praying for our brothers who do attempt to rejoin TEC under the Primatial Vicar, but for now we will retain our independence in order to assure that, whatever happens with TEC, there is an orthodox Anglican alternative available. We will not give up our independence from TEC unless and until we are persuaded that TEC has returned to orthodoxy.

This position would be, as far as I understand it, entirely in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Dar es Salaam communique.

You asked, “where’s the goodwill”. The point to remember is that good will is a two-way street. Once TEC demonstrates that it is committed to remaining in the communion by returning the gospel of Christ to prominence and backing away from its approval of homosexuality, then AMIA and CANA are obligated to negotiate with and rejoin TEC. Not until then.

Uhhh,
Some have said that bringing the various Anglican entities into a new province will be like herding cats. The AMiA response, at face value, seems like a very loud meow from a cat that will not be easily corralled.

This is a good and understandable statement and what one would expect to hear from the AMiA. They are successfully doing the Lord’s work and would have to see significant theological reform in TEC to consider any kind of agreement such as the Communique “Schedule” suggests. Most of us in the Global South life boats know that what we have been rescued from is much broader and deeper than the issues addressed in the Communique.

Christoferos… please elaborate. My comments were based on the portions of the communique which I quoted.

Wolverine, I wouldn’t equate coming under the authority of the pastoral council with rejoining TEC. TEC would essentially have a minority position on the council. I don’t think the communique is necessarily asking AMiA to come under the primatial vicar - that seems to be more of a office for parishes and dioceses which still are in TEC.

I agree that goodwill is a two-way street, but I think AMiA needs to demonstrate at least as much goodwill as the primates have. That would nothing more than saying “if TEC accedes to the requests of the primates, we will do likewise by negotiating with the council for our place within the proposed structure.”

A “negotiation” implies that the outcome is *mutually agreeable.* Note also the reference to good faith within the communique, implying a good faith response by TEC. Practically speaking, it may be quite some time before a primatial vicar is instituted, TEC’s response considered by the AC, etc. There is a great deal of uncertainty - we should not read too much into things at this point. If the AC determines that TEC has responded in good faith to conform to the teaching of the AC, then that will provide a context for any such negotiations.

Considering the intended audience, this statement is appropriate to allay fears that as of Oct 1, the AMiA would be assumed into TEC.

I think the AMiA statement is very reasonable. Even if the Episcopal Church passes muster by September 30, it won’t change before then, or even for a long time after.

Consider this: Just because the Episcopal Church agrees to the requests in the communique, Katherine Jefferts Schori will still be the Presiding Bishop. Does anyone think that is going to be OK with the AMiA? How long would it take for things to become more OK with the AMiA? Probably at least 8 years, unless Katherine Jefferts Schori is no longer Presiding Bishop.

Even after that, does anyone think the Episcopal Church will ever elect an orthodox Presiding Bishop?

The Communique is a fine document, but there is so much wrong with the Episcopal Church. The document asks so little, and what it does ask is only about the presenting issues: The more fundamental problems are completely unaddressed.

Justin,
We in AMia are not pawns or bargaining chips to be used by the factions involved in this struggle. We, the laity, left ECUSA and we will decide if or when it might be safe to return. The Lord will provide a place of safety if AMia is gone. Do no assume we meekly follow back to ECUSA as some part of yet another compromise.

There is no moral equivalence between TEC’s breach of Communion and jurisdictional boundary crossing. Many in TEC claimed the Windsor Report said there was (I listened to it for two straight years in seminary, walking among those with whom I profoundly disagree, in community and an excruciating “listening process). This communique makes it clear that according to the Primates, this is not the case.

For the AMiA and CANA to come back into some sort of arrangement, TEC must first retreat from its actions, institutionally and intentionally, and once it has done this, it must still make provisions for those who will not accept +KJS as a spiritual, moral, or ecclesial authority.

So for those of you who think that the communique demands that AMiA and CANA must cease to exist by Sept. 30 are reading it wrong. Jurisdictional boundary crossing was not lambasted in the communique; if anything, we are clearer now than we were before that the primates understand boundary crossing as a legitimate response to TEC’s actions and operating style. For AMiA and CANA to be recognized in this way by the Primates Meeting is astounding.

The AMiA and CANA will spend between now and Sept. 30 watching to see if TEC complies in letter AND SPIRIT with the Primates Meeting. I will not be holding my breath…. I will be planting a church, watering it, and watching the Lord grow it. When Sept. 30 rolls around, if TEC has ceased from ordaining or consecrating practicing homosexuals, withdrawn its lawsuits over property, ceased inhibiting clergy looking for REAL alternative oversight but handing them over with letters dismissory, THEN the possibility will arise for the AMiA and CANA to be in relationship to a new structure, and negotions will begin.

In short, as Cynthia points out, the two-way street begins when TEC turns around (repents) from its one-way direction.

Lizzy—be careful here: “We, the laity, left ECUSA and we will decide if or when…” You are still in a bishop led church. You would become a pawn at the point you refused to follow your bishop.

If province N, R, SC or O and their missions, CANA and AMiA are in communion with the the AbC, and the AbC is in communion with the ECUSA PB, then via the AbC, provinces N, R, SC or O and their missions, CANA and AMiA are presently connected to the PB in an impaired and severely weakened but real fashion. Sometime after September 30, I believe it likely that a decisive change will come for the PB and many bishops in the ECUSA in their relationship to the AbC and the rest of the AC.

“those of you who think that the communique demands that AMiA and CANA must cease to exist by Sept. 30 are reading it wrong”
I think the primates have stated in the communique that they will stop cross-border interventions on 9/30 if TEC abides by their requests. Am I reading that wrong?

Whether TEC abides by the communique or not, I think bringing orthodox Anglicans (TEC and non-TEC) together under a common structure is the right thing to do. Practically speaking, TEC’s response to the communique may only determine whether or not the PB gets to name 2 members of the pastoral and approve the selection of a primatial vicar.

What I see in the Communique is not a suggestion that AMiA/CANA come back to TEC. I see the formation of a pastoral council that is steered by orthodox Anglicans but with participation of some TEC representatives (depending on what TEC does by 9/30). The primates are proposing that this council, which is not owned or controlled by TEC, should bring together the various non-TEC Anglican churches. There’s no mention of TEC re-absorbing the non-TEC churches, and the prospect of that is obviously slim at best. But the primates do want to see a return to traditional church order.

I’m not so sure about that “bishop led church” thingy. I think part of the PECUSA/ECUSA/TEC problem has been that bishops have failed to lead. They failed to spike Pike, they failed to sponge Spong, and they failed to respond to the challenge of the Windsor Report. Our Bishops have been wimps. They are so overcome by concerns about collegiality and playing nice that they have let us down.. The so-called polity of TEC is a hand-me-down of the post-Revolution years, when the USA part of the CoE was trying to put itself back together, and tried to distance itself from the established church of England by adopting a dopey bicameral governing body called the General Convention. Two competing bodies, intending to neuter the HOB with a powerful HOD comprised of all the potential rebels, both clergy and laity. We have survived it for a couple of hundred years, more or less, but it might be time to rethink it and become more Anglican and more catholic by putting more authority back in the hands of the Bishops. Lord knows, the bishops are given every excuse under the present polity to DUCK responsibility and leadership. Maybe we need to press them to take seriously the leadership role ascribed to them in the NT.

The brilliant thing coming out of Tanzania is that the Primates asked NOTHING of TEC, ignoring GC, they simply asked for certain actions by the HOB. Whether we recognize it or not, they recognize the traditional leadership role of our Bishops, and are asking them to act in that role. God bless them. And pray that our HOB wakes up and show some leadership.

While speculation about what the HoB will do can be interesting, and while I will continue to pray for a different outcome, it is a great challenge to me to imagine that the HoB will be able to bring themselves to unequivocally agree to the requirements in the communique and appendix thereto. As a consequence, I am also praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit as to where we are to go if communion is broken, or (heaven forbid) if TEC is given a free pass to proceed down what I believe to be its current misguided path.

Just my humble opinion, but our rector, who is upset with both sides on this issue, and who was Dean of the cathedral in Michigan, and has been a priest for 34 years, has a similar blockage of imagination with regard to the HoB’s probable actions.

©2007 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.